| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 855.1 | Did I catch your drift? | ROCK::PARKER | | Fri Jan 26 1996 18:46 | 31 |
| RE: .0
Hi, Garth.
Interesting, thought provoking and challenging.
Let me see if I've heard you:
John baptized with water unto repentance, preparing way for Jesus who
would forgive sins and baptize with the Holy Spirit. Submitting to
John's baptism expressed repentance unto forgiveness.
Disciples baptized with water in Jesus' name for the forgiveness of
sins, pointing to baptism by Holy Spirit unto Christ-likeness.
Submitting to Jesus' baptism expresses confession and forgiveness of sin
unto cleansing.
We now baptize with water in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Holy Spirit baptizes into Christ's body wherein we are dead to sin,
and the Father raises us unto new life in the Spirit. Submitting to
the Spirit's baptism expresses cleansing from sin unto righteousness.
The work of God is expressed by the baptizer to whom we submit.
Puts a whole new light on those who administer baptism to demonstrate
the work of God in the believer.
Thanks for sharing your insight. I shall think on these things.
/Wayne
|
| 855.2 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Jan 26 1996 20:19 | 27 |
| Re: .1 (Wayne)
No, you didn't "catch my drift." In fact, you appear to have leap-frogged
ahead of me. So now you have given me some points to think about.
Thank you.
My point was merely to submit that baptism is something that is commanded
of the disciplers to do to the disciplees, and to advocate redirecting the
focus from the baptizee to the baptizer, from the disciplee to the discipler.
Such a big discussion is generally made about how believers should go get
baptized, and then individual believers get all worked up about whether they
should go get baptized, at what point, by whom, where, in what way, whether
to do it again, whether it affects their salvation, and so on and so forth.
Rather, if you are a believer it is not the case that you are commanded to
go get baptized. No, you are commanded *to baptize*. Your own baptism was
the responsibility and obligation of the one who discipled you. I realize
that in practice and actual implementation this principle is not so cut and
dry. But I believe that I have stated the concept and principle correctly.
In the classic picture of water baptism is the discipler allowing us to be
buried, then raising us up. I think this picture fits right in with what
Jesus, the Master Discipler, does for us. We did not seek him out, but he
sought us out. We need only consent to his initiative, and he will cleanse
us from our sins and raise us from the dead.
|
| 855.3 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Fri Jan 26 1996 21:20 | 26 |
| RE: .2
Actually I did catch your drift. I understood your suggested shift in
focus from disciple to discipler. But, as I am often wont to do, I
jumped into ramifications and extensions and reconciliation with
Scripture.
And after a few minutes of thought, I synthesized a progression in note
.1 that seemed preliminarily defensible and inducible from Scripture.
Good stuff! The perspective is new, but warrants serious
(re)consideration.
"With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy
commandments. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin
against thee. Blessed art thou, O Lord: teach me thy statutes. With my
lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. I have rejoiced in
the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. I will meditate
in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. I will delight myself
in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word." (Ps.119:10-16, KJV)
If I find difficulty in my meditation on these things, I will apprise
you. I very much appreciate your regard for Scripture and your
thinking process.
/Wayne
|
| 855.4 | Thanks Garth! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Jan 29 1996 08:53 | 19 |
| Hi Garth,
Thanks! That was a totally fresh concept to me! To think
that God may call me to lead others to be baptized and that
may be the main force (emphasis) of the doctrine of water
baptism.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense, as Christ and the Church
are to lead people to Him and people don't really lead them-
selves.
They *follow*!
It makes perfect sense with what the dynamics are to lead souls
to Christ.
We lead people to Him. They follow.
Tony
|
| 855.5 | | PAULKM::WEISS | For I am determined to know nothing, except... | Mon Jan 29 1996 10:41 | 14 |
| I appreciate this too, Garth. And your extensions, Wayne.
It *IS* a different perspective from the currently-accepted "Outward sign of
inward change," and the perspective change DOES seem to fit more closely to
the Word.
It also happens to fit more closely with the things I've been learning from
the Word and from the Spirit about Authority in the church. Not that what
I'm learning elsewhere makes this truth more right, but it IS nice when
different truths we are learning dovetail neatly with each other.
Thanks
Paul
|
| 855.6 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Mon Jan 29 1996 12:13 | 6 |
| Re: .1 (Wayne)
Upon re-reading your reply I think I now understand the extensions and
implications that you expressed.
So far so good, then.
|
| 855.7 | Still grinding away... | ROCK::PARKER | | Mon Jan 29 1996 12:28 | 62 |
| Hi, Garth.
I spent a good deal of time over the weekend thinking about your "new" perspec-
tive on baptism. Your suggestion put new light on 1Co.1:10-17 for me, anyway.
I had always seen this passage as dealing with schisms resulting from people
fixing their eyes more on men than Jesus without really concerning myself with
how or why that occurred.
But, given Paul's statements in v. 13b-17, your premise that the command
concerning baptism is targeted more to disciplers than to those discipled may
in fact have been the understanding of the early church. Believers seemed to
be identifying with the messenger, the disciplers, if you will, as much or more
than with the message, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If believers were
submitting to the messenger for baptism, then the potential for identifying with
men who are seen rather than with Jesus who is unseen (except by faith) seems
clear.
In this case, some were claiming to be disciples/followers of Paul, others of
Apollos, others of Peter, and others of Christ. That baptism might have been
the source of this problem is indicated by Paul's question "were you baptized
in the name of Paul?" Paul was redirecting focus back on Christ. Moreover,
Paul in this context seemed glad that he had not personally baptized many
believers, and went on to emphasize that Christ had not sent him "to baptize,
but to preach the gospel..."
So, I see support for your suggested perspective in that the early church
likely saw baptism in that light. However, that perspective led to division
in the Corinthian church, at least, as believers identified with baptizers as
much as with Christ, and to Paul's personal emphasis on preaching above
baptizing. Nowadays, that problem probably is manifested as denominationalism,
i.e., identification with the baptizer's particular beliefs around Jesus rather
than with Jesus Himself.
The danger, then, in a shift from understanding baptism as an outward act of
obedience by the believer to express inner spiritual reality to understanding
baptism as the obedient act of those bringing people to Christ again centers on
getting the message and messenger confused.
Your perspective still makes much sense, and I as yet see no real contradiction
with Scripture. But, as I felt previously, the onus is on the baptizer to
ensure that those being baptized clearly view the act as an expression of God's
work, i.e., forgiveness of, and death to, sin in Christ and new life unto
righteousness in the Spirit. Disciplers and/or denominations baptizing in the
name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost must take extra care to neither add to
nor take from from the Gospel (see 1Co.2:2; Ga.6:14-16; Ph.3:7-21).
In another vein, I guess there would be as much reason for ones being baptized
to question their baptizers as vice versa. Traditionally, we feel compelled to
"qualify" those coming for baptism. With the "new" understanding, believers
being baptized should "qualify" their baptizer! The question "What are you
doing and why?" cuts both ways!
/Wayne
P.S. What I'm working through now is who does the calling, coming, bringing,
baptizing, etc. To fully support your "new" perspective on baptism, I'd like
to see God calling us through the baptizer to whom we come, who in turn takes us
to the "water". Inductive study (reasoning from the particular to the general)
of all Scripture associated with baptism still presents some difficulties. I
suspect that reconciliation will come "not by water only, but by water and
blood." :-)
|
| 855.8 | Being sent by Jesus Christ | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Tue Jan 30 1996 11:58 | 108 |
| Garth,
The aspect you have, looking first at what WE have been commanded to do by
Jesus, automatically answers many questions which would otherwise be very
difficult.
First, the command we have been given to make disciples, baptizing...,
brings out what is necessary for others to become disciples (a disciple
is what Jesus and the scriptures teach that a christian is). We preach
about the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we preach about repentance
and becoming disciples of Jesus, we preach about the forgiveness which
is available to all as a free gift according to the grace of God poured out
through Jesus Christ who through God's great love and mercy saves us from
our sins and gives eternal life. Whoever believes us, receives our word,
wishes to repent and become a disciple of Jesus Christ, is then baptized,
often by we ourselves, or by others accompanying us. These people, we can
certainly classify as "They that believe and are baptized shall be saved.".
Now if they don't believe us, then Jesus says that "they that do not believe
you shall be damned". Very hard words, a very uncomfortable reality of the
importance of the message he has commanded us to preach.
Now, if we bring the gospel to some people and they believe what we say
about Jesus, that he died for our sins, but are against us as we tell them
that they need to repent and be baptized, as Peter did, then these people
have not received our words. If people heard Peter preaching about Jesus,
even believed this message, but were not ready to repent, to be baptized
as disciples of Jesus, for whatever reason, then they did not receive his
words. "They that gladly received his word were baptized, and the Lord added
to their number about 3000 souls." If they wanted to repent and be a
disciple, but refused to be baptized, they also did not receive his word.
And Peter could not change his word, because it was commanded him of Jesus
Christ. Peter was commanded to preach the message of salvation, to tell
those who heard to repent, to become disciples, the first, required step
being their baptism, that their sins would be forgiven and they would belong
to Christ's church. He was an able minister of the new covenant.
Today we are confronted with many people who are not as able ministers of
the new covenant as Peter. For Peter, those who received his message could
be assured of eternal life, as long as they remained faithful to Jesus.
Just as marriage, the new covenant can be broken. Remaining in this new
covenant brings very valuable fruit, virtue, knowledge, temperance,
brotherly kindness, love. "For if these things be in you, and abound, they
make you that you shall neither be baren nor unfruitful in the knowledge
of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and
cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was prged from his old
sins." 2.Pet.1:8
Someone who preaches the message of salvation, but do not call for
repentance and baptism, are not going to bear the same kind of fruit as
Peter bore. If all that is necessary is a 'sinners prayer', raising your
hand, coming to an alter, or any type of prayer or promises to Jesus for
that matter, then the necessary entrance way into the new covenant is
hindered. This is where the question arises, "Is a person saved if he
is not baptized?". If everyone followed Peter's example there would be
nobody who received our words and were not baptized, they would all be
believers, would have all repented and would have all been baptized, and
as God's approval, by promise, would all receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit. This is the key to the problem today! The foundation which Jesus
and the apostles laid has suffered greatly. The tablernacle was built
as God told Moses "See to it that you do all things as I showed you on
the Mountain". Paul tells us to "let every man take heed how he buildeth
thereupon". The Command given by Jesus is to preach the message of salvation
and baptize those who believe that they might be saved, and these people are
disciples of Jesus, those whom the father promises the gift of the Holy
Spirit. We work together with Jesus making disciples, teaching all that
he command we are to observe. The Holy Spirit, which he gives to these
new disciples, is the true teacher, and we are teachers together with the
Holy Spirit, who is also our teacher.
If you follow the example of Peter, Paul, Phillip, Ananias, etc. you can
know that those who receive your message are saved, belong to Christ's
church, etc. If you do not follow this example, you cannot have the same
assurance. You may claim all who raise their hand to receive Christ are
saved, but I say, together with Peter, to those very same people, unless
they repent and be baptized they are not to be partaking of communion,
they have not yet been baptized by one Spirit into one body.
When Paul met some disciples of John, he recognized something was missing,
baptism in water and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. If we meet people
who consider themselves to be disciples (christians) and recognise that
the most elementary foundation does not exist in their lives, then we should
take the same step as Paul, if we truly have been sent by Jesus Christ
to make disciples. We should baptize them and lay our hands on them, that
they can receive the Holy Spirit. There salvation is thereby without doubt.
For those who do not receive our words, there is ample reason to question
their identity as disciples.
Another very important foundation is the confirmation which Jesus gives
for our ministry. Healings, imparting of the Holy Spirit, deliverance from
Satan's power, accompany us as we preach the gospel as 'signs following'.
I do not consider this the exception, but the rule, and thereby requires
that our lives be led by the Spirit of God. Man's attempts to do God's
work do not bring the testimony of God. "And this gospel of the kingdom
shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;" Mt.24:14
This is God's plan for the salvation of the world. Through the Holy
Spirit we have the necessary power to be his witnesses (Ap.1:8). If we obey
the Spirit, then the Spirit will do the signs. If we preach the gospel
without signs, without the Spirit working, then how can we expect the
'rebirth in the Spirit' for those who receive our message and repent and
are baptized? It is God's full pleasure that these signs would be with
us! And the people of our generation need the testimony that God is with
us, just as Jesus and the apostles needed God's testimony for the generation
they lived in.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.9 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Wed Jan 31 1996 12:41 | 47 |
| re 0 (by NETCAD::WIEBE)
Howdy do, everyone (who remembers me, that is) ...
Interesting reply, Garth. Surprisingly enough, I agree 100% with what
you say. Though the individual getting baptized obviously is
expressing in an outward fashion what he feels inwardly, the 'flow of
authority' involved with baptism is from the top down (from Christ,
through the congregation of established believers, to the new
believer), not from the bottom up. It's not the idea of the new
disciple to get baptized, but rather, it's the idea of Christ, passed
down to his disciples, to have all new ones baptized. The new disciple
is thus submitting, not just to a physical procedure, but to a measure
of spiritual (or theocratic) authority. The individual isn't asking
Christ to join him (or her) -- bottom up --, but is asking Christ (and
his existing disciples) for 'permission' to join Christ and the body of
believers -- top down.
Since, as you rightfully say, those *doing* the baptism are responding
to Christ's command for *them* to baptize new believers, to some
degree, it makes them 'middlemen' in the process of bringing a new one
into an approved relationship with Christ. It also makes the concept
of 'true Christianity' more significant; for if the authority to
baptize comes from the top down, the question is whether those *doing
the baptism* are truly, themselves, recognized by Christ to be his
disciples.
I don't mean to open a can of worms here (for any that don't know me,
I'm a JW; and I used to visit past versions of the CHRISTIAN conference
with some regularity, whenever I was feeling a little chilly :-), but
in some measure, due to the "top down" nature of baptismal authority,
one's relationship to Christ is conditional on the relationship
between those doing the baptism and Christ. If, for the sake of
argument, Christ doesn't recognize them as his disciples (ref. Mat
7:21-23), would he recognize as a disciple anyone baptized by such
ones?
You also rightly say that once an individual becomes baptized, he takes
upon himself the obligation to "go therefore and make disciples of all
the nations, *baptizing* them..." (Matt 28:19). Dare I say it, but
that's why JWs do what they do (not to be saved by works, but to obey
this command of Christ's).
A very astute topic thread, this. Though I'll gladly bow out now, I'm
looking foward to seeing how this progresses.
-mark.
|
| 855.10 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jan 31 1996 13:12 | 1 |
| So, based on this belief, do I get to baptize?
|
| 855.11 | you make the first 'move' | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Wed Jan 31 1996 13:28 | 7 |
| re 855.10 (by JULIET::MORALES_NA)
> So, based on this belief, do I get to baptize?
Well, the question is whether this is YOUR belief (i.e., whether you
accept it). If it isn't, then to you this may be somewhat of a moot
point.
|
| 855.12 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jan 31 1996 13:37 | 2 |
| I'm very evangelistic and when I lead someone to Christ, should I then
baptize them? This is a very real question.
|
| 855.13 | Women can also be sent! | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Wed Jan 31 1996 13:48 | 43 |
| Nancy,
In the Scriptures there is nothing forbidding women baptizing. My wife
has baptized some women. However, it isn't something which should be
sought for, just as teaching for women should not be sought for. If you
share the message of salvation and someone through the moving of the
Holy Spirit is like the Eunich with Phillip, believing your message
from their whole heart, wishes to repent and follow Jesus, then I would
encourage you to baptize the person. In the scriptures the baptisms
happened when people believed. When the Holy Spirit through you has
brought the message of their salvation, then you can also baptize them,
that they might receive the promised forgiveness of sins. You can also
lay your hands on the person to receive the Holy Spirit.
It is clear that the early church did not have any clear rule on
whether women should baptize. They did, however, have a rule that women
shouldn't teach.
The first time mention is made concerning women baptizing which I know
of was from Tertullian in 200 AD (a leader in the Church). He wrote,
"The word of the Lord may not be hiden from anyone, and for this reason
baptism can be given by all, in this way giving them a beginning with
God." He also wrote "The pride of women, who are lifted up and wish to
teach, will hopefully not attempt to get the right to baptize... For
how likely would it be, that the one, who continually refused the woman
the permission to teach, would give her the right to teach and
baptize? 'She shall be quiet' he clearly said, 'and at home ask their
husbands." (c.17 About Baptism, Tertullian)
To teach all nations, make disciples, baptizing... is not only the work
of the man, but both men and women of God. The one place in which every
women should be very cautious about is teaching men, ruling over men,
as Paul says, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But
I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to ursurp authority over the man,
but to be in silence." 1.Tim.2:11 A mature woman of God does not wish
to have the position of the man, but is very happy for the special gift
of which God has empowered her, with a meek and gentle spirit, which is
before God of great value. The love of such a woman reaching out to
others may indeed bring the message of salvation, baptize, and
accompany these new believer(s) in being disciples of Jesus Christ,
especially other women and children.
Rodger
|
| 855.14 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Wed Jan 31 1996 14:08 | 59 |
| re .12 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)
> I'm very evangelistic and when I lead someone to Christ, should I then
> baptize them? This is a very real question.
Though I think my previous reply still applies (as it was generic
enough), I actually misunderstood your question (misread it, in fact).
As for whether *you* actually "get to baptize" -- that is, be the one
to perform the ceremony -- I don't have an answer that applies directly
to you, since *my* beliefs (as a JW) don't represent any authority over
you and what *you* should do (or can do), particularly if you belong to
a particular church (large or small).
As a point of information, in my religion, only men actually perform
the baptisms (and only assigned elders, at that); but men and women
both may certainly play a role in "making disciples" out of people, to
bring them to the point of baptism. As Garth pointed out in his base
note, the Ethopian asked:
"What is to prevent me from being baptized?"
(Act 8:36b RSV)
Obviously *someone* must be in a position to answer this question for
any baptismal candidate, to determine whether they truly do qualify
spiritually to be baptized -- and that may well be those who have
positions as "overseers" in a congregation. But again, it seems clear
that any one, male for female, may have the privilege to instruct
another about the good news, to bring them to the point of baptism.
Should it be all that important that any of us have personally actually
performed a baptism (or not)? To the Corinthians, Paul wrote:
"I am thankful that I baptized none of you except
Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that you
were baptized in my name." (1Cor 1:14 RSV)
Though Paul baptized two individuals, his primary concern was not
whether he personally was involved in the act (and, in fact, he was
pointing out problems that arose as a result of individuals claiming
too much importance for their own personal authority in the
congregation).
Regarding Jesus and the baptisms that he oversaw during his earthly
ministry, John wrote:
"Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had
heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more
disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not
baptize, but only his disciples did), he left Judea ..."
(John 4:1,2,3a RSV)
Though there surely *is* an issue over who is authorized by Scripture
to perform an actual baptism, I think it's pretty clear that any
Christian should be most concerned with the disciple-making part of the
process that leads up to baptism.
-mark.
|
| 855.15 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jan 31 1996 15:50 | 8 |
| In an emergency, and especially when there is imminent danger of death, it
is the _duty_ of any Christian (or even a non-Christian!) to baptize in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ANYONE desirous of
being baptized.
Otherwise, it is probably better for baptism to be an action of the community.
/john
|
| 855.16 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Wed Jan 31 1996 17:21 | 7 |
| Re: -1
Why is an emergency any different than a non-emergency? By what
authority can a non-Christian baptize anyone?
thanks,
Mike
|
| 855.17 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Wed Jan 31 1996 17:24 | 27 |
| re .15 (COVERT::COVERT)
>In an emergency, and especially when there is imminent danger of death, it
>is the _duty_ of any Christian (or even a non-Christian!) to baptize in the
>name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ANYONE desirous of
>being baptized.
Can you cite a Bible precident for this?
Doesn't the Bible promise of a resurrection for both the "just and the
unjust" (Act 24:15 RSV) cover this situation, where any who die in an
unbaptized, and thus "unjust" state, have the hope of resurrection
nonetheless?
What happens to people who desire to be baptized but who happen (by
accident, sickness, or old age) to die before the arranged time for
their baptism? Does God not take their sincere, planned, intent into
account?
[Ask me if I don't know that this is a tricky question. ;-)]
>Otherwise, it is probably better for baptism to be an action of the community.
Again, is there a Bible precident (or even an indisputable Bible
principle) for this?
-mark.
|
| 855.18 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Wed Jan 31 1996 17:29 | 34 |
| Re: .8 (Rodger Dutsako)
To whomever it may concern, I have refuted Rodger's dogma concerning water
baptism in 756.31 through 756.48. There is no scriptural basis for supposing
that any who knowingly and willingly decline to get baptized in water are not
saved.
Re: .9 (Mark Sornson)
> in some measure, due to the "top down" nature of baptismal authority,
> one's relationship to Christ is conditional on the relationship
> between those doing the baptism and Christ.
Scriptural reference, please.
> If, for the sake of
> argument, Christ doesn't recognize them as his disciples (ref. Mat
> 7:21-23), would he recognize as a disciple anyone baptized by such
> ones?
Scriptural reference to answer your (I assume rhetorical) question, please.
> You also rightly say that once an individual becomes baptized, he takes
> upon himself the obligation to "go therefore and make disciples of all
> the nations, *baptizing* them..." (Matt 28:19). Dare I say it, but
> that's why JWs do what they do (not to be saved by works, but to obey
> this command of Christ's).
A marvelous example of motivation and commitment, I dare say. However, JWs
represent a pseudo-christian cult that believes and preaches a false gospel,
nullifying their outwardly noble efforts at evangelism.
(Once again, you opened the can.)
|
| 855.19 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Thu Feb 01 1996 11:23 | 188 |
| re 855.18 (NETCAD::WIEBE)
>> in some measure, due to the "top down" nature of baptismal authority,
>> one's relationship to Christ is conditional on the relationship
>> between those doing the baptism and Christ.
>
>Scriptural reference, please.
First, how about looking at your own basenote:
>The command to baptize was given to John. John was a prophet who prepared the
>way for Jesus. Those who did not submit to John had no respect for the
>ministry of this prophet of God, and could therefore not submit to Jesus, since
>John was preparing the way for Jesus.
God commanded John to baptize. It wasn't John's idea; and it
wasn't just coincidentally the private idea of the many individuals to
ask John to baptise them. John passed along the command from God to
the public, for them to be baptized. Since it was a command from God,
they were obligated to submit to it. That's "top down."
You say, "Those who did not submit to John had no respect for the
ministry of this prophet of God, and could therefore not submit to
Jesus, since John was preparing the way for Jesus." Thus, their
relationship to Christ was, as I said, conditional upon their
relationship with the one doing the baptism (John). In this case, by
their rejection of John, they were implicitly rejecting Jesus (whom
John was preparing the way for); and similarly they were rejecting God,
who commanded John to baptise them.
This doesn't elevate man to a place in the 'chain of salvation' to
which he doesn't belong; but rather, it simply shows that at times God
chooses to use men as intermediaries; and those who reject the
intermediaries are rejecting God. Jesus himself said to his disciples:
"He who receives you receives me, and he who
receives me receives him who sent me." (Mat 10:40 RSV;
cf Mar 9:37; John 13:20)
And similarly, he said:
"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects
you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects
him who sent me." (Luke 10:16 RSV)
Thus, we see that the relationship between individuals and Christ is
defined, in part, by the way individuals receive Jesus' disciples who
are following Jesus' commands to bring the good news (and Jesus'
commands, such as the need to baptize) to them. This is why Paul could
later say of the body of Christians in his day, "We are ambassadors for
Christ, God making his appeal **through us**. We beseech you on behalf
of Christ, be reconciled to God." (2Cor 5:20 RSV)
If the "ambassadors" are rejected by men, those men are rejecting
Christ. If the "ambassadors" are received by men, those men are
effectively receiving Christ. [Also see Matt 25:31-45] Thus, again,
to a limitted extent, the relationship between an individual and Christ
is conditionalized, or effected by, that individual's relationship with
those who were already "sent" by Christ, and whether he or she has
properly "received" such ones.
--*--
Regarding the need for Christians to baptize (in response to Matt
28:19), you wrote about Peter's words:
>act-ive imperative. It is not that Peter was commanding his audience to act.
>Peter was exhorting them to submit to the act. The directive mandates
>initiative on the part of the disciplers, not Peter's audience.
>
>Consider even the outward motions of the act, with which we are all familiar.
>It demonstrates action on the part of the baptizer, as he acts upon the
>baptizee. The person being baptized is entirely dependant upon the baptizer
>for the successful execution of the act. The baptizee need only be present and
>submit to it.
It's true that Peter had no personal authority over the crowd in
order to force them to obey his words to be baptized, so in that sense,
he wasn't commanding them. But since he was following Jesus' orders
that his (already existing) disciples should baptize all new ones,
Peter's words were a 'theocratic command,' in the sense that they
conveyed divinely authorized direction on a proper course of action to
take. Individuals in the crowd would have to voluntarily submit (as
you say); but the act wasn't an option if they truly wanted to be
approved by God and Christ.
This, too, illustrates the "top down" nature of baptismal
authority. Baptism isn't the idea of individuals; it's an action that
was mandated to take place by Christ. Since, as you point out, the
obligation to perform baptisms is placed upon already existing
Christians, a new one obviously has no authority to baptize himself (or
herself), but must submit to the action as performed by another
Christian.
If an individual doesn't recognize the authority of the true
Christian body to perform such a baptism, how can he truly establish a
meaningful relationship with Christ, if he doesn't submit to Christ's
direction (which, again, is exercised, in some measure, through men).
>> If, for the sake of
>> argument, Christ doesn't recognize them as his disciples (ref. Mat
>> 7:21-23), would he recognize as a disciple anyone baptized by such
>> ones?
>
>Scriptural reference to answer your (I assume rhetorical) question, please.
I already know my answer; but I was interested in the views of
others (like yourself).
Since you seem to reject the implications of my question, are you
saying that all baptisms at the individual level are legitmate? What's
your answer, Garth? What are your scriptural references (if you are
willing to provide them)? [Can you even answer me without framing your
answer as a slam against JWs?]
>> You also rightly say that once an individual becomes baptized, he takes
>> upon himself the obligation to "go therefore and make disciples of all
>> the nations, *baptizing* them..." (Matt 28:19). Dare I say it, but
>> that's why JWs do what they do (not to be saved by works, but to obey
>> this command of Christ's).
>
>A marvelous example of motivation and commitment, I dare say. However, JWs
>represent a pseudo-christian cult that believes and preaches a false gospel,
>nullifying their outwardly noble efforts at evangelism.
>
>(Once again, you opened the can.)
I didn't think you could resist the opportunity to give me a slam,
but your dig it will serve just fine to help me make my point clear.
If you'll permit me to abstract the point just a bit, let's talk
about all forms of Christianity which, in God's eyes, are truly only
"pseudo-christian," and which "preach a false gospel".
Though they may be heeding the 'letter of the law', following
Jesus' command to baptize new ones, if those doing the baptisms are
false Christians, can the newly baptized ones be considered true
Christians? Even if the one being baptized is sincere (though
mislead), if a baptism was performed on the basis of a "false gospel,"
does the baptism have any validity?
If, as you say, the "primary focus" of baptism should shift from
the inward feelings of the one being baptized to the one doing the
baptism (and his authority for doing so), are these questions not
valid?
==*==
Looking at this from a different angle, consider the closing words
of your basenote:
>I'll close with the inevitably obvious question to those of us who consider
>ourselves disciples of Jesus: Have we obeyed the Lord's command given in
>the verse with which we are all familiar (or perhaps thought we were familiar)
>to "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, *baptizing* them..."?
>(Matt 28:19)
>
>Now that's something to think about!
