Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[Adino]

Luke2447,

Do you now agree that the blood of Christ is NOT applied to our sins in baptism?

If you do not, then the questions to Steve in post #500 are relevant to you as well.

God bless

[Adino]

Does everyone here concede that the blood of Christ is NOT applied to our sins in baptism?

[Adino]

Is there anyone here who still believes the blood of Christ is applied to our sins in baptism?

[Scott Hutchinson]

While there is no virtue in H2O and something one human does to another does not bring forgiveness of sin.MARK 16:16 does stress the importance of baptism and it's importance although natural water cannot bring regeneration.
After one repents and places personal faith in Jesus Christ,water baptism is a necessary step in following The Lord,as we are to be buried with Him in baptism.

[Falla39]

Over 20 yrs. ago, after hearing the question by a "minister" as to when the blood
was applied, I asked my late pastor father about this. He said this was an old question
that from time to time was brought up, usually by someone trying to stir up strife.
He said the Blood was spilled at the alter of sacrifice, and was applied all the way
from this first alter, to the alter of incense, and after the priest had prepared himself,
took the Blood into the Holy Place. We can now go for ourselves into the Holy Place
and into the Holy of Holies or the MOST Holy Place.
After He had finished (and HE said it was finished), Jesus went to the Father and
submitted himself (as the Son to The Father) and sat down. Expecting until....

He prayed, He prayed.
Jesus prayed unto the Father every day.
From the manager to the cross,
Not a moments time was lost,
Jesus prayed unto the Father all the way.

Jesus finished the work the Father sent him to do, and went back to the Father.
The Son did the work as a MAN that the Father could not do as a SPIRIT.
GOD is a Spirit. They that worship HIM MUST worship Him in Spirit and in
Truth. Father IN Son reconciling the world through one body.

Without the shedding of BLOOD, there could be no REMISSION of sins. The
tabernacleplan is a type of the plan of salvation under the New Covenant. The
new covenant God would make with Israel with better promises, a new and living
way. A New and Living Way that would take us into the very Presence of THE
LIVING GOD!! A New Covenant that would bring in a NEW and LIVING WAY. THE
NEW Israel of GOD! Old things are passed away, behold all things are (being) made
NEW! If any man be IN Christ, he is a new creature (part of a new creation). For
as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (robed in HIM).
HIS Righteousness. He said "their righteousness shall be of me".

Gal.3:25-29,
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


Who would not want to be a part of this New and Living Way. The Highway
of Holiness. That is the STREET OF GOLD in Revelation. There's only one WAY
and it leads into the very Presence of the LAMB, slain from the foundation of
the world.

These are my thoughts.:heart

Falla39

[Adino]

Falla39,

Thank you for your thoughts.

Our sins were imputed to Christ and they were, of necessity, removed BEFORE the resurrection (else Christ would not have been raised because our sins were held against him). Thus, as far as the sin imputed to Christ is concerned, it is a matter of history, proven by the resurrection, that the blood has already been applied and effected the removal of our sins in the eyes of God.

Christ would not have been resurrected if those sins imputed to him had not been removed forever from before the eyes of God.

Do you believe in the historic sin remission of the Cross or are you saying the blood applied to our sin imputed to Christ on the Cross was ineffective in removing those sins?

If our sins are remitted in baptism, they were not remitted on the Cross. If the blood of Christ does not deal with our sins until baptism, it did not deal with them on the Cross and this is a huge problem for one holding baptismal remission because Christ rose from the dead proving that all sin imputed to him had been removed.

I wholeheartedly agree with one of your points..... Jesus did finish the work.

Do you believe the work of sin remission was finished on Calvary or was the work of Calvary insufficient requiring a further work of sin remission in baptism?

[Adino]

While there is no virtue in H2O and something one human does to another does not bring forgiveness of sin.MARK 16:16 does stress the importance of baptism and it's importance although natural water cannot bring regeneration. After one repents and places personal faith in Jesus Christ,water baptism is a necessary step in following The Lord,as we are to be buried with Him in baptism.Problems arise when one tries to falsely teach that those sins imputed to Christ on Calvary are not remitted in the eyes of God until one is baptized.

I believe in the sufficient historic remission of the Cross. Those who teach baptismal remission do not.

Baptismal sin remission is another gospel that denies the Good News of the Cross.

[crakjak]

Problems arise when one tries to falsely teach that those sins imputed to Christ on Calvary are not remitted in the eyes of God until one is baptized.

I believe in the sufficient historic remission of the Cross. Those who teach baptismal remission do not.

Baptismal sin remission is another gospel that denies the Good News of the Cross.

Agreed, Jesus (as the Son of God) has paid the price for the sins of the whole world, that blood has been applied to the human sin problem. There is not one thing that any human can do that can add to or take away from the finished work of Christ!

God is no longer imputing our sins, nor the sins of any human being against us. It is finished, we can enter into life thru faith in his blood at any moment, otherwise we will enter in when we stand in His presence, and the power of of His presence vaporizes all chaff and dross, for no wickedness nor evil will continue after being in His presence.

Moses was only exposed to His backside and his face glowed so brilliantly that folks could not look at his face.

I prefer entering now, rather than the refining fire of His presence burning all sin from me abruptly, that could be very uncomfortable.

[crakjak]

While I would not discount all baptisms not done the way we understand the New Testament church to have baptised, I would teach what I believe and encourage all who hear to be baptised in water as adults, calling on the name of Jesus.

Completely agreed, SH.

[Adino]

Hey, Crakjak. Long time no see. Hope all is well.

I'll repost some relevant thoughts here:
Faith brings the justification of life. God grants justification and life to those who believe in the historic finished sin remission of the Cross (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26; Romans 4:5; Romans 5:18; Acts 13:39).

The heart which does not rest in faith that sin was historically dealt with by God through Christ at Calvary remains in condemnation (John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9). Those who do not believe remain condemned, not because of those sins already remitted on the Cross, but because they've rejected Christ.

Man either:

1) Passes into a state of justification and spiritual LIFE by accepting with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to seal that God is true.... (John 3:33; 1John 5:13)

OR...

2) Man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation. (1John 5:10-12; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

The historic application of Christ's shed blood to those sins imputed to him at Calvary resulted in the remission of those sins PRIOR to the resurrection. Christ's blood was applied to our sin (imputed to Christ) and accepted by God PRIOR to the resurrection, else Christ would not have been raised.

If we say the blood of Christ needs to be applied to our sins AGAIN, we are saying the work of the Cross was inadequate and ineffective. If we say the blood needs to be applied today..... we do not have faith in the finished work of the Cross.

[Hoovie]

Falla39,

Thank you for your thoughts.

Our sins were imputed to Christ and they were, of necessity, removed BEFORE the resurrection (else Christ would not have been raised because our sins were held against him). Thus, as far as the sin imputed to Christ is concerned, it is a matter of history, proven by the resurrection, that the blood has already been applied and effected the removal of our sins in the eyes of God.

Christ would not have been resurrected if those sins imputed to him had not been removed forever from before the eyes of God.

Do you believe in the historic sin remission of the Cross or are you saying the blood applied to our sin imputed to Christ on the Cross was ineffective in removing those sins?

If our sins are remitted in baptism, they were not remitted on the Cross. If the blood of Christ does not deal with our sins until baptism, it did not deal with them on the Cross and this is a huge problem for one holding baptismal remission because Christ rose from the dead proving that all sin imputed to him had been removed.

I wholeheartedly agree with one of your points..... Jesus did finish the work.

Do you believe the work of sin remission was finished on Calvary or was the work of Calvary insufficient requiring a further work of sin remission in baptism?

Adino, this sounds right... but as CJ would say If Christ paid the whole debt for all of mankind, is the unbelief of man greater and more effectual than the cross?

I know I am changing the course of discussion a bit, but your talk of historic sin remission seems to naturally progress into universalism, no?

[mfblume]

If we say the blood of Christ needs to be applied to our sins AGAIN, we are saying the work of the Cross was inadequate and ineffective. If we say the blood needs to be applied today..... we do not have faith in the finished work of the Cross.

Great issue to speak about in baptism-- where is faith in the finished work of the cross involved with it? I believe baptism does not finish any work, but is involved in what applies the finished work of the cross to our lives.

[Adino]

Adino, this sounds right... but as CJ would say If Christ paid the whole debt for all of mankind, is the unbelief of man greater and more effectual than the cross?

I know I am changing the course of discussion a bit, but your talk of historic sin remission seems to naturally progress into universalism, no?Stephen, good to hear from you. The charge of universalism was raised earlier. My response is that, although mans sins have been imputed to Christ and removed at Calvary, condemnation is said to come to the unbeliever (John 3:18), the wrath of God abides in the unbeliever (John 3:36), and the world is to be reproved of sin because of unbelief (John 16:8-9). I would go so far as to suggest that the 'sin unto death' spoken of by John is that of unbelief in, or rejection of, Christ and his finished sin remitting work of the Cross.

Though God has forgiven all sins imputed to Christ, all men remained spiritually dead until the heart converts from unbelief to faith. Only those who believe have passed from spiritual death unto spiritual life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

God has set before us the testimony of his Son. I believe man has two choices. He either:

1) Passes into a state of justification and spiritual LIFE by accepting with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to seal that God is true.... (John 3:33; 1John 5:13)

OR...

2) Man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation. (1John 5:10-12; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

[crakjak]

Stephen, good to hear from you. The charge of universalism was raised earlier. My response is that, although mans sins have been imputed to Christ and removed at Calvary, condemnation is said to come to the unbeliever (John 3:18), the wrath of God abides in the unbeliever (John 3:36), and the world is to be reproved of sin because of unbelief (John 16:8-9). I would go so far as to suggest that the 'sin unto death' spoken of by John is that of unbelief in, or rejection of, Christ and his finished sin remitting work of the Cross.

Though God has forgiven all sins imputed to Christ, all men remained spiritually dead until the heart converts from unbelief to faith. Only those who believe have passed from spiritual death unto spiritual life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

God has set before us the testimony of his Son. I believe man has two choices. He either:

1) Passes into a state of justification and spiritual LIFE by accepting with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to seal that God is true.... (John 3:33; 1John 5:13)

OR...

2) Man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation. (1John 5:10-12; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

I don't disagree with your post Adino, however I do disagree with those that believe that the sinner has no further opportunity to believe after physical death. Man only enters the life of God thru the blood of the Son of God.

[Adino]

Great issue to speak about in baptism-- where is faith in the finished work of the cross involved with it? I believe baptism does not finish any work, but is involved in what applies the finished work of the cross to our lives.Hello, mfblume. Good to hear from you as well.

The first reason for my posts was to point out what the finished work of the Cross actually was. It seems many have forgotten what was accomplished. In fact, it seems, rather than seeing the Gospel as Good News of an accomplished sin remission, many have redefined the Gospel as Good News that sin remission has only been made possible in baptism. The historic sin remission of the Cross has been moved to some future date of 'appropriation.'

It needs to be strongly driven home that the resurrection is PROOF of a finished historical work concerning the removal of those sins imputed to Christ. The resurrection is PROOF that the blood of Christ has been historically applied to those sins and historically accepted by God as being sufficient. Remission need not take place in baptism if it has already taken place on the Cross. The resurrection proves it did take place on the Cross.

