Numerical Growth Is Not A Sign Of Revival...

[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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

And yet when the flood receded, sin was still in the world. So I guess the world of sin was not destroyed. So what exactly did the water deliver Noah from again?

It delivered him from a world where everybody thought nothing but wickedness.

Genesis 6:5 KJV And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And the water delivered Noah, which is what SAVED actually means. Whether Noah was righteous before the flood or not, the point remains WATER delivered Noah. So, in your theology, what did water deliver him from, if not what I refer to in Gen 6?

So how many entrances are there? The entrance of faith, the entrance of baptism and the entrance of infilling of the holy spirit. And of course if you are of the conservative mind set then you have the entrance of standards of holiness.

Entrance into HIS DEATH is what baptism is about.

So what I am seeing here is that the children of Abraham were not the children of Abraham while slaves in Egypt, because they had as yet not offered the Passover lamb to save their first born. Then of course they were not saved yet until the Red Sea crossing. And we could go on and on.

Fact remains we're baptized into Christ's death, and all the types in the Old Testament require a plain statement in the New that stands as it santitype.

Entrance saw destruction of the wicked.

Romans 6:6 KJV Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

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.

Today we do the same thing, your not save because you believe in the son of God and his kingdom, you must next be baptized, but then your still not saved unless you receive his spirit with evidence. Where does it end?

Nope. When we read baptism SAVES that means it's part of it. I'm only quoting bible. Nothing more. It is part of what DELIVERS. Without it something is missing.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

We Keep dancing around these passages, Romans 6:3, 1 Peter 3:21. Which is it? Is baptism our removal from the world of sin, or joining in the death of Christ?

It is both. The fact is everytime you mention baptism you talk about a cleansing and never touch the issue of entrance into Christ's death. Why? Why doesn't that factor into your thoughts?

Entrance into his death occurs when we're removed from the world. It's exit from the world and entrance into the new creation race, Last man Adam.

The question is not whether baptism also saves us, but rather in what way and from what.

Exactly. HOW does baptism save from anything in your theology? I see nothing.

It seems you teach that baptism is the point that ones sins are washed away. Yet Peter does not say that,

Acts 22:16 shows us this is exactly the point quite clearly.

he says it is a like figure of the flood. the answer of a clean conscience. The conscience is already clean, how is that because of faith.

When is says LIKE FIGURE, it is not saying a like figure of the flood. This always goes back to a case of misreading. The figure was the salvation by water. The fulfillment of the figure is water baptism. Baptism is not a figure. It is what fulfills the figure.

Water saving Noah was a figure of baptism.

And the answer is like any other answer. It follows a question. What is the question?

"Christ died in your stead so you could be considered dead. What will you do about it?"

Answer----- If I am dead through Christ, then BURY ME!

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Was Abraham circumcised before God counted his righteousness unto him? No God counted Abraham as righteous before circumcision. Just as God counts us righteous before him by simple faith.

We already talked about this together.

Baptism similarly is like the CLEANSING OF THE LEPER after the leper was already healed. There is the healing of leprosy and a MUST to get the person into the Camp of Israel again was the CLEANSING.

Leviticus 14:3-4 KJV And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; (4) Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

Leviticus 14:6 KJV As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:

A beautiful picture of baptism. Dip the living bird into the water and blood of the slain. And then release it.

Righteousness was granted before circumcision, BUT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN had God foreknown Abraham would refuse circumcision. It was a SEAL of righteousness. And if anyone refused circumcision they would have been BANNED outside of Israel's relationship with God. Just like the leper being healed but refusing the CLEANSING would have not been allowed back into the culture. It's so perfect. the healing is the righteousness. The cleansing is baptism. Hence, "WASHING" sins.

Was the leper cleansed after the healing or not?

Was the circumcision DEMANDED after the righteousness or not?

Was both cleanings and circumcision necessary TO ENTER THEIR WORSHIP or not?

I guess what it really comes down to is what we define as salvation. You seem to define salvation as a literal point that can be plotted on a map so to speak, where others can say we saw this or that now you are saved.

No. I read what the bible says and simply repeat it.

I on the other hand I do not count salvation by the performance of rituals, rather by the fruits rendered, "you shall know them by there fruits" "and by this shall they know you are my disciples by your love for one another".

Since you accused me of something in contrast with your position, allow me to do the same. I don[t usually do this.. But you insist.

You seem to think about the issue and reason it out and not grasp everything the bible says about it, such as baptism putting us into the death of Jesus (for yo never mention Romans 6:3 as part of your explanation, when I do everytime we talk about it). And your THINKING aside from scripture makes you think it cannot possibly be part of salvation, even though Peter says it does. And this goes back to you thinking it is salvation by works, since you do not accept the fact the works in salvation by works are earning heaven by good deeds, totally apart from demand that God's work alone saves. ...WHEREAS I get it from the Word and simply repeat it to others.

It is not a numbers game, where we have an alter call where we count the numbers of those that came down and professed Christ, or those that received the holy ghost, or even those that got baptized. It is not for me to know at what point ones faith is recognized by God, I am not the judge.

You over complicate it and remove it all from what the bible said. Peter said people must obey Acts 2:38. I simply agree, and look for it in people. And then that is only the beginning which you are not realizing I see it as that.

I rest in Christ by my faith, and am complete in Christ by faith, as Paul states in Colossians 2.

The same Paul says baptism puts us into Christ's death. And we GET INTO Christ by baptism into His death. You claim one is in Christ before baptism puts them into his death.

Numerical growth is not a sign of revival, yet we count numbers by those that have jumped through the hoops of our particular plan of salvation, and that should not be so.

I count no numbers.

[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.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is good. All Old Testament types and shadows of New Covenant immersion refer back to some kind of destruction, death, or loss: The Red Sea destroyed the Egyptians. The Jordan River crossing marked the end, or death, of Israel as a nomadic people by turning them into a military nation. Namaan's skin disease was sloughed off by immersion. The priests washed the blood and filth of the animals they slaughtered for sacrifice, by immersion.

It's all there.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

This is good. All Old Testament types and shadows of New Covenant immersion refer back to some kind of destruction, death, or loss: The Red Sea destroyed the Egyptians. The Jordan River crossing marked the end, or death, of Israel as a nomadic people by turning them into a military nation. Namaan's skin disease was sloughed off by immersion. The priests washed the blood and filth of the animals they slaughtered for sacrifice, by immersion.

It's all there.

And nothing was destroyed in the world when Noah was righteous before the flood came. He was saved from nothing before the flood.

1 Peter 3 is about BEING SAVED FROM.