Numerical Growth Is Not A Sign Of Revival...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Questions that need an answer:
[*]What was Noah delivered from BEFORE THE FLOOD? Peter's chapter is about the water delivering him. Salvation is deliverance.
[*]How is mikvah anything related to putting us into the death of Jesus (Ro 6:3)?
[*]How is circumcision mandatory, or else folks weren't allowed in the religious activity of Israel? How does baptism fit in theology in the way that circumcision was demanded in order to get involved in worship in Israel? Translate that demand of circumcision for involvement in worship into New Testament baptism.

It is as Paul wrote in Romans 4, it was the seal of the covenant. It was what circumcision represented, not what it did. Circumcision did nothing but mutilate the body, it did not make one clean. It represented cleanness. Just as baptism does not clean one but represents burial with Christ, represents being cleaned from sin.
Believing that the literal act of water baptism is the exact point sins are washed away, is much like the religious leaders of Christ day, that accused the disciples of eating with unwashed hands. They believed that evil spirits could come into a person if they did not wash their hands before eating.
It is a tradition of man, that water baptism is the point sins are washed away. The cross washed away all sins, and we accept that by faith, period.

"as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life".

Never answered my questions at all. Can you do his again? I can rephrase them to show how you did not answer them if you wish

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, you gotta see that the RCC prolly says the same of OPs, so what is the diff?

The difference is I am not concerned about Mama Rome's opinions.

[mfblume]

Let's try this again.

Which brings us back to the question, when is salvation in effect?

Brings us back to a question? Why did you not answer me? You said Noah was saved before the flood because he was righteous before the flood. And you said the flood was some kind of SIGN of that. But Peter said the flood was a figure of baptism. And as the water saved Noah out of a world of sinners by destroying those sinners, he said that figured unto the concept of baptism saving us by water. The water destroyed something, and was not a mere symbol. The destruction by water was an overall symbol of the destruction of something else in OUR DAY. I asked you WHAT does water destroyed in our day as water destroyed sinners in Noah's day?

But to answer your question although you never actually answered mine, salvation is deliverance. And deliverance and salvation ARE IN EFFECT when we something is destroyed and we are left remaining after its destruction. Like Matt 24 when the flood took the sinners away and Noah was left alive and well, and Christ comes like a flood and takes away the temple and City of Jerusalem that persecuted the church and left the church alive and well and remaining.

So again, since salvation involves destruction of something in order to deliver the one from it who is saved, what was DESTROYED before the flood and thereby caused Noah to be delivered from it? THAT is my original question, and the answer to THAT question ( that you never answered) will tell you wen salvation is in effect.

At baptism, speaking in tongues, or as it is written over and over in the NT by faith without works?

Baptism IS NOT a work on the context works fall under when the bible speaks against salvation by works. IT IS A WORK if there is no faith involved. The action and dipping and H20 do not directly save anyone. The FAITH that we are getting into the death of Jesus is what saves. And God circumcises the body of sins off us when we are baptized due to our FAITH, not the work. Now, if you would be so kind to answer the question according to the context in which I asked it.

One can argue this point all they want, but when I hear someone say "if your not baptized your not saved" I think what they mean is the salvation is by baptism without faith.

Not necessarily. It CAN mean that if the person does not believe obedience of baptism is required as an act of faith, otherwise making faith into a dead work. But when we believe we are being placed by God into the death of Jesus in baptism, then without baptism you are lost and such a claim DOES NOT mean salvation is by baptism not by faith.

Either it is "by faith are you save and not of works" or "by baptism are you saved without faith".

Works are NOT baptism if one believes obedience to the word to be baptized moves God to put us into the death of Jesus THAT SAVES US. Baptism is only a work without faith when one has no faith that it puts us into the death of Jesus so His death counts as our own.

So, again, what was Noah delivered FROM as God destroyed it BEFORE THE FLOOD if Noah was SAVED/DELIVERED before the flood, which is what you claim corresponds to a person;s faith before they're baptized?

I will answer your responses separately so you can go back and try answering again this time without avoiding my direct question.