>
>Comments? Criticisms?
Presumably, you have now come to a deeper appreciation of your
personal responsibilities with respect to the disciple making work, and
the need to baptize new disciples.
Perhaps you are even coming to feel that you personally should be
exhorting individuals, as did Peter, to submit to baptism; and perhaps
you even are considering offering yourself as one to do such baptizing
(as Philip baptized the Ethiopian).
If this is, indeed the case with you, and you pass along Jesus'
command for new disciples to submit to baptism -- and perhaps even
suggest that they be baptized by you, if circumstances permit -- if
anyone rejects your ministrations toward them, what does that say about
their standing before Christ? Would Jesus judge the intermediate role
you personally might play as a potential baptizer to have any
significant impact on anyone else's spiritual standing? If you, Garth
Wiebe, represent Christ, and someone rejects you (and, perhaps, your
exhortation for them to be baptized), does their rejection of you mean
they have rejected Christ?
[And, naturally, these questions could be put to anyone considering
the implications of the arguments in your basenote.]
-mark.
|
| 855.20 | the baptizer's relationship to the baptizee | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Thu Feb 01 1996 17:30 | 41 |
| Re: .19 (Mark Sornson)
>>> in some measure, due to the "top down" nature of baptismal authority,
>>> one's relationship to Christ is conditional on the relationship
>>> between those doing the baptism and Christ.
>>
>>Scriptural reference, please.
>
> First, how about looking at your own basenote:
>
>>The command to baptize was given to John. John was a prophet who prepared
>>the way for Jesus. Those who did not submit to John had no respect for the
>>ministry of this prophet of God, and could therefore not submit to Jesus,
>>since John was preparing the way for Jesus.
...and so on and so forth.
My scenario had to do with a person rejecting a true disciple's call to
water baptism.
Your scenario has to do with a person accepting a false disciple's call to
water baptism.
In my scenario, we are assured that the initiate is subject to one acting in
true authority. Yet this does not guarantee that the initiate's own heart is
right with God, because for all we know he may only be going through the
motions or have the wrong motivation.
In your scenario, the initiate may be subject to one who does not have a right
relationship with Christ. Yet this does not guarantee that the initiate's own
heart is not right with God, because for all we know he may be sincere even
though his baptizer is not.
In any case, you did not provide a scripture reference to justify your claim.
You only provided scripture to support the claim I made based on my scenario.
To recap, your scenario is:
>>> one's relationship to Christ is conditional on the relationship
>>> between those doing the baptism and Christ.
Therefore, I again ask you to provide scriptural references to back this claim.
|
| 855.21 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Thu Feb 01 1996 17:31 | 23 |
| Re: .19 (Mark Sornson)
>>> If, for the sake of
>>> argument, Christ doesn't recognize them as his disciples (ref. Mat
>>> 7:21-23), would he recognize as a disciple anyone baptized by such
>>> ones?
>>
>>Scriptural reference to answer your (I assume rhetorical) question, please.
>
> I already know my answer; but I was interested in the views of
> others (like yourself).
>
> Since you seem to reject the implications of my question, are you
> saying that all baptisms at the individual level are legitmate? What's
> your answer, Garth? What are your scriptural references (if you are
> willing to provide them)?
I wouldn't claim that all water baptisms at the individual level are warranted.
However, I would still insist that water baptism is fundamentally an outward
act, and that what matters is what is in a person's heart, based on such
exhortations as 1 Sam 16:7 ("...Man looks at the outward appearance, but
the Lord looks at the heart.") and the many scriptures that speak of
justification by faith (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 4, and etc.)
|
| 855.22 | plugs vs slams and etc. | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Thu Feb 01 1996 17:38 | 57 |
| Re: .19 (Mark Sornson)
>[Can you even answer me without framing your answer as a slam against JWs?]
I do under various circumstances try to frame my answers as a slam against JWs,
since I can accomplish both the objective of answering the question and
criticizing JWs, when I feel it is appropriate.
In the 10+ years you and I have been at this in notesfiles, you should by now
expect that if you are going to put in a plug for JWs, I am likely to reply
with a slam against JWs.
The following provides me another opportunity to do so:
> Though they may be heeding the 'letter of the law', following
> Jesus' command to baptize new ones, if those doing the baptisms are
> false Christians, can the newly baptized ones be considered true
> Christians? Even if the one being baptized is sincere (though
> mislead), if a baptism was performed on the basis of a "false gospel,"
> does the baptism have any validity?
It is a person's own faith in the true gospel and heart attitude towards God
that matters. Perhaps there are cases where the baptizer is off-base but the
baptizee is not. Rodger Dutsako would be a case in point. If Rodger believes
that water baptism is necessary for the baptizee's salvation, yet the person
he baptizes does not, then what of it? I personally was baptized by someone
who believed that water baptism was necessary for one's salvation. I know,
because I asked him about it *after* I was baptized.
Now, in the case of a JW doing the baptizing this principle may still hold in
theory, but in practice JWs carefully examine their potential converts to be
sure that their faith is in line with JW doctrine, and there are are very good
checks and balances in place to make sure that the new convert continues in
that faith. Since that faith is based on a false gospel, I would have to say
that I would find it highly doubtful that any baptized JW is a true Christian.
Now to wrap up on your questions,
> if anyone rejects your ministrations toward them, what does that say about
> their standing before Christ?
I would have to say that Christ would have to be the judge of that, since I
can only judge in a limited way based on what they do.
> Would Jesus judge the intermediate role
> you personally might play as a potential baptizer to have any
> significant impact on anyone else's spiritual standing?
Only to the extent that Jesus is truly using me.
> If you, Garth
> Wiebe, represent Christ, and someone rejects you (and, perhaps, your
> exhortation for them to be baptized), does their rejection of you mean
> they have rejected Christ?
Let me give that some thought, in light of the redirection of focus and
the scripture about those who rejected John's baptism.
|
| 855.23 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Fri Feb 02 1996 10:44 | 86 |
| re 855.20 (by NETCAD::WIEBE)
>My scenario had to do with a person rejecting a true disciple's call to
>water baptism.
>
>Your scenario has to do with a person accepting a false disciple's call to
>water baptism.
You are incorrect. I was not dwelling on only one scenario, but
rather, both; plus implications of your basenote scenario of a person
accepting a true disciple's call (giving further consideration to the
implications of the notion you raise that baptism comes down from God
and Christ, not up from an individual man's ideas and desires).
You are too used to prejudicially viewing my replies as so entirely
opposite to yours that you automatically assume my points MUST always
be at odds with yours.
>In my scenario, we are assured that the initiate is subject to one acting in
>true authority. Yet this does not guarantee that the initiate's own heart is
>right with God, because for all we know he may only be going through the
>motions or have the wrong motivation.
I have no objection to this scenario. My first reply to yours
simply called more attention to the role that the baptizer plays in the
process of bringing an initiate into an approved relationship with
Christ.
You haven't provided any evidence to contradict my points. You
call upon me for more evidence, but I feel I need supply nothing else.
Though you may find my arguments lacking, I have nothing else to add.
>In your scenario, the initiate may be subject to one who does not have a right
>relationship with Christ. Yet this does not guarantee that the initiate's own
>heart is not right with God, because for all we know he may be sincere even
>though his baptizer is not.
This was just one aspect of my point, to highlight, by contrast,
whether the role of the baptizer (and his standing before God) -- or
more significantly, the role of the 'church' whom the baptizer
represents -- has any bearing on the validity of the baptism. [For a
member of the 'true church' who is performing baptisms may, inwardly,
be corrupt in some as yet undetected way, but his action, in context of
the its approval by the whole 'church,' may still otherwise be valid.
It's not JUST the standing of the person doing the baptism which is
important, but the greater context of what and whom he represents.]
>In any case, you did not provide a scripture reference to justify your claim.
>You only provided scripture to support the claim I made based on my scenario.
>To recap, your scenario is:
>
>>>> one's relationship to Christ is conditional on the relationship
>>>> between those doing the baptism and Christ.
>
>Therefore, I again ask you to provide scriptural references to back this claim.
Perhaps because I'm a JW, it just rubs you the wrong way so much
that you can't admit that the support I provided which happens to
support your scenario ALSO happens to support my point; that is, I see
in your arguments support for the point I set forth in addition to it.
But let me boil it down.
Your basenote puts the focus, not on the one being baptized, but on
the one doing the baptizing. If there is no one to do such baptizing
in harmony with Christ's command, can a lone individual thus fully
submit to Christ's direction, and come into a proper relationship with
Christ, if there is no human (in the middle) to carry out Christ's
instructions for such a one to be baptized, or undergo a baptism that
is valid?
If the answer is no, then my point is proved. It takes someone in
the middle to establish a proper relationship between an individual and
Christ -- i.e., an already existing disciple (and, by extention, the
body of true believers).
If you waffle, and say that a baptism may be valid even though the
one doing the baptism (or, again, more to importantly, the 'church'
that he represents) is not truly Christian, then what does that say
about your basenote point, that the focus should shift to the one doing
the baptism? [And note, being baptized implies having become a
disciple, having been taught to accept certain precepts as true. If
what was taught was untrue, what does that say about the baptism, as
well?]
-mark.
|
| 855.24 | | RDGENG::YERKESS | bring me sunshine in your smile | Fri Feb 02 1996 10:54 | 42 |
| re .22
;Now, in the case of a JW doing the baptizing this principle may still hold in
;theory, but in practice JWs carefully examine their potential converts to be
;sure that their faith is in line with JW doctrine, and there are are very good
;checks and balances in place to make sure that the new convert continues in
;that faith. Since that faith is based on a false gospel, I would have to say
;that I would find it highly doubtful that any baptized JW is a true Christian.
As another baptised JW, who was brought up in the Church of England, I'd just
like to make a brief comment. Over the years both Garth and Mark have come
across as sincere in their beliefs. It would also be true that their beliefs
are so completely incongruent, it would in my opinion be impossible for both
to be recognised by Jesus as a follower. There will be many sincere ones who
feel that they are followers, but as Jesus said in his sermon on the mount
(which is often quoted) "Not everyone saying to me , 'Lord, Lord,' will
enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my
Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day. 'Lord,
Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and
perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to
them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me YOU workers of lawlessness."
Matthew 7:21-23 NWT
JW teaching is based solely on the bible, in fact in their ministry they
direct people to it. Encouraging persons to blow the dust of their own
bibles and help them to see how beneficial the bible is. Now, many in
this conference also claim to have their teachings based on the bible.
The only tangible sign of whom has the correct interpretation or doctrine,
is the fruit displayed by those whom make application in the doing of
God's will. The rule Jesus gave was if persons make application of false
doctrine (rotten tree) then they can only produce rotten fruit.
Alternatively, if they apply true teachings (good tree) then they can only
produce good fruit for such is the power of God's Word (compare Matthew
7:15-20, Hebrews 4:12).
If one wants to be pleasing to their leader, then they would have to
question whether they themselves and those they fellowship/associate
with are producing good fruit. For Jesus told his followers that this
would be an identifying mark of his true disciples, John 13:34,35.
Phil.
|
| 855.25 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Fri Feb 02 1996 11:02 | 19 |
| re 855.21 (by NETCAD::WIEBE)
>I wouldn't claim that all water baptisms at the individual level are warranted.
Do you truly mean "warranted", or do you mean "valid"? If the
former, under what conditions would a water baptism not be "warranted"?
>However, I would still insist that water baptism is fundamentally an outward
>act, and that what matters is what is in a person's heart, based on such
>exhortations as 1 Sam 16:7 ("...Man looks at the outward appearance, but
>the Lord looks at the heart.") and the many scriptures that speak of
>justification by faith (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 4, and etc.)
I quite agree. Baptism doesn't change a person; but rather, it
represents the outward sign of changes (inward and outward) that have
already taken place in the process of one becoming a disciple.
-mark.
|
| 855.26 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Feb 02 1996 11:55 | 17 |
| >The only tangible sign of whom has the correct interpretation or
>doctrine, is the fruit displayed by those whom make application in the doing of
>God's will. The rule Jesus gave was if persons make application of
>false doctrine (rotten tree) then they can only produce rotten fruit.
Praise God for this Truth on which we most wholeheartedly agree. And I
know that the fruit of God's salvation on my life is pure not rotten
even though I am a sinner and still sin today.
The fruit of his salvation on my life is evident from what He has
brought me from... a life of complete and utter destruction, familial
dysfunctions, sexual abuse and despair.
I praise God from whom all blessings flow, praise Him all creatures
here below, praise Him above ye heavenly hosts, praise Father, Son and
Holy Ghost, Amen.
|
| 855.27 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Fri Feb 02 1996 12:15 | 11 |
| Re: .24
Phil,
>JW teaching is based solely on the bible, in fact in their ministry they
I'm surprised you would make a statement like this in here and assume
it would go unchallenged. In addition to 219.last, we could post
several doctrinal differences between JW's and the Bible.
Mike
|
| 855.28 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Fri Feb 02 1996 13:01 | 127 |
| re 855.22 (by NETCAD::WIEBE)
>>[Can you even answer me without framing your answer as a slam against JWs?]
>
>I do under various circumstances try to frame my answers as a slam against JWs,
>since I can accomplish both the objective of answering the question and
>criticizing JWs, when I feel it is appropriate.
Which seems to be most of the time.
>In the 10+ years you and I have been at this in notesfiles, you should by now
>expect that if you are going to put in a plug for JWs, I am likely to reply
>with a slam against JWs.
Actually, I wasn't going out my way to blatantly plug JWs in this
instance (though I suppose every posting of mine is an implicit plug);
but I always expect my replies to you to elicit a slam at some point.
If I was really so bold, I could even 'prophesy' that you would react
this way. [assume smiley face]
On the other hand, when posting to this conference, I have tried my
best to avoid slamming the religions of those who post here. Though
this isn't a work-related conference, NOTES exists in a work-related
environment. Thus, if only for the sake of professionalism (though,
really, it isn't my only reason), I do my best to avoid provoking
others by slamming their religions here at work. Is this the way you'd
talk to me if you walked into my cubicle?
>It is a person's own faith in the true gospel and heart attitude towards God
>that matters. Perhaps there are cases where the baptizer is off-base but the
>baptizee is not.
Can you cite Scriptural examples, or Scriptural principles? Could
this ever have been the case in the first century? Should it be the
case now?
>baptizee is not. Rodger Dutsako would be a case in point. If Rodger believes
>that water baptism is necessary for the baptizee's salvation, yet the person
>he baptizes does not, then what of it?
But if it really is true that water baptism is necessary for the
baptizee's salvation, but the one being baptized REALLY doesn't believe
it, then does that one REALLY have "faith in the true gospel", since
the "true gospel" includes the teaching that such baptism is necessary?
The Ethiopian asked, "what prevents me from being baptized?" If a
person doesn't have faith in something this important, then doesn't
this lack of faith represent something that would (or should) prevent a
person from being baptized?
Should not the 'true church' scrutinize the faith of those being
baptized to *some degree*?
>he baptizes does not, then what of it? I personally was baptized by someone
>who believed that water baptism was necessary for one's salvation. I know,
>because I asked him about it *after* I was baptized.
But you didn't know before hand. Interesting. Suppose you found
out that he didn't believe it. Would that have made a difference to
you?
>Now, in the case of a JW doing the baptizing this principle may still hold in
>theory, but in practice JWs carefully examine their potential converts to be
>sure that their faith is in line with JW doctrine, and there are are very good
>checks and balances in place to make sure that the new convert continues in
>that faith. Since that faith is based on a false gospel, I would have to say
>that I would find it highly doubtful that any baptized JW is a true Christian.
Well, this conclusion of yours is no surprise to me. But, you're
stopping short, being satisfied that your slam against JWs is all the
analysis you need to make.
Though you don't say it, your words suggest that 'true
Christianity' as you define it doesn't concern itself all that much
with the same degree of 'quality control' that JWs do. Yet, the
command to baptize is bracketed by the command to "make disciples ...
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19,20
RSV). To what extent is the one doing the baptism obligated to make
sure that the baptizee *is* truly a disciple, and *has* truly been
taught Jesus' commandments and what it means to observe them?
It's all well and good for you to label JWs as false on the basis
of our allegedly "false gospel," which thus seemingly invalidates the
teaching and baptizing we do. But how does this invalidate the
obligation of those (like yourself) who are allegedly true Christians
to make disciples of their own with the same degree of rigor?
Taken to its logical conclusion, aside from differences in *what*
is being taught, how can you, who claims to be a true Christian with
the responsibility to baptize, justify doing *less* than JWs to
faithfully carry out Jesus' command to make disciples and baptize?
All plugs aside, on this one matter, your conclusions in the
basenote shows that you have just now reached a conclusion that JWs
have reached long ago (which is why, if you can believe it, I'm really
not fighting you on this issue).
>> Would Jesus judge the intermediate role
>> you personally might play as a potential baptizer to have any
>> significant impact on anyone else's spiritual standing?
>
>Only to the extent that Jesus is truly using me.
So, if Jesus is truly using you, are you, or are you not, at least
for a time, an intermediary between Jesus and any new convert? Is
the path to their salvation not charted through you (as, say, the
Ethiopian's was through Philip, as that account shows that that whole
situation took place under spirit direction).
>> If you, Garth
>> Wiebe, represent Christ, and someone rejects you (and, perhaps, your
>> exhortation for them to be baptized), does their rejection of you mean
>> they have rejected Christ?
>
>Let me give that some thought, in light of the redirection of focus and
>the scripture about those who rejected John's baptism.
If this is true, then isn't it true that their relationship with
Christ has been conditionalized by their relationship with you, by
Christ's allowance and direction (in application of his saying, "he who
receives you receives me")?
If this is true, then you admit my point.
-mark.
|
| 855.29 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Feb 02 1996 13:44 | 11 |
| I also find it interesting that in the book of acts when the pharisees
were up in arms over Peter proclaiming the gospel, that one pharisee
said let them be, if there doctrine is false it will die.
Interestingly enough in Matthew [I believe] Jesus in speaking to the
disciples says that we are not to worry about those who have rotten
fruit [our perceptions of course] for he says if the fruit be rotten
it will die.
I would that those who believe differently than others would learn to
let God be judge.
|
| 855.30 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Fri Feb 02 1996 14:00 | 25 |
| re 855.29 (by JULIET::MORALES_NA)
> I also find it interesting that in the book of acts when the pharisees
> were up in arms over Peter proclaiming the gospel, that one pharisee
> said let them be, if there doctrine is false it will die.
It was Gamaliel who made this defense. But, perhaps an implicit
lesson is that those of Gamaliel's sort among the Pharisees were the
exception rather than the rule. (And also note which 'side' he was
really on.)
And, of course, what does that say about those who find it hard to
be as tolerant as Gamaliel?
> Interestingly enough in Matthew [I believe] Jesus in speaking to the
> disciples says that we are not to worry about those who have rotten
> fruit [our perceptions of course] for he says if the fruit be rotten
> it will die.
>
> I would that those who believe differently than others would learn to
> let God be judge.
Fair points.
-mark.
|
| 855.31 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Feb 02 1996 14:29 | 12 |
| Aww yes Gamaliel the teacher of Paul. :-) I couldn't remember his name
but I did know it was he who was the pharisee that spoke up.
What does this say about Gamaliel or those who do not respond as
Gamaliel?
1. I believe it says that Gamaliel trusted God to be a righteous and
fair judge.
2. Re: those who do not respond as Gamaliel
I believe it demonstrates their lack of trust in God.
|
| 855.32 | Bowing out | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Sat Feb 03 1996 18:15 | 22 |
| I am going to have to bow out of this discussion. I have much more to say
in response to replies directed at me by Mark and Phil, but between my
commitments at home and at work I just don't have the time to contribute
well thought-out replies at this time.
When I entered the base note it was only my intention to address the topic
of baptism with regard to shifting the focus from the baptizee to the
baptizer. I did not know that this was going to attract Jehovah's Witnesses
into the discussion, nor that the principle I submitted would be exploited
as it has by them.
If anyone is interested in hearing a lengthy discussion between myself and
Jehovah's Witnesses, there are plenty in the archives. A couple examples
off the top of my head are atlana::christian_v6 note 489.* ("JWs and 1874,
1914, 1925, 1975, etc."), and _v6 note 23.* ("Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe
Jesus rose?"). Let the reader judge for himself. My open letter to Mark
Sornson in atlana::christian_v5 380.89 is a representative statement of my
motives and intent.
Wayne, you were right. Regardless of the virtue of the point of my basenote,
the present discussion vindicates your point in 855.7. This shift in focus
provides all sorts of opportunities for abuse. (Sigh.)
|
| 855.33 | Questions for Rodger | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Feb 03 1996 18:53 | 58 |
| >Note 756.46 An exortation to make your calling sure 46 of 57
>RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT 117 lines 20-SEP-1995 07:19
> Jesus gives us also promises, that our sins are forgiven, we are his
> sons, we have entered into the new covenant.
> This is how the writers of the scriptures and the early church saw
> baptism.
> .
> .
> .
> Concerning whether baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, not only is
> it mentioned many times in the new testament that this is so, but ALL
> christians throughout the world believed this until after Luther, at
> least when you believe all of the writings. It is mentioned repeatedly
> in virtually every writing that handles the subject of baptism as being
> the major meaning of baptism, where we receive the forgiveness for
> which Christ died.
>
> We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
>Note 756.55 An exortation to make your calling sure 55 of 57
>RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT 150 lines 4-JAN-1996 12:17
> -< Forgiveness of Sins through baptism >-
>
> ...This discussion is not to prove that baptism is necessary for going to
> Heaven. We both agree it is not. I never did believe this...
Rodger,
I'm curious and truely trying to understand your logic. I realize there was a
passage of time, about 5.5 months, between replies, so your beliefs may have
changed from one reply to the next.
In 756.46 you claim baptism is where sin is forgiven and when one enters the
new covenant, yet in 756.55 you say baptism is not necessary for getting to
heaven.
As sin is the problem, Isaiah 59 (and Mike Heiser ;-)), if one is going to get
to heaven, then one needs to have their sins forgiven, otherwise they are still
separated from God. Ergo, if you state baptism is where sin is forgiven under
the new covenant, and then later state you don't need to be baptised to get to
heaven, my questions are:
1)Has your belief concerning baptism and its relationship to forgiveness
of sin changed?
2) Have you since found another means by which forgiveness can take place
under the new covenant? Which would beg the question, Why does God have
2 different means for receiving forgiveness?
3) Have I missed your point entirely?
As I said, I'm trying to understand your logic here.
In His Love,
Peter2 - Who won't be back until Wednesday.
|
| 855.34 | Questions for Garth | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Feb 03 1996 18:54 | 58 |
|
>Note 756.41
>NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" 19 lines 15-AUG-1995 12:16
> -< Col 2:12: "Buried with him in baptism..." >-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Next let's examine Col 2:12, and see if it proves that baptism is necessary
>for our salvation.
>
>"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,
>not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision
>done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him
>through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."
>(Col 2:11-12)
>
>Advocates of baptismal regeneration usually only cite verse 12 in their
>presentation. I have included verse 11 to give us a bit more context. Once
>again, there is no mention of water in connection with the above "baptism."
>
>
>
>Note 855.2 "The Discipler's Baptism" 2 of 31
>NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"
>
>In the classic picture of water baptism is the discipler allowing us to be
>buried, then raising us up. I think this picture fits right in with what
>Jesus, the Master Discipler, does for us.
Garth,
First of all, let me echo Wayne Parker's comment that I too appreciate your
diligence in studying the Scriptures and sharing your insights with us.
I'm trying to keep up with this discussion, and I realize there was a
passage of time between the 2 notes mentioned above, in fact almost 6 months,
but somewhere along the line you lost me. And I have a couple of questions
that will hopefully get me back on track.
In 756.41 you state "there is no mention of water in connection with above
"baptism,"" however it does talk about being buried and raised in Col 2:12.
And in 855.2 you state "In the classic picture of water baptism is the discipler
allowing us to be buried, then raising us up."
My questions being,
1) Is there another passage for the "classic picture of water
baptism" other than Col 2:12?
2) Has your understanding of Col 2:12 changed?
3) Am I out on Waveland Ave (which is OUTSIDE Wrigley Field for all of you
who didn't grow up in the Chicago-land area)?
In His Love,
Peter2, who won't be back until Wednesday.
P.S. Tony B.
If I don't get a chance to respond to your car analogy in the OSAS note
I thought it was a great analogy. And if I'm not supposed to intermingle
notes please forgive me ;-)
|
| 855.35 | I'm not Garth | SHOVE::PARKER | | Sun Feb 04 1996 18:21 | 51 |
| RE: .34
Hi, Peter.
Garth could certainly answer your questions better than I, but he did say he was
bowing out of the discussion due to other commitments. If I answer wrongly on
his behalf, then he will perhaps set us straight when time permits.
| My questions being,
| 1) Is there another passage for the "classic picture of water
| baptism" other than Col 2:12?
** "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into His death? There we are buried with Him by baptism into death:
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted
together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of
His resurrection: 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.
For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we
believe that we shall also live with Him: Knowing that Christ being raised
from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him. For in
that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto
God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but
alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ro.6:1-11, KJV)
| 2) Has your understanding of Col 2:12 changed?
** I would think not. Garth has always presented (physical) water baptism as a
picture of the spiritual baptism that saves. I believe Garth's point is
that we are not saved by water baptism, rather by the work of God to which
water baptism points. "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior
appeared, He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but
because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal
by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ
our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become
heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Tit.3:4-7, NIV) Physical water is
neither Jesus Christ into whose body we are baptized (forgiven and reckoned
dead to sin) nor the Holy Spirit by whom we are baptized (cleansed and made
alive to God). Water baptism can be a means of God's grace by which we
identify with Christ and envision God's work on our behalf.
| 3) Am I out on Waveland Ave (which is OUTSIDE Wrigley Field for all of
| you who didn't grow up in the Chicago-land area)?
** I can't answer this one because I'm not clear where you stand. Do you hold
that baptism in/by water is necessary for salvation?
/Wayne
|
| 855.36 | Asked questions | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Mon Feb 05 1996 07:10 | 136 |
| PETER(2),
Its pleasant reading your notes, which are written with wisdom and
gentleness!
Peter, I find myself presently in a growing understanding of Jesus
Christ, and I'm sure that there are still very many revelations which
Jesus wishes to give me.
For many years I believed there was no connection between baptism and
salvation. At that time when I shared about Jesus, those who would pray
a prayer of repentance and commitment to Jesus I would believe would go
to heaven, and whether they were baptized or not played no role
whatsoever.
Then I had some very direct encounters with Jesus, where he corrected
me and told me to follow the examples in Acts rather than what I had
learned from others about evangelism. Once I started doing this I
immediately noticed that my understanding of baptism dramatically
changed. It was no longer symbolic, but the making of a covenant, just
as marriage is not symbolic, but the making of a covenant. Most of all,
I began experiencing the 'confirmation' from God, how the people who I
baptized would have very strong conversions and experience a direct
intervention from God. There were no questions after these Holy-Spirit
led baptisms whether these persons were saved, we both knew they were.
And we both knew before the baptism it was more a preparation work, but
not their salvation (there is however the exception of some who were
strong followers of Jesus before but because of bad teaching had not
yet been baptized as we were taught by Jesus and the apostles). But
even these noticed a real difference in their walk with Christ.
As Garth earlier in this note mentioned, it is good to get our eyes on
the foundation of the problem we have today, that the gospel is not
being presented as it was taught by Jesus and the apostles, with faith,
repentance and baptism being united, the receiving of the Holy Spirit
being the promise and sealing of the Father to what has happened, a new
child being born of the water and the spirit.
