Numerical Growth Is Not A Sign Of Revival...

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The key to understanding baptism and what it's for is found in the Greek word aphesis. Some translate it as remission, some as forgiveness. While remission is closer to the real meaning, forgiveness, unfortunately, paints a very bad picture.

Asking for forgiveness and being forgiven, even by God, doesn't require anything more than the asking and receiving. Anyone can say to God, "I'm sorry, God, will you forgive me?" and receive His forgiveness without any form of immersion, whatsoever, as the prerogative to forgive or not is solely in the sovereignty of God.

When Peter says "for the remission of sins", or for the aphesis of sins, it really means a sending off or away. This is not about an emotional plea for God to forgive, so much as it is a legal plea whereby the immersed, by entering into Christ's death, has the body of their sins destroyed.

Just as Christ was destroyed at the cross, and just as we are immersed into His death, and just as He became sin for us (on the cross), and so, nailed them to the tree, when we experience the same death upon His cross, our immersion destroys the body of our sins (i.e. the very sins Christ became when He was destroyed on the cross).

So the question is, Can anyone honestly say they have been rescued from the body of their sins, if the body of their sins has not been destroyed? Without such a destroying, a person simply cannot enter into eternal life. This destroying occurs in immersion providing the person being immersed has fully confessed and repented of their sins.

They have stood apart from the body of their sins, but the body of their sins isn't destroyed until immersion, and when that occurs, the entire destroyed body of their sins is aphesis, i.e. sent away (permanently).

We can refer to the meaning of the words in Greek all we want, I do so myself, But unless we understand the Jewish mind and meaning of baptism to the Jew, we are applying a different set of rules than I believe was meant.

Just as the sacrificial lamb was slain and the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat for the sins of the whole nation under the law, righteous and unrighteous. So was the blood of Christ sprinkled on the Mercy seat of heaven for the sin of the world. That is why Peter liken baptism to our response of a clear conscience, not in order to wash our sins a way. 1 Peter 2.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

That is why Peter liken baptism to our response of a clear conscience, not in order to wash our sins a way. 1 Peter 2.

Acts 22:16

And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Baptism, washing our sins away, and calling on the name of the Lord are inseparable in the thinking of the apostolic church in the Bible. They go together. The apostles and the early church did not separate them the way so many people do today.

Ananias believed certain things, and they determined how he spoke. The things he believed led him to say things like 'be baptised and wash away your sins'. Everyone's beliefs manifest in how they speak. 'Out of the heart the mouth speaketh.' So one's beliefs can be seen by how one expresses them. You say baptism is 'not to wash our sins away'. Ananias said 'be baptised and wash your sins away'. It is therefore obvious your belief in regards to the subject is different from that held by Ananias and the early church.

Now, if anyone in this world had the truth, it would be the early church. If anyone had the correct doctrine concerning baptism, it would be them. If anyone understood the truth about baptism and sins and washing away of sins, it would be them. So if we today have a different view than they did, it follows we do not have the truth, do not have the correct doctrine, and do not understand the truth. Otherwise, if we did, we would express it the way they did.

If one person believes X, and it leads them to say 'be baptised and wash away your sins', and another person believes Y, and it leads them to say 'baptism is not for washing away sins', then it is obvious without any possibility of refutation that Y and X are contraries. Which means the person who believes Y believes contrary to the person who believes X.

People often say 'baptism doesn't save us.' Yet Peter said 'baptism saves us'. Two opposite and mutually exclusive, mutually contradictory statements. Indicating two opposite and contradictory doctrines and beliefs.

So which is correct? Which one has the truth?

I submit the apostles and the early church had the truth. And anything contrary to their doctrine and belief is contrary to the truth, and therefore would be false.

[votivesoul]

The ark saved Noah and his family from the water (as the instrument of God's wrath), the water saved Noah and his family from the world (the cause of God's wrath).

Pretty simple, I think.

The blood of Jesus saves us from the wrath of God, baptism saves us from the cause of God's wrath, i.e. sin.