So, how does faith in that finished work come into play? Though man's sins are already remitted in God's eyes, there is a need for a person to come to terms with this reality in his own heart and conscience. Forgiveness (which happened prior to the resurrection) is received (i.e., becomes an accepted personal reality) when man comes to trust that the sin remission of the Cross was effective on his behalf. This doesn't necessarily mean the work of the Cross is 'appropriated,' it happened whether accepted or not, but it does mean man's conscience has come to rest in Truth.

When we come to a personal acknowledgment of Christ and the work of the Cross our heart and/or conscience of sin is purified by faith and made good toward God (Acts 15:9; 1Timothy 1:5; 3:9; Hebrews 9:14; 10:2,22; 1Peter 3:21). This does not mean that our sin is forgiven/remitted for a second time, it simply means our heart has come to rest in faith that our sin was dealt with by God through Christ at Calvary.

The Law shows man that he has sinned and fallen short. The Gospel is Good News that man's sins have been sufficiently dealt with on the Cross. Once a person hears the Good News of Christ he is presented with a life or death choice. He can rest in the finished work of the Cross and pass into life or he can reject the work of the Cross and remain spiritually dead and condemned. This condemnation is not because the work of the Cross will not have already been 'applied' to his sins, but because he will have blasphemed God by calling Him a liar (Mark 3:28; 1John 5:10) and failed to reestablish God's lordship in his life.

Bottom line, I don't think it is so much a matter of 'applying' the finished work of the Cross to man, as it is a matter of man coming to terms with the truthfulness of the testimony of God. Adam rejected God's word in the garden and, in so doing, rejected the sovereignty of God. Man transferred lordship from the Almighty to himself by placing his own word above that of God's (he broke the first commandment by making himself god) resulting in his spiritual death. Mankind has now been given the opportunity to reverse this condemning act by reestablishing the superiority of God's word/testimony. By accepting the Gospel of the finished work of the Cross man transfers lordship back to the Almighty resulting in justification and life.

Adam's sin is reversed, the curse of death removed, eternal life bestowed.

How's that for two cents worth? :thumbsup

[Adino]

I don't disagree with your post Adino, however I do disagree with those that believe that the sinner has no further opportunity to believe after physical death. Man only enters the life of God thru the blood of the Son of God.After death conversions? Seems like a ghost of a chance. :winkgrin

[Adino]

Given the fact that the resurrection proved:

1) that the sins imputed to Christ had been forever remitted prior to the resurrection (else he would not have risen) and...

2) that it was the 'pre-resurrection' application of the blood of Christ which brought about the 'pre-resurrection' remission...

Can we all agree the doctrine of baptismal sin remission no longer holds any water?

[deltaguitar]

Given the fact that the resurrection proved:

1) that the sins imputed to Christ had been forever remitted prior to the resurrection (else he would not have risen) and...

2) that it was the 'pre-resurrection' application of the blood of Christ which brought about the 'pre-resurrection' remission...

Can we all agree the doctrine of baptismal sin remission no longer holds any water?

Adino, I appreciate your knowledge and I am just now reading the last few post on this discussion. In regards to sins being remitted on the cross wouldn't that lead into the doctrine of limited atonement. Meaning that God died for the sins of the elect or that his blood purchased his bride. Just wondering what your thoughts are on limited atonement.

[GrowingPains]

baptize first, questions later.

[Adino]

Adino, I appreciate your knowledge and I am just now reading the last few post on this discussion. In regards to sins being remitted on the cross wouldn't that lead into the doctrine of limited atonement. Meaning that God died for the sins of the elect or that his blood purchased his bride. Just wondering what your thoughts are on limited atonement.Hey Deltaguitar, good to see you again.

I think your answer might be found in one of my earlier posts which points out that the sin which ultimately condemns man is the sin of unbelief, i.e., the sin of having rejected the Gospel message of Christ's sin remitting work of the Cross. Only the man whose heart does not rest in the historic remission of the Cross finds himself condemned before God.

I would emphasize that man is not condemned because of those sins imputed to Christ on the Cross which have been forever historically remitted before God, but because of his disbelief in the Good News of Christ's finished work of sin remission on the Cross. The world is to be reproved of sin because they 'believe not in' Christ. They commit the blasphemous act of rejecting the record God gave of his Son, thereby calling the Almighty a liar and failing to set to seal that God is true.

Though the sins of the world have been forgiven in the eyes of God, man does not stand right before God until he rests in the finished work of Calvary. He remains spiritually dead until given life at the moment of faith.

I believe God so love the world, he gave his only begotten Son (i.e., begotten from the grave), that whosoever (not just a limited few) believes on him will not perish but have life. Those who don't believe are condemned and the wrath of God abides in him. (scriptural references were given in previous posts)

[Adino]

baptize first, questions later.If you think sins are remitted in baptism, then you must not believe they were remitted on the Cross. If you don't believe they were remitted on the Cross you do not have faith in the Good News (Gospel) of the sin remitting work of Christ.

If you do not have faith in the Gospel, then..... ? :smack

[GrowingPains]

If you think sins are remitted in baptism, then you must not believe they were remitted on the Cross. If you don't believe they were remitted on the Cross you do not have faith in the Good News (Gospel) of the sin remitting work of Christ.

If you do not have faith in the Gospel, then..... ? :smack

There's simply too much scripture to back away from baptism. Just do it already. And no, I believe in the blood of Jesus and it's full power to forgive sin. So please get off that high horse! I also believe in the process and work of grace, and obedience to scripture.

Sure, let's sit around until He comes debating "when" salvation technically occurs (and I'll join in sometime on those conversations), but let's get over it already and get baptized, preach baptism and do nothing less.

[Hoovie]

Stephen, good to hear from you. The charge of universalism was raised earlier. My response is that, although mans sins have been imputed to Christ and removed at Calvary, condemnation is said to come to the unbeliever (John 3:18), the wrath of God abides in the unbeliever (John 3:36), and the world is to be reproved of sin because of unbelief (John 16:8-9). I would go so far as to suggest that the 'sin unto death' spoken of by John is that of unbelief in, or rejection of, Christ and his finished sin remitting work of the Cross.

Though God has forgiven all sins imputed to Christ, all men remained spiritually dead until the heart converts from unbelief to faith. Only those who believe have passed from spiritual death unto spiritual life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

God has set before us the testimony of his Son. I believe man has two choices. He either:

1) Passes into a state of justification and spiritual LIFE by accepting with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to seal that God is true.... (John 3:33; 1John 5:13)

OR...

2) Man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation. (1John 5:10-12; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

Thank you Adino. I just realized I have not acknowledged your response.

The sins of all humanity forgiven and remitted on the cross, or only those who are called/chosen?

[Hoovie]

There's simply too much scripture to back away from baptism. Just do it already. And no, I believe in the blood of Jesus and it's full power to forgive sin. So please get off that high horse! I also believe in the process and work of grace, and obedience to scripture.

Sure, let's sit around until He comes debating "when" salvation technically occurs (and I'll join in sometime on those conversations), but let's get over it already and get baptized, preach baptism and do nothing less.

Are you implying Adino does not believe in or practice water baptism?

[GrowingPains]

Are you implying Adino does not believe in or practice water baptism?

Let's stick to what I'm saying, not what I'm implying. No time for rabbit trails tonight.

And what do you mean "believe in water baptism"? I think that's quite vague. It certainly sounds like he sees no connection between the application of grace in a believer's life to baptism.

I say, just baptize and move on... I like good debate and conversation as much as them all, and if that's all that is going on here then forgive me.

[Adino]

Thank you Adino. I just realized I have not acknowledged your response.

The sins of all humanity forgiven and remitted on the cross, or only those who are called/chosen?He bore the sins of the world. Yet, justification comes only to those who rest in the Good News of the Cross. Though forgiven, mankind is spiritually dead until he receives justification and life at the moment he rests in the historic sin remitting work of the Cross. You might find further clarification in my recent post to delta concerning the idea of 'limited atonement'. I hold that all who are presented with the Gospel have the opportunity to believe.

Btw, I think all believers who have passed into life and have been justified by faith alone in the finished historic sin remission of the Cross should be baptized. I just think their faith should be in the work of the Cross, not in the work of baptism and anyone who thinks sins are remitted in baptism does not have faith they were remitted on the Cross. The doctrine of baptismal remission declares the work of the Cross ineffective.

[Adino]

There's simply too much scripture to back away from baptism. Just do it already. And no, I believe in the blood of Jesus and it's full power to forgive sin. So please get off that high horse! I also believe in the process and work of grace, and obedience to scripture.

Sure, let's sit around until He comes debating "when" salvation technically occurs (and I'll join in sometime on those conversations), but let's get over it already and get baptized, preach baptism and do nothing less.Again, if your faith rests in baptism for sin remission, then it does not rest in the finished work of the Cross.

The object of our faith is of utmost importance..... wouldn't you agree?

[Adino]

Does it matter whether we trust our sin remission comes in baptism or whether it was accomplished by Christ on Calvary?

Does it matter whether we accept or reject the idea of an accomplished historic work of sin remission on the Cross?

Does it matter whether we believe the Cross effectively removed those sins imputed to Christ?

I think it does.

[GrowingPains]

Again, if your faith rests in baptism for sin remission, then it does not rest in the finished work of the Cross.

The object of our faith is of utmost importance..... wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I do agree. My faith is in Christ and His promises.

He's promised certain things through repentance and water baptism, all covenants made available through the atonement. It wasn't enough for him to die, but I must effectuates and provides a sign of our covenant with Him.

Baptism is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus.

Since the covenant with Abraham used circumcision as its sign (Gen 17), did God care about who was circumcised? Can you think of any OT stories where the enemy was referred to as "the uncircumcised?" Do you think it's pretty imporant, this sign he's given us? Circumcision was important enough that Moses' wife circumcised her son, and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet! (Exodus 4). Would the "new circumcision" also be equally important (Col 2)?

Please explain the multitude of scriptures that combine references of sin and baptism. I'm more in the mood to discuss now. And I will ask questions from the other side too :) Happy Friday.

[Adino]

Yes, I do agree. My faith is in Christ and His promises. This is good. Now, let's set the paradigm through which we will view the scriptures you mentioned. Do you agree there was a sin remission prior to the resurrection?

[GrowingPains]

This is good. Now, let's set the paradigm through which we will view the scriptures you mentioned. Do you agree there was a sin remission prior to the resurrection?

Let's stick to scripture alone on this.
There is plenty of scripture to show that Christ was our propitiation of sin (Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 John 2/4), making salvation available through Him.
And I put on His name, identifying with Him and His covenant through water baptism (a highly significant thing in Eastern culture). Our father is no longer Adam, but Christ. Baptism is no more important than a reptentant heart, and Christ the hope of it all. It's not the water, just like it wasn't the water of the Jordan that healed Naaman, it was the charge/instructions of God's mediator (in this case Christ), and the faith/trust of Naaman in him (our faith in Him).

[Adino]

Bro., this is the Gospel at its core. If you cannot come to a position of the sin remission of the Cross, we have some major concerns.

Did the resurrection prove that those sins imputed to Christ had been removed or only that they could be removed at a future date? If only that they could be removed at a future date how was it that Christ, to whom all our sin was imputed, rose from the dead?

Why did our sin not hold Christ in the grave????????

[Steve Epley]

Bro., this is the Gospel at its core. If you cannot come to a position of the sin remission of the Cross, we have some major concerns.

Did the resurrection prove that those sins imputed to Christ had been removed or only that they could be removed at a future date? If only that they could be removed at a future date how was it that Christ, to whom all our sin was imputed, rose from the dead?

Why did our sin not hold Christ in the grave????????