If God isn't behind us, our baptisms need to be observed with a real
question mark. If God hasn't sent us, and we go about the Work of God,
not led by the Spirit, but by our own ideas and activities, we can
really mess things up. For that reason Paul wrote, "We are all baptized
by one spirit into one body..." Prayer needs to be a vital aspect of
our lives. We 'attend' to Christ as our Lord in Prayer, hearing
intently to what he says and shows us, and doing just that the best we
can. We can save nobody, not by convincing, baptizing, or anything
else. If what we do is not done in a 'working together' with him, with
us simply being his servants, then we will not see the type of results
(fruit) he ordained for us to bear.
Since I stopped my other methods of bringing people to Jesus, I can say
that those who through me receive salvation are those who gladly
receive my words and are baptized. I give no hope to those who like
some of what I say and refuse this command I have received from Jesus.
If they receive my words, they not only believe that Jesus died for
their sins, but also experience baptism as Jesus intended it to be,
with repentance and discipleship directly connected to it. Then with
the confirmation of the Holy Spirit, I can say with confidence, they
have eternal life, their sins are forgiven them, they belong to the
body of Christ, they are no longer sinners, but saints. After their
baptism we usually partake together on the Lord's supper.
I know that there will be many who were not baptized in heaven, all of
the old testament saints, the thief on the cross, etc. There may be
others similiar to the thief on the cross, who really turn to Jesus but
have no chance to be baptized. I hope they will also be saved as the
theif on the cross most certainly was.
The next question concerns the deception, where people never
experienced baptism as Jesus intended it, but more from tradition. Will
the hundreds of millions of people go lost who are catholics,
lutherans, free churches, etc., and because of the error of their
teachings have not been 'born of the water and the spirit'?
1. Jesus never did say, "Nobody who isn't baptized after I rise from
the dead will go to heaven". He can make exceptions as he wishes as
with the thief on the cross. But if anyone hears my words, just
as anyone who heard Peter's words, they will regard Jesus as their
Lord, of course they will then be baptized (not sprinkled, not
christened, not have water poured on their head, not as unbelievers,
but as Jesus, the Lord commanded and taught his disciples, coupled with
faith and repentance, with the entrance to the new covenant as a
disciple of Jesus Christ). The solution must start with the equipping
of the church, that those who preach the Gospel follow the teaching of
the Bible, baptizing those who believe, and making disciples, being
sent by the Holy Spirit, with love to God and love to one another as
their motives, just as the one who instigated baptism had only one
motive, love, that all who wish can receive in their own lives the
forgiveness of the greatest act of Love the Father and Jesus have ever
done.
I yearn that as many people as possible are together with us in Heaven,
for all who had sincere faith in Christ but because of false teachings
never entered the new covenant through believing and being baptized.
But at the same time, for the people in our generation, for those who I
bring the gospel to, I will present the gospel in such a way that they
will certainly receive that for which Jesus died and rose again, the
promised eternal life. If they remain faithful to Jesus, living for his
will, they will most certainly enter heaven, promised to those who love
him. (It is so similiar to marriage, to love one another till death
does part us, but with Jesus, death does not part us, but bring us to
him face to face as his bride!).
I also appreciate what Mark wrote. Anyone holding too strong to the
beliefs of an organization will have error. I presently know no
exceptions. Just because someone is catholic, pentecostal, Jehovah's
witness or anything else is not decisive. But anyone who trusts too
much in their organization may have conflicts with the Holy Spirit, and
doing what the organization says, rather than being led by the Holy
Spirit into all truths is where the danger comes. Let noone consider
their organization the source of the truth, or where the major amount
of truth resides. But rather let us give credit to where credit is due,
to the Holy Spirit, the true teacher. If any organization has truth, it
received it from the Holy Spirit. It DOES NOT belong to the
organization! And as soon as the organization tries to hold to it
possessively, the person of truth is already somewhere else. Instead,
we are called to be the tabernacle as with Moses. We cannot move our
organizations when the spirit goes somewhere else. We can only close
and leave them. A tabernacle can be moved within a day. When the spirit
of God would move from the tabernacle at the time of Moses, they would
then immediately , the same day, break camp, the priests would pack up
the tabernacle and start following the spirit(cloud by day, fire by
night). When the spirit would stop, they would put the tabernacle
EXACTLY where the cloud was and remain until the cloud would move
again.
When 'Jehovahs witnesses' are moved by the Holy Spirit, they may have a
true relationship with Jesus as their Lord, and not according to the
teaching of the organization which they belong to, simply to an angel.
I have baptized many catholics, its the same with them. I don't try
them to change organizations, it doesn't matter. God's church is not an
organization. But the love relationships, apostles, evangelists,
elders, not having positions, but gifts of equipping, that the church
may be perfected.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.37 | | RDGENG::YERKESS | bring me sunshine in your smile | Mon Feb 05 1996 10:36 | 21 |
| re .27
Mike,
>JW teaching is based solely on the bible, in fact in their ministry they
; I'm surprised you would make a statement like this in here and assume
; it would go unchallenged. In addition to 219.last, we could post
; several doctrinal differences between JW's and the Bible.
I was just trying to make the point that both parties are sincere in
their views and have strong convictions. Mike, over the years I have
come to appreciate that you are sincere in yours.
I have no intention in going into old debates.
Phil.
|
| 855.38 | | ILLUSN::SORNSON | Are all your pets called 'Eric'? | Mon Feb 05 1996 12:47 | 61 |
| re 855.32 (by NETCAD::WIEBE)
>I am going to have to bow out of this discussion. I have much more to say
>in response to replies directed at me by Mark and Phil, but between my
>commitments at home and at work I just don't have the time to contribute
>well thought-out replies at this time.
That's understandable.
>When I entered the base note it was only my intention to address the topic
>of baptism with regard to shifting the focus from the baptizee to the
>baptizer. I did not know that this was going to attract Jehovah's Witnesses
>into the discussion, nor that the principle I submitted would be exploited
>as it has by them.
*Anyone* who feels that JWs (myself or Phil) have truly "exploited"
your points in a negative way is free to reply with scriptural
counterpoints. But, don't we all "exploit" the Bible itself to gain
practical knowledge?
Why so much resentment, here?
>If anyone is interested in hearing a lengthy discussion between myself and
>Jehovah's Witnesses, there are plenty in the archives. A couple examples
>off the top of my head are atlana::christian_v6 note 489.* ("JWs and 1874,
>1914, 1925, 1975, etc."), and _v6 note 23.* ("Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe
>Jesus rose?"). Let the reader judge for himself. My open letter to Mark
>Sornson in atlana::christian_v5 380.89 is a representative statement of my
>motives and intent.
But none of those postings address the issues raised in this note
(by myself). Those postings may serve to cast further prejudice upon
anything I (or any other JW) might say; but they don't prove anything
with respect to this topic.
Rather than diverting this discussion into past villifications of
my religion, I invite anyone to continue with this topic as is.
>Wayne, you were right. Regardless of the virtue of the point of my basenote,
>the present discussion vindicates your point in 855.7. This shift in focus
>provides all sorts of opportunities for abuse. (Sigh.)
Too bad you feel this way (that I've "abused" your point).
=*=
I'd still like to know the answer to this question of mine (ref
855.22):
Mark>> If you, Garth
>> Wiebe, represent Christ, and someone rejects you (and, perhaps, your
>> exhortation for them to be baptized), does their rejection of you mean
>> they have rejected Christ?
>
Garth>Let me give that some thought, in light of the redirection of focus and
>the scripture about those who rejected John's baptism.
A yes or no answer would suffice.
-mark.
|
| 855.39 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Feb 05 1996 14:11 | 14 |
| Exploitation is a very strong word to use. I'd say that in a public
forum such as this, it is an inappropriate word to use. This forum is
for these types of discussions.
Garth, I'm saddened to hear that you cannot continue in the discussion,
but am also reminded that the agreement to particpate here is to
participate without insult to someone else. It is one thing to
challenge a doctrinal issue, it is another thing to insult the
individual who is different.
I hope that we learn the wisdom to distinguish the two.
Nancy
|
| 855.40 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Feb 05 1996 14:17 | 8 |
|
Nancy, the line above your name says it all. Something that we ALL
really need to adhere to.
Glen
|
| 855.41 | Thanks for the response Wayne! | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Wed Feb 07 1996 18:49 | 43 |
| Wayne,
I thank you for your reply and while I may have posed the question to Garth,
I'm just looking to understand, not necessarily excluding anyone else from
answering. Once again, I appreciate your reply and respect your regard and
knowledge of the Scriptures.
After a few years of studying the Bible these are my convictions:
1) We are saved by GRACE, after surrendering to God on HIS term.
2) The terms of surrender to God are the following:
a) Faith in Jesus Christ and his blood spilled on my behalf.
b) Becoming a follower of Jesus Christ, ie a disciple/christian.
c) Repenting of one's sins.
d) Confessing "Jesus is Lord"
e) Baptism by immersion in water, for (meaning looking forward to) the
forgivness of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As I said, I'm trying to understand another position that I can't reconcile
with the Scriptures. And my heart is to really understand. I have never had
the opportunity to talk with someone, either face to face or via computer
conference, to gain a better understanding of this position. And I'd like to
do that.
As I understand it we work in the same facility and have a mutual friend, my
good buddy Tony Barbieri. Tony and I met about a week ago. His office is very
close to an office I have obsconded so I don't have to waste hours "commuting"
from my office in HLO2, 3rd floor.
So if your're interested, maybe you, Tony, and I can meet for coffee and
have a chat. Not that we are going to be able to work through this entire
issue over 1 coffee, but I think we will come away from it knowing each
other better which is always "a beautiful thing!" and it will go a long
way, I believe, to keeping any discussion we have in the notes conference
civil which is also "a beautiful thing!"
In His Love,
Peter2
|
| 855.42 | yes or no | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Fri Feb 09 1996 02:50 | 25 |
| Marc,
.Garth>Let me give that some thought, in light of the redirection of focus and
>the scripture about those who rejected John's baptism.
A yes or no answer would suffice.
Jesus says clearly, 'He that receives you receives me' He also says 'Go
into all the world and preach the gospel. They that believe and are
baptized shall be saved, they that believe not shall be damned. And
these signs shall follow them that believe, in my name they shall cast
out demons, speak with other tongues, when they drink anything deadly
it will not hurt them, they shall tred on serpents, and not be harmed,
they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.'
There are many who have a message to say about Jesus today. Who should
we believe? Who is really sent by the holy spirit and who is not? In
the time of the apostles God confirmed those sent by him with signs
following. I expect nothing less today. And if people reject the gospel
which I preach, I see before them the danger of damnation. Eternity
stands before us. Let us all be certain that we live for the will of
God and not be deceived!
Rodger
|
| 855.43 | John the Baptist vs. me | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Sun Feb 11 1996 02:08 | 46 |
| Well, I can't seem to get this topic off my mind, so here I am on a late
Saturday evening (actually, Sunday now), stealing some time from myself
when I would otherwise be asleep in bed.
Re: .34 (Peter2 Hirmer)
Wayne's got it right in .35. Thanks Wayne.
Re: .38 (Mark Sornson)
Let me answer what appears to be the biggest question, since I left it
hanging:
>Mark>> If you, Garth
>>> Wiebe, represent Christ, and someone rejects you (and, perhaps, your
>>> exhortation for them to be baptized), does their rejection of you mean
>>> they have rejected Christ?
>>
>Garth>Let me give that some thought, in light of the redirection of focus and
>the scripture about those who rejected John's baptism.
>
> A yes or no answer would suffice.
I had started to answer this, but then realized that that this was a loaded
question and that a yes or no answer would not suffice.
John the Baptist was a prophet of God, a point person in God's plan to prepare
the way for the Messiah. I am not a prophet, let alone a prophet of the
greatness ascribed by Jesus in Matt 11. I am but a professing disciple of
Jesus, one of perhaps millions like me who profess to have been rescued by him
and desire to share the good news of the salvation Jesus has bought for us.
Even if I truly represent Christ, if someone rejects me (or my exhortation to
be baptized), I cannot be so presumptuous to assume that they have rejected
Christ as well. Perhaps they reject me due to one of my human failings.
Perhaps there is another who can do a better job of reaching them than I.
However, all true believers in Christ make up what is referred to in the New
Testament as "the body of Christ." A person who wholeheartedly rejects the
body of Christ is doing so because they reject the message of the gospel by
which they may be saved, which is the gospel by which true believers identify
as the driving force for their lives. Although justification before God is by
individual faith in Jesus and what he has done on our behalf, the outward
manifestation of someone's lack of faith will be reflected in how they view the
body of Christ.
|
| 855.44 | The gospel according to Gamaliel? | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Sun Feb 11 1996 02:09 | 21 |
| Re: Mark and Nancy
Every now and then I hear the Gamaliel story, usually recited in defense of
a cult, schism, or movement by either a spokesperson of the group or one who
desires others to be tolerant of them.
While Gamaliel did give a halfway decent speech, it should be kept in mind
that he was still an unbeliever, a far cry from a disciple and advocate of
the faith. Otherwise it would have been him on trial along with Peter and
the apostles. His conviction and reservations about prosecuting them put him
on the fence, at best. What was needed was someone in the Sanhedrin who was
willing to evaluate the claim about whether or not Jesus rose from the dead,
not about whether or not Peter and the apostles should be put to death.
Furthermore, the testimony of history has proven Gamaliel wrong, this side of
the final judgment and eternity. Men such as Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Charles
Taze Russell, Lyell, and Darwin have proved him wrong, for these men and their
small bands of followers have brought forth religions that are now worldwide
in their influence, with followers now ranging in the millions and billions.
I dare say that they owe their success to the Gamaliels of the professing
Christian church.
|
| 855.45 | The dilemma Mark posed | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Sun Feb 11 1996 02:12 | 33 |
| Re: .23 (Mark Sornson)
> But let me boil it down.
>
> Your basenote puts the focus, not on the one being baptized, but on
> the one doing the baptizing. If there is no one to do such baptizing
> in harmony with Christ's command, can a lone individual thus fully
> submit to Christ's direction, and come into a proper relationship with
> Christ, if there is no human (in the middle) to carry out Christ's
> instructions for such a one to be baptized, or undergo a baptism that
> is valid?
>
> If the answer is no, then my point is proved. It takes someone in
> the middle to establish a proper relationship between an individual and
> Christ -- i.e., an already existing disciple (and, by extention, the
> body of true believers).
>
> If you waffle, and say that a baptism may be valid even though the
> one doing the baptism (or, again, more to importantly, the 'church'
> that he represents) is not truly Christian, then what does that say
> about your basenote point, that the focus should shift to the one doing
> the baptism? [And note, being baptized implies having become a
> disciple, having been taught to accept certain precepts as true. If
> what was taught was untrue, what does that say about the baptism, as
> well?]
My point was only to redirect the focus regarding *baptism* from the disciplee
to the discipler. You are extrapolating that point to try to argue that the
(human) discipler is essential to the disciplee's very salvation.
I demonstrated in 756.31-756.44 that not even water baptism is necessary for
one's salvation. I maintain and continue to maintain that we are justified
before God on account of our faith in Jesus' completed work on the cross.
|
| 855.46 | A point of contention on "prejudice" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Sun Feb 11 1996 02:13 | 8 |
| Re: .23 (Mark)
> You are too used to prejudicially viewing my replies as so entirely
> opposite to yours that you automatically assume my points MUST always
> be at odds with yours.
You are too used to prejudicially viewing my replies such that you assume
that I am opposed to all the points you make that I choose not to comment on.
|
| 855.47 | Some answers to Mark's other questions | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Sun Feb 11 1996 02:23 | 107 |
| Re: .28 (Mark)
>>It is a person's own faith in the true gospel and heart attitude towards God
>>that matters. Perhaps there are cases where the baptizer is off-base but the
>>baptizee is not.
>
> Can you cite Scriptural examples, or Scriptural principles? Could
> this ever have been the case in the first century? Should it be the
> case now?
How about the Apostle Peter, the one whom the Apostle Paul rebuked? Ideally,
we should all be perfect. In reality, we must admit that we fall short of
the ideal.
> But if it really is true that water baptism is necessary for the
> baptizee's salvation, but the one being baptized REALLY doesn't believe
> it, then does that one REALLY have "faith in the true gospel", since
> the "true gospel" includes the teaching that such baptism is necessary?
An academic point. If water baptism were necessary for one's salvation, then
your hypothetical point stands in principle. But water baptism is not
necessary for one's salvation, as I demonstrated in 756.31 - 756.44.
> Should not the 'true church' scrutinize the faith of those being
> baptized to *some degree*?
To a great degree. To the degree your religion does, I dare say. Sadly,
many are content to hand out a "Four Spiritual Laws" tract, lead someone
through "the sinner's prayer", and proclaim them saved as a result.
>>I personally was baptized by someone
>>who believed that water baptism was necessary for one's salvation. I know,
>>because I asked him about it *after* I was baptized.
>
> But you didn't know before hand. Interesting. Suppose you found
> out that he didn't believe it. Would that have made a difference to
> you?
I would have preferred that he didn't believe it, because he erred in his
belief.
>>Now, in the case of a JW doing the baptizing this principle may still hold in
>>theory, but in practice JWs carefully examine their potential converts to be
>>sure that their faith is in line with JW doctrine, and there are are very good
>>checks and balances in place to make sure that the new convert continues in
>>that faith. Since that faith is based on a false gospel, I would have to say
>>that I would find it highly doubtful that any baptized JW is a true
>>Christian.
(...)
> Though you don't say it, your words suggest that 'true
> Christianity' as you define it doesn't concern itself all that much
> with the same degree of 'quality control' that JWs do. Yet, the
This is a case in point to illustrate your presumption which I cited in .46.
True Christianity should have that kind of quality control. Your organization
functions correctly in many ways that contemporary christendom does not. It
is a shame that the false gospel you preach invalidates your efforts, and
that the true church is put to shame by the commitment that your cult
exhibits. In this respect, the true church should strive to be more like a
cult and less like a country club.
> command to baptize is bracketed by the command to "make disciples ...
> teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19,20
> RSV). To what extent is the one doing the baptism obligated to make
> sure that the baptizee *is* truly a disciple, and *has* truly been
> taught Jesus' commandments and what it means to observe them?
God judges by what is in the heart. We as men can only judge by what we
see others do. We have an obligation to judge to the best extent that we
can, but you have to realize that there is always going to be some level of
uncertainty whether the baptizee "*is* truly a disciple", as you say.
> It's all well and good for you to label JWs as false on the basis
> of our allegedly "false gospel," which thus seemingly invalidates the
> teaching and baptizing we do. But how does this invalidate the
> obligation of those (like yourself) who are allegedly true Christians
> to make disciples of their own with the same degree of rigor?
It does does not invalidate the obligation of true Christians at all.
> Taken to its logical conclusion, aside from differences in *what*
> is being taught, how can you, who claims to be a true Christian with
> the responsibility to baptize, justify doing *less* than JWs to
> faithfully carry out Jesus' command to make disciples and baptize?
I cannot.
>>> Would Jesus judge the intermediate role
>>> you personally might play as a potential baptizer to have any
>>> significant impact on anyone else's spiritual standing?
>>
>>Only to the extent that Jesus is truly using me.
>
> So, if Jesus is truly using you, are you, or are you not, at least
> for a time, an intermediary between Jesus and any new convert? Is
> the path to their salvation not charted through you (as, say, the
> Ethiopian's was through Philip, as that account shows that that whole
> situation took place under spirit direction).
To the extent that Jesus is truly using me, I cannot claim the status of
an "intermediary", for it is Jesus in me doing His work, and not me at all.
Keep in mind the following scripture, written to Timothy, which is especially
significant when read in context:
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim 2:5)
|
| 855.48 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Sun Feb 11 1996 16:46 | 12 |
| .44
Garth, I beg to differ with you. No one has proven Gamaliel or the
other leaders of religions you have mentioned. It is not what happens
here on earth that proves them wrong, its the proclamation that God
himself is the righteous judge. So, I believe we have a responsibility
to proclaim the gospel and once that is finished it is sinful to argue
the gospel with anyone. Present Truth and let God be judge and let
people have their God-given right to choose.
Nancy
|
| 855.49 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Mon Feb 12 1996 12:01 | 1 |
| I agree with Garth on Gamaliel. He wasn't born again.
|
| 855.50 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Feb 12 1996 12:17 | 3 |
| And what has that got to do with the discussion's conclusions?
Jesus said the same thing as Gameliel.
|
| 855.51 | "Logical Disconnects" | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Feb 17 1996 18:22 | 69 |
| Garth,
As you have brought up Replies 756.31-756.44 a number of times, I went back to
read them over and a number of "logical disconnects" came up as I read them
which have been making it difficult for me to understand what it is you are
trying to say.
For example, In 756.33, speaking to Acts 2:38, you state the following:
>Consider the following two English phrases:
>
> 1. I have a warrant for your arrest.
> 2. I have a gift for your graduation.
>
>In the first case, the word "for" implies a cause-effect relationship. The
>"warrant" is for the purpose of obtaining rest".
>
>In the second case, the word "for" implies a different relationship. The
>"gift" is given *on account of* or *as a testimony to* or *because of* the
>"graduation"...
>...Those advocating baptismal regeneration make the assumption that the word
>"for" (Greek <eis>) makes the forgiveness of sins the result of being
>immersed in water. This is both unprecedented and inconsistent with the rest
>of the Bible, which teaches the forgveness of sins that comes as a result of
>what Jesus did, not us.
This argument, as I see it, effectively renders Acts 2:38 as follows:
"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ *because your sins have been forgiven*. And you will receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit.'" (Acts 2:38)
Which means our sins are forgiven BEFORE we repent.
Yet in the next note, 756.34, you state the following:
>Peter tells the crowd in attendance to repent. He commands that "each" of them
>should be immersed. What is it which is "for" the forgiveness of the crowd's
>sins? The repenting (of the crowd)? Or the immersing (of each of them)? Or
>both? The point is thannot be the latter, so therefore it must be the
>former.
>
>The conclusion: Repentance must be associated with the forgiveness of sins,
>while the directive to be baptized can be associated with neither...
>
>...Grammatically, however, we are forced to read it as follows:
>
> repent {and let each be baptized} for the forgiveness of your sins
> | ^
> +--------------------------------+
Which says to me we need to repent BEFORE our sins are forgiven.
Mike Heiser said something very similar in the note on JtB baptism vs Acts
baptism, in that he said <eis> means "because" and then went on to say you
can't be saved without repenting, and you can't repent without believing. I
asked him about it, but I wasn't specific about my question. Therefore I
will now ask 2 very specific questions:
Do you believe <eis> means "because" which would mean forgiveness of
sins comes before repentance?
or
Do you believe "repentance must be associated with the forgiveness of
sins" which would mean forgiveness comes after repentance?
In His Love
Peter2 (who won't be back until Wednesday)
|
| 855.52 | Forgiveness before repentance | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Mon Feb 19 1996 12:59 | 72 |
| Re: .51 (Peter2)
Let me preface my reply by stating that I appreciate the fact that you are
digging into the logical consistency of people's notes. I think that this
is important work.
Regarding your questions about my replies 756.31-756.44, make sure that you
keep in mind the purpose and intent behind them. It was not my purpose to
elaborate on what I believe about water baptism, but to demonstrate that the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration has no support in the scriptures. My
method was to consider each of the alleged "proof-texts" for that doctrine
and show that they do not prove what they are purported to prove by the
various groups and people that misuse them. If you use those notes to try
to figure out what my stand is on water baptism, you will at best form
incomplete conclusions about what I believe by the process of elimination.
In my three notes 756.32-34 I covered three problems with using Acts 2:38
as a proof-text for baptismal regeneration:
756.32: Water is not mentioned
756.33: "For" (Greek <eis>) can mean "because of" as well as "to get"
756.34: There is a grammatical dilemma about baptizing one "for" the many.
Now, let me answer your specific question:
Regarding 756.33, you make the following conclusion:
>"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of
>Jesus Christ *because your sins have been forgiven*. And you will receive the
>gift of the Holy Spirit.'" (Acts 2:38)
>
>Which means our sins are forgiven BEFORE we repent.
That conclusion is correct.
Regarding 756.34, you make the following conclusion:
>>...Grammatically, however, we are forced to read it as follows:
>>
>> repent {and let each be baptized} for the forgiveness of your sins
>> | ^
>> +--------------------------------+
>
>Which says to me we need to repent BEFORE our sins are forgiven.
This conclusion is not correct. To put my logic to the test of consistency,
you should have logically combined 756.33 AND 756.34 to force the conclusion
that each of us need to repent "because of the forgiveness of our (plural)
sins."
As I said at the end of 756.33, the bible "teaches the forgiveness of sins that
comes as a result of what Jesus did, not us." What is required of us is that
we put our faith in that finished work that was accomplished on our behalf
nearly 2000 years ago. We must repent (i.e. have a change of heart) and make
a decision to accept the forgiveness that is being offered to us.
To wrap up,
> Do you believe <eis> means "because" which would mean forgiveness of
> sins comes before repentance?
I do.
> or
>
> Do you believe "repentance must be associated with the forgiveness of
> sins" which would mean forgiveness comes after repentance?
I believe that repentance is associated with the forgiveness of sins, the
latter having occurred before the former takes place.
I hope this helps.
|
| 855.53 | Qualification/clarification of .-1 | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Tue Feb 20 1996 12:16 | 44 |
| Re: .52 (me)
My reply in .-1 was both hasty and sloppy. I want to clarify and qualify
what I said on the topic of forgiveness. [This is what happens when I try
to give a quick reply. I just create more work for myself.]
The forgiveness of sins is being offerred to us on the basis of what Jesus
accomplished on the cross at Calvary. He shed his blood and died to pay the
penalty for our sins, that we might be redeemed and our sins not be counted
against us.
This offer of forgiveness is made to all who would believe in faith that Jesus
did indeed die for our sins and rise up from the dead. For those who believe
and remain steadfast in that faith, their sins are indeed forgiven.
However, it must be made clear that there is no forgiveness of sins for those
who reject this offer of forgiveness. Those who do not believe will die in
their sins, enter into judgment, and be finally cast into the lake of fire.
I want to also point out that there is in principle nothing wrong (and quite
alot right) with a person repenting and asking God to forgive their sins. This
gets into the issue of predestination vs. free will. Recitational correctness
is not the issue of course, but rather a changed heart.
A word about predestination vs. free will: I believe that we are both 100%
predestined and have 100% free will. My choice is to believe the scriptures,
which clearly teach both, and chaulk up the apparent logical contradiction to
my human inability to comprehend things in the eternal realm, to which
predestination belongs. (I am aware that there is a discussion going on about
this subject elsewhere in the forum, but I have not been following it, and
don't wish to invest the time into it right now.)
Getting back to Peter2's issue of reconciling 756.33 with 756.34, I don't think
that it is of great significance whether Acts 2:38 be paraphrased "Repent...
in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins" or "Repent... in view of the
forgiveness of sins." That is, I would not be dogmatic about insisting on
the latter, and that is why I intentionally used the word "associated" in
756.34 as follows: "Repentance must be associated with the forgiveness of
sins, while the directive to be baptized can be associated with neither."
Again, the spirit and intent of 756.31-756.44 was to prove a negative. My
goal was to show that the scriptures *don't* teach baptismal regeneration.
I hope that this clarifies things and sets the record straight.
|
| 855.54 | Thanks for the reply and a ?�? or 2 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Thu Feb 22 1996 18:20 | 97 |
| ================================================================================
>Note 855.52 "The Discipler's Baptism" 52 of 53
>Let me preface my reply by stating that I appreciate the fact that you are
>digging into the logical consistency of people's notes. I think that this
>is important work.