Also pretty simple, I think.

Hence the type and anti-type of 1 Peter 3:20-21.

[Godsdrummer]

Does not literally wash anything, except maybe dirt from your body if you did not take a shower the day you got baptized. Sins are washed away by our faith in Christ period.

I find it funny that people will reference Jewish idioms, and metaphors in other subjects yet when they come down to baptism it seems their brain flies out the window. Baptism for the "remission of sins" or "washing away your sins" were symbolic terms to a Jew. There were several things under the law that required Mikvah washings and they dealt with physical cleaning not spiritual.

Alas I am not going to persuade you any more than the apostles persuaded the Pharisee in Acts 15 that the Gentiles need not be circumcised and obey the commands of Moses to be saved. I can only state what I believe and move on.

As for Romans 6, why would Paul contradict himself speaking in chapter 6, when he just wrote two chapters previously that faith makes us righteous before God? There are only two ways to see this imo, one we are saved by faith and baptism is nothing more than our personal seal of that salvation, or we are not saved period until we are baptized, regardless whether we have received the spirit of God.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Does not literally wash anything, except maybe dirt from your body if you did not take a shower the day you got baptized. Sins are washed away by our faith in Christ period.

That faith MUST accompany baptism. He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved.

[quote]I find it funny that people will reference Jewish idioms, and metaphors in other subjects yet when they come down to baptism it seems their brain flies out the window. ['
/quote]

Peter's brain was not out the window, brother. And we're only saying what Peter said.

If not, how was Noah saved by water BEFORE the flood, since you compare his righteousness before the flood to salvation in our lives before baptism. What was Noah delivered from by water BEFORE THE FLOOD? The chapter is about the water delivering him.

Baptism for the "remission of sins" or "washing away your sins" were symbolic terms to a Jew. There were several things under the law that required Mikvah washings and they dealt with physical cleaning not spiritual.

See? you did it again! You avoid Ro 6:3 that says baptism puts us into the death of Jesus. How is mikvah anything related to putting us into the death of Jesus? You cannot deal with Rom 6:3.

Alas I am not going to persuade you any more than the apostles persuaded the Pharisee in Acts 15 that the Gentiles need not be circumcised and obey the commands of Moses to be saved. I can only state what I believe and move on.

And the apostles said what we're saying. Read it in Ro 6:3.

As for Romans 6, why would Paul contradict himself speaking in chapter 6, when he just wrote two chapters previously that faith makes us righteous before God?

No contradiction. But if baptism is not part of salvation then you have a contradiction.

The way it actually works is that baptism is like circumcision. You never responded to my note about how circumcision was mandatory or folks weren't allowed in the religious activity of Israel. How does baptism fit in YOUR theology in the way that circumcision was demanded in order to get involved in worship in Israel? Translate that demand for involvement in worship into New Testament baptism. You cannot do it. Three is nothing you believe a person cannot be involved with if they're not baptized to translate from the circumcision demand in order to worship.

There are only two ways to see this imo, one we are saved by faith and baptism is nothing more than our personal seal of that salvation, or we are not saved period until we are baptized, regardless whether we have received the spirit of God.

Again, how does Noah get "saved by water" before the flood, to fit your doctrine a person is saved before baptism, and how does circumcision's demand for involvement in worship fit into baptism in your theology?

You cannot answer these last two points. Let's watch.

[mfblume]

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.

[mfblume]

The more I think about it, the more I see the distinction required to be seen.

Water delivered or saved Noah. Those who try to point to Noah's state of righteousness before the flood in order to argue away the need for baptism in 1 Peter 3, miss the overall point Peter made. Water was the element used by God to deliver Noah from a wicked world, while God destroyed that world with that water. As we note before, destruction of something is seen in every instance where baptism is foreshadowed. To truly be saved requires the destruction of what we are saved from. There was not destruction of anything from which Noah needed to be saved in his time before the flood. But the water of the flood destroyed the world from which Noah was saved when he was SAVED BY WATER.