Adino this is a strawman you know we believe ALL mankind's sins were remitted by Hid blood at Calvary. However to appropriate that remission of sins afforded at Calvary ONLY occurs to the penitent in baptism in Jesus Name.
ONLY in immersion by having His name invoked do we recieve the remission of sins through Calvary's blood.

[GrowingPains]

Bro., this is the Gospel at its core. If you cannot come to a position of the sin remission of the Cross, we have some major concerns.

Did the resurrection prove that those sins imputed to Christ had been removed or only that they could be removed at a future date? If only that they could be removed at a future date how was it that Christ, to whom all our sin was imputed, rose from the dead?

Why did our sin not hold Christ in the grave????????

He knew no sin. He was the prophesied substitute, the second Adam, taking away the sins of the world. Now we could come to Christ, and not just have our sins pushed forward, but no longer as a burden over our heads --- yes, remitted. Like the Elder said, this is truly a straw man, and logic that says If A=B, and B is related to C, then A MUST equal C. That's a fallacy.

The Gospel at its core has nothing to do with your or I. It's just simply the good news that salvation is available. Then we hear through one who is sent, and he tells us how to get in on this covenant.

[Adino]

Adino this is a strawman you know we believe ALL mankind's sins were remitted by His blood at Calvary. However to appropriate that remission of sins afforded at Calvary ONLY occurs to the penitent in baptism in Jesus Name....ONLY in immersion by having His name invoked do we recieve the remission of sins through Calvary's blood.Welcome back, Steve. Sorry again to hear of your loss.

This is far from a strawman position. You CANNOT say sins WERE historically remitted before the resurrection and we only need to APPROPRIATE that remission through a present 'application of the blood' (as you said before) when it was the historic application of Christ's blood which brought the pre-resurrection remission in the first place. The blood of Christ is not applied multiple times to the same sins.

It is not a matter of 'applying' the finished work of the Cross to man. It is a matter of man coming to terms with the truthfulness of the testimony of God concerning the remission of his sins on the Cross. Whether you believe it or not, the historic reality of sin remission exists. The sins imputed to Christ are GONE whether you choose to 'appropriate' the remission or not. Your acceptance or rejection of this historical reality has no bearing on whether it happened..... it happened.

Tell us outright. Do you believe sins are remitted in baptism? Yes or No?

What is the blood being applied to in baptism? You've already conceded that our sins were remitted before the resurrection. If they are historically removed, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

Looking for some consistency in your position, Bro.

[Adino]

He knew no sin. He was the prophesied substitute, the second Adam, taking away the sins of the world. Now we could come to Christ, and not just have our sins pushed forward, but no longer as a burden over our heads --- yes, remitted. Like the Elder said, this is truly a straw man, and logic that says If A=B, and B is related to C, then A MUST equal C. That's a fallacy.

The Gospel at its core has nothing to do with your or I. It's just simply the good news that salvation is available. Then we hear through one who is sent, and he tells us how to get in on this covenant.Our sins were imputed to him who "knew no sin." It was his innocence which made the imputation possible.

We cannot say we are baptized in order to do something already accomplished. If we say sins are remitted in baptism, then we must conclude they were NOT remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection.

Likewise, if we say the blood of Christ is applied to our sins in baptism, then we must conclude His blood was not applied to them on the Cross prior to the resurrection. The resurrection proves this as nonsense. The resurrection proved, beyond all doubt, that all sin imputed to Christ had been remitted by a pre-resurrection application of the Blood.

The Gospel is Good News of a finished work of sin remission, it is not Good News of a future work of sin remission made available. The latter is another gospel than that of Scripture.

The Gospel, at its core, has everything to do with Good News. The resurrection is Good News because it declares something magnificent concerning our sins. It declares that the Cross was effective in its work of sin remission. It declared that God's plan of sin remission ...... actually worked.

GrowingPains, would Christ have been raised without the removal of those sins imputed to him? Did the resurrection declare that the sins imputed to Christ had been effectively remitted? Yes or No?

[GrowingPains]

Our sins were imputed to him who "knew no sin." It was his innocence which made the imputation possible.

We cannot say we are baptized in order to do something already accomplished. If we say sins are remitted in baptism, then we must conclude they were NOT remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection.

Likewise, if we say the blood of Christ is applied to our sins in baptism, then we must conclude His blood was not applied to them on the Cross prior to the resurrection. The resurrection proves this as nonsense. The resurrection proved, beyond all doubt, that all sin imputed to Christ had been remitted by a pre-resurrection application of the Blood.

The Gospel is Good News of a finished work of sin remission, it is not Good News of a future work of sin remission made available. The latter is another gospel than that of Scripture.

The Gospel, at its core, has everything to do with Good News. The resurrection is Good News because it declares something magnificent concerning our sins. It declares that the Cross was effective in its work of sin remission. It declared that God's plan of sin remission ...... actually worked.

GrowingPains, would Christ have been raised without the removal of those sins imputed to him? Did the resurrection declare that the sins imputed to Christ had been effectively remitted? Yes or No?

Does a man have to repent to be saved? Confess Christ? Interested in your answer.

[SeekingOne]

:popcorn2

[Adino]

Does a man have to repent to be saved? Confess Christ? Interested in your answer.Paul held back nothing preaching repentance and faith. The repentant heart must return to God via faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross. Those who externally confess Christ are to be accepted into the Church as being saved. It was upon the rock of a confession of Christ that the Church was to be built. This verbal confession historically took place at the baptismal event.

Baptism, being the eperotema (the answer) of a good conscience toward God, declared the purged conscience of the person being baptized. Only those whose hearts had come to rest in the historic sin remission of the Cross were to be baptized picturing their personal resurrection to new life.

[Kim Komando]

Yes, I do agree. My faith is in Christ and His promises.

He's promised certain things through repentance and water baptism, all covenants made available through the atonement. It wasn't enough for him to die, but I must effectuates and provides a sign of our covenant with Him.

Baptism is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus.

Since the covenant with Abraham used circumcision as its sign (Gen 17), did God care about who was circumcised? Can you think of any OT stories where the enemy was referred to as "the uncircumcised?" Do you think it's pretty imporant, this sign he's given us? Circumcision was important enough that Moses' wife circumcised her son, and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet! (Exodus 4). Would the "new circumcision" also be equally important (Col 2)?

Please explain the multitude of scriptures that combine references of sin and baptism. I'm more in the mood to discuss now. And I will ask questions from the other side too :) Happy Friday.

I'm trying to figure out your position here, GP

First you state that God has promised certain thing to us through repentance and water baptism.

Then carefully choose your words to say the baptism is merely a sign and representation which fits what most of Orthodox Protestanism believes and not the traditional view of many Apostolics who say that if the baptism isn't performed correctly there is no application of the blood for the remission of sin or removal of the "old man".

As for the verses you provided to what baptism represents I did not see one that links it to a circumcision. Although there a couple you can try to attest to.

I don't think all of your verses substantiate your claims fully, however.

Can we agree that many of the verses in the NT do not necessarily point to water baptism as essential TO BE, OR GET, SAVED INTITIALLY - OR WHAT WE TERM AS THE NEW BIRTH? And can we agree that not all instances point to water baptism but Spirit baptism, of which Jesus, John the Baptism, and even Peter recognized as a work Christ came to bear?

Some other questions:

Most accept Romans 6 to point to water baptism but the entire passage seems to say it represents his death, burial and resurrection? Do you disagree?

We agree that it represents a union of Christ with the believer that would come through the Spirit.

Acts 22:19, to many is not interpreted to mean that baptism represents the washing of sins. Many believe this command to be baptism was coupled with Ananias telling Paul to himself call on the name of the Lord, which scripturally means to have faith/believe in the testator of a covenant for the washing of sins.

I will also grant you that the Red Sea is a typology of baptism and possibly speaks of both water and Spirit baptism as we see in 1 Cor. 10. Still a representation is to be stressed here.

Lastly, I have to disagree that the passage in 1 Cor. 12 has anything to do with water baptism and falls under what many would consider prooftexting. The entire chapter is speaking of the work and gifts of the Spirit.

And so if we can accept that baptism like circumcision is a sign,seal,representation and does not have to be properly done for there to be a New Birth, or the application of the blood for the washing of sins, or a command that causes initial salvation - we might agree. Although this would not be your traditional Apostolic view.

Also if you would speak more as to the following:

1. You are aware that Abraham was justified, credited as to being right with God for 17 years between the establishment of the covenant and his circumcision?

2. Do you think that this physical representation, water baptism, is a picture of what an inward work of the Spirit has done in our regeneration and circumcision of the heart.

This is what Paul seems to say about inward circumcision and it's value:

Romans 2:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.


Your thoughts on Romans 2?

How does this all fit your conclusion that " I must effectuate and provide a sign of covenant with Him"?

[Adino]

Steve and Growing,

1) Do you both agree the sins imputed to Christ were historically remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection?

and....

2) Do you both agree that once remitted those sins needn't be 'remitted again?'

Everyone, once we all agree that no sins are remitted in baptism we can move on to what it means to 'receive' the historic remission of the Cross.

I will contend that the only perception which changes concerning our sin is our own and not God's. The only thing that changes after the event of the Cross is how our heart comes to terms with its effectiveness. It is not that God again remits our sin, it is that our conscience is purified/cleansed/purged when it rests in the finished work of the Cross. Our hearts are purified by faith in the historic remission of the Cross.

Forgiveness (which happened prior to the resurrection) is received (i.e., becomes an accepted personal reality) when man comes to trust that the sin remission of the Cross was effective on his behalf. When we come to a personal acknowledgment of Christ and the work of the Cross our heart and/or conscience of sin is purified by faith and made good toward God (Acts 15:9; 1Timothy 1:5; 1Timothy 3:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2,22; 1Peter 3:21). This does not mean that our sin is forgiven/remitted for a second time, it simply means our heart has come to rest in faith that our sin was historically dealt with by God through Christ at Calvary.

As I said before: Baptism is entered into as a response of this good conscience toward God. The man who has come to accept through faith alone the remission of the Cross confesses this faith in Christ and is baptized to signify his passing from spiritual death into spiritual life at the moment he believed (1Peter 3:21; John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

[Kim Komando]

Ultimately, GP is your position that unless the physical circumcision which you equate to water baptism is not performed, and in most cases in our Apostlic mindset, meaning the invocation of the Jesus name formula there is not spiritual circumcision? Does this spiritual circumcision happen at the water baptism?


This is how I see it: hen the new covenant comes, however, the meaning of circumcision changes. On the one hand, since it is an old covenant rite, it no longer signifies membership in the priestly covenant nation (cf. Gal. 5:2-6). True circumcision, according to Paul, is heart circumcision (Rom. 2:25-29), which is also no doubt what the Abrahamic covenant sought (cf. Rom. 4:10ff). Paul can even use circumcision to describe the transition from wrath to grace: "In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses" (Col. 2:11, 13)

I believe this happens when we are quickened to new life at the moment of faith/belief/repentance, or born from above (John 3) . The newborn, male, female, Jew, Gentile, etc. is circumcised by the Spirit of God. Your thoughts?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Adino, what will keep everyone from being saved, since our sins have all been remitted (and you are making great points there) once and for all? Unbelief?

[Adino]

Adino, what will keep everyone from being saved, since our sins have all been remitted (and you are making great points there) once and for all? Unbelief?Good question and YES, unbelief.

When the charge of universalism is raised we have to realize that although mans sins have been imputed to Christ and removed at Calvary...

