I'm still waiting for the answer when a person was ever baptized that didn't believe. He won't answer because it will do away with his whole infant sprinkling deal.

doc, I believe in a sovereign God that is described in the Holy Scriptures. God Almighty predestined His elect, Scripture is clear on that! His elect will indeed have faith that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer, His elect will be obedient and as Scripture teaches, His elect will be glorified. His sovereign Will ensures the salavtion of His children, His mercy given unto His elect also ensures the salvation of all those unable to fend for themselves. No one, I repeat, no one that loves Christ will be excluded. As His Word tells us, if God is for us, who can be against us.

quote:

---

That obedience includes a baptism that is more than a demonstration of faith.

---

What does this mean? Do you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?

quote:

---

I rest easy in that God will be his judge.

---

Exactly!!!

Still waiting...

77, I'm a Baptist, so the infant sprinkling idea is not mine. But when you argue that all those "sprinkled" as infants must be rebaptized or they are all going to hell you have crossed over into an area that is well above you pay scale!

Is there ever an occurence of baptism in the New Testament of people who didn't believe?

Alpha

quote:

---

No one, I repeat, no one that loves Christ will be excluded

---

Scripture says: John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command."

Jesus commanded baptism.

AgGermany, no argument, Jesus did command baptism. But my problem is not that most of you teach that it is baptism that ends/seals salvation, it is my belief in the saving grace of baptism that does the work. In other words, if I have been water baptized after a profession of faith, in obedience to the command of scripture, but I don't believe that the act imparts saving grace, even though I am being obedient, then many say that the baptism is not real,valid,salvation-oriented. So many of you have the doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation and you use the command of scripture for back up, but many have been baptized in obedience, but they don't count because their doctrine wasn't correct at the time.

In sum, it's not just that baptism is necessary for salvation, but also that I must believe that it is necessary for salvation. So it is not the baptism that washes away the sin; it is my faith in the baptism to wash away the sin. Obedience is not the main issue. If so, very few would argue with you because many of us have been emersed after being born again.


[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/25/2005 7:03p).]

LS, question:

Do you think God cares about your motive when you do things that are salvation oriented or when attempting to be obedient obedient?

AgG, you looked at the book of mormon post yet? It needs your expertiece

God cares about all of my motives, but that doesn't mean acts carry saving grace depending solely are even primarily on my motives alone.

What about His motives. He is the actor in the process; we are the reactors.

We know his motives. There is no question.

Our motives are questionable across the board. That's why he says by their fruits you shall know them.

quote:

---

Our motives are questionable across the board. That's why he says by their fruits you shall know them.

---

? Clarify and elaborate

Belief=motive?

--obedience is STILL not the main issue.


[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/26/2005 10:16a).]

[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/26/2005 10:18a).]

Lone, " I don't believe that the act imparts saving grace"

I am not sure exactly what you mean imparts saving grace.

(bear with me here posting is often misunderstood on preconceptions of judgment which I intend not to do personally)

My contention would be this, if you believed your sins were washed away before baptism. Then you are not "in faith" obeying the command.

You would be saying I'm being "baptized" but it not for the remission of sins.

From another perspective, what about the person who believed baptism was for the remission of sins, but was merely "sprinkled with water" because he didn't know baptism is immersion.

Assuming for our agrument that Baptism is for the remission of sins, and you submit, but not believing Peter's message and Annanias' words to Saul then you would not have followed the pattern.

Bottom line of my contention is you can't learn incompletely or learn wrong and do the right thing. That is not of faith.

Off baptism and to other commands by Christ, would you say that it would be ok to take the Lord's supper as a common meal, not remembering Christ, not examining self, or perhaps thinking it is really His body (trans-substantiation). Of course I am refering to 1 Cor 11.

All must be done in faith, and the whole of the faith.

David was real happy to have the Ark of the Covenant back, great, but a man (Uzzah)died because David didn't listen to the Lord's word, David was real sad.

quote:

---

In sum, it's not just that baptism is necessary for salvation, but also that I must believe that it is necessary for salvation. So it is not the baptism that washes away the sin; it is my faith in the baptism to wash away the sin. Obedience is not the main issue.

---

This is deep...it's why my wife (who grew up Baptist) decided she had really never followed the Biblical example of baptism after all, and was baptized (again?) as a believer. Her parents had thrown some water on her as infant, obviously before she heard the Word or believed, or confessed, or repented. It was nothing she decided after study or conviction, just a "check the box" her parents fulfilled.

I know the following example isn't a "salvation" issue, but I think it applies. We are commanded to tithe...some say 10%, but the NT isn't so concrete. If I come up with a figure that is 10% of my income, then have my dad pay it, have I obeyed the command? I mean, the money is the same...I knew it needed to be paid...I arranged for it...

quote:

---

Lone, " I don't believe that the act imparts saving grace"

---

If the act, and my belief about the act is necessary for salvation, then how can you not view it as an impartation of grace? It's a required part of the formula.

quote:

---

From another perspective, what about the person who believed baptism was for the remission of sins, but was merely "sprinkled with water" because he didn't know baptism is immersion.

Assuming for our agrument that Baptism is for the remission of sins, and you submit, but not believing Peter's message and Annanias' words to Saul then you would not have followed the pattern.

Bottom line of my contention is you can't learn incompletely or learn wrong and do the right thing. That is not of faith.