[mfblume]

Oh common Mike, where do you think baptism originated from?

Where does the bible say baptism originated from Mikvah? Show me one verse in the New Testament, as there are several about forbiddance against fornication being carried over in the new covenant from the old, in regards to baptism.

I am saying baptism is something entirely new BECAUSE IT PUTS US INTO THE DEATH OF JESUS. So, I asked you what in the mikvah corresponds to putting us into Christ's death?

Do you think John came on the seen demanding baptism if they did not already know about baptism?

Yes!

When John came preaching repentance and baptism, baptism was not a new thing. It was derived from the Mikvah washings of the law.

Again, how is baptism into Christ's DEATH similar in any way to mikvah? You never refer to Romans 6:3 which is the highlight of the entire concept of baptism int he New Testament.

Once, again please answer my question.

[mfblume]

It is as Paul wrote in Romans 4, it was the seal of the covenant. It was what circumcision represented, not what it did. Circumcision did nothing but mutilate the body, it did not make one clean. It represented cleanness. Just as baptism does not clean one but represents burial with Christ, represents being cleaned from sin.

You did a little better with this question than with the other two you did not really answer at all.

But I said Israel COULD NOT engage in worship or temple ceremony if the men were not circumcised. Yes, it was as a seal of the covenant. And WITHOUT that seal they were OUT. They could not participate.

Exodus 12:48 KJV And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

It was a seal!

Romans 4:11 KJV And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

So how does that apply to Exodus 12:48?

If baptism is a SEAL like circumcision was, then HOW does baptism fit into the church if they COULD NOT partake of Passover without circumcision? What is it that one cannot do IN the New Testament if one is not baptized?

What does PASSOVER typify in the church? You agree circumcision typifies water baptism in the church. So, what can an unbaptized person NOT DO in the church if a non-circumcised person COULD NOT partake of Passover?

Believing that the literal act of water baptism is the exact point sins are washed away, is much like the religious leaders of Christ day, that accused the disciples of eating with unwashed hands.

Unfortunately Paul disagreed with you.

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

Colossians 2:11-12 KJV In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: (12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Sure, if it's a dead work, it means nothing. But Jesus said salvation occurs AFTER baptism only when baptism and FAITH go together.

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

He did not say what you evidently believe: He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized.

They believed that evil spirits could come into a person if they did not wash their hands before eating. It is a tradition of man, that water baptism is the point sins are washed away. The cross washed away all sins, and we accept that by faith, period.

The cross is where Jesus died. Your theology does not make sense out of Romans 6:3 that says baptism puts us into the death of the cross. You're arguing against Jesus and Paul and Peter who distinctly said SALVATION involves baptism.

Please explains Romans 6:3 if you disagree with my theology.

"as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life".

The death of Jesus is what saves. And Paul said God does a spiritual operation in destroying the body of sins of the flesh when we obediently submit to baptism, and as much as those without circumcision could not partake of Passover, those today who refuse baptism cannot take part of the death of Christ which Passover foreshadowed.

Please prove otherwise, and this time please actually deal with the points I made and asked, and scriptures I proposed, and offer your "correct" interpretation of them all, if you think I am wrong.

Thanks!

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The difference is I am not concerned about Mama Rome's opinions.

ya, me neither--but i also see how this can be self serving.

[Godsdrummer]

I am sorry Mike, if you think I have not answered your questions directly. Let me simply put it this way, baptism is entirely symbolic of....I do not believe that our sins are washed away at the exact point of baptism.

We have two stepped around this subject for a couple of years now, you want me to prove I am right and you are wrong. I don't see the point, for the simple reason that it does not matter to me if you teach what you teach.

Based on the simple fact that the apostles did not tell the Pharisee that came into the church they had to quit obeying the law of Moses when they believed. Neither did they force the Gentiles to obey the law of Moses.

You teach and believe that all that came into the church obeyed the explicit words of Peter in Acts 2:38, I don't for the reasons I have given over time.
I could list all the differences of what I believe to what you believe, but to me the bottom line is to get people to believe in Christ, and to go on to love God with all your heart soul and might, and love your neighbor as yourself.

