Praxeas & Company (Thief Saved?/Baptism Essential)

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So my question remains: did those who were baptized under John's baptism receive the same remission of sins as those baptized by the Apostles?

And the question doesn't seek to invalidate Christian baptism as your knee jerk reaction seems to say you fear. The disciples at Ephesus were rebaptized by Paul - for whatever reason Paul had to do so. And that's the part that I said I was "hazy" on. What is accomplished by baptism in Jesus name for those who (like the disciples of John) had already received the remission of sins?

Well if we go by what you said in a prior post, they needed to believe and be baptized into the One who was to come to have those sins remitted. It's the blood of Christ, the One who was to come that remits sins.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The question about my mindset is an important consideration and I don't mind you asking. I was brought up on the "water & spirit" way of thinking with the absolute necessity of baptism in Jesus name. This was my mindset and belief for most of my life. Only relatively recently have I questioned that position.

The issue involving the disciples of John is key because it represents an example of believers who were sincerely following the path that God had laid out for them through His prophets and the Scripture. And yet the disciples didn't quite "measure up" to the full "Water & Spirit" doctrine. And so we can ask, "Where do they stand?" John the Baptist and Paul both very clearly stated that they had "remission of sins." From this I conclude that they were "saved" for all intents and purposes even though they had not yet been baptized in Jesus name nor received the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in other tongues.

So, if the were saved - what saved them? And what specifically was then added to their lives by their subsequent baptisms?

I see you've reached the conclusion/assumption that Apollos and the disciples of John in Ephesus were "saved" before they were exposed to NT doctrine. I don't know if I can join you in that assumption, therefore I couldn't really say much more on that issue.

There are a lot of hypothetical issue there that I don't even want to speculate about too much, since in the end, it is God who will make a righteous judgment about each person's situation, based on what they knew at whatever point in time.
----
but as for your last question, I've given my thoughts on that issue in post #48 above.

Peace 2u.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

John the Baptist and Paul both very clearly stated that they had "remission of sins."

Where did Paul say the disciples of John had received the remission of sins?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

John not only spoke of the one who was to come but God revealed to John that his cousin, Jesus, was the one who was to come. Why didn't the disciples of John make this known?

Good question, Miz.
John made it known to his disciples that Jesus was "the one"... and famously said "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). Even later on,when he was in prison, John sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was indeed the One, and Jesus answered him very affirmatively.

So this makes it less likely to me that the disciples of John would have continued John's baptism after that, since John himself made very clear that it was all about Jesus from that point on.

[1Corinth2v4]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It has been discussed extensively like a dead horse being beaten to a pulp.

Praxeas,


It seems we've been traveling in circles. I ask that you solely explain your interpretations of the following scriptures. Please remember, we are SOLELY discussing ONLY the scriptures below.


What are the following scriptures inferring to? Does salvation require more than just believing?



Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Acts 2:38
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

Acts 22:16
Be baptized and wash away your sins.

Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26,27-John 3:3,5
Believers are baptized into Christ, into His death, and also have newness of life after we have been baptized?

1 Pet. 3:21
..Baptism now saves us..

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4

Praxeas,


It seems we've been traveling in circles. I ask that you solely explain your interpretations of the following scriptures. Please remember, we are SOLELY discussing ONLY the scriptures below.


What are the following scriptures inferring to? Does salvation require more than just believing?



Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Acts 2:38
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

Acts 22:16
Be baptized and wash away your sins.

Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26,27-John 3:3,5
Believers are baptized into Christ, into His death, and also have newness of life after we have been baptized?

1 Pet. 3:21
..Baptism now saves us..

Apparently you did not read what I posted. You chose not to deal with my points and insist I explain these verses isolated from all the rest of scriptures. Sorry.

Second, if you HAD paid attention to ANYTHING I have written then by now you would have already known that I have said we HAVE to be baptized to be saved.

I hope you can go through and address my points now. Do you understand them? Do you understand Abraham was justified by Faith before works but that he was also justified BY his works (obedience)?