Thanks! I appreciate the fact that you appreciate the fact I'm
digging into logical consistency.
>>Which means our sins are forgiven BEFORE we repent.
>That conclusion is correct.
>>Which says to me we need to repent BEFORE our sins are forgiven.
>This conclusion is not correct. To put my logic to the test of consistency,
>you should have logically combined 756.33 AND 756.34 to force the conclusion
>that each of us need to repent "because of the forgiveness of our (plural)
>sins."
Thanks for clearing this up for me!! I had actually never considered
this option. I guess that's why I asked and in such a specific way.
>I hope this helps.
It did very much and once again thanks!
================================================================================
>Note 855.53 "The Discipler's Baptism" 53 of 53
>The forgiveness of sins is being offerred to us on the basis of what Jesus
>accomplished on the cross at Calvary. He shed his blood and died to pay the
>penalty for our sins, that we might be redeemed and our sins not be counted
>against us.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! PRAISE THE LORD!!
>A word about predestination vs. free will: I believe that we are both 100%
>predestined and have 100% free will.
When I first read this, I thought it was quite a cop out, although
after I thought about it for a couple fractions of a femtosecond,
that's 0.0000000000000002 seconds, it describes EXACTLY what I believe.
>My choice is to believe the scriptures,
Wise! Very wise choice! :-)
Just a word on predestination as well, to possibly help you with the
apparent contradiction. Think about a teacher teaching a Pass/Fail
class. He/she designs a syllabus/lesson plan at the beginning of
the year, and "pre-determines" who will pass and who will fail
in that those who follow the lesson plan PASS and those who blow
off the lesson plan FAIL. Now it becomes the choice of the student
to pass or fail. If I want to pass, I "choose" to follow the lesson
plan. If, for whatever reason, I "choose" not to follow the lesson
plan, I fail. 100% predestination coupled with 100% free will.
Thanks for the insight.
>Getting back to Peter2's issue of reconciling 756.33 with 756.34, I don't think
>that it is of great significance whether Acts 2:38 be paraphrased "Repent...
>in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins" or "Repent... in view of the
>forgiveness of sins." That is, I would not be dogmatic about insisting on
>the latter, and that is why I intentionally used the word "associated" in
>756.34 as follows: "Repentance must be associated with the forgiveness of
>sins, while the directive to be baptized can be associated with neither."
>
>I hope that this clarifies things and sets the record straight.
I'm still undecided. Your first reply is much clearer to me than
this particular paragraph of this reply.
As I see it, this brings me back full circle to my original "logical
disconnect" which you had clarified for me until you wrote this,
and I'm hoping you can clarify it for me again.
But let me try first, as I've taken a few seconds to think about
it in view of your previous comments.
Your argument in 756.33 is: "For" (Greek <eis>) can mean "because of"
as well as "to get." However some are dogmatic saying "for" means "to
get."
And in view of your comments on the intent of that note, ie., proving
a negative, what you are saying is Acts 2:38 cannot be used as a proof
text because one cannot be dogmatic about what "for" means.
Am I getting closer?�? Whether I am or not I'll keep digging. And
please take your time in answering. I'd hate to see you make more
work for yourself than you need to by making a sloppy and hasty
reply! ;-)
In His Love,
Peter2
|
| 855.55 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Feb 23 1996 12:47 | 53 |
| Re: .54 (Peter2)
> Just a word on predestination as well, to possibly help you with the
> apparent contradiction. Think about a teacher teaching a Pass/Fail
> class. He/she designs a syllabus/lesson plan at the beginning of
> the year, and "pre-determines" who will pass and who will fail
> in that those who follow the lesson plan PASS and those who blow
> off the lesson plan FAIL. Now it becomes the choice of the student
> to pass or fail. If I want to pass, I "choose" to follow the lesson
> plan. If, for whatever reason, I "choose" not to follow the lesson
> plan, I fail. 100% predestination coupled with 100% free will.
> Thanks for the insight.
This analogy does not represent what I was trying to get across, and I do
not buy into it. However, I intend to resist elaborating further, as I
do not want to invest the time to do so right now. Sorry.
>>Getting back to Peter2's issue of reconciling 756.33 with 756.34, I don't
>>think that it is of great significance whether Acts 2:38 be paraphrased
>>"Repent... in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins" or "Repent... in view
>>of the forgiveness of sins." That is, I would not be dogmatic about insisting
>>on the latter, and that is why I intentionally used the word "associated" in
>>756.34 as follows: "Repentance must be associated with the forgiveness of
>>sins, while the directive to be baptized can be associated with neither."
>>
>>I hope that this clarifies things and sets the record straight.
>
> I'm still undecided. Your first reply is much clearer to me than
> this particular paragraph of this reply.
Then ignore the above paragraph. It wasn't an important point, and
understanding how I am handling the predestination vs. free will issue is
a prerequisite to understanding the above paragraph. Stick with the conclusion
of my first reply, with my clarifications in the second reply that were
pertinent to the point. That will suffice.
> Your argument in 756.33 is: "For" (Greek <eis>) can mean "because of"
> as well as "to get." However some are dogmatic saying "for" means "to
> get."
>
> And in view of your comments on the intent of that note, ie., proving
> a negative, what you are saying is Acts 2:38 cannot be used as a proof
> text because one cannot be dogmatic about what "for" means.
That is exactly correct.
And my argument in 756.34 is: "Repent" must be associated with "the
forgiveness of sins", whereas "be baptized" can be associated with neither.
I hope that you still see that the logical combination of the conclusion of
756.33 with that of 756.34 is valid. That conclusion would be paraphrased
"Repent(plural) on account of the forgiveness of your(plural) sins, and let
each of you(plural) be baptized."
|
| 855.56 | | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Feb 24 1996 17:18 | 79 |
| RE: .55
>Note 855.55 "The Discipler's Baptism" 55 of 55
>
> However, I intend to resist elaborating further, as I do not want to invest
> the time to do so right now. Sorry.
No reason to be sorry. I was just adding a comment and basically
thanking you for the insight you gave me, whether intentional or
unintentional.
>I hope that you still see that the logical combination of the conclusion of
>756.33 with that of 756.34 is valid.
Yes, that became crystal clear after your first answer a number of
replies ago.
And now that I understand, or at least think I understand, let me ask and
answer another question I had regarding the "proving a negative" replies and
see if I really do understand it now.
From 756.32
> -< Acts 2:38 and "water" >-
>
>Sometimes the scriptures are explicit about the type of baptism (immersion).
>Other times it is not.
>
>Let's see what Acts 2:38 says (and doesn't say) on the matter:
>
>"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized (immersed), every one of you, in the
>name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
>the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" (Acts 2:38)
>
>As can be seen, the verse touted as the prime you-bet-you're-salvation
>proof-text does not even mention water.
You state that Acts 2:38 doesn't mention water. Which I originally took to mean
you categorically DENY Acts 2:38 is a water baptism. (But keep reading because
I don't think that way now.)
And yet in 855.0
>Consider again Acts 2:38...
>
>baptistheno> = <let be baptized> looks to me to be passive imperative, not
>act-ive imperative. It is not that Peter was commanding his audience to act.
>Peter was exhorting them to submit to the act. The directive mandates
>initiative on the part of the disciplers, not Peter's audience.
>
>Consider even the outward motions of the act, with which we are all familiar.
>It demonstrates action on the part of the baptizer, as he acts upon the
>baptizee. The person being baptized is entirely dependant upon the baptizer
>for the successful execution of the act. The baptizee need only be present and
>submit to it.
It seems here you are saying that Acts 2:38 IS a water baptism.
This was my original conundrum, 756.32 said NO WATER and yet 855.0 said WATER.
But if I understand your thesis correctly, 756.32 didn't NECESSARILY say NO
WATER, it merely stated water is not mentioned and if God wanted you to bet
your soul on that verse, He would have stated the Acts 2:38 Baptism is to be
IN WATER.
Am I catching on?�? If I am catching on, I guess what I need to do now is to
wrestle with the princple of using a "proving the negative" thesis as a valid
means of correcting false doctrine.
I would like to say "Thank you" for taking the time to make clear to me your
points. This is the first time I've seen these arguments (I have been a
Christian for less than 3 years) and I wanted to understand them and the
reasoning behind them.
Once again, Thanks!
In His Love,
Peter2 (who won't be back until Thursday)
|
| 855.57 | Simply believing the scriptures | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Thu Feb 29 1996 07:18 | 102 |
| Just a little comment.
Garth,
In 756 you made a lot of statements which I would consider
'assumptions', especially how you were talking about a neither in water
baptism or in the spirit baptism which Peter and the other Apostles
might have meant. Unfortunately, everyone can think what they wish
about scriptures as long as they can assume. I know you are sincere in
your givenness to following Jesus as head of your life.
You don't need to make assumptions, what the bible says it means, and
what it means it says. Your attempt to render Acts 2:38 to mean
something totally different than what the Greek text says is not
necessary. What Acts 2:38 says it what it means, and what it means it
says.
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of sins,
I am learning Greek in theology at the university, and can verify that
the translation from KJV is good, the 'for' may also be 'unto the
forgiveness of sins', but certainly not, as you state
> And my argument in 756.34 is: "Repent" must be associated with "the
> forgiveness of sins", whereas "be baptized" can be associated with neither.
>I hope that you still see that the logical combination of the conclusion of
>756.33 with that of 756.34 is valid. That conclusion would be paraphrased
>"Repent(plural) on account of the forgiveness of your(plural) sins, and let
>each of you(plural) be baptized."
If you are really interested, I would take the time, word for word, to
show you the translation of this scripture in Greek. But in any
interlinear translation, together with a old greek dictionary, you can
pretty much tell whether the translation of a passage is good.
To change Acts 2:38 to no longer regard the repenting AND being
baptized for (or unto) the forgiveness of sins would be certainly
'in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.'
I know that you aren't as extreme, but each time we try to make the
scriptures say what we want, and not rather submit to the scriptures,
we are in essence wrestling with the scriptures, not submitting to the
Word of God.
Just for info. Even if you do not regard the many writings from the
church in the years shortly after the apostles, (Justin, Tertullian,
Didache...), even so, is it not a help to see how the people just after
the apostles understood what they said, since the churches had been
established by these very same apostles? When these writings
unmistakably testify that they understood baptism for the forgiveness
of sins, and they were in the same churches which the apostles had
founded, is it not very likely that they hadn't gone into error, but
that Peter really meant 'Repent and let every one of you be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins', just as Paul
meant 'Why do you tarry, arise, be baptized, washing away your sins,
calling on the name of the Lord.' and again in Col.2:11-14, Buried with
him in baptism... having forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the
handwriting...nailing it to his cross.
Justin said in the same church as which Paul and Peter were pillars,
All those who are convinced and believe that the things we teach
and say are true, and who profess to be
able to live in this manner, are taught to pray and to ask God in
fasting the forgiveness of their sins while we pray and fast
together with them.
Then they are led by us to where there is water and are reborn in the
same rebirth in which we ourselves were also reborn. They undergo the
washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of the universe, and
of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.
For indeed Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you will not enter
into the Kingdom of Heaven."... We learned this doctrine from the
Apostles.
Here, Justin is not saying, this is how he interprets what the apostles
said, but that he and those with him learned this doctrine from the
apostles. Because he was probably born at the time John had died, he
really wasn't that far from the apostles in time, where only their
writings remained.
Tertullian, shortly thereafter, (actually, I'll spare you. If you are
interested, I can give you many of the earliest writings, how they all
agree that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins, and that the
statement in the Niceaan confession, 'We believe in one baptism for the
forgiveness of sins' was not error, but written rather to protect from
error something at that time so certain. Ok, a small sentence from
Tertullian, 'Then we go into the baptism bath, then our sins are
washed'.
Rom 6: never mentions directly that baptism is for the forgiveness of
sins, but it does say that baptism is that we may be free from sin,
which includes being forgiven but is even more than just being
forgiven, that we would no longer live in sin.
we are buried with him by baptism into death; for if we have been
planted together in the likeness of his death,... 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. For he that is
dead(our baptism) is freed from sin.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.58 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Thu Feb 29 1996 12:31 | 20 |
| Re: .57 (Rodger)
Simply repeating your original thesis over and over again will not make it
any more convincing than it was at first.
You continue to read into the scriptures what is not there, and you continue
to read into the writings of the early church what is not there. The
unsubstantiated "assumptions" are in your thinking and your writing, not mine.
I have challenged you again and again to substantiate your claims, and you
have not done so.
Again, regarding the writings of the early church, even if they said what
you wanted them to, you could not construe them to be infallible. The bible
itself records scenarios of complete apostasy occurring in *one generation*.
It is not hard to conceive of cases of doctrinal error slipping in and being
adopted by otherwise godly men.
Regarding your claims regarding the Greek text, saying that I am wrong is not
enough. You need to substantiate your claims if you ever hope to compose
a valid rebuttal.
|
| 855.59 | Acts 2:38-41 speaks of the same baptism in water as John 3,4 | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Fri Mar 01 1996 04:11 | 138 |
| Garth,
I'm really not one who wants to correct you, and I sometimes wish that
the way we could challenge one another to seeking even more of what the
Holy Spirit has to reveal to us would have an underlining tone of
encouragement.
You wrote:
>The doctrine of baptismal regeneration that Rodger has presented is not
>according to God's word, but is a perversion of the true gospel of
>Jesus Christ.
>Rodger and other followers of the Boston Church of Christ "Multiplying
>Ministries" movement would have us believe that there is no salvation
>apart from immersion in water for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness of
>sins.
As I told you, I am not a follower of the Boston Church and what you
consider baptismal regeneration I also don't believe, simply because of
the fact of immersing someone into the water, that they are regenerated,
I also told you that I don't believe that unless someone is baptized,
they cannot go to heaven. You made these assumptions.
Concerning 756.27, you stress that Acts 2:38 does not mention water.
Then you mention that it could have been
> immersion of the Holy Spirit or
> immersion into the name/body of Christ. That water is implied is the
>*opinion* of the BCC members.
This, Garth, demonstrates how we can change the meaning of scriptures
any time we want. I find few clearer scriptures of how the early
church grew, of how conversions happened, and in accordance to what
Jesus had directly commanded his disciples with words and also with
actions.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day
there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
This was not the receiving of the Holy Spirit, nor was this an abstract
'immersion into the name/body of Christ'. It was that same that Jesus
had given as an example,
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of
Judaea, and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was
baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there...
When therefore the Lork knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus
made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself
baptized not, but his disciples, (John.3:22,4:1-2)
Garth, this is how the disciples were taught by Jesus. This is the
example they had. That which they did in Acts was no different than
what they had learned from Jesus himself, it was no different than what
Jesus had commanded them many times. In Matthew 28:19;
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
There is no mention of water here, but there is absolutly no doubt of
what he was commanding them, because of what he had taught them
concerning baptism. He wouldn't have taught them one thing about what
baptism was, and then suddenly change it. John the baptist prepared the
way for Jesus by baptizing in water, and Jesus taught his disciples to
baptize with water in the same area where John was baptizing, and all
of the people began leaving John and going to Jesus. They were both
baptizing, and from the physical appearance, it was not the method
which caused the people to leave John and go to Jesus. They were both
'dipping' in the Jordan. But it was God's plan, that John would
decrease, and Jesus would increase.
In Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both
men and women.
Again, no mention of water. But why mention it? Everyone knew what
baptism was from John and Jesus and Jesus' disciples. If every time
baptism is mentioned we have to again evaluate, is it in water? is it
in the Holy Spirit? Is it in the body/name of Jesus? we can no longer
read the bible and let it speak to us. The bible can be read and
believed as it is, without someone having to tell us what it really
means. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to reveal truth, people who
hear his Spirit can speak from the Spirit of God and bring clarity.
When baptism is used in a way NOT referring to water, then it is
clarified. And there is no confusion involved. Only 2 times was the
receiving of the Holy Spirit spoken as a baptism, and it is not
confusing.
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the
Holy Ghost not many days hense.
Everyone understood what baptism was. Now Jesus was speaking of
something which was coming. They understood that he meant in the same
way they were immersed in water with John, they would be immersed in
the Holy Spirit in the near future.
In your own writings, Garth, you don't always mention water.(855.2)
>My point was merely to submit that baptism is something that is
>commanded of the disciplers to do to the disciplees, and to advocate
>redirecting the focus from the baptizee to the baptizer, from the
>disciplee to the discipler.
Do you want me to have to think every time that I don't know what you
are talking about? Maybe of baptism in the name/body of Jesus, maybe of
baptism in the Holy Spirit? You mentioned then:
>In the classic picture of water baptism is the discipler allowing us to
>be buried, then raising us up. I think this picture fits right in with
>what Jesus, the Master Discipler, does for us. We did not seek him out, but
>he sought us out. We need only consent to his initiative, and he will
>cleanse us from our sins and raise us from the dead.
This is very good what you say. But where Paul in Rom.6 and Col.2
speaks about baptism, he doesn't mention once water. Yet you say this
is the 'classic picture of water baptism'. I agree with you! Why do you
then argue so much that because Jesus didn't say 'They that believe and
are baptized in water shall be saved' but instead 'they that believe
and are baptized shall be saved'? leaving it unclear to all of us
whether he meant the baptism in the Holy Spirit or the baptism in the
name/body of Christ. There is no unclarity, just as there is no
unclarity in what you meant in note 855.2 (which I find very good).
Before we mention any other points, or take a single step further, let
us find clarity on note 756.27. where you so strongly say that it is
only the *opinion* of the BCC members. I am not trying to defend them,
I don't even know them, but when they say that they understand Acts
2:38 as referring to water baptism, I am CERTAIN they are right, and
CERTAIN you are wrong if you have a different *opinion*!
If in this point you wish to make another ASSUMPTION, that Peter and
the apostles DIDN'T baptize these people IN WATER, even though it says
that 'they that gladly received his word were baptized', and they had
had John and Jesus as their example as to what baptism was, then I
believe your accusation against me, that my writing 'is not according
to God's word, but is a perversion of the true gospel of Jesus Christ'
is caused by your own problem in rightly dividing the Word of truth.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.60 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Mar 01 1996 17:21 | 96 |
| Re: .59 (Rodger)
First of all, I want to comment on the following:
> I'm really not one who wants to correct you, and I sometimes wish that
> the way we could challenge one another to seeking even more of what the
> Holy Spirit has to reveal to us would have an underlining tone of
> encouragement.
It is not my intention to have a tone of encouragement when speaking with
you about your doctrine regarding water baptism. Your doctrine is fallacious
and potentially very dangerous. My goal is to discourage you.
Regarding your organizational affiliation, I stand corrected on this. The
Boston Church of Christ is characterized by zealous preaching of the same
doctrine regarding water baptism, and in a discussion about water baptism in
the notesfile many years ago your replies were intermingled with the replies of
BCC members. My recollection of your affiliation is wrong. Again, I stand
corrected. For what it's worth, I will say that I think that you would find
like-minded fellowship with their movement, although I recall your replies in
another topic on spiritual manifestations such as speaking in tongues would be
at odds with theirs. They have planted churches in several other foreign
countries, but obviously not near you.
Regarding the phrase "baptismal regeneration", this is a general phrase used
in counter-cult apologetics to describe those who believe that it is in the
act of water baptism that one is regenerated, receiving at that point the gift
of the Holy Spirit and becoming at that point a true Christian and disciple of
Christ. Neither you nor the BCC members believe that a person is regenerated
"simply because of the fact of immersing someone in water", as you say. I
don't believe I have ever accused you of this.
Furthermore, many who fall into your error do allow for one potential loophole
or another that will allow a person to get to heaven without being baptized in
water under certain extenuating circumstances, whether it be the thief on the
cross or someone becoming a Christian in the desert or the north pole and then
dying before having an opportunity to be immersed in water. In my view, this
does not exempt you from the "baptismal regeneration" label. However, if you
don't like the label, I won't continue to use it.
I want to take the opportunity to correct your assessment of what I believe
as well. As Peter2 noted, my replies have been sharply focused on
demonstrating to you that your view of water baptism has no support in the
scriptures. It was not my intention to discuss with you my own views regarding
water baptism, but only what the scriptures say and do not say about it.
I will say that I believe that water baptism is a fundamental sacrament of the
Christian faith that is both commanded and important. Although the scriptures
do not give us statistics on how many of the early church were baptized in
water, my assumption is that most, if not all were, and that there was an
expectation that a disciple of Christ would submit to it. I also think that it
should be one of the first orders of business, and not something to do sometime
months later after the pastor happens to preach a sermon on it.
I also do not stand with those who would pronounce a person saved based on
going through the motions of a "sinner's prayer" after reading to them a
"Four Spiritual Laws" tract. I call this "recitational regeneration", and
have as dim a view of it as you do.
I want to comment also on your following point of contention:
> In your own writings, Garth, you don't always mention water.(855.2)
> >My point was merely to submit that baptism is something that is
> >commanded of the disciplers to do to the disciplees, and to advocate
> >redirecting the focus from the baptizee to the baptizer, from the
> >disciplee to the discipler.
> Do you want me to have to think every time that I don't know what you
> are talking about? Maybe of baptism in the name/body of Jesus, maybe of
> baptism in the Holy Spirit? You mentioned then:
I have been very careful to mention the word "water" when when I wanted to be
explicit about it, and the above is no exception.
In my "Discipler's Baptism" discussion I maintain that for *any* kind of
baptism, the focus should be on the baptizer. In water baptism, the focus
should be on the discipler. In baptism into the body of Christ, the focus
should be on Christ. In baptism in the Holy Spirit, the focus should be on
the Holy Spirit. My ommission of the word "water" in the paragraph you quoted
above was done with planning and intent.
What you continue to miss out on is that the physical things of this earth
that are given to us as sacraments are but pictures of the spiritual realities
that they point to. You confuse the former with the latter. I affirm both,
but realize that it is the latter which counts in eternal matters. You have
yet to come to a full and balanced understanding of things such as this. You
are like the Judaizers of old, who insisted that unless one is circumcised and
taught to obey the Law of Moses, one could not be saved. Sooner or later you
will be forced to admit the shortsightedness of your teaching and the error of
your doctrine. I pray that it be sooner, rather than later.
One thing that I am beginning to notice about your responses is this: That you
are starting to come down from your pulpit and think critically. Instead of
discarding what I say and repeatedly preaching your same sermon over and over
again, you are at least now using your God-given brain and subjecting my
responses to some analysis that is halfway reasonable. I want you to know that
I appreciate that.
|
| 855.61 | How did Jesus and the apostles baptize, and why? | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Wed Mar 06 1996 09:14 | 68 |
| Garth,
You asked me to share why I think that the greek translation in EVERY
translation in German, English or Spanish is correct. You say we should
paraphrase Acts 2:38:
>Repent(plural) on account of the forgiveness of your(plural) sins, and
>let each of you(plural) be baptized.
The text in original is:
Petros de pros autous metanoesate, pfesin, xai Baptistheto exastos
Peter but to them repent said and dip(baptize) each
humon epi to onomati Iesou Xristou eis apfesin ton hamartion humon...
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins of you...
Every bible translation I know is in essence correct, but the meaning you
give to this verse is not, that 'Repent on account of the forgiveness
of sins and let each of you be baptized." The meaning you wish to read
into this verse IS NOT in the greek. EIS is a preposition (lit. into
but can also be used as for, to, in). Whichever preposition, the
meaning 'be baptized each of you...
into the forgiveness of your sins
for the forgiveness of your sins
to the forgiveness of your sins
It certainly makes clear, that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins,
it states it so that all bible translators world wide have also clearly
stated that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins in all of the
languages in which the book of acts has been translated. Your
translation is in NONE of them.
You say that I am fallous in my beliefs concerning baptism, and say
that it is very dangerous. Please tell me which of the following points
is so wrong and dangerous, and which of them disagree with the
apostles.
1. I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
2. I believe that when someone who believes the gospel and is baptized
is saved. Both are necessary, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have mentioned
BOTH. I know that there are exceptions, but these exceptions are
usually caused by error, either because the message of 'Repent and be
baptized' has been lost by much of the church, or because of error
concerning the form of baptism or for who baptism was meant (babies,
unbelievers, etc.)
3. Those who preach the gospel are also to baptize those who believe
and make disciples, as in Matt. 28
4. By one spirit we are baptized into one body. Baptism without the
Spirit behind it, without Jesus behind it as Lord, is not as Jesus
planned. Those who follow Jesus in all truth as their Lord will baptize
only those who believe the Gospel from their heart and confess Jesus as
Lord of their lives, the baptism being the first step into a submitted
relationship to Jesus, where he is our Lord and we are his disciples.
5. Nobody should take communion who has not first been baptized. This
is also related to point 4, that the church consists of those who have
entered the new covenant by believing the gospel and being baptized, by
being born of the water(baptism) and spirit.
Tell me, not how you find these views dangerous, but rather how the
apostles or Jesus found these views dangerous. Or are they not in
reality the view of Jesus and the apostles? I found them for myself
when I was told by Jesus to be an evangelist according to the gospel.
Which evangelists baptize everyone when they believed as Phillip did,
or Peter, or Paul, or Annanias, etc. I wish there were more of them,
and I believe there will be, as Jesus restores his church, that it is
again as in Acts.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.62 | translational correctness | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Mar 08 1996 00:35 | 23 |
| Re: .61 (Rodger Dutsako)
First of all, I never said that I had a problem with any of the (legitimate)
English translations. I think that they are just fine. English does have
a limitation in that the same word "you" and "your is used for both the
singular and plural number. But there are very few of such limitations.
In Acts 2:38, Peter says "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
I have no problem with this translation.
You keep insisting that I am reading things into this verse of the Bible.
But to the best of my knowledge I don't remember ever sharing what I think
the implications of Acts 2:38 are. All I have done is point out what the
verse says and doesn't say at face value.
You are the one who reads things into this verse. All the following words
in square brackets are what you are reading into it:
"[Each of you] repent and be baptized [in water] in the name of Jesus
Christ for [the purpose of obtaining] the forgiveness of your sins."
|
| 855.63 | Acts 2:38, Greek <eis>, English "for" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Mar 08 1996 00:44 | 91 |
| Re: .61 (Rodger Dutsako)
Regarding the Greek word <eis>, I think your study of this word is a bit
limited. This preposition occurs 1764 times in 1511 verses of the New
Testament. In the English translation that I use, just that inflection of
the word, used alone, is translated all of the following ways: aboard,
about, against, among, as, as far as, at, attaining to, become, before,
beyond, bring into, bring to, brought, by, do, doing, down upon, for,
for purpose, from, full of, go, granted, how to gratify, in, in dealing
with, in order that, in order to bring, in regard to, increases, intended
to bring, into, leading to, leads to, make, of, on, on to, onto, over,
receive, regarding, result in, so as to, so that, supply, that, the place
of, there to, through, throughout, till, to, to bring, to cause, to do,
to serve, toward, under, until, unto, up, where, will turn out, with.
In my English translation, <eis> is translated "for" 142 times in 135 verses
of the New Testament. Sometimes it implies a cause and effect relationship
(like you suppose it must) and other times it does not. Let's look at a
few examples of how it does not:
For example, in Matt. 3:11 John the Baptist says "I baptize you for
repentance...". Did he mean that his baptism would cause repentance, or
was his baptism done because of repentance?
For example, in Matt. 10:10 Jesus says "Take no bag for the journey...".
Did taking the bag cause the journey, or was the bag to be taken because of
the journey?
For example John 7:10 says "However, after his brothers had left for the
Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret." Did the brothers leave
to bring about the Feast, or did they leave on account of the Feast?
For example, in John 12:7 Jesus says "Leave her alone. It was intended
that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial." Did saving
the perfume bring about the day of his burial, or was the perfume saved
on account of the day of his burial?