1) condemnation is said to come to the unbeliever (John 3:18)
2) the wrath of God abides in the unbeliever (John 3:36)
3) the world is to be reproved of sin because of unbelief (John 16:8-9)

Though God has forgiven all sins imputed to Christ, all men remained spiritually dead until the heart converts from unbelief to faith. Only those who believe have passed from spiritual death unto spiritual life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

God has set before us the testimony of his Son. I believe man has two choices. He either:

A) Passes into a state of justification and spiritual LIFE by accepting with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to his seal that God is true.... (John 3:33; 1John 5:13)

OR...

B) Man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation (1John 5:10-12; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

[*AQuietPlace*]

This makes a lot of sense to me, but what do we do with the phrase 'for the remission of sins' in Acts 2?

[Adino]

This makes a lot of sense to me, but what do we do with the phrase 'for the remission of sins' in Acts 2?One possible answer would be to take the non-purposive / non-causal approach to the word "eis" in the phrase "for (eis) the remission of sins."

The word has various meanings in the Greek language and 'with a view toward' is one of them. One very possible and structurally sound interpretation of Acts 2:38 would be that baptism is to be performed 'with a view toward' the remission of sins which took place on the Cross. I understand many in the PCI, one of the original parties of the 1945 merger which formed the UPC, hold the word 'eis' to mean 'because of,' but I think if the non-causal route is taken with 'eis' in this passage the 'with a view toward' approach is stronger. Of course, most in modern Oneness Pentecostalism take the purposive approach and try to say remission of sins takes place in baptism. I wholly disagree with this view.

[GrowingPains]

I will respond to both of your questions later. You've proposed enough things, that I'll need to take more than 1 minute to reply.

I would outline this entire discussion 2 ways:

1) baptism as commanded, as found literally in the Bible

2) baptism, as understood as a component and process of our salvation -- some don't see any sense it in misunderstanding the blood of Jesus... others do.

Just about everyone sees and understands the dozens of commands in Scripture to be baptized, including the command from Christ Himself (Mat 28:19, Mark 16:16). Some would like to debate what I personally see are semantics as determining when your salvation is fully complete (no one agrees on this, and there are some that say you aren't saved until "Well done, my good and faithful servant!).

Adino, I would suppose you've already been baptized -- so the questions posed here are not "should I be baptized?" (which is my entire point, just do it and debate it for the next 10 years how it meshes with the message of grace if you'd like). But we will treat the rest of the question like the "next 10 years."

Get back to you later.

[Adino]

Adino, I would suppose you've already been baptized -- so the questions posed here are not "should I be baptized?" (which is my entire point, just do it and debate it for the next 10 years how it meshes with the message of grace if you'd like). But we will treat the rest of the question like the "next 10 years."

Get back to you later.If I believe I must be baptized 'in order to get my sins remitted,' then my faith is not in a historic remission of the Cross. I asked before whether the object of faith is important. It is. If the Gospel is not the message of baptismal sin remission and you believe it is, then you believe in another gospel than that of Scripture.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)

There is only one Gospel of salvation and it matters whether it is that Gospel in which we place our faith.

[GrowingPains]

If I believe I must be baptized 'in order to get my sins remitted,' then my faith is not in a historic remission of the Cross. I asked before whether the object of faith is important. It is. If the Gospel is not the message of baptismal sin remission and you believe it is, then you believe in another gospel than that of Scripture.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)

There is only one Gospel of salvation and it matters whether it is that Gospel in which we place our faith.


I would remind you to learn the context of that verse in Galatians, and I assure you, it had nothing to do with believers seeing the importance of water baptism. Baptism is not a commandment of the law, it's a working of Grace and is reinforced repeatedly in the New Testament.

So you think those who believe baptism as a process of salvation to be accursed? Really????? It's amazing the arrogance your words exude.

This statement is simply false: If I believe I must be baptized 'in order to get my sins remitted,' then my faith is not in a historic remission of the Cross. The reason it's false, is because those who believe in the essentiality of water baptism believe it is only effective BECAUSE of the cross!! So yes, my friend, the focus is most assuredly on the cross! This is a definite logical fallacy on your part, and I'd suggest you stick to scripture as your reasoning.

[GrowingPains]

Further, the name of Jesus has power and authority to save (Acts 4:12). But this power is only BECAUSE of his atonement and resurrection. This doesn't negate the understanding that there is authority when we use His name, nor does it imply we have rejected the cross. Frankly, that's absurd.

[Adino]

GP, are sins remitted twice?

[Steve Epley]

Welcome back, Steve. Sorry again to hear of your loss.

This is far from a strawman position. You CANNOT say sins WERE historically remitted before the resurrection and we only need to APPROPRIATE that remission through a present 'application of the blood' (as you said before) when it was the historic application of Christ's blood which brought the pre-resurrection remission in the first place. The blood of Christ is not applied multiple times to the same sins.

It is not a matter of 'applying' the finished work of the Cross to man. It is a matter of man coming to terms with the truthfulness of the testimony of God concerning the remission of his sins on the Cross. Whether you believe it or not, the historic reality of sin remission exists. The sins imputed to Christ are GONE whether you choose to 'appropriate' the remission or not. Your acceptance or rejection of this historical reality has no bearing on whether it happened..... it happened.

Tell us outright. Do you believe sins are remitted in baptism? Yes or No?

What is the blood being applied to in baptism? You've already conceded that our sins were remitted before the resurrection. If they are historically removed, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

Looking for some consistency in your position, Bro.

Sins were remitted for ALL mankind at Calvary and the penitent PERSONALLY recieves remission of sins when immersed in water in Jesus Name and ONLY that act PERSONALLY invokes the power of the shed blood of Christ. Ain't no dodger and I am consistant.

[Steve Epley]

Paul held back nothing preaching repentance and faith. The repentant heart must return to God via faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross. Those who externally confess Christ are to be accepted into the Church as being saved. It was upon the rock of a confession of Christ that the Church was to be built. This verbal confession historically took place at the baptismal event.

Baptism, being the eperotema (the answer) of a good conscience toward God, declared the purged conscience of the person being baptized. Only those whose hearts had come to rest in the historic sin remission of the Cross were to be baptized picturing their personal resurrection to new life.

You have better dancing moves than the late Micheal Jackson the Lutheran shuffle I call it.
Answer the question does a man have to repent to be saved? Yes or No?

[Steve Epley]

Steve and Growing,

1) Do you both agree the sins imputed to Christ were historically remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection?

and....

2) Do you both agree that once remitted those sins needn't be 'remitted again?'

Everyone, once we all agree that no sins are remitted in baptism we can move on to what it means to 'receive' the historic remission of the Cross.

I will contend that the only perception which changes concerning our sin is our own and not God's. The only thing that changes after the event of the Cross is how our heart comes to terms with its effectiveness. It is not that God again remits our sin, it is that our conscience is purified/cleansed/purged when it rests in the finished work of the Cross. Our hearts are purified by faith in the historic remission of the Cross.

Forgiveness (which happened prior to the resurrection) is received (i.e., becomes an accepted personal reality) when man comes to trust that the sin remission of the Cross was effective on his behalf. When we come to a personal acknowledgment of Christ and the work of the Cross our heart and/or conscience of sin is purified by faith and made good toward God (Acts 15:9; 1Timothy 1:5; 1Timothy 3:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2,22; 1Peter 3:21). This does not mean that our sin is forgiven/remitted for a second time, it simply means our heart has come to rest in faith that our sin was historically dealt with by God through Christ at Calvary.

As I said before: Baptism is entered into as a response of this good conscience toward God. The man who has come to accept through faith alone the remission of the Cross confesses this faith in Christ and is baptized to signify his passing from spiritual death into spiritual life at the moment he believed (1Peter 3:21; John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

Adino do you believe in Universalism????????????
If not your position is the same as ours. You believe Jesus' death forgave-pardoned-redeemed-remitted man's sin by ONE offering ONCE for all HOWEVER
you believe someone must do something whether it is simple faith & confess or repentance to PERSONALLY recieve what was purchased at Calvary.
Your dog won't hunt.:thumbsup

[GrowingPains]

Adino do you believe in Universalism????????????
If not your position is the same as ours. You believe Jesus' death forgave-pardoned-redeemed-remitted man's sin by ONE offering ONCE for all HOWEVER
you believe someone must do something whether it is simple faith & confess or repentance to PERSONALLY recieve what was purchased at Calvary.
Your dog won't hunt.:thumbsup

:thumbsup

[Adino]

Sins were remitted for ALL mankind at Calvary and the penitent PERSONALLY recieves remission of sins when immersed in water in Jesus Name and ONLY that act PERSONALLY invokes the power of the shed blood of Christ. Ain't no dodger and I am consistant.This makes no sense.

Q: What remitted the sins at Calvary?
A: The application of Christ's shed blood.

You've already said all sins were remitted at Calvary. What is the power of the blood being invoked to do in baptism?

Is the blood applied twice?

[Adino]

Adino do you believe in Universalism????????????
If not your position is the same as ours. You believe Jesus' death forgave-pardoned-redeemed-remitted man's sin by ONE offering ONCE for all HOWEVER
you believe someone must do something whether it is simple faith & confess or repentance to PERSONALLY recieve what was purchased at Calvary.
Your dog won't hunt.:thumbsupI do not believe as do you that man must do something in order to effect the forgiveness of the Cross. Your position deems the Cross ineffective until baptism.

Answer please:

Are sins remitted twice?

Does the blood need to be applied twice?

[Adino]

Answer the question does a man have to repent to be saved? Yes or No?YES

Now your turn:

Are sins remitted twice? Yes or No?

Does the blood need to be applied twice? Yes or No?

Repeat after me....

"Sins remitted on the Cross cannot be remitted again in baptism."

And while you're at it....

"The application of the blood of Christ which resulted in the historic sin remission of the Cross does not have to happen again in baptism."

[Steve Epley]

This makes no sense.

Q: What remitted the sins at Calvary?
A: The application of Christ's shed blood.

You've already said all sins were remitted at Calvary. What is the power of the blood being invoked to do in baptism?

Is the blood applied twice?

The blood was shed for ALL mankind Jn.1:29 their sins were taken away, However multitudes will die and go to Hell to burn for eternity though forgiveness and remission of sins were paid for and accomplished. Man personally has to accept Calvary's pardon purchased by His precious blood. That happens when the penitent is immersed in water in Jesus Name. ONLY baptism in Jesus Name does the penitent receive remission of sins provided for at Calvary.

[*AQuietPlace*]

The blood was shed for ALL mankind Jn.1:29 their sins were taken away, However multitudes will die and go to Hell to burn for eternity though forgiveness and remission of sins were paid for and accomplished. Man personally has to accept Calvary's pardon purchased by His precious blood. That happens when the penitent is immersed in water in Jesus Name. ONLY baptism in Jesus Name does the penitent receive remission of sins provided for at Calvary.
What happens at repentance?

[Steve Epley]

I do not believe as do you that man must do something in order to effect the forgiveness of the Cross. Your position deems the Cross ineffective until baptism.

Answer please:

Are sins remitted twice?

Does the blood need to be applied twice?

The Bible says NOTHING about the blood being applied once or twice.:thumbsup Jesus death & resurrection provided salvation to all mankind purchased by His shed blood. The blood purchased salvation through obedience by faith. That obedience that remits sins is immersion in Jesus Name the blood purchased that. Thus in obeying the gospel we recieve what the blood provides.

[Steve Epley]

YES

Now your turn:

Are sins remitted twice? Yes or No?