---

Isn't that what Christian growth is all about. My revelation of the truth and Jesus in not the same as the one 20 years ago. My doctrine, beliefs, depth of revelation has changed over the years. However, I am judged by how I walk in the light that I have been given.

quote:

---

All must be done in faith, and the whole of the faith.

David was real happy to have the Ark of the Covenant back, great, but a man (Uzzah)died because David didn't listen to the Lord's word, David was real sad.

---

Even now I don't think I have the "whole of faith."
And no insult intended, but neither do you, or anyone else. Our revelation increases daily. The Holy Spirit reveals truth at His pace, and of course, our submission factors in.

Also, David, himself, took refuge in the Temple, touched the Ark, and ate the bread forbidden there.

My point? Not really sure, but since revelation/truth increases with growth, I don't think any of us have it down, at least I know that I "see through a glass darkly."





[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/26/2005 6:53p).]

[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/26/2005 6:58p).]

Again....what if your parents had you confess your faith as an unknowing child?

Lone, thanks for the straight up discussion and I agree almost totally with what you say.

My disagreements are with your application of "growing in the faith" and growth over 20 yrs.

If one was sprinkled 20 yrs ago let's say, and thru study and growth, all by God's mercy and grace, and you now saw that sprinkling was not the pattern of the New Testament what would you do?

Wouldn't you believe what you know now? I find that baptism is described as a "threshold moment" by faith for all, the verses we've discussed.

Another thought is retroactive application after learning more. Like baptizing a baby then comming up with confirmation years later, learning and then retroactively applying that to an event way before. This is not the pattern of New Testament Christianity.

quote:

---

My disagreements are with your application of "growing in the faith" and growth over 20 yrs.

If one was sprinkled 20 yrs ago let's say, and thru study and growth, all by God's mercy and grace, and you now saw that sprinkling was not the pattern of the New Testament what would you do?

Wouldn't you believe what you know now? I find that baptism is described as a "threshold moment" by faith for all, the verses we've discussed.

Another thought is retroactive application after learning more. Like baptizing a baby then comming up with confirmation years later, learning and then retroactively applying that to an event way before. This is not the pattern of New Testament

---

Your analogy drifts a bit because infant baptism(I will draw fire with this one) is not even loosly biblical. That's like believing that sacrificing a rooster on the first Wednesday of each month will save me, then I am born again, so I trash the belief and the practice. The original practice was simply wrong and totally outside the kingdom of God. But, my example, starts with the truth. Confession of Jesus, forgiveness, and then, in obedience of scripture--water baptism. Even if your doctrine is correct,(not an admission, I am speaking subjunctively) you still have a person walking in obedience to the light that he has been given. Later, when the person is sitting in church and is confronted with the idea that he must have obedience plus and belief, does that mean he was not saved, and thus must be (re)baptized believing differently about the act?

Baptism aside, we are judged by the light that we are given, and how much we choose to walk in it.

(I will draw fire with this one)...

Not if you actually read the bible...(that means I agree with you).

It wouldn't be a (re)baptism because the first one wasn't baptism. Baptism is immersion in water not sprinkling. Maybe I didn't understand you. Just recently there was a lady that wanted to be baptized because she recently understood that her sprinkling as an infant was truly nothing at all. She wanted to be immersed in water for the remission of her sins.

EDITED FOR YOU TLS... Hope this helps.

[This message has been edited by 77 (edited 6/2/2005 2:12p).]

77, reread my last post. Either I wasn't clear, which happens quite often, or you missed my point. Either way, if you need clarification, just ask and I will attempt to demuddy the water.

Lone "Baptism aside, we are judged by the light that we are given, and how much we choose to walk in it."

The light come through the word of God, and we have no choice but to walk in it. If we realize that we didn't have the full story of something we must do then we should do it as we find out what we should do.

My analogy does fall apart, but it is a starting place even though I agree that infant baptism is really no baptism. But what is really no baptism? or no biblical baptism?

It is NOT my position that any belief and subsequent baptism is biblical. We have a Bible pattern of baptism and the belief in what it is for.

There is also in Acts 18-19 disciples who did have the full light, but when they did recieve the full light they were in essence "re-baptized"

You have to go back and see what was believed at the time, "you can't be taught wrong and do right" that cannot be faith in doing what would make us well.

Try this example, if all Z taught Y was that baptism was optional, and it has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, or being added by Christ to his chruch because your sins were already forgiven, and Y was baptized.

Would this square with what scripture says? Would Y have followed the Bible (Christ)in faith or merely followed Z in faith?

If the answer is: followed Z in faith, then you can't retroactively apply what you did to following Christ because they are 2 different things.

Tell me how you see this.

Agreed...

For the first post and quote from scripture to be understood as stated in the post it would contradict other passages that say one only needs to believe to have everlasting life. Because scripture is inerrant, one must assume that baptism while a sacrament and outward sign of the covenant, is not absolutely necessary for salvation. It is like saying, if you pass the CPA exam with 100s on each part you will be a CPA. However, it is also true that if you pass it with 75s on all parts you will also be a CPA.

My thoughts anyway.

quote:

---

For the first post and quote from scripture to be understood as stated in the post it would contradict other passages that say one only needs to believe to have everlasting life.

---

Or you could say that the "believe only" passages are the ones that contradict the "repent and be baptized" passages.

The baptism-is-necessary crowd on this thread doesn't discount that hearing the word, believing, confessing, and, of course, being baptized are ALL necessary.