For example, Paul asks in Romans 9:21 "Does not the potter have the right
to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and
some for common use?" Is pottery made to bring about noble purposes in the
mind of the potter, or is it made on account of the noble purposes that
already existed in the mind of the potter?
For example, Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or
whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." Are we to eat and drink
to bring about the glory of God, or are we to eat and drink with the glory
of God in mind?
For example, Paul says in 1 Tim 6:19 "In this way they will lay up treasure
for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age...". Do we lay up
treasure to bring about the coming age, or do we lay up treasure with the
coming age in mind?"
For example, Paul says in Tit 3:14 "Our people must learn to devote
themselves to doing what is good, in order that they may provide for
daily necessities and not live unproductive lives." Do we provide to
bring about the daily necessities of life, or do we provide on account
of what is necessary?
For example, Heb 9:9 says "This is an illustration for the present time...".
Does the illustration cause "the present time" or is the illustration given
with the present time in mind?
For example, 2 Pet 2:9 says "the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from
trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment...". Does
holding the unrighteous bring about the day of judgment, or are they held
because of the coming day of judgment?
For example, 2 Pet 3:7 says "By the same word the present heavens and earth
are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction
of ungodly men." Does keeping the present heavens and earth cause the
day of judgment, or are the present heavens and earth kept on account of
the day of judgment?
For example, Jude 1:6 says the fallen angels are "bound with everlasting
chains for judgment on the great Day." Does binding them with chains
cause the judgment, or are they being bound because of the coming judgment?
These are all examples of the Greek word <eis>, translated "for", but not
used in the way you insist it can only be used.
You say about Acts 2:38,
> all bible translators world wide have also clearly
> stated that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins in all of the
> languages in which the book of acts has been translated. Your
> translation is in NONE of them.
So now I affirm to you again that the translations are correct and baptism
is "for" the forgiveness of sins. The problem is not the text, but what
you insist on reading into it.
|
| 855.64 | Rodger's creed on baptism: Q&A | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Mar 08 1996 00:46 | 96 |
| Re: .61 (Rodger Dutsako)
> You say that I am fallous in my beliefs concerning baptism, and say
> that it is very dangerous. Please tell me which of the following points
> is so wrong and dangerous, and which of them disagree with the
> apostles.
>
> 1. I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
So do I.
> 2. I believe that when someone who believes the gospel and is baptized
> is saved. Both are necessary, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have mentioned
> BOTH. I know that there are exceptions, but these exceptions are
> usually caused by error, either because the message of 'Repent and be
> baptized' has been lost by much of the church, or because of error
> concerning the form of baptism or for who baptism was meant (babies,
> unbelievers, etc.)
This is wrong and dangerous, and is not in accord with the apostles'
teaching.
> 3. Those who preach the gospel are also to baptize those who believe
> and make disciples, as in Matt. 28
Correct.
> 4. By one spirit we are baptized into one body.
I affirm this *spiritual* baptism, done by that "one spirit".
> Baptism without the
> Spirit behind it, without Jesus behind it as Lord, is not as Jesus
> planned.
Correct.
> Those who follow Jesus in all truth as their Lord will baptize
> only those who believe the Gospel from their heart and confess Jesus as
> Lord of their lives, the baptism being the first step into a submitted
> relationship to Jesus, where he is our Lord and we are his disciples.
That is the ideal.
> 5. Nobody should take communion who has not first been baptized.
No one should take communion who is not spiritually baptized into the body
of Christ.
> This
> is also related to point 4, that the church consists of those who have
> entered the new covenant by believing the gospel and being baptized, by
> being born of the water(baptism) and spirit.
This is wrong and dangerous, and is not in accord with the apostles'
teaching.
> Tell me, not how you find these views dangerous, but rather how the
> apostles or Jesus found these views dangerous.
Jesus rebuked the religious teachers of his day, because of their "rules
taught by men" (Matt. 15, Mark 7). He said that they nullified the word of
God for the sake of their traditions.
The Apostle Paul taught clearly in Romans chapters 2 through 7, and all of
Galatians how dangerous rules apart from the gospel are. At the beginning
of Galations chapter 1, Paul declared that those who pervert the gospel
should be eternally condemned.
I think it also instructive to repeat the letter in Acts 15 written
concerning the Gentile believers with regard to the requirements of
the Law of Moses:
"The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization
and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we
all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear
friends Barnabas and Paul-- men who have risked their lives for
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas
and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed
good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything
beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food
sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals
and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell."
This letter dealt with those who were trying to impose the Law of Moses
on Gentile believers. In principle, it applies to you as well, as you
are attempting to burden those turning to Christ with something that was
never documented as a requirement.
|
| 855.65 | Unless reborn of water and spirit, will not enter in | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Fri Mar 15 1996 13:33 | 111 |
| Garth,
I got your reply. Thanks.
First, in the last mail I asked you to not give your own opinions of
why these beliefs, which I, the apostles and the church fathers have
are very dangerous. I said.
>> 2. I believe that when someone who believes the gospel and is baptized
>> is saved. Both are necessary, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have mentioned
>> BOTH
you replied.
>This is wrong and dangerous, and is not in accord with the apostles'
>teaching.
However, you said it as you opinion. I asked you in the note not just
for your opinion, but founded on the scriptures, i.e. the apostles'
doctrine. I ask you again, show me how you support your claim, that the
apostles find this wrong and dangerous.
Then, when I said,
>> is also related to point 4, that the church consists of those who have
>> entered the new covenant by believing the gospel and being baptized, by
>> being born of the water(baptism) and spirit.
you commented:
>This is wrong and dangerous, and is not in accord with the apostles'
>teaching.
Again, I ask you, substaniate your claim. I have loved Jesus and his
word for 24 years. I have read the scriptures, I have gone over ALL
christian writings which were written in the first 2 centuries after
Christ. I know Luther claimed "Faith alone", but he was wrong. Faith is
certainly very important, and without it noone should ever be baptized,
but Jesus' words were not 'They that believe shall be saved', but 'they
that believe and are baptized shall be saved.' Peter didn't say, 'by
faith you are saved', but rather 'the like figure whereunto baptism
does now save us, not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but
the request (answer) of a good conscience toward God'. Jesus didn't
say, 'Except a man be born of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
of God', but 'Except a man be born of WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he
cannot enter the kingdom of God'.
EVERY church father which wrote of the rebirth, men who led the church
at the time of the first 2 centuries, understood exactly what Jesus
meant by these words, and sometimes recited them.
150 AD Justin, 1 Apol. 1xi
Then we bring them to a place where there is water, where they are
reborn in the same way as we were. for they then receive the washing in
the baptismal water in the name of the Father and the Lord of all
things, and our savious Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
190 AD Tertullian, On baptism 13(I have the whole article and would love
sending it to you if you are interested to know how the early church
saw baptism. It is the earliest writing still existing dealing
exhaustively on the subject of baptism)
For this reason the claim is made, that without baptism nobody can
receive salvation, especially on the grounds of what the Lord spoke,
'If someone is not reborn of the water, he does not have life' - maybe
the doubters or those after strife, or other unlearned people, ... Go
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. To this command was also added, 'Unless a man be reborn
of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' and
therfore requires the believing on the necessity of baptism. And so
from then on all believers were baptized.
(In the same article he speaks against baptizing infants)
Then you state:
>The Apostle Paul taught clearly in Romans chapters 2 through 7, and all of
>Galatians how dangerous rules apart from the gospel are. At the beginning
>of Galations chapter 1, Paul declared that those who pervert the gospel
>should be eternally condemned.
>This letter dealt with those who were trying to impose the Law of Moses
>on Gentile believers. In principle, it applies to you as well, as you
>are attempting to burden those turning to Christ with something that was
>never documented as a requirement.
Garth,
Jesus commanded me to baptize those who believe. This is how we enter
into the new covenant. If someone does not want to enter, does not want
to follow Jesus as their Lord in all truth, then may God's grace
prevent me or anyone else from ever baptizing such a person.
If someone, however, has been deceived and thereby think they are
following Jesus as their Lord, but haven't yet been baptized, then I am
taking the same step as Paul in Acts 19, "did you receive the holy
spirit as you believed...(no) unto what then were you baptized? Unto
John's baptism...when they heard this, they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus."
In new testament times, they were ALL baptized into one body, for you
are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of
you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Other
scriptures also show that EVERYONE in the new testament church were
baptized, and none as infants, and none with just a few drops of water
on the head.
Do we want to obey Jesus as our Lord or not? If he says it, he
instigated it, he commanded it, we must bear the consequences of it
when we stand before his judgement seat. If he says nobody enters the
kingdom of God unless they are reborn of the water and of the spirit,
do you think he will say something else at the day of judgement? I
think not.
Rodger
|
| 855.66 | | ALFSS1::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Mon Mar 18 1996 08:30 | 6 |
| It's widely understood and in accord with the complete biblical
teaching concerning salvation that Jesus taught that one has to be born
both by water (actual human birth) and by the Spirit (the new birth) in
order to enter into the Kingdom of God.
jeff
|
| 855.67 | eis/for, John 3:3, "dangerousity" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Tue Mar 19 1996 12:16 | 17 |
| Re: .65 (Rodger)
So I see you have provided no answer to my rebuttal in .63 regarding the
use of the Greek <eis> and corresponding English "for". Do you concede
then that the word in either language does not necessarily imply a cause-effect
relationship?
Regarding your continued repetition of John 3:3 "unless one is born of
water...", I rebutted that in 756.43. You have not provided an answer to
that rebuttal. Again, reciting the verse over and over again does not
contribute anything more to the discussion. John 3:3 does not even mention
baptism, and in context speaks not of baptism, but of the natural birth vs.
the spiritual birth, as Jeff also pointed out in .66.
Regarding whether a false doctrine having to do with our salvation is
dangerous, it will profit us nothing to dispute about it until we establish
whether or not your doctrine about baptism is true.
|
| 855.68 | Water = human birth? | USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 10:04 | 22 |
| Re: .66
This interpretation seems odd to me. Why would Jesus argue with
Nicodemus about natural birth, surely that would have been an
obvious assumption on both parts. Natural birth gives us our
existence, from God of course. It seems to me that if someone
does not exist, is not born, then they can't have eternal life.
Also why is it that later in this very chapter of the Gospel of
John, that Jesus' disciples then go out and baptise?
I don't get it?
For another view of this see note 845.3, a treatise by Eric Ewanco
on the prefigurements of baptism, all related to "water and the
Spirit".
Peter.
P.S. I hope this does not rathole this note, I just have a hard time
with that interpretation.
|
| 855.69 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Wed Mar 20 1996 11:45 | 25 |
| I tend to agree with the notion that Jeff put forward. There are more
than just 2 possibilities for what the water could be that I also
presented to Eric. However, I think only 1 really makes sense.
1. Physical birth - breaking of water during childbirth. If have
to be born to be eligible for the re-birth and resurrection. This rules
out all beings but humans. For example, angelic (fallen or not) beings
don't have the option of repentance. You could also say that since all
humans are born of water, they are also required to be born again to
obtain salvation. This is Biblical.
2. God's Word - see John 15:3 and its cross-references. This is
possible, but I don't see people have an interest in studying the Bible
before being born again. Most have a hard enough time studying it
after they are born again ;-)
3. Spirit of God - see John 7:37-39 and its cross-references. This one
probably doesn't make sense here because of the context of John 3 calling
for birth out of water and the Spirit.
4. Water Baptism - which Catholics and liturgical Protestants support.
Garth and others in here have given an excellent defense using the book of
Acts on why this couldn't apply here.
Mike
|
| 855.70 | | DREUL1::rob | Rob Marshall - Customer Service Dresden | Wed Mar 20 1996 13:18 | 25 |
| Just sticking my nose in for a minute (hi Rodger :-)
The other reason why it's plausible that the "water birth" spoken of in John
3 is refering to natural birth, is that Nicodemus asked Jesus what he meant
by "being born again." Jesus' answer was fairly straight-forward, eg Jesus to
Nicodemus:
"You don't climb back into your mother's womb. There is only one physical
(water/flesh) birth. What I'm talking about is a spiritual birth. The first
birth brings about physical existence, but you are cut off from God (born of
flesh is flesh). It's spiritual birth that brings you into God's kingdom, ie
a new spiritual life (born of Spirit is spirit)."
Jesus then compares spiritual birth to the wind. We (the observer) have no
idea where the wind came from, or where it's going. We can only hear it move.
If Jesus were talking about water baptism being required for salvation, then
He would have had to have used another comparison other than wind. ie If some-
thing like water baptism were required, then we (the observer) would *know*
where it came from, ie it *came* from faith/repentance/baptism. The whole
comparison with the wind is a clear statement that salvation is by grace apart
from works.
But, water baptism is a good work for the newly saved! :-)
Rob
|
| 855.71 | | USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:06 | 26 |
| Re: .70
More support for John 3:5 as baptism.
Titus 3:5-6
...he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in
virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in
the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ
our Savior,
1 Cor 6:11
...And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified,
you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the
Spirit of our God.
Eph 5:26
...that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water
with the word
What do you think these verses mean?
Peter.
|
| 855.72 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:54 | 7 |
| RE: -1
Peter, those verses refer to a spiritual regeneration that can only
happen by being born of the Spirit (i.e., born again). Water doesn't
have that capability.
Mike
|
| 855.73 | My thoughts. | USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:59 | 57 |
| Re: .70
Here is a section of John 3.
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you
are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do,
unless God is with him."
3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew,
he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter
a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and
the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'
8 The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not
know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born
of the Spirit."
9 Nicode'mus said to him, "How can this be?"
10 Jesus answered him, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not
understand this?
11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to
what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony.
12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you
believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Here is how I see it.
In verse 3 Jesus says "unless one is born anew", that is reborn.
Verse 4 Nicodemus protests, how can someone be born again.
Now for verse 5, I think Jesus is starting to explain here
what he means by being "born anew". Not that he is refering to
to births, natural and spiritual. That is to be born anew is
to be born of water and spirit. This is what verse 6 means to
me. Jesus is explaining that there are 2 births. Verses 7 and 8
explain the nature of the second birth. Verse 9, Nicodemus is
still not buying it. So it's Jesus' turn to be incredulus.
Why does Jesus go on to say "we speak of what we know, and bear
witness to what we have SEEN; but you do not receive our testimony."
Here's a synopsis.
1. Jesus says "born anew"
2. Nicodemus doesn't like it.
3. Jesus says "born anew" = "born of water and spirit".
4. Jesus says there are 2 births, natural and spiritual.
5. Jesus explains the second birth (spiritual).
6. Nicodemus still doesn't buy it.
7. Jesus gets frustrated with him
8. Jesus says he is giving a testimony to what he's seen and knows.
9. What? What is it that he's seen?
I'm not a biblical or Greek scholar so this is just my humble opinion.
Peter.
|
| 855.74 | More scripture. | USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:03 | 15 |
| Re: .69, .70, .72
Can you give me other scriptural references where water refers to
physical birth.
John 4:10
...Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that
is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he
would have given you living water."
Is Jesus offering this woman physical birth?
Peter.
|
| 855.75 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Wed Mar 20 1996 20:09 | 16 |
| > 8. Jesus says he is giving a testimony to what he's seen and knows.
> 9. What? What is it that he's seen?
Nicodemus' carnal perspective wasn't meshing with Jesus' spiritual
insights. Jesus even remarked that He was surprised at what Nicodemus
didn't know since he was a teacher of Israel. The Creator was talking
to Nicodemus of heavenly things and it was going over his head. Sort of a
testimony of the state of Israel's priests/Pharisees of the time. They
turned the covenant into a ritualistic one.
Re: -1 (Jesus and the Samaritan woman)
The living water is spiritual regeneration from being born again - the
peace and contentment only available through Jesus Christ.
Mike
|
| 855.76 | "born of water" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Thu Mar 21 1996 12:55 | 11 |
| The other question you have to ask yourself is how do you expect Nicodemus to
read "water baptism" into the "born of water" phrase if we can't. If Jesus
meant "water baptism", then why didn't he just say it? "Truly I say to you,
unless one is baptized in water and [born of] the spirit...." Jesus did not
say that. He said "born of water".
As was mentioned a few replies back, lack of natural birth disqualifies
anyone but humans (e.g. fallen angels) who are outside the kingdom from
gaining entrance. Lack of spiritual rebirth disqualifies the unrepentant
and unbelieving humans. And the heavenly angels don't need to gain entrance
since they are already there.
|
| 855.77 | Eis - Why so many ways translated? | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Sun Mar 24 1996 13:15 | 23 |
| Garth,
Just a short note concerning your comment concerning 'eis'. What I told
you is what the teacher in Ancient Greek teaches. He says that there is
a difference when used in the accusative or the dativ.
Without going into a long argument about nothing too important, I would
simply like to tell you how the word 'to' is translated into German
from english.
Ich gehe nach Berlin. I go to berlin.
Ich geh�re zu ihm. I belong to him.
Ich habe ihm das wasser gegeben. I have given the water to him.
Ich habe Brot bachen gelernt. I have learned to bake bread.
An meine Schwester To my sister
Here are 5 examples which come quickly to me. I'm sure the list could
be 15 or longer, where the word 'to' in english is translated into
German differently. However, in 'Bad German', you could say the word
'To' in any of these sentences, and most people would understand what
you were trying to say.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.78 | The early church says the water is baptism! | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Sun Mar 24 1996 14:45 | 230 |
| Garth,
You asked me to give you an answer to 756.43, where you mention that the water
in John 3:5 is not referring to water baptism.
First, I want to tell you my history of seeing this scripture. For my first
years as a christian I always saw it as water baptism. For someone who has not
been told that it refers to a natural birth, they would probably never guess
this, at least I didn't. Then someone came, as yourself, and told me that this
was not referring to water baptism, but the natural birth. So I 'reread' this
scripture the way they said it and thought 'OK, maybe it is natural birth.' I
believed this for many years. Then, as Jesus began speaking to me directly
concerning baptism, this 'natural birth' interpretation was confronted and I
wasn't sure what to believe any more. Then I began to read what those who lived
in the time of the early church wrote, directly after the apostles, and saw
numerous references to this scripture. And they all agreed, and they all saw
it as baptism. And the earliest one said that they had received it from the
apostles, and since his writing was around 150 AD, he probably was telling the
truth.
Do you not see that it can be valuable knowing how the early church saw these
and other scriptures? Certainly, they are not to be taken as the scriptures
themselves, but they were so close to Jesus' time and the generation of the
apostles. Many were in the same churches Paul or the other apostles had begun.
I am supprised that you didn't respond with interest in knowing what they had
to say. Isn't important to us, who wish that the foundation which Jesus and the
apostles laid would be restored, that we know how the early church saw these
scriptures. After all, we are almost 2000 years away from the writing of these
scriptures, while some of them were only a generation away.
They also highly upheld the writings of Jesus and the apostles, and were
instrumental in having them recognized as the 'scriptures' of the new
testament. Here are some of them concerning the subject we are presently
speaking of:
Justin the Martyr (150 A.D) 1.Apol.xv
I will explain by what manner we, who have been renewed by Christ, have
dedicated ourselves to God, so that we may not seem to be acting wickedly in
our explanation by leaving this out. All those who are convinced and
believe that the things we teach and say are true, and whoprofess to be
able to live in this manner, are taught to pray and to ask God in fasting
the forgiveness of their sins while we pray and fast together with them.
Then they are led by us to where there is water and are reborn in the same
rebirth in which we ourselves were also reborn. They undergo the washing in
water in the name of God the Father and Master of the universe, and of our
Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.
For indeed Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you will not enter into the
Kingdom of Heaven."...
We learned this doctrine from the Apostles. In our first birth we were born
unconscious, according to necessity, out of the humid seed from the
intercourse of our parents, and we grew up in evil customs and bad habits.
But in order that we may not remain children of necessity and ignorance, but
of election and understanding and may obtain remission of sins previously
committed, the name of God the Father and Master of the universe is invoked
in the water over the one who has chosen to be reborn and who has repented
of his sins.
The same 'dangerous' false teachings, which you mentioned I have, he had too.
He clearly relates being born again with baptism:
Then they are led by us to where there is water and are reborn in the same
rebirth in which we ourselves were also reborn. They undergo the washing in
water
Now, if someone doesn't believe the gospel, or is a baby, or hasn't repented
of their sins, they are excluded from this baptism which Justin is talking
about.
as stated:
All those who are convinced and believe that the things we teach and say
are true, and whoprofess to be able to live in this manner...
and:
are taught to pray and to ask God in fasting the forgiveness of their sins
and
they are lead by us to where there is water and are reborn
Here is where I believe a great problem arises. As soon as infants or
people are being baptized, where the spirit is not doing the work, then
these baptisms do not contain the rebirth of the spirit. Therefore did Paul
write:
For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body(1.Cor.12:13)
Baptism has only meaning if it is the spirit of God directing it, and NOT the
works of Man. It is a spiritual BIRTH. If a woman is very far along in her
pregnancy, then she goes to a midwife to be delivered. So it is with
baptism. When someone by the blowing of the spirit is close to birth, then
God is about to have a 'baby'. The disciples 'deliver' this baby through
baptism. This is their enterance into the church, as sons of God.
As Paul wrote explaining this DIRECT connection between rebirth and baptism:
For you are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.(Gal.3:26)
When someone thinks that infant baptism is valid, they do not understand what
baptism really is. A midwife cannot bear a child when someone is not even
pregnant! First, the gospel of our salvation must be heard, believed. Then
through this faith the child is conceived, and at baptism born, freed from
the old man, and with a new identity as saints of the most high, dead to sin,
freed from sin, cleansed from sin, and now servants to God.
Justin also says concerning baptism:
When we have thus washed a man who has accepted the teaching and has made
his profession of faith, we bring him to the brethren...
But in no way was Justin alone. ALL of the leaders of the church in the first
3 centuries said the same thing, And I have found as yet not a single exception,
but pages and pages which agree!
Just a few:
Hermas (140 AD)
Section 3[31][1]
"I will still proceed, Sir," say I, "to ask a further question."
"Speak on," saith he. "I have heard, Sir," say I, "from certain
teachers, that there is no other repentance, save that which took
place when we rent down into the water and obtained remission of our
former sins."
"It was necessary for them," saith he, "to rise up through water,
that they might be made alive; for otherwise they could not enter
into the kingdom of God, except they had put aside the deadness of
their [former] life.
[3] So these likewise that had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son
of God and entered into the kingdom of God. For before a man," saith
he, "has borne the name of [the Son of] God, he is dead; but when he
has received the seal, he layeth aside his deadness, and resumeth
life.
[4] The seal then is the water: so they go down into the water dead, and
they come up alive. "thus to them also this seal was preached, and
they availed themselves of it that they might enter into the kingdom
of God."
[5] "Wherefore, Sir," say I, "did the forty stones also come up with them
from the deep, though they had already received the seal?"
"Because," saith he, "these, the apostles and the teachers who
preached the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in
the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to them that had
fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave unto them the seal of
the preaching.
[6] Therefore they went down with them into the water, and came up again.
But these went down alive [and again came up alive]; whereas the
others that had fallen asleep before them went down dead and came up
alive.
[7] So by their means they were quickened into life, and came to the full
knowledge of the name of the Son of God. For this cause also they
came up with them, and were fitted with them into the building of the
tower and were builded with them, without being shaped; for they fell
asleep in righteousness and in great purity. Only they had not this
seal.
Paul said the same in Rom.6.
We ARE buried, our old man is crucified IN BAPTISM, we are made alive,
we rise with Christ IN BAPTISM. He is not speaking symbolically. The
early church did not believe this was symbolic, and it wasn't. There is an
operation of God in baptism which Col.2:12 refers to:
'Buried with him in baptism, wherein(baptism) also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead'
You couldn't tell the 3000 people in Pentecost it was symbolic! They experienced
it. And how much does God wish for people to experience it today!
Irenaeus (180 AD) Adversus Haereses
For our bodies have received the unity which brings us to immortality, by
means of the washing of Baptism; our souls receive it by means of the gift of
the Spirit. Thus both of these are needed...
Again BOTH are needed!
Tertullian(190 AD), De Baptismo 6
Not that in the waters we gain the Holy spirit; but when we have been cleansed
in water under the influence of the messenger we are made ready for the Holy
Spirit... In the same way the messenger who presides over baptism 'makes
the paths straight' for the Holy Spirit who is to come after, by the washing
away of sins, which faith obtains when sealed in the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit.
Tertullian also taught that when they would baptise someone, they would lay
hands on them and they would receive the Holy Spirit.
Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus I.vi(28)
so in baptism by the Spirit of God we get rid of the sins which dim our eyes
like a mist, and leave the eye of the spirit free and unhindered and
enlightened. By this eye alone we behold God, when the Holy Spirit pours into
us from Heaven.
and
Being baptized, we are enlightened: being enlightened, we are adopted
as sons, being adopted, we are made perfect;... This work has many names; gift
of grace, enlightenment, perfection, washing. Washing, by which we are cleansed
from the filth of our sins; gift of grace, by which the penalties of our sins
are cancelled; enlightenment, through which that holy light which saves us
is perceived, that is, by which our eyes are made keen to see the divine...
Origen Comm. In Eva. Ioannis
The record in the acts of the Apostles tells of the manifest indwelling of the
Spirit in the baptized, when the water has prepared the way for those who
approach in sincerity... Baptism is called 'bath of rebirth' which takes
place with 'renewal of Spirit'.
I could go on, but I do not have enough time. Either ALL of these writings,
every one of the writers of the early church were wrong, believers of a
dangerous teaching, or they were right. For over 1500 years the complete
church believed in one baptism (water) for the forgiveness of sins. You can
see this as the present LACK of understanding, or you can see this as a LACK
of understanding in the early church. They also believed that we are reborn
in baptism for 1500 years, of course in DEPENDANCE on the spirit, through which
we are baptized into one body.
If anyone is interested, I am willing to fax some of these early writings (in
english).
Let us review the foundation of our faith. My strong wish for you, and anyone
else who reads these notes, is that we would be restorers of the waste places:
'And they that shall be of thess shall build the old waste places: thou shalt
raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The
repairer of the breach, the restorer of paths to dwell in. (Is.58:12)
I am convinced that the same foundation which Jesus laid, with baptism being
the enterance into the kingdom of God, the church, in full direct connection
to the working of the Holy Spirit, is the only foundation which we can build
on, the foundation which he and the apostles laid. It is not optional that
the preaching of the gospel and baptizing be done as in Acts, it is an
elementary foundation of the church, both then and today.
In Christ's name,
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.79 | Hello Rob | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Sun Mar 24 1996 14:46 | 8 |
| Rob,
Of course I don't mind you budding in. Its good to hear from you.
May the Lord bless you and your wife in the steps you are about to
take.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.80 | | ALFSS1::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Wed Mar 27 1996 10:52 | 12 |
|
Rodger,
There is so much error in your last note that it would take a very long
time to refute it all.
Where ancient writers are at odds with the teaching of the Bible (and
certainly all that you make your examples say indicates their error) then
they must be discarded and the uninspired nature of their writings must
be accepted.
jeff
|
| 855.81 | Do not underestimate the writings of the early church | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Sun Mar 31 1996 12:01 | 77 |
| Jeff,
When talking of whether 'the water' as mentioned in John 3:5 is
referring to baptism, is it not important to you to know that those who
were in the churches the apostles had started, even leaders, saw these
scriptures referring to baptism? This has nothing to do with error. I
would say that if they heard someone saying that this scripture was not
referring to baptism, but a natural birth, that this would have been
considered by them to be error.