If that is not being done then all the posturing of getting saved is moot, because it matters not to me if one is or is not baptized, speaks in tongues, wears or does not wear a certain code of dress.
Because if one is not baptized into the character of Christ, that of love they are lost as lost can be.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I am sorry Mike, if you think I have not answered your questions directly.

I don't think you did not answer directly. You actually didn't.

I REALLY wanted to know what you think those who are unbaptized CANNOT engage in, if it's like circumcision and those uncircumcised could not engage in any worship. Circumcision was a SEAL. They were righteous before circumcision, as you argued. But righteous people could not worship in passover without circumcision. Why?

Your theology seems to say so long as one is righteous they don't need the seal to do anything, because you think unbaptized people can engage in the church even though the SEAL of circumcision, after a person was already righteous, was still required for them to worship.

Let me simply put it this way, baptism is entirely symbolic of....I do not believe that our sins are washed away at the exact point of baptism.

We have two stepped around this subject for a couple of years now, you want me to prove I am right and you are wrong. I don't see the point, for the simple reason that it does not matter to me if you teach what you teach.

Based on the simple fact that the apostles did not tell the Pharisee that came into the church they had to quit obeying the law of Moses when they believed. Neither did they force the Gentiles to obey the law of Moses.

You teach and believe that all that came into the church obeyed the explicit words of Peter in Acts 2:38, I don't for the reasons I have given over time.
I could list all the differences of what I believe to what you believe, but to me the bottom line is to get people to believe in Christ, and to go on to love God with all your heart soul and might, and love your neighbor as yourself.

If that is not being done then all the posturing of getting saved is moot, because it matters not to me if one is or is not baptized, speaks in tongues, wears or does not wear a certain code of dress.
Because if one is not baptized into the character of Christ, that of love they are lost as lost can be.

You gave your position, and I just asked questions of you to learn how you arrive at your conclusions. When you did not answer my questions, not that you did not give the answers I looked for - you just did not answer them directly at all, I tried again by rephrasing my words. But it always comes to this in issues we disagree with, Loren: You boil it down to disagreement and won't actually deal with scriptures and break them down to see who is right. Well, I finally realize that now. So, no problem if that's what you wish.

But here's another question to at least think about even if you don't answer again: Why could RIGHTEOUS people still have to be circumcised in the Old Testament in order to worship?

Take care!

Moses was righteous, but had not circumcised his son yet.

Exo 4:24-26 KJV And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. (25) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. (26) So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I am sorry Mike, if you think I have not answered your questions directly. Let me simply put it this way, baptism is entirely symbolic of....I do not believe that our sins are washed away at the exact point of baptism.

We have two stepped around this subject for a couple of years now, you want me to prove I am right and you are wrong. I don't see the point, for the simple reason that it does not matter to me if you teach what you teach.

Based on the simple fact that the apostles did not tell the Pharisee that came into the church they had to quit obeying the law of Moses when they believed. Neither did they force the Gentiles to obey the law of Moses.

You teach and believe that all that came into the church obeyed the explicit words of Peter in Acts 2:38, I don't for the reasons I have given over time.
I could list all the differences of what I believe to what you believe, but to me the bottom line is to get people to believe in Christ, and to go on to love God with all your heart soul and might, and love your neighbor as yourself.

If that is not being done then all the posturing of getting saved is moot, because it matters not to me if one is or is not baptized, speaks in tongues, wears or does not wear a certain code of dress.
Because if one is not baptized into the character of Christ, that of love they are lost as lost can be.

amen!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I could list all the differences of what I believe to what you believe, but to me the bottom line is to get people to believe in Christ, and to go on to love God with all your heart soul and might, and love your neighbor as yourself.

If that is not being done then all the posturing of getting saved is moot, because it matters not to me if one is or is not baptized, speaks in tongues, wears or does not wear a certain code of dress.
Because if one is not baptized into the character of Christ, that of love they are lost as lost can be.

I agree. But that does not remove the need for obedience to the apostles' teachings.