Does the blood need to be applied twice? Yes or No?

Repeat after me....

"Sins remitted on the Cross cannot be remitted again in baptism."

And while you're at it....

"The application of the blood of Christ which resulted in the historic sin remission of the Cross does not have to happen again in baptism."

ALL mankind's sins were remitted at Calvary but they have to be PERSONALLY remitted by immersion in Jesus Name.

[Steve Epley]

What happens at repentance?

Sins are forgiven but NOT remitted.

[Steve Epley]

Adino have we ever discussed this before?:gotcha:thumbsup:ursofunny

[Timmy]

YES

Now your turn:

Are sins remitted twice? Yes or No?

Does the blood need to be applied twice? Yes or No?

Repeat after me....

"Sins remitted on the Cross cannot be remitted again in baptism."

And while you're at it....

"The application of the blood of Christ which resulted in the historic sin remission of the Cross does not have to happen again in baptism."

The following is likely the closest you'll get to a direct answer, Adino:

ALL mankind's sins were remitted at Calvary but they have to be PERSONALLY remitted by immersion in Jesus Name.

I count two. :thumbsup

[*AQuietPlace*]

Sins are forgiven but NOT remitted.
What is the difference between forgiven and remitted?

[Hoovie]

What is the difference between forgiven and remitted?

I really don't think there is any difference. I hear they are derived from the same Greek - the words are used interchangeably.

[Steve Epley]

What is the difference between forgiven and remitted?

I realize they both come from the same Greek word however I see them different in operation. My thinking is very simple(I am a simple man I hear everyonne shouting AMEN) in the OT sins were forgiven but NOT taken away see Heb. 10. Thus there is a difference. Sins are forgiven at repentance but the record is cleared by immersion in Jesus Name.

[Steve Epley]

The following is likely the closest you'll get to a direct answer, Adino:



I count two. :thumbsup

Have your way.
Historically for ALL mankind.
Personally when I obeyed the gospel.
The Historical act is of NO effect only it is recieved.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I realize they both come from the same Greek word however I see them different in operation. My thinking is very simple(I am a simple man I hear everyonne shouting AMEN) in the OT sins were forgiven but NOT taken away see Heb. 10. Thus there is a difference. Sins are forgiven at repentance but the record is cleared by immersion in Jesus Name.
What about any sins that we commit after we are saved? We ask God to forgive us and he does... what about remission for those sins?

[Steve Epley]

What about any sins that we commit after we are saved? We ask God to forgive us and he does... what about remission for those sins?

Confession alone does that. 1Jn.1:9

[Shawn]

confession to who?

[Steve Epley]

confession to who?

1Tim. 2:5.:thumbsup

[Shawn]

cool. no harm....


I only say this because the Pastor of the church I attended years ago used this scripture. he used it to have the congregation confess to him. Our sins were forgiven at baptism and when we received the HG. But afterwards we needed to confess the Pastor. Basically, confessing is revealing a secret and you can't reveal a secret to Jesus-he already knows what you did.

[Steve Epley]

cool. no harm....


I only say this because the Pastor of the church I attended years ago used this scripture. he used it to have the congregation confess to him. Our sins were forgiven at baptism and when we received the HG. But afterwards we needed to confess the Pastor. Basically, confessing is revealing a secret and you can't reveal a secret to Jesus-he already knows what you did.

The Pastor was confused he is in the wrong church it is Catholicism that confesses to the preacher.:thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

I had a visiting preacher preach for me once when I was pastoring he was a very forceful preacher in his sermon he said all moral(sexual) sins must be confessed to the Pastor even fornication when you were young. The next night 2 different young men asked to speak to me when each one of them started I stopped each of them and asked have you repented and the both said yes I said that is enough. They married two good girls. I think some guys get turned on by hearing this stuff. Tell it to Jesus ALONE.

[Shawn]

it would be backed up with a little hebrews 13:17.

and if it was good and juicy a nice rubuking for the pulpit.

[mfblume]

I had a visiting preacher preach for me once when I was pastoring he was a very forceful preacher in his sermon he said all moral(sexual) sins must be confessed to the Pastor even fornication when you were young. The next night 2 different young men asked to speak to me when each one of them started I stopped each of them and asked have you repented and the both said yes I said that is enough. They married two good girls. I think some guys get turned on by hearing this stuff. Tell it to Jesus ALONE.

VERY GOOD WORDS> I agree.

[RandyWayne]

I had a visiting preacher preach for me once when I was pastoring he was a very forceful preacher in his sermon he said all moral(sexual) sins must be confessed to the Pastor even fornication when you were young. The next night 2 different young men asked to speak to me when each one of them started I stopped each of them and asked have you repented and the both said yes I said that is enough. They married two good girls. I think some guys get turned on by hearing this stuff. Tell it to Jesus ALONE.

Amen

[mcricky857]

What about any sins that we commit after we are saved? We ask God to forgive us and he does... what about remission for those sins?

Yes, it is essential unto salvation. We are starting to dismiss everything that God has laid down. That's ok also, but we will account for it later. Remember, Satan will do anything to dismiss the name of Jesue. It is bad enough that the world won't let us use that name in public, but now we are taking it out of the church. How sad.

[Adino]

What happens at repentance?In repentance the heart of man returns to God through faith in Christ, is justified and quickened to new life.

[Adino]

What about any sins that we commit after we are saved? We ask God to forgive us and he does... what about remission for those sins?They were remitted on the Cross. Thank God and move on.....

If we expect another remission we are asking for Christ to be re-crucified.

[Adino]

It was said,
"...in the OT sins were forgiven but NOT taken away..."

In the OT man's conscience of sin was 'purged' because his sins were atoned for (covered not removed). Every year's Day of Atonement brought back memory of all sin to the conscience of man and needed to be 'purged' (from the conscience again) by another sacrifice of 'atonement.' (Hebrews 10)

Sins were repetitively covered and not removed. God did not temporarily forgive sins, sins were annually covered. All sin was rolled forward to the Cross where they were finally REMITTED/FORGIVEN (not just covered but completely removed) by the blood of Christ. [NT remission and forgiveness are the same Greek word - 'aphesis']

The conscience of man, which in the OT was purged annually via the atoning sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, is purged FOREVER when his heart comes to rest in the ONCE FOR ALL SIN REMOVAL of the Cross.

[Steve Epley]

In repentance the heart of man returns to God through faith in Christ, is justified and quickened to new life.

Is there ANY human participation in repentance or does God repent for the penitent?:thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

They were remitted on the Cross. Thank God and move on.....

If we expect another remission we are asking for Christ to be re-crucified.

ALL MANKIND'S sins were remitted at the cross what do they do to make that PERSONAL in their lives?

[Steve Epley]

[QUOTE=Adino;771090]It was said,
"...in the OT sins were forgiven but NOT taken away..."

In the OT man's conscience of sin was 'purged' because his sins were atoned for (covered not removed). Every year's Day of Atonement brought back memory of all sin to the conscience of man and needed to be 'purged' (from the conscience again) by another sacrifice of 'atonement.' (Hebrews 10)

Sins were repetitively covered and not removed. God did not temporarily forgive sins, sins were annually covered. All sin was rolled forward to the Cross where they were finally REMITTED/FORGIVEN (not just covered but completely removed) by the blood of Christ. [NT remission and forgiveness are the same Greek word - 'aphesis']
All my friend needs is the white glove he sure has some moves. Right foot in and the right foot out.:thumbsup
True those sins were NOT removed or taken away rolled forward to Calvary. They looked forward to remission we look backward. In immersion in Jesus Name and that ALONE does the penitent experience personal remission of sins.
They are taken away by faith in His finished work at Calvary through obeying the gospel.:thumbsup

[Adino]

Steve wrote:
However multitudes will die and go to Hell to burn for eternity though forgiveness and remission of sins were paid for and accomplished.So, multitudes are condemned for sins that no longer exist after the Cross..... :hmmm


That obedience that remits sins....The only obedience that remits sins was the obedience of Christ. His obedience brought about the remission of our sins.


Thus in obeying the gospel ...... Show me where Scripture outlines the Gospel command. I see only that the Gospel is 'Good News' of something wonderful and that those who 'obey' the Gospel are those who 'believe the report' of this wonderful news. (John 12:37-40; Romans 10:16-17)


ALL mankind's sins were remitted at Calvary but they have to be PERSONALLY remitted by immersion in Jesus Name.Thank you for finally saying that sins remitted on the Cross are to be remitted AGAIN. How pitifully insufficient and inadequate the remission of the Cross must have been to require a second remission.

Oh, you said this yourself by summing it all up here:
The Historical act [of Christ's sin remission on the Cross] is of NO effect only it is recieved.
Thank you for finally agreeing with what I've been saying all along. The doctrine of baptismal sin remission declares the Cross ineffective.

This is an affront to the Gospel of Christ..... shame on you! :foottap

[Adino]

ALL MANKIND'S sins were remitted at the cross what do they do to make that PERSONAL in their lives?The sin remission of the Cross happened whether we make it personal or not. We are NOT condemned for sins removed on the Cross..... those sins ARE GONE.... they WERE REMITTED. We are condemned only for unbelief in the message of the Cross.

God KNOWS our sins are GONE. We only come to this knowlege when presented with the GOOD NEWS of the sin remission of Christ. We only come to know of the historic remission of the Cross when we hear of the Gospel message of Christ. Our CONSCIENCE of sin is 'purged' when we realize our sin HAS ALREADY BEEN REMOVED. Our CONSCIENCE of sin is purged when we have faith in Christ.

The OT conscience of sin was only pacified until the next atoning sacrifice. Once Christ REMOVED sin on Calvary the conscience of man could be FOREVER PURIFIED concerning his sins, because he could understand that his sins were FOREVER REMOVED.

There is no more remission to be done. Further remission would require ANOTHER sacrifice!

There is no personal 'appropriation' or personal 'application' of what took place on the Cross in order to 'complete the work.' There is only personal ACCEPTANCE with a trusting heart.

Man comes to know that he IS a sinner.

Man is introduced to the Gospel of Christ.

Man's repenting heart passes into full dependence on what took place on the Cross.

Man rests in the remission of the Cross and lives his life in grateful servitude to the Savior.

[HopePreacher]

I have heard this issue debated for at least 50 years and I can tell you this without question: When we stand before God we'll know the complete answer, and not before.

I am not a scholar. I thought about it but it just seems to confuse people to get into that dep stuff. I have found in most cases scholars tend to search the scriptures to confirm what they have already concluded, as a consequence there are qualified scholars on all sides of an issue who have validated their belief through scholarly endeavors.

So, to the point. Because I am just a simple man who has studied the scripture with prayer for many years, I have come to some simple conclusions. And here they are:I believe the Bible simply means what it says and says what it means.

1. In both the Old Testament (Joel 2:32) and the New Testament (Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13) - the word of God declares, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - when it's all said and done this word remains true: EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.

2. In the book of Acts (16:31) and in Romans (10:9) Paul declares, "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." When it's all said and done, IF YOU CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH, "JESUS IS LORD," AND BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART THAT GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

3. Once a person has heard, believed and called upon the name of the Lord the word is very clear: That person will be saved.

4. The church today, just as Peter at Cornelius' house, confirms what they believe God has already done in the new believer by baptizing them (Acts 10:44-48, 11:17-18).

Years ago when I was emerging from the darkness of denominational bias a close relative who had the same questions as I asked, "what is really required of a person to be saved." My simple answer was, "Search the scripture. Obey every scripture that has the word "save, "saved," salvation," in it and you'll be safe. I still believe that today.