Anyone who reads this scripture, with an understanding of baptism as in
the new testament, that it happens upon believing, the very same day,
as all the examples in acts, would not see Jesus referring to the water
which surrounds the baby in a womb. Certainly Nikodemus would not have
ever guessed what Jesus was talking about. But all Israel knew that
Jesus was baptizing more people than John, that many, many people had
gone to his disciples to be baptized. Nikodemus would not be trying to
find some hidden meaning behind his words, but the very obvious meaning
would most certainly have been understood by him. And Jesus wasn't
trying to make it almost impossible for Nikodemus to understand him,
and almost certain that he would misunderstand him in thinking it was
baptism in water. No, the obvious meaning was the meant meaning, Jesus
was referring to baptism, that unless we are born of the water and the
spirit, we cannot enter the kingdom of God. This agrees with his
command to his disciples, 'preach the gospel. They that believe and are
baptized shall be saved'. If this was of such great importance to
Jesus, that he charged his disciples clearly to do this with some of
his last words on the earth, even making salvation dependant on it,
in the words 'are baptized shall be saved', is it error that the early
church writings again and again mention this scripture as referring to
baptism, and never mention it as referring to the water of the womb?
I am convinced that when we really believe a lie, then the truth
appears as a lie. I was an athiest for the first 17 years of my life.
I thought christianity was a lie. But after Jesus called me, showed
himself to me, resulting in my salvation, then I realized that it was I
who had been deceived.
If the error concerns the forgiveness of our sins through baptism,
which all of the early church believed, and verified numbers of times
in the scriptures if you take them for face value, then again I would
say that in the early church if you said baptism didn't bring
forgiveness of sins, but faith alone, they would have regarded this
teaching as in error, just as Tertullian in his writings did.
Concerning the value of the early writings, I think you need to
reconsider. These writings were from people who not only believed the
scriptures, but belonged to the same churches the apostles had started.
If you think your interpretation of these scriptures is more accurate
than that which they give, I challenge you. Their understanding
resulted from the scriptures as well as the foundational teachings of
the church which they were apart of, which the apostles in most cases
had founded. Our understanding is based solely on how we would interpret
them for our situation today.
We have only the scriptures. We can twist the words of Peter that baptism
is not really for the forgiveness of sins, or Paul, that we are sons of God
through faith (Gal.3:27), but the 'FOR all of us who are baptized have put
on Christ' which follows we can ignore. We can make our salvation
independant of baptism, saying 'they that believe shall be saved' where
being baptized has then become optional. But in all of these verses, we
could not have done this in the churches which were founded by the
apostles, which knew what Jesus and the apostles had meant by these
words.
The gap of 1900 years between the time the scriptures were written and
today allows many scriptures to be taken in ways which were not meant
by those who said them. But these writings from the first few centuries
let us know how their words were understood.
There is some error in the early writings, I'm not saying that they are to
be taken as the scriptures. But their value cannot be underestimated.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.82 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Sun Mar 31 1996 12:04 | 2 |
| What evidence do you have that the "listeners" of the day thought of
the water birth as baptism?
|
| 855.83 | "words of human wisdom" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Mon Apr 01 1996 13:23 | 19 |
| Re: .81 (Rodger)
If Jesus meant "baptism" in John 3:3, then why didn't he just say "baptism"?
If "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water" means
that "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is baptized in water,"
then how did the thief on the cross enter the kingdom of God?
If water baptism is such an integral part of our salvation, then why did the
Apostle Paul say:
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel --
not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied
of its power." (1 Cor 1:17)
If you are so intent on accepting post-apostolic writings, then why are you
not submitted to the Roman Catholic Church?
Words of human wisdom are no substitute for the inspired word of God.
|
| 855.84 | Baptism and a new identity, rebirth | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Wed Apr 10 1996 15:48 | 255 |
| Nancy,
You asked:
> What evidence do you have that the "listeners" of the day thought of
> the water birth as baptism?
The first thing I'd like to mention is that the word 'baptism' is simply
the word 'to dip' in greek. In the same chapter where Jesus is telling
Nicodemus he needs to be born of the water and of the spirit, it is written:
And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee
beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth,
and all men come to him. (Jn.3:26)
and then:
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than John. (Though Jesus himself baptized not,
but his disciples,) he left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee(Jn.4:1)
This was in no way some small incident, but all of Israel knew Jesus as well
as John as baptizing. In Jn.4:1, when the Pharisees heard that Jesus
made and baptized more disciples than John, they most likely were planning
something against Jesus, which caused Jesus to leave Judaea.
Many christians think that John was the one who was doing the baptizing, and
Jesus was simply baptized by John and revealed to Israel as the Son of God.
But this was not so. Jesus was making disciples and baptizing more than John!
There was even jealousy with some of the disciples of John, because everyone
was going to Jesus, and no longer to John. (Although Jesus was having his
disciples do the baptizing)
Everyone in all of Israel was aware of the water. They were all being dipped
in it as they would confess their sins. This would have been nothing except
that the Holy Spirit was working mightily through the message of John and
Jesus throughout Israel, and a great repentance took place, resulting in
a great joy.
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem,
and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
When it says 'were all baptized of him...confessing their sins', we know by
other verses that this was not true in a literal sense. (Jesus said later
that the Pharisees for the most part were not baptized by John) However,
we do know that the number of people repenting, confessing their sins, and
being baptized was very great. And when we read that Jesus was baptizing even
more than John, we can know that the people of Israel related dipping in
water very strongly to both John and Jesus.
It was at this time that Jesus said to Nicodemus, 'Except a man be born
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'
Jesus saw baptizing those who wanted to be disciples as a requirement, not
as an option. The words 'made and baptized more disciples than John' show
the direct, unseparable connection. The Pharisees (to whom Nicodemus belonged)
knew that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than John. They didn't go to
Jesus, but they saw that those who did were being made disciples, they were
being taught by him and his disciples and they were being baptized by him
and his disciples.
When Jesus would speak about being 'born of the water', they most assuredly
would relate this to what he and his disciples were practicing openly before
all of Israel to all who wished to make their lives right with God. They
would not have to spend hours trying to think up theoretical meanings or
hidden meanings when the obvious meaning was known essentially by almost every
adult in Israel.
Even today, I would never think of the natural birth as being 'born of the
water'. Its not 'of the water' which a newborn baby is born, but 'of a
woman', or 'from a womb', or even in a sense 'of a man'(the father being
meant). I cannot imagine Nicodemus ever hearing someone using a phrase like
'born of the water' to refer to a natural birth.
Peter also uses the word 'water' in connection to baptism.
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?(Ac.10:47)
and again:
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us(1.Pe.3:20)
When the writer of Hebrews says:
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure
water(Heb.10:21)
is it not normal in this scripture to see 2 agents in
cleaning our conscience, the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus and the
washing which we receive in baptism? As Paul was told: 'arise, and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins', is it not refering to the same 'pure
water' which washes away his sins? And if our sins are washed away in
baptism, and if our sins are forgiven in baptism (Acts 2:37), is it not
therefore 'the answer of a good conscience toward God' as Peter
states?
The record of the scriptures gives us clarity that the early church:
1. saw baptism for the forgiveness of sins.(as mentioned in Mt.1,Mk.1,Ac.2,
Ac.22 and Col.2.
2. saw that through the spirit we are baptized into one body, and therefore
the whole church had one baptism, a strong bond of their identity.
(Eph.4:1). They were all baptized, no exceptions. 'For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body'. For this reason is it written in
Acts 2:41, 'Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls'
Those who were not baptized were not added to them, only those who
gladly received his word AND were baptized. Because of the clarity of
how he learned from Jesus about baptism, as well as the direct command
he was given to baptize as an essential part of making disciples(Mat.28),
nobody could have gladly received Peter's words and not have been
baptized. And so does Jesus wish to restore this foundation in his
church!
3. baptized upon believing. Every example in the new testament is the same,
no exceptions, none took place even a day after their conversion, instead
an elementary part of their conversion WAS their baptism. Paul saw
Jesus. He prayed continually afterwards for 3 days, not eating or
drinking. If anyone could trust in their prayer to Jesus for their
salvation as being sufficient, Paul could have done this. But Paul did
not see this as sufficient for his forgiveness of sins, nor for his
salvation. Instead, it was told him in the vision that he would be told
by someone what he is to do. And he waited in prayer until he was told.
And the very first thing he was told to do was to be baptized, that
his sins be washed away.
If the church does not see baptism as Jesus and the apostles did, then
they will not practice baptism as Jesus and the apostles did. People
are today not being baptized as they believe the gospel, nor are they
being told that their sins are washed away in baptism, nor are they
being added to the number of disciples by their baptism. There is a
reason for this. One very essential reason that conversions are not
happening often as in the book of acts, where people are baptized,
filled with the spirit, and become part of the church in a single day,
is because the foundation of baptism needs to again be restored in its
rightful place.
As soon as we see baptism as the early church did, through revelation of
the Holy Spirit, then we would also have no problems with the direct
connection between salvation and baptism. When Jesus says 'They that believe
and are baptized shall be saved', we won't even need to say 'but we know'.
When Peter says 'be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of sins', it will be obvious to us that without the forgiveness of sins,
without being 'added to their number', that the people aren't yet saved.
When Peter says 'The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save
us', we won't need to twist or change its meaning. Everyone who believed
the gospel at the time of Peter were baptized, and if they chose to not
be baptized, then they were not considered saved, they were not considered
people who received Peter's message, Paul's message, Philip's message,
nor were they considered part of the church, nor were they regarded as
having received the forgiveness of their sins.
As Jesus was on the earth, he wanted for the people to know that he had
the power to forgive sins. He even said to his enemies, 'But that ye
may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins'
(Mt.9:2)
Jesus established baptism, that people could believe the message
about his dying for their sins and by being baptized receive it.
It is the very way we are crucified with Christ, we are buried with
him. It is also God's predetermined way by which we rise with Christ
into a new life.
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.(Ro.6:3)
and
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with
him:
and related to our new birth as Sons of God,
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on
Christ.(Ga.3:26)
These scriptures do not treat baptism as something symbolic, but as
something real, just as real as when two people are married, if not
even more so. Can you see how wrong it is to separate believing and
being baptized? We are children of God because we believe in Jesus
Christ, because when we were baptized we put on Christ.
Having 'put on Christ' happens in baptism, before our baptism we have
not yet put on Christ. Otherwise Paul is wrong. And I'm certain he
is not. Our identity as children of God is directly related to our
being baptized. The phrase 'For as many of you as have been baptized'
is telling how we have become children of God by faith in Jesus Christ.
The 'For' in verse 27 is qualifying how in verse 26 we have become
children of God by faith in Jesus Christ.
What is even more important is how those who founded and taught in the early
church understood what Jesus said. In the same churches which the apostles
had founded, within the first 100 years, there are a number of writings
where leaders of these churches tell how they understood these words which
Jesus had spoken. The words from Justin, a leader of the Church in
Rome, saying 'Then they are led by us to where there is water and
are reborn in the same rebirth in which we ourselves were also reborn'
are not based on his interpretation of what Jesus meant with John 3.
They are based on the foundation of the church he belonged to, in
which both Peter and Paul were instrumental. When he says that they
'are reborn in the same way which we ourselves were also reborn', he
is stating that the WHOLE Roman church(we) was reborn in baptism. His
baptism would have been roughly the year 100 AD, the time about when
John died. And from the time of his rebirth even until the time of
his writing, about 150 AD, this direct connection between our rebirth
and baptism had not changed.
But why should it be so hard to believe that our rebirth happens in
our baptism? Why should it be so hard to believe that our sins are
forgiven in our baptism? If we believe that through a formal
ceremony two people become one flesh, and are man and wife, where sex
only in the marriage is wished by God, and before this simple ceremony
all sex is fornication or adultry (Hebr.13:4), why should it be so
hard to believe that the covenant which Jesus himself established,
the enterance of the new covenant by baptism, is the source of our
new identity as children of God? I speek strictly of baptism as
worked by the Holy Spirit, as the deliverance of a baby which has
been 'nutured in the womb' by the word of God.
Please do not
misunderstand me and think that I mean by a man baptizing someone, that he
is automatically born of God(as infant baptism or baptizing people
who are not becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, drinking of the
Holy Spirit). No, Paul also clarifies this, 'For by one SPIRIT we
are all baptized into one body'). At Pentecost it was the same, where
the Spirit is poured out, there follow baptisms, for by this one
Spirit we are baptized. It is the Spirit which directed Peter to
baptize the 3000. It was both the Spirit and the bride which were
beckoning to the people to come and drink freely of the water of life.
When Jesus says, 'the wind blows
where it will... so is EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit', we see
that our baptizing people can only have validity when directed by the
Holy Spirit. If in all truth Jesus is not our Lord, and we are not sent,
led by his Spirit, then we may very possibly have results, but not as that
in Acts! Because of God's tremendous love for people he may still use
us, that people may receive what Jesus did for them on the cross. But
this will never reach the maturity and strength which this world most
desperately needs!
Another of the very early christian writings was from Hermes, being
dated about 120 AD. There is evidence that Hermes was almost certainly the
brother of one of the earliest bishops of Rome. He speaks of water
when referring to baptism, just as many of the early writings do.
I have heard, Sir," say I, "from certain teachers, that there is no other
repentance, save that which took place when we went down into the water and
obtained remission of our former sins."
or
"It was necessary for them," saith he, "to rise up through water,
that they might be made alive; for otherwise they could not enter
into the kingdom of God, except they had put aside the deadness of
their [former] life.
If Jesus and the apostles did not want us to relate rebirth, salvation or
forgiveness of sins to baptism, then they would most certainly have not
said the things which they have said. But I am certain with our hearts we
can trust their words without having to feel we need to change them or
re-interpret them.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.85 | The Word of God is Pure Gold | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Wed Apr 10 1996 18:18 | 255 |
| Garth,
Please read also the note to Nancy, since some of the questions which you
have asked are mentioned in it.
You said,
> If Jesus meant "baptism" in John 3:3, then why didn't he just say "baptism"?
Would it be clearer for Nicodemus to say 'except a man be born of being
dipped'? It is not 'of the dipping' that we are reborn, but 'of the water and
of the spirit'. We have made a new word in the english language, 'baptism'.
The word is from Greek, and since not so many of us know greek, it is a
tendancy to separate the two.
When John states,(1.Jn.5:8)
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one
he also does not mention baptism. Still, we know from the many other scriptures
of how the spirit, the water and the blood agree. The forgiveness of sins
purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ is given in baptism according to Peter
in Acts 2:37, according to Ananias in Acts 22. Even before Jesus was crucified
and poured out his blood as an atonement for our sins, we see baptism as the
forerunner for this not yet purchased forgiveness of sins in Matt.1 and Mark 1.
We see also how the spiritual rebirth is connected with baptism, that they
agree, not only in John 3, but also in Gal.3:27-28. Our old man being
crucified with Christ in Rom.6 also clearly shows that a change of identity
takes place in baptism. Our old man dies, and we are freed from sin, as his
sons, as saints, thereby planted together with Christ in his resurrection,
in newness of life.
If we are baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ as we believe the
gospel, we can know we are saved. Jesus says it 'they that believe and are
baptized shall be saved.' If we don't believe, or we aren't baptized, then
how shall these words be true? Who has an even greater authority than Jesus
to change his words to 'they that believe shall be saved'? Doesn't the
forgiveness of sins play an important part in this salvation? If we receive
the forgiveness of sins when we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, as
you have agreed with at least in some of your notes, then why should we try
to separate the necessity of baptism for our salvation? for the forgiveness
of sins? We both most certainly agree that it is only by the atoning sacrificial
death of Jesus, by his own blood, that we receive forgiveness of sins. Why
can we not agree that through believing the gospel and being baptized (both)
that we receive this forgiveness? Peter did! It was both the father and Jesus
who even brought baptism, and for this very purpose, for the forgiveness of
sins. He loves us all very much. Why should he not make the way to repentance
and forgiveness as clear as possible? When in Luke 3:3 it is written:
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins.
John the baptist says 'He that sent me to baptize..'. It was the Father from
which baptism originated. It was the Father who gave purpose to baptism,
'for the remission of sins'. Of course we know that without the shedding of
Christ's blood there would be no forgiveness of sins. But it was the Father
who made the receiving of this purchased forgiveness through baptism. For
that reason, we can see that in our baptism we enter Christ's death, we
receive it as our own death(our old man crucified with Christ). We are
planted by baptism into the very death which purchased our salvation.(Ro.6)
as
'were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death'
and
'Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death'
Believing alone is not enough! It is in our baptism that we enter into his
death! Otherwise we don't need Ro.6, nor any of the other scriptures
concerning what happens in baptism. But if the gospel which is preached is
as Peter, Paul and the rest preached, including baptism for the forgiveness
of sins, the same forgiveness which is the center of the gospel we preach,
the death of Jesus on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, then those who
receive our gospel, who really believe it, will want to be baptized that they
might receive the promised forgiveness of sins as well as the promised Holy
Spirit.
How great the damage, the suffering in Christ's and God's heart,
when Christ's very own church no longer said as an answer to those who were
sincerly asking, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do'
the same answer which Peter had given, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'.
You wrote:
> If "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water" means
> that "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is baptized in water,"
> then how did the thief on the cross enter the kingdom of God?
Jesus often told people during his life that their sins were forgiven. He
had the power to forgive sins. And in John 20:22-23
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever
sins ye retain, they are retained.
It appears that, even though Simon was baptized by Philip, because of what
he said to Peter, and the discernment which Peter had, his sins were not yet
forgiven, his repentance was not yet complete. Although generally the way
people receive the forgiveness of sins is by being baptized with repentance,
there is with Simon an exception. If, however, he did afterwards complete
his repentance, then I am certain that the forgiveness of his sins would
also be complete. Since baptism only has meaning in the making of disciples,
if someone is baptized, but does not thereby also repent, does not thereby
also become a disciple, then there is no certainty of their salvation,
regardless of what covenant or oath they may have said with their mouth.
It is the same as marriage. If someone makes this covenant, it becomes
invalid if they do not fulfill their vows, if they do not enter 'married
life'. Still, marriage as well as baptism are covenants from God, to be
upheld, even if there may be some people who do not keep their promises.
This would be what Peter meant with:
But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off and
hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.(2.Pe.1:9)
or
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness, than, after they have known it,
to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned
to his own vomit again
Concerning the thief on the cross, here are a few thoughts:
First, I see him as an exception and not a rule. He never heard the message
which Jesus commanded his disciples to preach. We need to understand that
Jesus didn't give this message of salvation to his disciples to EXCLUDE
all who aren't baptized, but to GIVE salvation to all that are. Yet there
is a fearful consequence for those who do not believe, 'Go and preach the
Gospel in all the world. They that believe and are baptized shall be saved,
they that do not believe shall be damned.' The world IS lost, is in darkness.
At the time Jesus was on the earth, salvation came directly from him. They
which were baptized by him, and at least one person, who was not baptized by
him, was saved(the thief). Many received the forgiveness of their sins.
In a matter of just a few months or years the church would be born (on
Pentecost). Before this time, the seeds had been sown everywhere. Lazareth,
Zacharias, the woman caught in adultry, etc. Maybe some of them were gathered
on the day of Pentecost amongst the 120. But then the time for the birth
of the church came. The thief never reached this day. He received his
salvation through Jesus directly, not through the message of salvation which
Jesus gave to his disciples. Yet he therefore never became a part of the
church, because of his death he never lived to see its birth.
Before the church appeared on the earth, throughout all ages there have
been individuals who received salvation. Certainly it was always through
faith in the true God, as a result of the true God speaking to them and
them believing him, obeying him, that his love and salvation were given.
With the message of salvation that Jesus gave to his church, this number
GREATLY increased, and eventually reached even the heathen nations. Baptism
for the forgiveness of sins INCREASED, made GREATER and CLEARER, the way by
which people may receive the forgiveness of God wrought through the sacrifice
of Jesus Christ. Yet, just as a husband who gives responsibility to his wife,
Jesus gave to his church both the message of salvation AND the way people were
to receive this salvation (believing and being baptized). He also, however,
made it clear that those who would not receive their message would be damned.
If there are still 'thiefs on the cross' being saved independantly of the
commanded way Jesus told his disciples to bring salvation, by baptizing those
who believe the Gospel, I do not know. I would certainly say that if one
hears this message and does not believe and be baptized, they could no longer
belong to the possible 'thiefs on the cross'. I have heard of a few incidents
where Jesus spoke directly to someone who didn't even know his name. But in
these incidents he told them to go to where there were christians, just as
Saul(Paul) was. But since the church was born, I have a hard time thinking
that outside their message, outside the name of Jesus which they preach,
outside the baptism by which we become members of his body, there could be
modern day 'thiefs on the cross'. However, God knows all things, and my
greatest wish is that so many saints as possible will be for eternity with
him.
You said:
> If water baptism is such an integral part of our salvation, then why did the
> Apostle Paul say:
Why is it so hard to accept the words of Jesus, 'they that believe and are
baptized shall be saved'? If it wasn't an integral part of our salvation,
Jesus made a big mistake saying such words. Or maybe it was Mark who made the
mistake. Or Peter in Acts 2:37, where 3000 were saved that very day as they
believed the Gospel and were baptized, etc. in every example of baptism in the
book of acts. Peter certainly should not have said, 'By the which figure does
baptism now save us'.
Paul wrote:
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel --
not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied
of its power." (1 Cor 1:17)
Some corinthians began classifying themselves by those who had baptized them.
This was causing divisions within the church. The gospel is the message
concerning the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, the cross. Baptism is how we
those who believe us receive this atoning sacrifice. It is not important who
baptizes someone. But often that which the Spirit does is made by man into
something it was not meant to be. In this case, they were even going to the
extreme as thinking they were baptized in the name of Paul.
as
were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
or
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name
For this reason he thanked God that only a few had been baptized by him
personally.
Paul was making this clear, that this carnal way of looking at baptism would
cease.
Jesus himself made this distinction clear also. He first sent them to preach
the gospel. The sending was 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel'.
The baptism was the result for those who believe them. We may be sent by
Jesus to preach, but this is in no way means we are sent to baptize. He may
send us to preach to thousands of people, and even if not a single one
believes our message, this still doesn't mean he hasn't sent us. However,
even if thousands hear, not a single one is to be baptized who does not
believe, who does not receive our message concerning 'repentance and
remission of sins in his name'.
Concerning those who do believe, Jesus has commanded that we make disciples.
This means that we are not done simply because we have preached the gospel.
Paul preached the gospel to whole cities, but he left groups of disciples,
all of which were baptized, in these cities to continue the work.
Garth, you said:
> If you are so intent on accepting post-apostolic writings, then why are you
> not submitted to the Roman Catholic Church?
The post-apostolic writings are not the same as the scriptures. They show us
clearly how the first christians understood Jesus and the apostles. And since
they were in the churches the apostles had started, their writings let us
know more of the foundation which Jesus and the apostles had laid. For
example, if in only a single scripture of the new testament baptism was
mentioned as being for the forgiveness of sins, that should be enough.
However, Satan is such a deceiver that he may make us think that this
scripture really doesn't mean that we receive the forgiveness of our sins
in baptism. Maybe we try interpreting it to mean something else, or maybe
because the word 'water' is not there, we might think that it isn't talking
of water baptism, but something totally different. If however, all of the
people in the churches which the apostles had founded interpret these same
scriptures, that they indeed are referring to baptism in water, and this very
baptism in water is for the forgiveness of sins, then we can be pretty certain
that what the bible says it really means, and we don't have to interpret it
to mean something else.
Garth, even before I knew what the early christian
writings had to say concerning baptism, just by believing the bible as pure
gold I saw that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, that we receive a new
identity in baptism, as saints, dead to sin, sons of God, that generally,
we are saved by believing and being baptized. I also began
practicing what I read in every example in the book of acts, that when I
would preach the gospel, I would baptise those that believe, not pray a
prayer, not teach the 4 spiritual laws, but rather do what Peter did in Acts
2:37-41.
Your words
> Words of human wisdom are no substitute for the inspired word of God.
I agree with whole heartedly. And I am certain that the early church, which
suffered often death for the word of God, would also agree wholeheartedly.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.86 | He commanded it.... | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Thu Apr 11 1996 17:09 | 18 |
|
The most compelling reason for baptism is that the Lord Jesus
commanded it. It is abnormal to not take both steps of "believing" and
"being baptised". No one should doubt that it is needed especially
since it holds by testimony and command such a prominent role in the
New Testment.
It is beneficial and valuable to understand its wonderful
signifiances. But that search should never lead to the conclusion
that it should not be done.
Every regenerated believer needs to take the second step, baptism.
This is the straightforward and direct teaching of the bible.
Regards,
Ace
|
| 855.87 | Questions for Ace or anyone else who'd like to answer | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Apr 13 1996 17:32 | 17 |
| RE: -1
Ace,
Roger's point about Repentance followed by Baptism, is that the most
compelling reason is not only that Jesus commanded it, but the purpose of
it is to obtain the forgiveness of one's sins and to receive the Holy
Spirit; Acts 2:38. And in this regard, I agree with him.
So when you say "needed" do you mean one should obey the command ASAP
after being saved, or do you mean Absolutely Necessary for one's
salvation? Also could expound on what you feel baptism's significances
are?
In His Love,
Peter-whose working Monday, off Teusday, and working Wed - Fri.
|
| 855.88 | "born of water" and the listeners of the day | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Tue Apr 16 1996 21:53 | 42 |
| Re: .84 (Rodger)
You are a man of many words. In .82, Nancy Morales asked you a simple
question:
> What evidence do you have that the "listeners" of the day thought of
> the water birth as baptism?
Besides showing no regard for the conference guidelines, your 255-line reply
has provided very little new information. After reading the whole thing, I
think I can summarize your answer to her in 5 lines:
1. There is a discussion about water baptism in the same chapter that the
discussion about Nicodemus takes place.
2. Everyone in that day had water baptism on their mind. So when Jesus
mentioned being "born of water" to Nicodemus, it would be natural for him
to understand it as "water baptism".
In the future, could you spare us a replay of your entire sermon and just
answer the questions?
Now, regarding point #1 above, this is a method of scripture misreading
known as "collapsing contexts." If you examine the contexts, you will
see that the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus occurred when Nicodemus
came to Jesus during the night. Verse 22 begins an entirely new context
when "Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside". Also
keep in mind that the chapter and verse numbers are not part of the original
manuscripts, so it contributes little to point out that two events are in the
same chapter.
Regarding point #2 above, this is pure conjecture on your part. Nancy asked
you for evidence, and it appears to me that you have provided none.
I refuted your view in 756.43 some time back. I will continue to refer
interested readers to that note. You keep asking me why I don't just accept
Jesus' words in Mark 16:16 ("Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned.") I do accept them, and at
face value. That verse does not say anything regarding those who believe and
are not baptized in water, as I pointed out in 756.43. Why don't you accept
Jesus' words at face value and admit that he never said that water baptism
was necessary for one's salvation?
|
| 855.89 | saying "born of water" vs. "baptized in water" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Tue Apr 16 1996 21:55 | 34 |
| Re: .85 (Rodger)
This 255-line reply provides more information than the previous one, besides
replaying your standard sermon. Let me see if I can summarize:
I asked in .83:
>If Jesus meant "baptism" in John 3:3, then why didn't he just say "baptism"?
You replied in .85:
>Would it be clearer for Nicodemus to say 'except a man be born of being
>dipped'? It is not 'of the dipping' that we are reborn, but 'of the water and
>of the spirit'. We have made a new word in the english language, 'baptism'.
>The word is from Greek, and since not so many of us know greek, it is a
>tendancy to separate the two.
So you suggest that it was clearer for Jesus to say "born of water"
instead of "baptized in water", because there is more to baptism than just
being dipped in water. But then you repeatedly quote the following:
>Jesus says it 'they that believe and are baptized shall be saved.'