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

That's a good question, Pel. We know there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood and Jesus blood had not been shed when John the Baptist baptized. So how were sins remitted under/by John's baptism?

Could it be that prior to the new covenant, everything pointed obedience of the old testament sacrifices. Hence if someone believed in (obeyed) the old testament covenant, their sins were pushed forward, always pointing forward to the final sacrifice, Jesus Christ.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I see you've reached the conclusion/assumption that Apollos and the disciples of John in Ephesus were "saved" before they were exposed to NT doctrine. I don't know if I can join you in that assumption, therefore I couldn't really say much more on that issue.

There are a lot of hypothetical issue there that I don't even want to speculate about too much, since in the end, it is God who will make a righteous judgment about each person's situation, based on what they knew at whatever point in time.
----
but as for your last question, I've given my thoughts on that issue in post #48 above.

Peace 2u.

I appreciate your response, and I confess that this is the way I would have approached the issue for most of my life. However, this approach does betray an underlying assumption that Dispensationalism is the only approach to understanding salvation. I no longer make that assumption.

Whatever "saved" a person in the OT can be seen as salvific in the NT. Noah was "saved" by grace through faith (Genesis 6:8 and Hebrews 11:7) just like the NT believer (Ephesians 2:8). John's baptism was for the "remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) and so is Christian baptism in Jesus name (Acts 2:38).

I think we err when we operate under the assumption that God keeps changing the "rules." He's the same God with the same grace at all points in human history. And we humans are the same sinful race that needs his grace and the remission of sins.

My thought is that it is through faith in "He Who is to come" that remission of sins is accomplished. This was true under John's baptism and under Christian baptism today. The formulas may differ, but there is still remission of sins in both baptisms because the required ingredient is faith.

So then, how does baptism "save" us? Through the use of the correct formula? No. Through being baptized by the "right" kind of guy? I certainly hope not. How does baptism save us? 1 Peter 3:21 - "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ!"

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Could it be that prior to the new covenant, everything pointed obedience of the old testament sacrifices. Hence if someone believed in (obeyed) the old testament covenant, their sins were pushed forward, always pointing forward to the final sacrifice, Jesus Christ.

I'm not following what you're saying, Matt.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I appreciate your response, and I confess that this is the way I would have approached the issue for most of my life. However, this approach does betray an underlying assumption that Dispensationalism is the only approach to understanding salvation. I no longer make that assumption.

Whatever "saved" a person in the OT can be seen as salvific in the NT. Noah was "saved" by grace through faith (Genesis 6:8 and Hebrews 11:7) just like the NT believer (Ephesians 2:8). John's baptism was for the "remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) and so is Christian baptism in Jesus name (Acts 2:38).

I think we err when we operate under the assumption that God keeps changing the "rules." He's the same God with the same grace at all points in human history. And we humans are the same sinful race that needs his grace and the remission of sins.

My thought is that it is through faith in "He Who is to come" that remission of sins is accomplished. This was true under John's baptism and under Christian baptism today. The formulas may differ, but there is still remission of sins in both baptisms because the required ingredient is faith.

So then, how does baptism "save" us? Through the use of the correct formula? No. Through being baptized by the "right" kind of guy? I certainly hope not. How does baptism save us? 1 Peter 3:21 - "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ!"

Well, Pel

I disagree on several points you've made there, but its probably best for me not to even "go there" for now.

With all due respect, it seems like you're going through some kind of evolution and metamorphosis before our very eyes. I think we've all seen it here before, (Bill Price being one notable example). So I don't think anything I say will make much of a difference; I get the sense that in the end you will decide what you wish, and will decide that it was the will of God, or God "opening your eyes" to see whatever you decide you believe.

So I see your primary issue here is dispensationalism, which I guess now you've decided you disagree with. If you don't see that there was a difference between how Abel and Enoch was "saved" before God... differently from how those under Moses' law were saved... which is again differently from those in the Church Age are saved... then really there's nothing more I would even bother to say.

But anyway, peace to you.
And whatever you decided to do, please... stay grounded. Lets make sure we're all walking on streets of gold when this is all over.

TRF