[Adino]

HopePreacher,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They are good.

[*AQuietPlace*]

So, repentance... does that means asking for forgiveness for your sins, or is it forgiveness for your unbelief?

If we believe that the sins are GONE because of Jesus' work, do we need to ask for forgiveness for them again?

[HopePreacher]

So, repentance... does that means asking for forgiveness for your sins, or is it forgiveness for your unbelief?
If we believe that the sins are GONE because of Jesus' work, do we need to ask for forgiveness for them again?

Repentance means neither of those things. Repentance is a turnaround. It is changing direction - we were going one way and now we are going the other way. Paul says that godly sorrow brings repenatnce that leads to salvation.'

To grasp the meaning of this discussion on when the blood is applied just think of a ring (a finger ring). Lay the ring flat on a table and pretent that it is as big as a football field. Now see yourself running along the edge of the ring trying to find the end of the ring - you will never find it.

another example is this: there are two pastors who believe the same basic message. One is a one stepper and preaches the finished work of Calvary; the other is a three stepper and believe one must be baptized to apply the blood. New believers come into each congregation and the pastor baptizes the new believers into Christ. Those new believers go on to become good saints in that assembly. The end result is the same so: who was right?

We ask questions that have answers only for those who are preedisposed to believe the right (in our opinion) answers.

So, to understand the answer to this dilemma just take a ring and....

[Adino]

So, repentance... does that means asking for forgiveness for your sins, or is it forgiveness for your unbelief?No. Repentance is the heart returning to God through faith in Christ. Conversion to Christ takes place in repentance. We are not asking for forgiveness of anything. We are turning from dead works to faith in Christ.

If we believe that the sins are GONE because of Jesus' work, do we need to ask for forgiveness for them again?No. Rest in the accomplished forgiveness of the Cross. Why ask for something to be done which has already been accomplished?

If we're sitting around a kitchen table with a watermelon on the tabletop and I see you remove the watermelon from the tabletop and destroy it in the garbage disposal, why would I, at a later time, ask you to remove the watermelon from the tabletop? It's already gone.

If we ask for forgiveness that has already been accomplished it is only an indication we have yet to fully trust in the fact that remission indeed took place. It is evidence of unbelief.

When we stumble, we should simply remember the remission of the Cross, thank God for giving his Son, and move forward in grateful servitude.

[Adino]

Repentance means neither of those things. Repentance is a turnaround. It is changing direction - we were going one way and now we are going the other way. Paul says that godly sorrow brings repenatnce that leads to salvation.'

To grasp the meaning of this discussion on when the blood is applied just think of a ring (a finger ring). Lay the ring flat on a table and pretent that it is as big as a football field. Now see yourself running along the edge of the ring trying to find the end of the ring - you will never find it.

another example is this: there are two pastors who believe the same basic message. One is a one stepper and preaches the finished work of Calvary; the other is a three stepper and believe one must be baptized to apply the blood. New believers come into each congregation and the pastor baptizes the new believers into Christ. Those new believers go on to become good saints in that assembly. The end result is the same so: who was right?

We ask questions that have answers only for those who are preedisposed to believe the right (in our opinion) answers.

So, to understand the answer to this dilemma just take a ring and....
Yet if the blood was historically applied and we say it isn't applied until baptism we are in disbelief of the historic application. We are therefore in disbelief of the Gospel. It matters what we believe.

[Steve Epley]

Man accepts Calvary's pardon by obeying Christ command Luke 24:47-Mk.16:16-Mt.28:19. Only OBEYING from the heart that FORM of doctrine saves. Rom.6:17
Your 'faith' is NOT the 'faith' of the Bible it is only mental assent of a historical event rather than the experience purchased by that event. The historical ONLY saves when it is personally experience in obeying the gospel message of Acys 2:38.
You are saying SIN is NOT the reason for man's journey into Hell but Paul says the wages of sin is death. Rom.6:23
Forgiven sins historically only save those who accept that forgiveness and remission provided for in that act.

[SeekingOne]

You are saying SIN is NOT the reason for man's journey into Hell but Paul says the wages of sin is death. Rom.6:23
Forgiven sins historically only save those who accept that forgiveness and remission provided for in that act.

The part in bold above is a good point. I also think about the verse that talks about a sick person being prayed for, them getting healed and their sins forgiven. If their sins were already forgiven, then how does that scripture fit in this discussion?

Not taking sides here at all, I agree with HopePreacher that we just need to obey the scriptures and we will be safe. :thumbsup

[GrowingPains]

No. Rest in the accomplished forgiveness of the Cross. Why ask for something to be done which has already been accomplished?
.

This is an amazing statement to me. It discourages men and chastises their faith to ask for forgiveness of their sins. I seem to remember scriptures about confessing our sins, and that he is faithful and just to forgive. It wasn't all just done and don't worry about it.

[GrowingPains]

Yet if the blood was historically applied and we say it isn't applied until baptism we are in disbelief of the historic application. We are therefore in disbelief of the Gospel. It matters what we believe.

Than I guess I'm unsaved, Adino. Amazing how you liberty of theology actually backfires and puts us in hell. I'm asked God forgiveness, I've repented (and repent daily), I've received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, I've been baptize, I strive to please God... despite all that, I'm lost on what you call a technicality because I seem to believe scripture, and you think it is unbelief. Amazing!!

[Adino]

The part in bold above is a good point. I also think about the verse that talks about a sick person being prayed for, them getting healed and their sins forgiven. If their sins were already forgiven, then how does that scripture fit in this discussion?

Not taking sides here at all, I agree with HopePreacher that we just need to obey the scriptures and we will be safe. :thumbsupThe wages of sin is spiritual death. A servant of sin acts in unbelief. The gift of God is eternal life. Life comes only to those who believe. Those who have been made free from sin are now servants of righteousness and have life.

The James passage deals with one's relation with his peers, which is why the faults are to be confessed, not to God, but one to another. The forgiveness is from our brethren. The passage goes on to deal with sinners being converted to the truth resulting in life. Again, it is only the believer who has life (John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26). Some have offered that the whole passage deals with the unconverted.

[Adino]

Than I guess I'm unsaved, Adino. Amazing how you liberty of theology actually backfires and puts us in hell. I'm asked God forgiveness, I've repented (and repent daily), I've received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, I've been baptize, I strive to please God... despite all that, I'm lost on what you call a technicality because I seem to believe scripture, and you think it is unbelief. Amazing!! Matthew 7:22 comes to mind, but I truly hope you are saved in spite of your doctrine. We will leave that up to God, who knows the heart to decide.

You have to come to terms with the resurrection, my friend. Our sins were placed on Christ. Christ rose. That he rose proved something concerning the sin imputed to him. It proved they had been removed. It proved the blood of Christ was adequately sufficient in their removal. It proved that God's plan for sin remission effectively worked.

You can say till the cows come home how you think you finish this work of remission in baptism, but it doesn't negate the fact that Christ rose from the dead declaring those sins GONE.

Rest in that Good News.

Is your faith in Christ alone or is it in Christ PLUS your additional self saving works? Is your faith perpetually in what Christ did to KEEP you saved or is it in your daily ability to remain 'good enough' to be saved? Is the object of your faith Christ alone or Christ PLUS you?

[Steve Epley]

Adino and myself are predictable we have been fussing this subject for years. He is a great guy for a Lutheran.:thumbsup

[Kim Komando]

Matthew 7:22 comes to mind, but I truly hope you are saved in spite of your doctrine. We will leave that up to God, who knows the heart to decide.

You have to come to terms with the resurrection, my friend. Our sins were placed on Christ. Christ rose. That he rose proved something concerning the sin imputed to him. It proved they had been removed. It proved the blood of Christ was adequately sufficient in their removal. It proved that God's plan for sin remission effectively worked.

You can say till the cows come home how you think you finish this work of remission in baptism, but it doesn't negate the fact that Christ rose from the dead declaring those sins GONE.

Rest in that Good News.

Is your faith in Christ alone or is it in Christ PLUS your additional self saving works? Is your faith perpetually in what Christ did to KEEP you saved or is it in your daily ability to remain 'good enough' to be saved? Is the object of your faith Christ alone or Christ PLUS you?

Did GP end up being a baptismal remissionist after all that speak of representations, signs, seals and circumcision. I'm not sure he's declared himself other than a lot of talk about water baptism being like circumcision. I thought GP might be a paedobaptist?

I thought his doctrine on putting on the name was interesting too. He even appealed to Middle Eastern culture. No bible but interesting nonetheless.

[Aquila]

Was baptism commanded by Christ?

[Adino]

Adino and myself are predictable we have been fussing this subject for years. He is a great guy for a Lutheran.:thumbsupAnd Steve isn't a bad guy for a Catholic either!

[Adino]

Did the resurrection prove a finished work of sin remission? If it did, there is no additional remission after that event.

Was it possible for Christ to be raised without those sins imputed to him first being completely removed from existence?

[Hoovie]

I am sincerely enjoying this thread!

Thanks to all those contributing.

[Adino]

Steve said:
In immersion in Jesus Name and that ALONE does the penitent experience personal remission of sins.Steve, will you agree that the actual remission of sins and to personally experience that remission of sins are two very separate and distinct events which happen at two very separate and distinct times?

[Aquila]

Was baptism commanded by Christ?

[Aquila]

I'll launch into a hot button issue...

I believe that water baptism is absolutely essential for Christian salvation. However, I'm partial to pouring as a mode of baptism. I'm not wanting to debate this here but I'll give you a link to a site that addresses some of the reasons why I believe this (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The%20Mode%20of%20Baptism.htm). While I don't entirely agree with this person on every point, I believe he adequately explains why effusion is at the very least an equally valid mode of baptism.

Now to the main point of this post...

I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula.

That's right, I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula. However, I also don't believe in the Trinitarian formula. In fact, I don't believe that one can biblically establish a baptismal "formula" from Scripture. In addition, I believe that to establish a set "formula" is to sacramentalize baptism and negate baptism's true biblical blessing. In Apostolic churches throughout the world a formula such as,

"According to the profession of your faith, I hereby baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

..., or some such formula. I believe that this isn't biblical.

I believe that it is the convert who is to call on the name of Jesus Christ at their water baptism, not a religious official. That negates baptism even having a said "formula".

I just thought I'd drop that one your way here guys.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I am sincerely enjoying this thread!

Thanks to all those contributing.
Me, too. It's very thought provoking.

[Adino]

I'll launch into a hot button issue...

I believe that water baptism is absolutely essential for Christian salvation. However, I'm partial to pouring as a mode of baptism. I'm not wanting to debate this here but I'll give you a link to a site that addresses some of the reasons why I believe this (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The%20Mode%20of%20Baptism.htm). While I don't entirely agree with this person on every point, I believe he adequately explains why effusion is at the very least an equally valid mode of baptism.

Now to the main point of this post...

I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula.

That's right, I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula. However, I also don't believe in the Trinitarian formula. In fact, I don't believe that one can biblically establish a baptismal "formula" from Scripture. In addition, I believe that to establish a set "formula" is to sacramentalize baptism and negate baptism's true biblical blessing. In Apostolic churches throughout the world a formula such as,

"According to the profession of your faith, I hereby baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

..., or some such formula. I believe that this isn't biblical.

I believe that it is the convert who is to call on the name of Jesus Christ at their water baptism, not a religious official. That negates baptism even having a said "formula".