Since the word "baptize" is a transliteration, we can also render the
above verse (Mark 16:16) as "they that believe and are dipped shall be saved".
So then why didn't Jesus say "they that believe and are born of water shall be
saved"?
You can't have it both ways. If "born of water" is more clear than saying
"baptized in water", then why didn't Jesus use "born of water" in Mark 16:16,
and why didn't Peter use "born of water" in Acts 2:38, and so on?
For the benefit of the readership, 756.35 is my answer to using Mark 16:16
as a proof text.
|
| 855.90 | Did Jesus lie to Nicodemus and save the thief? | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Tue Apr 16 1996 21:57 | 37 |
| Re: .85 (Rodger)
My next question in .83 was:
>If "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water" means
>that "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is baptized in water,"
>then how did the thief on the cross enter the kingdom of God?
Your answers in .85 were:
>Jesus often told people during his life that their sins were forgiven. He
>had the power to forgive sins. And in John 20:22-23
and,
>Although generally the way people receive the forgiveness of sins is by being
>baptized with repentance, there is with Simon an exception.
and,
>Concerning the thief on the cross, here are a few thoughts:
>
> First, I see him as an exception and not a rule. He never heard the message
> which Jesus commanded his disciples to preach. We need to understand that
> Jesus didn't give this message of salvation to his disciples to EXCLUDE
> all who aren't baptized, but to GIVE salvation to all that are.
My response to that is that I think you must reckon more carefully the words
of Jesus. He said "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of
water..." (John 3:5). Jesus did not say "Almost no one can enter..." or
"With few exceptions, no one can enter...", or "Few can enter...". He said
"No one can enter..." By your own testimony, you make Jesus out to be a
liar. For if "born of water" means "baptized in water", and Jesus said
"no one can enter", and the thief on the cross entered, then Jesus wasn't
telling Nicodemus the truth.
I'll leave the last two questions alone, as I feel I've said enough for now.
|
| 855.91 | Peter2 and Acts 2:38 | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Wed Apr 17 1996 12:50 | 10 |
| Re: .87 (Peter Hirmer)
> Roger's point about Repentance followed by Baptism, is that the most
> compelling reason is not only that Jesus commanded it, but the purpose of
> it is to obtain the forgiveness of one's sins and to receive the Holy
> Spirit; Acts 2:38. And in this regard, I agree with him.
So you believe that this is what Acts 2:38 means, do you? But that is not
what Acts 2:38 says. Since I covered this in 756.32-756.34, and you examined
those notes of mine in detail, what fault did you find in them?
|
| 855.92 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Wed Apr 17 1996 14:26 | 3 |
| Garth, fwiw, Peter is no longer with us.
Mike
|
| 855.93 | I'm still with us!! | FABSIX::C_BENSON | | Wed Apr 17 1996 17:34 | 16 |
| RE:-1 & -2
Mike,
I still am here!
Garth,
I've changed my name from Peter2 to Peter, as the original Peter left.
And I will be answering as time permits; have major down equipment in
the Fab6 space, so I've been busy.
In His Love,
Peter
|
| 855.94 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:00 | 1 |
| sorry, too many Peters around here ;-)
|
| 855.95 | FORGIVENESS OR REPENTANCE; WHICH COMES FIRST? | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Thu Apr 18 1996 15:17 | 19 |
| Peter speaking to the Jews by the Beautiful Gate, after healing the man who
was born lame:
Acts 3:18-19 (NASB)
18 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the
prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in
order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord
Question: What does this passage say about the relationship between
repentance and forgiveness of sin? Specifically what is the
order; repentance first then forgivenss, or forgiveness first
then repentance?
IN HIS LOVE
PETER
|
| 855.96 | The significance of believing and baptism... | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Thu Apr 18 1996 16:54 | 36 |
| re.87
Peter,
When I say baptism is needed, I mean it is needed. But let's define
needed. 8*)
Baptism is not needed for being saved *eternally*. According to the
testimony of scripture, to be saved from eternal condemnation requires only
believing as in Mark 16:16b.
However, the blessing of *full* salvation requires baptism as also
found in Mark 16:16a.
The distinction is this. To believe is to receive the Lord (John
1:12), not only for forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43) but also for
regeneration (1 Pet 1:21, 23) that those who believe may become the children
of God (John 1:12-13) and the members of Christ (Eph 5:30) in an organic
union with the Triune God (Matt 28:19). To be baptised is to affirm this, by
being buried to terminate the old creation through the death of the Lord
Jesus, and by being raised up to be the new creation of God through the
Lord's resurrection. Such a baptism is much more advanced than the baptism
of repentance by John (Mark 1:4; Acts 19:3-5). To believe and to be so
baptized are two parts of one complete step for receiving the full salvation
of God. To be baptized without believing is merely an empty ritual; to
believe without being baptized is to be saved only inwardly without an
outward affirmation of the inward salvation. These two should go together.
Moreover, the water baptism should be accompanied by the Spirit baptism,
even as the children of Israel were baptized in the sea (water) and in the
cloud (Spirit)-- 1 Cor 10:2, 12:13.
So I agree that baptism is required but for a salvation that goes beyond
just being saved from eternal condemnation.
regards,
ace
|
| 855.97 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Apr 18 1996 23:07 | 3 |
| aMEN aCE.
|
| 855.98 | Regeneration = Terminate and Raise ?�? | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Fri Apr 19 1996 15:03 | 35 |
| RE: .96
>Note 855.96 "The Discipler's Baptism" 96 of 97
>SUBSYS::LOPEZ "He showed me a River!" 36 lines 18-APR-1996 15:54
> -< The significance of believing and baptism... >-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Baptism is not needed for being saved *eternally*. According to the
>testimony of scripture, to be saved from eternal condemnation requires only
>believing as in Mark 16:16b.
>
> However, the blessing of *full* salvation requires baptism as also
>found in Mark 16:16a.
Ace,
Thanks for the reply. I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference between
"*eternal* salvation" and "*full* salvation," and I would appreciate any help
you or anyone else can give me to clear this up.
As I understand you, BELIEF not only saves us from the condemnation of our sins,
but also regenerates us while BAPTISM affirms this by terminating the old self
and being raised to the new creation of God.
1) If this is correct, how do you differentiate between regeneration
and teminating the old self and being raised to the new creation of
God?
2) What is it about the outward affirmation of the inward salvation
that brings about this termination and being raised?
In His Love
Peter (Who won't be back until Thursday)
|
| 855.99 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Mon Apr 22 1996 13:32 | 15 |
| John the Baptist said, "I indeed have baptized you with water: but He
shall baptize you with <water and> the Holy Ghost." (Mark 1:8)
Oops, the words "water and" before the Holy Ghost aren't in the verse,
or in other gospel accounts. Wonder why not? Should those words be
added to make Scripture say what God really meant, thereby rendering
this debate moot? :-)
John forbad Jesus, but Jesus said, "Suffer it so to be now: for thus it
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matthew 3:15)
What righteousness remained for believers to fulfill in baptism, or any
other act?
Tell me again why water baptism is necessary for salvation.
|
| 855.100 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Mon Apr 22 1996 14:39 | 8 |
|
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ ,. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\---Snarf!
~ \__U_/ ~
|
| 855.101 | | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Thu Apr 25 1996 13:12 | 8 |
| RE: -1
How does one get their sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit?
In His Love
Peter
|
| 855.102 | | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Thu Apr 25 1996 13:14 | 6 |
| RE:-1
"RE:-1" in the last reply should read "RE:-2" The question was
directed at Wayne's reply not the SNARF.
Peter
|
| 855.103 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Thu Apr 25 1996 13:37 | 3 |
|
Phew!
|
| 855.104 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Apr 25 1996 14:13 | 16 |
| RE: .101
Romans 10:9-13
1 John 1:9
Colossians 1:12-14
James 5:15&16
John 14:16-18
Believe and confess. We receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy
Spirit by faith in the work of Jesus the Christ of God.
Water baptism can be a powerful expression of that faith.
In Christ whom to know is life eternal,
/Wayne
|
| 855.105 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Apr 25 1996 14:34 | 10 |
| RE: .101 & .104
Lest there be doubt: I, my wife, and our two daughters have been
baptized by immersion. Our son (10 years old) has confessed Jesus as
his Saviour, and we will encourage him to be baptized in the fulness of
time.
If one were to claim belief in Jesus as the Christ of God and were to
confess Him publicly, but with no desire to be baptized, then I would
have questions.
|
| 855.106 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Apr 25 1996 14:49 | 1 |
| Wayne now yields the floor to Garth who opened this topic. :-)
|
| 855.107 | A correlary to Gal 3:1-7 | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Apr 26 1996 12:57 | 30 |
| Re: .101 (Peter)
> How does one get their sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy
> Spirit?
Gal 3:1-7:
You foolish Galations! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus
Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one
thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by
by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with
the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have
you suffered so much for nothing -- if it really was for nothing? Does
God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe
the law, or because you believe what you heard? Consider Abraham: "He
believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand then,
that those who believe are children of Abraham."
My correlary:
You foolish noters! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus
Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one
thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by getting baptized in water, or
by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with
the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have
you suffered so much for nothing -- if it really was for nothing? Does
God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you get baptized
in water, or because you believe what you heard? Consider Abraham: "He
believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand then,
that those who believe are children of Abraham."
|
| 855.108 | Clarification on .99 and .104 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Thu May 02 1996 12:51 | 26 |
| Wayne,
Thanks for your reply and I'm sorry for taking so long to reply back, but
down equipment and all...
RE: .99 and .104
855.99
> What righteousness remained for believers to fulfill in baptism, or any
> other act?
855.104
> Believe and confess. We receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy
> Spirit by faith in the work of Jesus the Christ of God.
Can you clarify for me how confession is not to be considered as
"any other act?" What I'm asking is given your reply in .99 why is your
answer in .104 not simply Believe, instead of Believe and confess?
And I have one more question on the Scriptures you sited in .104, but I don't
know when I'll be able to get to it.
In His love,
Peter
|
| 855.109 | I don't want to ASSUME ANYTHING! | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Thu May 02 1996 12:52 | 15 |
| Garth,
Thanks for your reply and I'm sorry for taking so long to reply back, but
down equipment and all...
RE:855.107
Can I take it that you believe the Bible teaches the only condition of
receiving the Holy Spirit is belief? This is what I'm assuming given your
previous reply, but as I've been wrong in assuming before I thought I'd ask
to make sure.
In His Love,
Peter
|
| 855.110 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu May 02 1996 14:06 | 14 |
| RE: .108
Hi, Peter.
See my reply to you in note 881.2.
I believe confession is a work of God in the heart, too, to distinquish
mental assent from saving faith.
Water baptism, as I said, can be a means of expressing the work of God
in our lives. Baptism is an outward act that can be done by an
unbeliever. Belief and confession CANNOT be done apart from God.
/Wayne
|
| 855.111 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Thu May 02 1996 17:14 | 6 |
| Re: .107 (Peter)
>Can I take it that you believe the Bible teaches the only condition of
>receiving the Holy Spirit is belief?
Yes.
|
| 855.112 | Really Synonymous... | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri May 03 1996 13:53 | 13 |
| I think sometimes the Bible lists things in a compartmentalized
way when the real dynamics can be synonymous, i.e....
When one has faith it means that at that exact same moment one
did receive the Spirit and thus heart-cleansing (or actual
confession) has actually occured.
Faith is the channel through which the Spirit/Word is received.
It is the Spirit which cleanses.
Entirely synonymous things here!
Tony
|
| 855.113 | Full salvation and baptism... | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Wed May 08 1996 17:01 | 41 |
| re.98
Hi Peter,
Haven't been ignoring you, just busy.
Full salvation may be catagorized into two aspects. Firstly, the
judicial aspect covering forgiveness of sins, cleansing of sins,
justification, reconcilation, and positional sanctification. This may be
considered the judicial redemption. This reinstates us to position where we
are able and entitled to receive the second aspect of salvation, that is, the
organic salvation. The organic aspect of our salvation commences with
regeneration (receiving the Lord Jesus as the life-giving Spirit into our
spirit) and continues through various stages of growth including the renewing
of our mind, dispositional sanctification, transformation of our soul,
conformation, and eventually glorification of our body. Every believer is
saved from eternal condemnation in the lake of fire through the judicial
aspect of God's salvation. And every believer has been regenerated with the
Lord's life. However, not every believer goes on to experience God's full
salvation through the various stages of growth in the divine life. It is
possible to be saved from the lake of fire, but not be saved from the world,
our old man, our fallen nature, the lusts of the flesh, bad habits, the daily
hells, etc.
Baptism affirms that we have received God's judicial salvation and
reinstated to the position of a new creation. It affirms that old things have
passed away, and all things have become new. Baptism is a testimony between
the one who is baptised and God, the Church, the angels, Satan, the fallen
angels, and man of their new position in Christ. It declares going under (the
water) that everything about that person, their relationships with the world,
others, likes, dislikes, associations, disposition, living, thoughts, is
being terminated in His death. It declares coming up (from the water) that
they are resurrected with Christ as a new creation, set apart for God and His
purpose, no longer belonging to or a part of the negative things in the
universe.
This is why I say baptism is needed for full salvation, but not for
salvation from eternal condemnation.
Regards,
Ace
|
| 855.114 | Saved From Sin | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue May 14 1996 08:14 | 10 |
| Hi,
Matt 1:21
"And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name
Jesus, for He will save His people FROM their sins."
(See also Acts 3:25/Gal. 3:8/Acts 3:26 and 2 Corin 5:13-15
and Gal. 3:1-3).
Tony
|
| 855.115 | Questions from Wayne's reply .104(?) | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Tue May 28 1996 11:06 | 45 |
| RE:.104
> Romans 10:9-13
> 1 John 1:9
> Colossians 1:12-14
> James 5:15&16
> John 14:16-18
> Believe and confess. We receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy
> Spirit by faith in the work of Jesus the Christ of God.
Wayne,
I've summarized the passages you mentioned in .104 below, not enough time to
enter them in full, with my comments with respect to my question in .101:
Romans 10:9-13 - Believe and Confess with no mention of receiving the Holy
SPirit
1 John 1:9 - Confess, belief not mentioned. No mention of receiving the
Holy SPirit.
Colossians 1:12-14 - Forgivness; no mention of belief, confession or
receiving the Holy Spirit.
James 5:15&16 - Confess and Pray, belief not mentioned. No mention of
receiving the Holy SPirit.
John 14:16-18 - Passage about Jesus sending the Holy Spirit, but no mention
of belief and confession in connection with receiving Him.
Given what the passages say, I have a couple questions/comments:
1) None of the passages talk about receiving the Holy SPirit in
connection with Belief and Confession, so I'm having trouble
understanding why you've chosen these particular Scriptures as
a basis for your belief.
2) Given what James 5:15,16 says, why didn't you include prayer as a
condition of having your sins forgiven?
In Him,
Peter
|
| 855.116 | Questions from Ace's REply .113 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Tue May 28 1996 11:07 | 58 |
| RE: .113
> Haven't been ignoring you, just busy.
Tell me about it! You can see how busy I've been given the date of my
last reply.
Ace,
I have a couple of comments and questions regarding your last reply,
reproduced here for your convenience.
Part 1 of Ace's Response
> Baptism affirms that we have received God's judicial salvation and
>reinstated to the position of a new creation. It affirms that old things have
>passed away, and all things have become new. Baptism is a testimony between
>the one who is baptised and God, the Church, the angels, Satan, the fallen
>angels, and man of their new position in Christ...
PArt 2 of Aces's Response
... >It declares going under (the
>water) that everything about that person, their relationships with the world,
>others, likes, dislikes, associations, disposition, living, thoughts, is
>being terminated in His death. It declares coming up (from the water) that
>they are resurrected with Christ as a new creation, set apart for God and His
>purpose, no longer belonging to or a part of the negative things in the
>universe.
In Part 1 of the above you talk of Baptism *Affirming* a number of things
that have already taken place, ie "have been reinstated to the position of a
new creation."
And yet in Part 2 you talk of baptism declaring things that are
happening in the present tense, ie "It declares going under (the
water) that everything about that person,... *is being terminated* in
His death. It declares coming up (from the water) that they are resurrected
with Christ as a new creation..."
Now I'm not trying to be a stickler and a nit-picker of your words, but I'm
just trying to understand what you believe. So please allow me to ask
you another question:
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the
NASB old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation;
NIV the old has gone, the new has come.
Do you believe the "new creature/creation in Christ" Paul speaks of in
2 Cor5:17 is something God performs BEFORE our baptism or AFTER our
baptism?
In Him,
Peter
|
| 855.117 | Questions for Tony's REply .114 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Tue May 28 1996 11:08 | 19 |
| RE: .114
Tony,
Not really sure what it is you're trying to say here and how it pertains to the
current discussion?
> Matt 1:21
> "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name
> Jesus, for He will save His people FROM their sins."
> (See also Acts 3:25/Gal. 3:8/Acts 3:26 and 2 Corin 5:13-15
> and Gal. 3:1-3).
In Him,
Peter
|
| 855.118 | Pete: Not Really A Reply To You | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue May 28 1996 12:32 | 16 |
| re: -1
Hi Peter,
It was meant as a reply to Ace where the suggestion is that Ace
is referring to being redeemed from things that never condemned
us in the 1st place.
For example, there is NOTHING in God's character such that He
ever had to punish anyone because they sinned. The entirety of
the punishment is inherent to sin.
The cross was not needed in order to change God's heart, it was
needed to change OURS.
Tony
|
| 855.119 | RE: .115 | ROCK::PARKER | | Tue May 28 1996 13:33 | 29 |
| Hi, Peter.
Can we believe and confess apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in our
hearts? Can we be saved without the Holy Spirit?
If not, then the work of the Holy Spirit is assumed. When God saves us, He
gives us the Holy Spirit (see Lu.11:13; 2Co.1:21&22; and 1Jn.2:20).
| 1) None of the passages talk about receiving the Holy SPirit in
| connection with Belief and Confession, so I'm having trouble
| understanding why you've chosen these particular Scriptures as
| a basis for your belief.
** And what do you think I believe?
| 2) Given what James 5:15,16 says, why didn't you include prayer as a
| condition of having your sins forgiven?
** The primary emphasis of this passage is healing, not establishing conditions
for having sins forgiven. If one who is sick asks prayer (for healing),
"and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."
In Him,
/Wayne
P.S. The Scripture passages I listed emphasize God's work, not ours. We are
saved by grace through faith, not of ourselves, but the gift of God, not of
works lest we should boast/argue.
|
| 855.120 | New creation "in Christ" | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Thu May 30 1996 13:08 | 24 |
|
re.116
Peter,
I do not discount any serious inquiry into the matters related to
our wonderful God. I believe the fine level of detail in the questions you
ask is sorely missing among the christian community today. I do not take
offense whatsoever. I would only encourage you (as I do all) to take these
matters to the Lord, empty yourself of what you think you know, and place
these matters before Him. It's between you and Him.
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation;
NIV the old has gone, the new has come.
Concerning your question. The believer becomes a new creation in the eyes
of God when they believe. They attest to this divine accomplished applied
fact when they get baptised. Both are needed for full salvation. I believe
it is abnormal for someone to believe but not get baptised. Baptism is
crucial for the christian's walk.
Regards,
Ace
|
| 855.121 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu May 30 1996 13:28 | 10 |
| Peter, I would concur with Ace around your understanding of baptism
being between you and our Lord. I would not forbid your position held
in good conscience and faith before Him.
To the best of my present understanding, we are not saved because we
obey, rather we obey because we are saved. As such, I too would
question why anyone professing to have been buried with Christ and
raised unto new life in Him would forbid water baptism.
/Wayne
|
| 855.122 | Thanks to Wayne and Ace! :-) | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Jun 15 1996 14:35 | 30 |
| Wayne and Ace,
I just want to say thanks for your answers to my questions to date.
I'm currently very busy and am having a hard time replying to your last
two replies. The only thing I would like to say right now is that I
understand *my* belief regarding salvation and baptism, but what I didn't
understand is how anyone could come up with some other belief from the
Bible. And I think the road to understanding how one comes up with a
different view is a two step process. Step 1 is to understand WHAT
one believes and Step 2 is to understand WHY one believes that way,
from the Scriptures.
At this point in time, I think I'm 80% thru Step 1. And I don't think
I would have made it this far without both of your insights AND
diligent Bible study. So once again I would like to say THANKS!!
One question for both of you: How do you fit Ephesians 2:8 into your
beliefs? I ask this because Wayne you believe salvation is conditioned
on Belief and Confession (from what I can gather from your replies) and Ace
you believe salvation is conditioned on Belief and Baptism (from what I
can gather from your replies). Eph 2:8 says we're saved by grace
throught faith, with no mention of baptism or confession. Just so there's
no misunderstanding, I'm not saying Eph 2:8 cannot fit into your beliefs,
in fact I think it fits in very nicely. I'm just wondering what your logic
and thought processes are regarding this passage.
In Him
Peter (who won't be back until Thursday)
|
| 855.123 | Let's follow the new testament example | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Fri Jun 21 1996 10:54 | 17 |
| If the church would again begin doing what it did in the beginning, no
questions would arise with 'full salvation', etc. But because we do not
follow the example of Jesus and the apostles, conversions ARE often
questionable.
Peter didn't consider a person a part of the church who was not
baptized, with both repentance and faith requirements of the faith.
Peter did not ask people to raise their hand to pray to receive the
Lord, he did not use any of the many methods which people use today.
Instead he did what Jesus commanded him, he baptized those who
believed. And when they believed and were baptized, these people were
members of the church, born of God, saved, a new creature, etc. Before
they were not.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.124 | RE: .122 | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Jul 04 1996 19:41 | 68 |
| Hi, Peter.
And let me say I very much appreciate your conscientiousness and sobriety of
thought, yea, verily, your thinking process. :-)
But most importantly, your devotion to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and
to the witness of God's Word and Spirit.
| One question for both of you: How do you fit Ephesians 2:8 into your
| beliefs? I ask this because Wayne you believe salvation is conditioned
| on Belief and Confession (from what I can gather from your replies)...
| Eph 2:8 says we're saved by grace through faith, with no mention of
| baptism or confession. Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not
| saying Eph 2:8 cannot fit into your beliefs, in fact I think it fits in
| very nicely. I'm just wondering what your logic and thought processes are
| regarding this passage.
** First, let me define faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things not seen." I've provided my working definition
elsewhere as choosing to act as if God is true and able to make effective
what He says. Faith in and of itself is empty--the object of faith is
essential. The object of my faith is Jesus the Christ God, I in Him and He
in me.
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to
God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek Him."
I've also provided elsewhere my working definition of grace as the desire and
power God freely gives to do His will.
My emphasis thus is not on what I can do for or give to God, rather on what
He has done for and given to me. There is no salvation apart from His
grace, and I see my ability to act in obedience to His Word as a gift in no
way based on my merit, only on His love.
I've also suggested to you elsewhere that confession is agreeing with God,
or saying the truth (what God says) about ourselves and Him(self). And I've
also suggested that baptism is a powerful means of confession. But faith
in (the physical act of) baptism for salvation seems misplaced, whereas faith
in Christ who baptizes with the Holy Spirit for salvation is proper.
Jesus asked, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Peter answered, "Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said, "...flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
Thomas was not with the other Disciples when Jesus came unto them after His
resurrection. They told Thomas, "We have seen the Lord." But Thomas said,
"Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger
into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not
believe." Jesus later came again to the Disciples, and Thomas with them,
and said to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach
hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but
believing." And Thomas answered, "My Lord and my God." Jesus said,
"Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they
that have not seen, and yet have believed."
I think these passages give insight into the working of grace by faith,
revelation and response, cause and effect, action and reaction. Did Jesus
come unto the Disciples because they believed, or so that they could/would
believe?
I regarded my own physical baptism as confessing my salvation before men,
not as effecting my salvation before God.
Thank you again, Peter, for your questions in examining the Truth of God's Word.
/Wayne
|
| 855.125 | faith - by which we receive grace, in 2 ways | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Tue Jul 16 1996 10:39 | 38 |
| Wayne,
As we all agree, it is my grace through faith that we are saved.
Therefore is salvation a result of God's great love for us, on account
of the sacrifice which Jesus suffered for us on the cross.
But when we speak of faith, which appears the method by which we
receive this grace, is it not faith in the gospel which is preached?
When Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit", is it not clear that those who had faith in what he was saying
not only believed that Jesus died for sins, but also by being baptized
we receive the forgiveness of sins?
The faith is then 2 fold. First, that Jesus was crucified for our sins
on the cross, that he is the 'lamb of God slain for the sins of the
world' as all of the prophets in different ways foretold. But second,
and just as important, the faith by which our own sins are atoned for,
by us believing and being baptized for the forgiveness of our sins. If
we believe Jesus died for our sins, then we believe also that by being
baptized we enter into this death. If we believe that Jesus rose from
the dead, then we believe by being baptized we also rise with him into
a new life.
It is written, that those who 'received his words were then baptized,
and there were added to their number about 3000 souls'. Peter made it
very clear how the atonement of Jesus could be received by those who
believed, and those who received his words received the forgiveness of
their sins as they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Do you then see that faith must go in 2 directions, first, that Jesus
and his sacrifice happened, as those who preach the gospel testify,
that our sins may be forgiven. But also, that this sacrifice will
cleanse us of our sins if we receive the words of those who preach the
gospel and are baptized.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.126 | a typing mistake | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Tue Jul 16 1996 10:41 | 4 |
| Sorry about the typing error on the first line, it should read 'it is
by grace' and not 'it is my grace'
R.Dusatko
|
| 855.127 | RE: .125 | ROCK::PARKER | | Tue Jul 16 1996 13:09 | 27 |
| Hi, Rodger.
I understand your position. But you continue to miss the point of the
position held by Garth, me and others.
| Do you then see that faith must go in 2 directions, first, that Jesus
| and his sacrifice happened, as those who preach the gospel testify,
| that our sins may be forgiven. But also, that this sacrifice will
| cleanse us of our sins if we receive the words of those who preach the
| gospel and are baptized.
** Nope. We believe the Gospel's object, Jesus the Christ of God, for
salvation. When we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That's the work of
the Holy Spirit, not the physical water of baptism.
The Gospel is preached so that we might believe. "For whosoever shall
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call
on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him
of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and
bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the
gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Ro.10:13-17)
/Wayne
|
| 855.128 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Tue Jul 16 1996 15:25 | 17 |
| Look to Jesus Christ as our model in all things, baptism included.
When Christ was baptised, was He saved? Did He need to be saved?
Of course not. He was God incarnate - perfection!
Why was He baptised? Out of obedience. If you want to falsely believe
that baptism saves you, it can only be because Christ was immersed for
you (again, by grace you're saved). However, Christ saved us on the
cross because we know He didn't need to be saved to be baptised. We
are baptised thru obedience to Him after we are saved. We are saved by
grace and not by anything we think we do. We can't possible work for
salvation or be so conceited to think we are helping God out in any way.
It's all really very simple. We are saved and sanctified by Christ's
blood to be Christ-like. Then we are baptised via immersion out of
obedience to remain Christ-like.
Mike
|
| 855.129 | Faith, repentance baptism work together to save us | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Wed Jul 24 1996 13:02 | 115 |
| Wayne,
Thank you for your reply.
We both agree on the importance of God's grace in our salvation, and that it
is not a result of any works, but rather obedience to the message of the
gospel, which is produced by faith.
I don't belive I am missing the point held by Garth and yourself. As I have
mentioned earlier, as an evangelist over many years I had your belief that
baptism was not necessary for salvation. As you already know, even now I am
certain their are exceptions, the thief on the cross being the only scriptual
one. But, undoubtedly, and with support from every example in the new
testament, it is a vital part, in no ways optional, of the salvation
experience.