Water baptism sees destruction of the old man and the body of the sins of the flesh. Rom 6:6; Col 2:11-12. As Noah was righteous and yet commanded by God to enter the ark and thereby allow God to save him by water from that world, righteous believers obey God and enter Christ's death by baptism to be saved from the body of the sins of the flesh. Where is salvation by a medium that destroys found in Noah's life before the flood? A liberal cannot answer these questions, but will simply settle on agreeing to disagree, because there is no answer that can be given.

[Godsdrummer]

Questions that need an answer:
[list][*]What was Noah delivered from BEFORE THE FLOOD? Peter's chapter is about the water delivering him. Salvation is deliverance.

Which brings us back to the question, when is salvation in effect? At baptism, speaking in tongues, or as it is written over and over in the NT by faith without works?
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.
Either it is "by faith are you save and not of works" or "by baptism are you saved without faith".

[*]How is mikvah anything related to putting us into the death of Jesus (Ro 6:3)?

Oh common Mike, where do you think baptism originated from? Do you think John came on the seen demanding baptism if they did not already know about baptism? When John came preaching repentance and baptism, baptism was not a new thing. It was derived from the Mikvah washings of the law.

[*]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".

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Acts 22:16

And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Baptism, washing our sins away, and calling on the name of the Lord are inseparable in the thinking of the apostolic church in the Bible. They go together. The apostles and the early church did not separate them the way so many people do today.

Ananias believed certain things, and they determined how he spoke. The things he believed led him to say things like 'be baptised and wash away your sins'. Everyone's beliefs manifest in how they speak. 'Out of the heart the mouth speaketh.' So one's beliefs can be seen by how one expresses them. You say baptism is 'not to wash our sins away'. Ananias said 'be baptised and wash your sins away'. It is therefore obvious your belief in regards to the subject is different from that held by Ananias and the early church.

Now, if anyone in this world had the truth, it would be the early church. If anyone had the correct doctrine concerning baptism, it would be them. If anyone understood the truth about baptism and sins and washing away of sins, it would be them. So if we today have a different view than they did, it follows we do not have the truth, do not have the correct doctrine, and do not understand the truth. Otherwise, if we did, we would express it the way they did.

If one person believes X, and it leads them to say 'be baptised and wash away your sins', and another person believes Y, and it leads them to say 'baptism is not for washing away sins', then it is obvious without any possibility of refutation that Y and X are contraries. Which means the person who believes Y believes contrary to the person who believes X.

People often say 'baptism doesn't save us.' Yet Peter said 'baptism saves us'. Two opposite and mutually exclusive, mutually contradictory statements. Indicating two opposite and contradictory doctrines and beliefs.

So which is correct? Which one has the truth?

I submit the apostles and the early church had the truth. And anything contrary to their doctrine and belief is contrary to the truth, and therefore would be false.

Yes who has the truth, the religious leaders of Christ day derived all their teachings from the OT. Yet Christ said, "you search scripture thinking you have eternal life but they speak of me".
So yes who has truth, those that continue to add action upon action in order to be saved, or those that have simple faith in Christ?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Yes who has the truth, the religious leaders of Christ day derived all their teachings from the OT. Yet Christ said, "you search scripture thinking you have eternal life but they speak of me".
So yes who has truth, those that continue to add action upon action in order to be saved, or those that have simple faith in Christ?

In other words, those who derive their doctrine from Scripture are like the Pharisees. so you just admit that 'truth' is not derived from Scripture, and that you believe those who get their ideas from the Bible are like Pharisees and are in darkness. That is, IF they contradict your beliefs. Because you certainly do not seem to shy away from using the Bible to prove what you believe on various issues.

So those 'who have simple faith in Christ' are those who reject the bible, the words of Jesus, the teachings of his apostles, and instead accept a Johnny come lately, 19th century baptist/evangelical version of 'truth'.

Uh, that may tickle YOUR fancy, but I don't buy it.