I just thought I'd drop that one your way here guys.Good article. Moot point to me, but good article.

And, actually, no..... Christ did not command us to be baptized. He commanded his disciples to disciple and to baptize .......

Those who believed the Gospel were to be baptized as part of the discipling process. Had nothing to do with salvation before God, only with being accepted as saved before the Church.

[Aquila]

Good article. Moot point to me, but good article.

And, actually, no..... Christ did not command us to be baptized. He commanded his disciples to disciple and to baptize .......

Those who believed the Gospel were to be baptized as part of the discipling process. Had nothing to do with salvation before God, only with being accepted as saved before the Church.

How do you reconcile this with Christ's words to Nicodemus?

(John 3:5 KJV)
(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.

[Adino]

It is said reconciliation "describes the end of the estrangement, caused by sin, between God and humanity."

2Corinthians 5:18-21

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Prior to the Cross God and man stood back to back.

The Cross reconciled the world unto God by remitting their sins. God now stands facing man who has his back to God unaware that God has removed their sins, i.e., the cause of estrangement.

We've been given the Good News of the reconciliation of the Cross and are to inform all men that God, who now stands facing him with open arms, has removed all cause of estrangement.

Man is to 'be reconciled to God' by turning to God through faith in the Gospel (Good News) of reconciliation which happened on the Cross.

God and man who once stood back to back now stand in face to face fellowship...... all due to the reconciliation of the Cross.

[Adino]

How do you reconcile this with Christ's words to Nicodemus?

(John 3:5 KJV)
(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.I see no reference to baptism in this passage. I do see John's consistent metaphorical use of the word 'water' as reference to the 'Spirit.'

He repeats the metaphor in the very next chapter (4) and again in chapter 7. I see no reason to discard its metaphorical use in chapter 3. This position holds that Christ is simply adding emphasis to the idea of spiritual rebirth which becomes the continued focus of the chapter.

[Steve Epley]

Did the resurrection prove a finished work of sin remission? If it did, there is no additional remission after that event.

Was it possible for Christ to be raised without those sins imputed to him first being completely removed from existence?

NOT ONE person has argued to the contrary of this. Jesus ONCE for all took care of sin by bearing them to Calvary and shedding His holy blood to remit them. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The question is how I PERSONALLY recieve the remission of sins provided! And the man who Jesus gave the keys to(and it wasn't Bernie) said we recieve remission of sins in immersion in Jesus Name. Your argument is with Jesus & Peter NOT I! I just believe what they said.:thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

Steve said:
Steve, will you agree that the actual remission of sins and to personally experience that remission of sins are two very separate and distinct events which happen at two very separate and distinct times?

Remission of sins was purchased by Jesus Blood and I recieved this remission when I was immersed in Jesus Name IF Jesus and the Apostles were correct!

[Adino]

Remission of sins was purchased by Jesus Blood and I recieved this remission when I was immersed in Jesus Name IF Jesus and the Apostles were correct!So, will you agree that the actual remission of sins and to personally experience that remission of sins are two very separate and distinct events which happen at two very separate and distinct times? Yes or No?

[Adino]

More Scripture to think about:For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10)

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2Corinthians 5:18-19)Do these passages teach a finished reconciliation at Calvary in the eyes of God?

Do these passages teach that God has committed to us the job of spreading the Good News of this reconciliation?

[Adino]

Sad to announce that my vacation is over..... bummer.

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts on these issues. I have enjoyed our chat.

Steve, my Catholic friend, it was good to talk to you again.

It is always fun to press some buttons and take a little deeper look into the wonderful word of God. :thumbsup

God bless!

[Aquila]

I see no reference to baptism in this passage. I do see John's consistent metaphorical use of the word 'water' as reference to the 'Spirit.'

He repeats the metaphor in the very next chapter (4) and again in chapter 7. I see no reason to discard its metaphorical use in chapter 3. This position holds that Christ is simply adding emphasis to the idea of spiritual rebirth which becomes the continued focus of the chapter.

Adino, I disagree. Here's what Christ said to Nicodemus on the subject,

John 3:2-8
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus 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?
5Jesus 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.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Jesus said, unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus then asks how a man can be born again (thinking physical birth).
Jesus then says that a man (anthropos, an adult person) must be born of water AND (implying two elements) Spirit.
The reason is because that which is born naturally is purely natural, but that which is born of the Spirit is spiritual.
Then Christ tells Nicodemus not to be confused about being born again.
Then Christ alludes to the reality that the Spirit moves in a manner unseen in men's lives, yet it can be heard (tongues).

Just as natural birth breaks the water and leads to the first breath, so too does rebirth. In being "born again" one passes through the waters of baptism to take the first breath of the Spirit to new life.

Christ emphasized this again in Mark,

(Mark 16:16-17 KJV)
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

If Christians refuse to water baptize they are in rebellion to Christ's commands (Matthew 28:19). If a convert refuses to be baptized they are in rebellion to Christ's commands. Both those who refuse to baptize and those who refuse to be water baptized will die in the sin of rebellion.

[Aquila]

So, will you agree that the actual remission of sins and to personally experience that remission of sins are two very separate and distinct events which happen at two very separate and distinct times? Yes or No?

If sins were entirely already remitted at the cross, no one needs to obey the Gospel to be saved rather they "experienced" that remission or not. What Christ accomplished at the cross was opening the door by fulfilling the law of atonement for mankind. It is up to us if we enter into that door and receive salvation. One enters that door through repentance and water baptism, God fills them with the Holy Ghost as a gift.

[Aquila]

More Scripture to think about:For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10)

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2Corinthians 5:18-19)Do these passages teach a finished reconciliation at Calvary in the eyes of God?

Do these passages teach that God has committed to us the job of spreading the Good News of this reconciliation?

Take into consideration that the church in Rome and the church in Corinth were already obedient to the Gospel, meaning they were already baptized (Romans 6:3; I Corinthians 1:13-16). All of the Epistles were written to obedient saints, therefore ever promise and exposition delivered to them only applies to obedient saints.

[Sam]

I'll launch into a hot button issue...

I believe that water baptism is absolutely essential for Christian salvation. However, I'm partial to pouring as a mode of baptism. I'm not wanting to debate this here but I'll give you a link to a site that addresses some of the reasons why I believe this (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The%20Mode%20of%20Baptism.htm). While I don't entirely agree with this person on every point, I believe he adequately explains why effusion is at the very least an equally valid mode of baptism.

Now to the main point of this post...

I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula.

That's right, I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula. However, I also don't believe in the Trinitarian formula. In fact, I don't believe that one can biblically establish a baptismal "formula" from Scripture. In addition, I believe that to establish a set "formula" is to sacramentalize baptism and negate baptism's true biblical blessing. In Apostolic churches throughout the world a formula such as,

"According to the profession of your faith, I hereby baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

..., or some such formula. I believe that this isn't biblical.

I believe that it is the convert who is to call on the name of Jesus Christ at their water baptism, not a religious official. That negates baptism even having a said "formula".

I just thought I'd drop that one your way here guys.

Wow, Aquila, you've really stepped on some toes and kicked some sacred cows in that post.

:yourock

[Sam]

It is said reconciliation "describes the end of the estrangement, caused by sin, between God and humanity."

2Corinthians 5:18-21

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Prior to the Cross God and man stood back to back.

The Cross reconciled the world unto God by remitting their sins. God now stands facing man who has his back to God unaware that God has removed their sins, i.e., the cause of estrangement.

We've been given the Good News of the reconciliation of the Cross and are to inform all men that God, who now stands facing him with open arms, has removed all cause of estrangement.

Man is to 'be reconciled to God' by turning to God through faith in the Gospel (Good News) of reconciliation which happened on the Cross.

God and man who once stood back to back now stand in face to face fellowship...... all due to the reconciliation of the Cross.

Seems to me like a good way to put it

[Sam]

A note in the margin of my Bible at Jeremiah chapter 31 says:

The New Covenant is a "gift certificate" for salvation. The merchandise is not free. Someone paid the price. We just go to the store and claim the purchased item.

[Steve Epley]

Wow, Aquila, you've really stepped on some toes and kicked some sacred cows in that post.

:yourock

NOT sacred cows but truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles. The man is a Presbyterian or Mehtodist NOT Apostolic in any sense of the word.

[Adino]

Take into consideration that the church in Rome and the church in Corinth were already obedient to the Gospel, meaning they were already baptized (Romans 6:3; I Corinthians 1:13-16). All of the Epistles were written to obedient saints, therefore ever promise and exposition delivered to them only applies to obedient saints.Cannot leave without addressing this fallacy, Bro. If all Oneness preachers will from this moment on cease teaching their view of Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 to their already saved congregations then maybe this position would have more merit. There is a reason it continues to be taught. That reason is to safeguard the message.

There is no doubt the Gospel message permeates the epistles. In fact, it is delved into more deeply in the epistles than it is anywhere else in Scripture. This was done in order to ensure that is was safeguarded against extreme gnostic and/or pagan views trying to creep into the 1st century Church and corrupt its purity.

I'll give you the last word on this, because I want to address your thoughts on John 3:5.

[Adino]

Aquila wrote:
Jesus said, unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus then asks how a man can be born again (thinking physical birth). Jesus then says that a man (anthropos, an adult person) must be born of water AND (implying two elements) Spirit.

I take issue with your automatic assumption that two elements are implied. There is but one article in the phrase "born of water and of the Spirit." This single article connects only to the word "Spirit" and indicates that the preceding word, 'water,' has a close connection to the articled word 'Spirit.'

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 of the Spirit.

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."

When we allow the author to define his own terms and allow his consistent use of 'water' as a spiritual metaphor we can see that John is placing double emphasis on THE spiritual rebirth.

Btw, I agree the immediately following words in verse 6 underscore that the flesh is born of the flesh and that man's spirit is born of the Spirit. But, that you then jump to the tongues issue using John 3:8 really calls your interpretation into question. It is extremely apparent that to force the doctrine of evidential tongues into this passage is purely eisegetical in nature and without proper textual consideration.

Concerning Mark 16:16-17 and Matthew 28:19....

I don't see how these passages support your point at all. Especially since the command to baptize was given to disciples of Christ to be performed on those who had been discipled. Neither of these verses indicate that baptism was to be understood as necessary for the new birth.

In fact, Christ himself only baptized those who had become his disciples.

John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John

Christ first made disciples and then baptized those disciples.

Christ only baptized Christians!

This is precisely what Christ taught to do in Matthew 28:19
Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (CEV)

We are commanded to baptize Christians! Only those who are FIRST Christians are to be baptized!

I will give you the last word here as well. God bless, friend. It has been nice chatting with you.

[Adino]

I'll let you guys take it from here. Thanks again for the chat, everyone. God bless!

[Aquila]

NOT sacred cows but truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles. The man is a Presbyterian or Mehtodist NOT Apostolic in any sense of the word.

Well...

Bro. Eply, with all due respects... the majority of "washings" (baptismos), also translated "baptisms" throughout the OT were by pouring and sprinkling. Presbyterians acknowledge this to their credit... however, Presbyterians are painfully trapped in the error of the Trinity. I'm not a Presbyterian by any stretch of the imagination.

As for no baptismal formula... can you find a single "formula" uttered by an Apostle in the NT?

We do find what Ananias told Paul...

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.


Ananias didn't say, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, with me calling the name of Jesus over you." It was PAUL who was told to invoke the name of Jesus at his baptism. You might think you have the power of a Catholic priest to use the name to remit sins... but that's not how it was used. In the NT Church remission was brought about by the one being baptized calling on the name of the Lord. Or else Paul's baptism was ineffectual. You could utter the name of Larry, Moe, and Curly over a person... but God will still remit their sin if THEY are crying out to the power of the name of Jesus. You have to understand... it's not about YOU. You're not saving a person. It's about THEM and THEIR calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

The truth is... most MODERN "Apostolics" are not Apostolic. They're United Pentecostal... and they worship at the altars of United Pentecostalism or some other MODERN Pentecostal organization. They neglect to see that much of modern Pentecost has NOTHING to do with what the Church of the Bible was actually about.

Bro. Eply, you're an older saint of God who has embraced the old wineskin paradigm of what "church" is. You're largely happy and set in your ways convinced that the Apostles did everything the way UPCI does it. That's very endearing... but it's not true. The Apostles did things VASTLY different than what modern Apostolic churches are doing. Some of us are breaking free from the old wineskin to seek the Lord, studying His Word, wishing to do church EXACTLY like they did it. I understand that you like and love things they way they are. You're pretty much set in your ways. I respect that. If you're happy with "Church inc." please, be happy in it. But don't begrudge us looking for something deeper, more intimate, and more fulfilling than what's become bang clang spectator Pentecost.

Please don't fault us for that.

[pelathais]

NOT sacred cows but truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles. The man is a Presbyterian or Mehtodist NOT Apostolic in any sense of the word.
Nah! We wouldn't have him 'cause he works for the govrnmint! Yur stuck with him!

[Aquila]

Yep, I work for the government... like Daniel. ;)

[pelathais]

Yep, I work for the government... like Daniel. ;)
Can you really see what they say you can see? Just like they say that you can see it?

I don't imagine that's often going to be a temptation and trial for you... but the gross out factor's gotta be huge.

[Aquila]

Can you really see what they say you can see? Just like they say that you can see it?

I don't imagine that's often going to be a temptation and trial for you... but the gross out factor's gotta be huge.

So far in my government service I've been an Administrative Typist II, an Account Reconciliation Clerk I, a Payroll Clerk I, and now I'm a Security Access Coordinator for a local airport. Working for the government is an eye opener. I can often see both sides of an issue where most often see only what the average private citizen sees.

[GrowingPains]

And, actually, no..... Christ did not command us to be baptized. He commanded his disciples to disciple and to baptize .......


Amazing that the Great Commission is no longer the church's marching orders. I must have missed that memo today.

[Steve Epley]

Amazing that the Great Commission is no longer the church's marching orders. I must have missed that memo today.

Adino is brilliant but his prejudice that colors his thinking sometimes is alarming. I read and say did he really say that?
Go teach-baptize is no longer a command.

[GrowingPains]

Matthew 7:22 comes to mind, but I truly hope you are saved in spite of your doctrine. We will leave that up to God, who knows the heart to decide.

You have to come to terms with the resurrection, my friend. Our sins were placed on Christ. Christ rose. That he rose proved something concerning the sin imputed to him. It proved they had been removed. It proved the blood of Christ was adequately sufficient in their removal. It proved that God's plan for sin remission effectively worked.

You can say till the cows come home how you think you finish this work of remission in baptism, but it doesn't negate the fact that Christ rose from the dead declaring those sins GONE.

Rest in that Good News.

Is your faith in Christ alone or is it in Christ PLUS your additional self saving works? Is your faith perpetually in what Christ did to KEEP you saved or is it in your daily ability to remain 'good enough' to be saved? Is the object of your faith Christ alone or Christ PLUS you?

I think your doctrine has now gone to heretical. You are one of those who come against the churches of God to tell them they are unsaved for obeying the scriptures, and because of a technicality like believing the Word for what it says, they are possibly lost for eternity.

Amazes me that you don't believe in Universalism (though that's the logical conclusion with your ideas), but suggest man DOES, in fact, have to do something to have the blood applied to their life, but stop short of what the Bible says because it doesn't jive with you.

You have created a false argument by saying we believe there is power in the waters of baptism -- that by baptism alone, we are saved. You forget, the power of God's commands to save us come from his Victory on the cross and in the resurrection. It's ALL through His atoning work.

You've made a decent attempt in an Apostolic forum to persuade otherwise, but let me be one of the brothers to simply say "thanks, but no thanks." I enjoy the conversation, but at the end of the day, that's heresy to the umpteenth degree. The man who says one is saved by simply believing on Christ for redemption, denies his brother that same salvation, because he believes the Word for what it says. You go and continue to reason out how God's plan for man should be. His ways our higher than ours. I'll just stick to what the Word says on this issue, and the enormity of scripture is on my side.

[GrowingPains]

Did GP end up being a baptismal remissionist after all that speak of representations, signs, seals and circumcision. I'm not sure he's declared himself other than a lot of talk about water baptism being like circumcision. I thought GP might be a paedobaptist?

I thought his doctrine on putting on the name was interesting too. He even appealed to Middle Eastern culture. No bible but interesting nonetheless.

No Bible? Putting on the name? Gal 3:27, Heb 6:1-3 (let's move on, the Apostle says), That's just using hermeneutics by explaining the possible cultural meaning to the contemporaries of Christ. But that Baptism is full of representation, signs, covenants, circumcision, and anything else the Apostles called it, is not part of marginalizing its importance. On the contrary, much of our NT soteriology is of the fulfillment of many types and shadows in the Old Testament, causing them to inherently all have a relationship to symbols.

Kim, I'm most definitely against infant baptism.

[GrowingPains]

I'll launch into a hot button issue...

I believe that water baptism is absolutely essential for Christian salvation. However, I'm partial to pouring as a mode of baptism. I'm not wanting to debate this here but I'll give you a link to a site that addresses some of the reasons why I believe this (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The%20Mode%20of%20Baptism.htm). While I don't entirely agree with this person on every point, I believe he adequately explains why effusion is at the very least an equally valid mode of baptism.

Now to the main point of this post...

I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula.

That's right, I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula. However, I also don't believe in the Trinitarian formula. In fact, I don't believe that one can biblically establish a baptismal "formula" from Scripture. In addition, I believe that to establish a set "formula" is to sacramentalize baptism and negate baptism's true biblical blessing. In Apostolic churches throughout the world a formula such as,

"According to the profession of your faith, I hereby baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

..., or some such formula. I believe that this isn't biblical.

I believe that it is the convert who is to call on the name of Jesus Christ at their water baptism, not a religious official. That negates baptism even having a said "formula".

I just thought I'd drop that one your way here guys.

Aquila, I actually agree with most of your thoughts here. I don't think our traditions are heresy or false doctrine, however, and whether pouring, dunking or speaking in tongues when you go down in the water, those are all "vain babblings", so to speak. In respect of our traditions, I have no trouble continuing to call the name of the Lord while baptizing, though acknowledging the scriptures never one time teach that the man of God said this (though it did show the baptizee professing his faith). In very close agreement there.

[GrowingPains]

More Scripture to think about:For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10)

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2Corinthians 5:18-19)Do these passages teach a finished reconciliation at Calvary in the eyes of God?

Do these passages teach that God has committed to us the job of spreading the Good News of this reconciliation?

To form a doctrine on a subject, all scriptures on that subject should be first considered so that there is harmony.

Answering your question: YES! We all believe in that reconciliation... or I would assume most on this forum do.

(Sorry, just now catching up to these posts)

[GrowingPains]

A note in the margin of my Bible at Jeremiah chapter 31 says:

The New Covenant is a "gift certificate" for salvation. The merchandise is not free. Someone paid the price. We just go to the store and claim the purchased item.

Sam, exactly. On there is a process for claiming your gift. Starts with an ID that bears His name.

[GrowingPains]

Cannot leave without addressing this fallacy, Bro. If all Oneness preachers will from this moment on cease teaching their view of Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 to their already saved congregations then maybe this position would have more merit. There is a reason it continues to be taught. That reason is to safeguard the message.
There is no doubt the Gospel message permeates the epistles. In fact, it is delved into more deeply in the epistles than it is anywhere else in Scripture. This was done in order to ensure that is was safeguarded against extreme gnostic and/or pagan views trying to creep into the 1st century Church and corrupt its purity.

I'll give you the last word on this, because I want to address your thoughts on John 3:5.

The same reason your kind of church emphasizes over and over again its own message. Nothing is wrong with this. Why would we cease teaching one of the most powerful messages? I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...

[GrowingPains]

[QUOTE=Adino;771613]Aquila wrote:


I take issue with your automatic assumption that two elements are implied. There is but one article in the phrase "born of water and of the Spirit." This single article connects only to the word "Spirit" and indicates that the preceding word, 'water,' has a close connection to the articled word 'Spirit.'

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 of the Spirit.

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."

When we allow the author to define his own terms and allow his consistent use of 'water' as a spiritual metaphor we can see that John is placing double emphasis on THE spiritual rebirth. [QUOTE]

I actually agree that John 3:5 is talking globally about a spirit birth and being "born again." Neither does that discount water baptism.

[pelathais]

Adino is brilliant but his prejudice that colors his thinking sometimes is alarming. I read and say did he really say that?
Go teach-baptize is no longer a command.
I think he may have been going for a finer point here. What Adino seems to have been saying is that Christ commanded his apostles (and their subsequent disciples) to teach and to baptize. Christ, in this view, would not then be seen as commanding people on the street to be baptized, though baptism would obviously be a result of the apostles' teaching.

This seems to be a point that places a heavy emphasis upon the "teachers" being responsible for making sense and effectively reaching the people on the street. My experience is that few "teachers" seem to want to accept such a responsibility.

[GrowingPains]

I think he may have been going for a finer point here. What Adino seems to have been saying is that Christ commanded his apostles (and their subsequent disciples) to teach and to baptize. Christ, in this view, would not then be seen as commanding people on the street to be baptized, though baptism would obviously be a result of the apostles' teaching.

Pelathais, One has to really be creative to get around the simplicity of the great commission, which consequently is the same message recorded in Mark 16:16. All records of the Great Commission have evidence of baptism as part of their orders. Christ was not giving commands to sinners at this moment, it was to the disciples to go and make other disciples. These were their instructions.

[Adino]

The same reason your kind of church emphasizes over and over again its own message. Nothing is wrong with this. Why would we cease teaching one of the most powerful messages? I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...Neither was Paul, which is why the Gospel message of salvation permeates his writings..... this was my point. I'm a little surprised you missed it, Bro.

[Sam]

Pelathais, ...Christ was not giving commands to sinners at this moment, it was to the disciples to go and make other disciples. These were their instructions.

And after people responded to the Gospel and were converted/saved, it is some times recorded that their conversion experience was followed by water baptism and by an empowering or baptism in the Spirit.

[Adino]

I think he may have been going for a finer point here. What Adino seems to have been saying is that Christ commanded his apostles (and their subsequent disciples) to teach and to baptize. Christ, in this view, would not then be seen as commanding people on the street to be baptized, though baptism would obviously be a result of the apostles' teaching.Thank you, Pelathais :thumbsup

[pelathais]

Pelathais, One has to really be creative to get around the simplicity of the great commission, which consequently is the same message recorded in Mark 16:16. All records of the Great Commission have evidence of baptism as part of their orders. Christ was not giving commands to sinners at this moment, it was to the disciples to go and make other disciples. These were their instructions.
That is the point I believe Adino was making.

[GrowingPains]

That is the point I believe Adino was making.

I didn't hear/see/read that point you believe he was making.