When the people in Pentecost asked Peter, 'What shall we do?' he most certainly
gave the wrong answer if we are saved by faith the way you mean it. He asked
for 2 works. That many believed Peter there is no question. When it is written
that they were cut to the heart, this could only happen if they believed the
gospel as Peter preached it. Their response 'What shall we DO' is correct. But
so is Peter's answer! He gave 2 requirements for their salvation which were not
only faith as you understand it, separate from any works. Those that REALLY
believed the gospel experience a strong conviction of sin, they know that they
are guilty before God. What meaning does the message that Jesus died for our
sins have if we wish to continue in sin? The 2 "works" are both directly related
to being 'saved from our sins'.
When Paul says, 'This is a true saying... That Jesus came to save sinners'
we can better understand what the word 'saved' really means. When the angel
said 'You shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their
sins' we again see what the word 'saved' really means.
Unfortunately many people think they have eternal life and yet their trust
is in a christian group they belong to, or some act of receiving Jesus, or
something else. This means nothing. Rather, the only true confidence is that
we know Jesus has saved us from our sins, we have been redeemed from sin, we
have been freed from the power of satan and have become servants to God.
For this 'salvation from sin', there are 3 parts:
We believe the gospel. The gospel is the power of God to salvation for those
who believe. We believe on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus for OUR sins.
Without this faith in the gospel the following 2 steps are meaningless.
We repent. If we do not repent, but continue therein, we fulfill the verse
'It would be better that we had not known the way of righteousnes
than after we have known it, to turn from the holy commandment'. As Paul
again and again says in such phrases as 'Let he that names the name of the Lord
depart from sin'. And we all know, without holiness nobody shall see God.
We are baptized. Through baptism our old man is crucified, and he that is dead
is free from sin. (Rom.6) This is the enterance way into the new covenant,
just as a wedding is the enterance into a marriage and circumcision is the
enterance into the covenant which God made with Abraham. This is our enterance
into the death of Jesus Christ, by which we are sanctified. This also is our
enterance into the ressurection of Jesus Christ. And it happens THROUGH FAITH.
As Paul wrote in Col 2:11-13
In whom we are circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands through the
cutting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, buried
with him through baptism, through which we are also risen with him THROUGH
THE FAITH on the working power of God which also rose him from the dead, also
you who were dead in Sins and transgressions ...
As Peter says, baptism brings us the forgiveness of our sins. So through
baptism we are cleansed of our sins and we are freed from our sins. This is
God's answer to our sins once we have believed the gospel of his love, through
which Jesus died for our sins.
We see clearly that in baptism we are raised with Christ through faith. Whoever
says that baptism is only a physical act, or only a step of obedience, has lost
a vital part of the faith by which we are saved from our sins.
Faith in baptism was illustrated in the story of Elisha and Naaman, the general
from Syria. He had faith that Elisha could heal him. He even went all the way
to him with a great amount of precious goods. When Elisha sent his servant
to tell him that he should be baptized 7 times in the Jordan and he would be
healed, he at first had no faith in these words. He expected the prophet to
come out and lay his hands on the leprosy, that they would depart. He turned
back, unhealed. Then his servant humbly asked him if he wasn't ready to do
something very hard if the prophet had required it. He said yes. Then the
servant said, he has asked you to do something simple, why shouldn't you do
it? So he did, and he was healed.
The cleansing from leprosy points to the cleansing of our sins which happens
in baptism, from which Paul speaks in Acts 22.
Just a few questions Wayne,
Do you believe Peter and Paul were right when they referred to baptism being
for the forgiveness, cleansing of our sins?
If we receive this forgiveness, according to them and all of the earliest
church fathers through baptism, John's baptism even being called the baptism
of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, then can you not see its vital
role in us being saved from our sins?
Do you believe Paul that through baptism we are buried with Christ, our old
man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
we should no longer sin. Do you not see how this also plays a vital role in
saving us from our sins?
Certainly it is through the sacrifice of Jesus that we are saved from our sins.
But it is also through the preaching of the gospel that we are saved from our
sins, for thereby the salvation through Jesus' death is brought to us. But just
as certainly it is through us being baptized, entering his sacrifice, rising
with him into a new life, that the salvation wrough by Christ's death for us
becomes available to us. And without repentance, even Jesus' death for us is
of no avail. Through his death and the salvation experience of repenting of
our sins, being baptized, cleansed and freed from our sins, we enter eternal
life. May we remain on this narrow way where Jesus is truly Lord of our lives!
Rodger Dusatko
If your understanding of being saved is less than 'being saved from sin'
|
| 855.130 | RE: .129 | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Jul 24 1996 13:52 | 159 |
| Hi, Rodger.
So then, you are saying that water baptism is the object of saving faith?
Sorry, Brother, but in my studied opinion and by the witness of the Holy Spirit,
that is wrong.
| When the people in Pentecost asked Peter, 'What shall we do?' he most
| certainly gave the wrong answer if we are saved by faith the way you mean it.
| He asked for 2 works. That many believed Peter there is no question. When it
| is written that they were cut to the heart, this could only happen if they
| believed the gospel as Peter preached it. Their response 'What shall we DO'
| is correct. But so is Peter's answer! He gave 2 requirements for their
| salvation which were not only faith as you understand it, separate from any
| works. Those that REALLY believed the gospel experience a strong conviction
| of sin, they know that they are guilty before God. What meaning does the
| message that Jesus died for our sins have if we wish to continue in sin? The
| 2 "works" are both directly related to being 'saved from our sins'.
** Interesting that you would interpret my words to give meaning that would
contradict the Apostle Peter's answer recorded in Scripture.
Of course Peter's answer was right!
As I have all along, I submit that water baptism is symbolic of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit that delivers the believer from sin. We can do
NOTHING to free ourselves from sin. That is God's work of grace by faith.
If you can't get that, then there's little value in continuing our dialog.
| When Paul says, 'This is a true saying... That Jesus came to save sinners'
| we can better understand what the word 'saved' really means. When the angel
| said 'You shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their
| sins' we again see what the word 'saved' really means.
| Unfortunately many people think they have eternal life and yet their trust
| is in a christian group they belong to, or some act of receiving Jesus, or
| something else. This means nothing. Rather, the only true confidence is that
| we know Jesus has saved us from our sins, we have been redeemed from sin, we
| have been freed from the power of satan and have become servants to God.
** Amen! I would wholeheartedly concur with these words. This is a proper
understanding.
| For this 'salvation from sin', there are 3 parts:
| We believe the gospel. The gospel is the power of God to salvation for those
| who believe. We believe on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus for OUR sins.
| Without this faith in the gospel the following 2 steps are meaningless.
** Yep.
| We repent. If we do not repent, but continue therein, we fulfill the verse
| 'It would be better that we had not known the way of righteousnes
| than after we have known it, to turn from the holy commandment'. As Paul
| again and again says in such phrases as 'Let he that names the name of the
| Lord depart from sin'. And we all know, without holiness nobody shall see God.
** To not repent is to not believe the gospel. Failure to repent is failure
to confess the truth of the Gospel, i.e., that we are sinners and Jesus is
the Christ.
| We are baptized. Through baptism our old man is crucified, and he that is dead
| is free from sin. (Rom.6) This is the enterance way into the new covenant,
| just as a wedding is the enterance into a marriage and circumcision is the
| enterance into the covenant which God made with Abraham. This is our enterance
| into the death of Jesus Christ, by which we are sanctified. This also is our
| enterance into the ressurection of Jesus Christ. And it happens THROUGH FAITH.
| As Paul wrote in Col 2:11-13
| In whom we are circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands through the
| cutting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, buried
| with him through baptism, through which we are also risen with him THROUGH
| THE FAITH on the working power of God which also rose him from the dead, also
| you who were dead in Sins and transgressions ...
| As Peter says, baptism brings us the forgiveness of our sins. So through
| baptism we are cleansed of our sins and we are freed from our sins. This is
| God's answer to our sins once we have believed the gospel of his love, through
| which Jesus died for our sins.
** Man baptizes with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. The former
points to the latter by which we are (being) saved.
| We see clearly that in baptism we are raised with Christ through faith.
| Whoever says that baptism is only a physical act, or only a step of obedience,
| has lost a vital part of the faith by which we are saved from our sins.
** Nope. Physical baptism does NOT save us, rather shows that we are saved.
| Faith in baptism was illustrated in the story of Elisha and Naaman, the
| general from Syria. He had faith that Elisha could heal him. He even went all
| the way to him with a great amount of precious goods. When Elisha sent his
| servant to tell him that he should be baptized 7 times in the Jordan and he
| would be healed, he at first had no faith in these words. He expected the
| prophet to come out and lay his hands on the leprosy, that they would depart.
| He turned back, unhealed. Then his servant humbly asked him if he wasn't
| ready to do something very hard if the prophet had required it. He said yes.
| Then the servant said, he has asked you to do something simple, why shouldn't
| you do it? So he did, and he was healed.
** Was Naaman's leprosy healed by the water of the Jordan, or was Naaman
cleansed through faith in the word of God through Elisha? In other words,
was Naaman's faith in the words or the act? I submit that Naaman's faith
was shown by the act.
| The cleansing from leprosy points to the cleansing of our sins which happens
| in baptism, from which Paul speaks in Acts 22.
** Okay, but what baptism?
| Just a few questions Wayne,
| Do you believe Peter and Paul were right when they referred to baptism being
| for the forgiveness, cleansing of our sins?
** Certainly, but not according to your understanding.
| If we receive this forgiveness, according to them and all of the earliest
| church fathers through baptism, John's baptism even being called the baptism
| of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, then can you not see its vital
| role in us being saved from our sins?
** Yes, without being baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ, there is no
deliverance from sin.
| Do you believe Paul that through baptism we are buried with Christ, our old
| man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
| we should no longer sin. Do you not see how this also plays a vital role in
| saving us from our sins?
** Yes, but not according to your understanding.
| Certainly it is through the sacrifice of Jesus that we are saved from our
| sins. But it is also through the preaching of the gospel that we are saved
| from our sins, for thereby the salvation through Jesus' death is brought to
| us. But just as certainly it is through us being baptized, entering his
| sacrifice, rising with him into a new life, that the salvation wrough by
| Christ's death for us becomes available to us. And without repentance, even
| Jesus' death for us is of no avail. Through his death and the salvation
| experience of repenting of our sins, being baptized, cleansed and freed from
| our sins, we enter eternal life. May we remain on this narrow way where Jesus
| is truly Lord of our lives!
** May it be unto us according to God's Word. The Gospel is salvation by
grace through faith, not of works. I believe your understanding is wrong.
But, you are being a faithful servant in baptizing believers who come to
faith in Jesus Christ under your ministry. I would NOT forbid that!
| If your understanding of being saved is less than 'being saved from sin'
** Don't know what you meant to say here, but elsewhere I said that salvation
involves being delivered from the PENALTY of sin, the POWER of sin and the
PRESENCE of sin. We are delivered from darkness to light, from death to
life, from sin to righteousness. My understanding of being saved is nothing
less than being made like Jesus Christ, my Savior and Lord, who knew no
sin. We do not yet see what we shall be, but we know that when He appears
we shall be like Him because we'll see Him as He is.
/Wayne
|
| 855.131 | A picture is worth at least 100+ lines of text 8*) | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Wed Jul 24 1996 14:59 | 33 |
|
I've always appreciated the type that preceded.
Type: The Passover lamb was slain to save the children of Israel from
the destroying angel. This is accomplished by the blood on the
doorpost of the house. They also ate the flesh of the Passover lamb
for strength to leave Egypt. Then they left the cities but did not
completely leave Egypt until they passed through the Red Sea.
Reality: We are saved from eternal perdition by being under the
covering of the blood of our Passover Lamb, Christ. However, we must
eat the Lamb to be strengthened to leave the world (Egypt) otherwise
though we are saved eternally we will still remain in Egypt. Then,
we must cut the world off completely (outwardly) by being baptised
(Red Sea). The Red Sea positionally separated the children of Israel
from Egypt and positioned them to inherit all that God planned for
them. In the same way, baptism repositions us and is a testimony to
the world that we have left it (the world). Someone who is under the
covering of the blood but still in Egypt is in a most miserable state!
Though they are saved eternally by the blood, they are not going
anywhere in their christian journey.
When we believe we recieve the reality of the Lord's redemption,
strength, and effectiveness of His death. However, without baptism
no one else knows it (and the convert himself may begin to doubt it).
Baptism is not needed for eternal salvation, it is needed for testimony
and that in turn provides the base for solid christian living. In any case,
it cannot be disputed that the Bible charges the believers by command
and example to be baptised and they therefore should.
Regards,
Ace
|
| 855.132 | RE: .131 | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Jul 24 1996 15:33 | 14 |
| Hi, Ace.
Thanks for your entry--more food for thought.
A couple observations: You've presented the Red Sea as a type of water
baptism. Actually, the children of Israel passed through the Red Sea
without even getting wet, i.e., no contact with water, while the
pursuing Egyptians really were baptized, i.e., were drowned.
Is there something more to be considered? My first thought is that the
children of Israel were not delivered by passing through the water, per
se, rather by following God's escape route (provision for deliverance).
/Wayne
|
| 855.133 | RE: .129 | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Jul 24 1996 15:50 | 13 |
| Rodger,
Would you be so kind as to share your interpretation of 1Pe.3:18-4:11?
In particular, how were "eight souls saved by water" when they actually
were delivered FROM the water?
And how does "baptism now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ?"
Verse 21 says "NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh, BUT the
answer of a good conscience toward God." Spiritual baptism into Christ
seems to fit nicely, whereas physical water baptism seems misplaced.
/Wayne
|
| 855.134 | Baptism: The *real* Terminator | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Wed Jul 24 1996 17:03 | 16 |
|
re.132
Hi Wayne,
More to be considered? Why yes! Much more! 8*)
You are correct because the reality of baptism is the death of Christ.
The redeemed will pass through it, the unredeemed get terminated.
Baptism declares this fact (and others).
regards,
ace
|
| 855.135 | RE: .134 | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Jul 24 1996 17:12 | 5 |
| Ah, was Christ put to death, or our sin which He became?
Since Christ now lives, I guess we know the answer. :-)
/Wayne
|
| 855.136 | | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Wed Jul 24 1996 17:43 | 13 |
| re. 135
Hi Wayne,
While He was on the cross He was working. Everything negative and of the old
creation was terminated including the Lord's flesh.
In fact, the only thing that wasn't terminated was the Lord's spirit
which couldn't be killed because He was God!
ace
|
| 855.137 | RE: .136 | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Jul 24 1996 18:25 | 32 |
| Ah, was Christ's flesh "terminated" or changed? In what were the nail
prints and wound in His side that Thomas saw?
The resurrection of the dead "is sown in corruption; it is raised in
incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown
in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is
raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body...And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear
the image of the heavenly...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption...We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at
the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put
on immortality, the shall be brought to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave,
where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is
the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ. Therefore...be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in
the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain
in the Lord." (1Co.15:42-58)
Our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ "shall change our vile body, that it
may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working
whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself." (Ph.3:20&21)
We're getting into some good stuff here, Ace.
Thanks.
/Wayne
|
| 855.138 | | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Wed Jul 24 1996 18:54 | 13 |
|
re.137
Hi Wayne,
His flesh was terminated. He was the *last* Adam.
By the power of His resurrection His humanity was
uplifted into the Godhead.
Regards,
Ace
|
| 855.139 | RE: .138 | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Jul 24 1996 20:24 | 3 |
| Was that an answer to my question? :-)
/Wayne
|
| 855.140 | See 756.31-756.44 | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Wed Jul 24 1996 20:26 | 4 |
| In response to Rodger Dutsako's sermons, I would like to again direct the
interested reader to replies 756.31-756.44. In those replies I show that
Rodger's idea that water baptism is necessary for our salvation has no
basis in Holy Scripture.
|
| 855.141 | Christ - the Grain of Wheat who feel into the ground and died... | SUBSYS::LOPEZ | He showed me a River! | Thu Jul 25 1996 11:09 | 32 |
|
> Was that an answer to my question? :-)
Not sure. 8*)
Something can be changed without being terminated. My point is
that Christ died an all-inclusive death. Not only sin was nailed there
but all the negative things in the things in the universe including
Satan, old Adam, the old "I", etc. On this side of the cross are all
the old things and old Adam, on the other side is the new creation and
the new man. Baptism affirms that we have crossed over from old Adam
to the new man.
His flesh though sinless still needed termination, what comes out in
resurrection is something new. In a proper sense you could say it was
changed like a grain of wheat that falls into the ground and "dies"
but what emerges in resurrection is plant and a multiplication of the
grain. His outer shell was broken through death that the inner kernal
of divine life could be released to produce many grains (us). Then the
power of resurrection life swallowed up His dead physical corpse and
produced something mysterious that aMary and Thomas could touch but
that could appear and disappear. It was an uplifted flesh.
Okay, I've convinced myself. His body was changed through termination.
8*)
Best,
Ace
|
| 855.142 | RE: .141 | ROCK::PARKER | | Thu Jul 25 1996 12:14 | 11 |
| Hi, Ace.
Okay, now we're on the same track.
Thanks for thinking through this is writing. Perhaps not a big deal to
some, but I like to keep thinking until all Scripture dealing with a
subject is reconciled in my mind.
I'm done if you wanna quit on this one. :-)
/Wayne
|
| 855.143 | RE: .133 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Fri Jul 26 1996 13:42 | 21 |
| RE: .133
Hi Wayne,
Long time no see!
Remember a few notes back I said I was ~80% sure of WHAT you believed?
Well your reply in .133 has reminded me of another ~15% or so I'm fuzzy
on. So...
I was wondering if you could be so kind as to share with me your views
on "Spiritual baptism into Christ" (the who, what, where, when, why, and
how) and how it differs from water baptism?
I guess I'm having trouble understanding how "Spiritual baptism into Christ
seems to fit nicely, whereas physical water baptism seems misplaced" with
respect to the 1Pe.3:18-4:11 passage.
Love in Him,
Peter
|
| 855.144 | RE: .143 | ROCK::PARKER | | Fri Jul 26 1996 15:08 | 75 |
| Hi Peter.
| I was wondering if you could be so kind as to share with me your views
| on "Spiritual baptism into Christ" (the who, what, where, when, why, and
| how) and how it differs from water baptism?
** Who: "No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus anathema: and no
man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1Co.12:3)
What: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members
of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether
bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body
is not one member, but many." (1Co.12:12-14)
Where: "The word is nigh thee, even in thy heart: that is, the word of
faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteous-
ness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Ro.10:8b-10)
"The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the
name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only
vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to
honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these,
he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use,
and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow
righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of
a pure heart." (2Ti.2:19b-22)
When: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
(Ro.10:13)
Why: "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and your whole spirit
and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will do it." (1Th.5:23&24)
How: "Though our outward man perish, yet the inward is renewed day by day
...While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which
are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things
which are not seen are eternal." (2Co.4:16b, 18)
The Apostle Paul prayed "That He would grant you, according to the riches of
His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man;
That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and
grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the
breadeth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ,
which passeth knowledge, that ye might be fill with all the fulness of God.
Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask
or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto Him be glory in
the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."
(Ep.3:16-21)
Difference: "Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience toward God." (see 1Pe.3:21)
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present
your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your
reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye
transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that
good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Ro.12:1&2)
| I guess I'm having trouble understanding how "Spiritual baptism into Christ
| seems to fit nicely, whereas physical water baptism seems misplaced" with
| respect to the 1Pe.3:18-4:11 passage.
** Okay, I asked Rodger to interpret the 1Pe.3:18-4:11 passage in terms of his
belief about water baptism being necessary for salvation. I'll be glad to
provide my interpretation after the question has been answered. My
observation was that this passage points to something other than actual
physical contact with water for those saved and cleansed.
In Christ,
/Wayne
|
| 855.145 | Progress Check | ROCK::PARKER | | Fri Jul 26 1996 15:37 | 7 |
| Will there be soon forthcoming a response to Garth's replies in 756.31
through 756.44?
I think further dialog is moot until past issues have been laid to
rest.
/Wayne
|
| 855.146 | RE: .144 & .145 | FABSIX::P_HIRMER | | Thu Aug 01 1996 12:05 | 17 |
| re: .144 &.145
Wayne,
Thanks for the response in .144. I read thru it quickly but will
re-read it soon.
As for your question in .145, I've been working on a response. I'm
going on vacation starting this Sunday thru middle of August, but I
hope I can get something in before I leave.
It's an interactive response, so I don't know how far we will be able
to get before I get back , but we can at least start.
Love in Him,
Peter
|
| 855.147 | RE: .145 and 756.33 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Aug 03 1996 18:50 | 35 |
| With regards to Garth's reply in 756.33, in answering my questions in this
note, 855.52 & 855.53, Garth states that the English "for," translated from the
Greek word "eis," can not dogmatically be given a meaning of "looking forward
to" or "for the purpose of" but may mean "because of" or "as a testimony to."
And one of my comments was that the argument is basically one of order, ie
which comes first forgiveness or repentance (855.51). If "for" means "because
of" that would mean Forgiveness comes first and if "for" means "for the
purpose of" that would mean repentance comes first.
So if we take Garth's assertion that we can't be dogmatic about the
meaning of "for" from Acts 2:38 only, what are we to do? Let us let Scripture
interpret Scripture. To that end, let's look at Acts 3:18-19 and ask a few
questions.
Peter speaking to the Jews by the Beautiful Gate, after healing the man who was
born lame:
Acts 3:18-19 (NASB)
18 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the
prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in
order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord
Question: What does this passage say about the relationship between
repentance and forgiveness of sin? Specifically what is the
order; repentance first then forgivenss, or forgiveness first
then repentance?
In Him,
Peter (Sorry I won't be back until Friday August 15)
|
| 855.148 | The role of baptism with the evangelist | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Sun Aug 04 1996 14:47 | 102 |
| Wayne,
Hello. Thanks for your reply 130 addressing my answer.
It is a difficult theme we are talking about, Wayne, and I am sure it is
hard for you to understand from where I am coming from. I hope you don't
quit our dialog simply because we do have some differences.
As both you and I agree, Peter's answer was right.
This means that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is required for all who
believe our message, just as repentance is required. We also, must give the
answer Peter gave to those who believe the message of the death and
ressurection of Jesus Christ. We must answer them, 'Repent, and be baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive
the gift of the holy spirit'".
Those who receive our message we baptize, and they are added to the church
of Jesus Christ. And just as in the early church, they remained in the apostles
doctrine, so also we must teach them, making disciples.
Most people who I baptize, I baptize the very same day on which they believe
the gospel. This is normal, and in every example in the complete new testament.
They know their sins are forgiven through the blood of Jesus Christ. They know
equally well that it is in their baptism that the forgiveness of Christ's blood
cleanses them of their sin. The oaths they speak before being baptized include:
1. that they no longer continue in sin, and renounce Satan.
2. that they submit everything under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, just
as a woman receives her husband as her head, so they receive Jesus as
their Head, their Lord, and they become his servants.
On their belief in the gospel and the confession of the above 2 oaths they
are baptized and the name of Jesus Christ is invoked over them. Their sins
are forgiven, they are born of the water and the spirit, since this commitment
and faith in Jesus Christ is something which only the spirit can work in a
person's life. (I place for myself very much importance in a very strong
prayer life and also an obedience to the holy spirit in leading me in whom
I speak with and what I say). When the spirit of God is working bringing
salvation, I feel like a midwife in bringing people into the kingdom of
God.
In your note you say:
> As I have all along, I submit that water baptism is symbolic of the
> baptism of the Holy Spirit that delivers the believer from sin. We can do
> NOTHING to free ourselves from sin. That is God's work of grace by faith.
> If you can't get that, then there's little value in continuing our dialog.
I can agree that we cannot free ourselves from sin, and also that it
is God's work of grace by faith. But your statement that 'water baptism
is symbolic of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that delivers the believer
from sin' I cannot accept, nor do I believe you have a scriptural foundation
for saying such a statement.
There is a baptism of water, and there is a baptism of the holy spirit.
They are both very important in our relationship to Jesus. But they are
2, not 1.
Baptism in water in the name of Jesus Christ is done as People believe
the gospel of Jesus Christ. Here they receive the forgiveness of their
sins, here they enter the new covenant, the new testament which Christ
made possible to us through his very own death for our sakes.
Baptism in the holy spirit happens through the holy spirit falling upon
us, something which no man can do. This is not something which we just
believe happens to us when we repent from our sins and turn to Jesus.
The whole town of Samaria had repented, they had great joy, they saw
the great miracles Philip did, and they were all baptized as they believed
the gospel which Philip was preaching. They had eternal life. However,
just as the apostles before pentecost, the holy spirit had fallen on none
of them. When Peter and John layed hands on them, then the holy spirit
fell on them.
Nobody can make out a method of how a person is to receive the baptism
of the holy spirit. You can pray, you can yell, you can do many other
things, but the door which opens and allows the holy spirit to fall
is just as Peter said in acts 2:37-,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the
holy spirit.
When we make baptism steril, baptizing infants, or puting baptism into
our programs, or making out requirements which are necessary before we
baptize someone (other than the requirements which Jesus himself commanded
us) we may miss the 'holy spirit lead baptisms' which we see throughout
Acts. And when we miss the 'holy spirit lead baptisms' we may also very
well miss the 'holy spirit baptisms' which usually happen either just
before or just after baptism. There was no mistake from God's plan that
the holy spirit landed upon Jesus as he was baptized by John. Nor with
Annanias, as he layed hands upon Paul to receive his sight and receive
the holy spirit and straightway baptized him, that his sins would be
washed away.
The way I wish for you to baptize is the one in which the authority of
Jesus Christ is with you. The better we are completely submitted to Jesus,
following his example and doing his words, the more we come in line
with his authority, and the more we can expect from his Spirit.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.149 | Don't mix up water baptism and receiving the holy spirit | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Sun Aug 04 1996 14:48 | 104 |
| Wayne,
When you write:
** Was Naaman's leprosy healed by the water of the Jordan, or was Naaman
cleansed through faith in the word of God through Elisha? In other words,
was Naaman's faith in the words or the act? I submit that Naaman's faith
was shown by the act.
I agree that it was faith, but this faith was in the words of Elisha.
"Go and dip yourself 7 times in the Jordan, and you shall be whole"
Water is not able to cure leprosy, otherwise he wouldn't have had to
come to the prophet, but could have been healed in his own land. But
because he did as the prophet commanded, and dipped 7 times, he was healed.
When John the baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul and the others preach that by
being baptized we will be forgiven of our sins, saved from our sins,
cleansed, etc., is this any different that what the prophet Elisha said?
If Naaman did not follow the words of the prophet, and dip 7 times in the
Jordan, he would not have been healed, nor if some hear the words of Peter,
Jesus, Paul and the others, and refused to be baptized, they will not
receive the forgiveness of their sins or be saved from their sins.
Wayne,
When you answer:
| Do you believe Peter and Paul were right when they referred to baptism being
| for the forgiveness, cleansing of our sins?
with
** Certainly, but not according to your understanding.
There is only one way to understand Peter and Paul. Those who received their
words were baptized and received the forgiveness of their sins. Those who
did not receive their words were not baptized, nor did they receive the
forgiveness of their sins. There were only 3000 on Pentecost who received
his words, and each and every one of them were baptized for the forgiveness
of their sins and received the forgiveness of their sins. Those who were
faithful to this covenant which they entered until death are waiting for
us in Heaven.
You also wrote:
** Yes, without being baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ, there is no
deliverance from sin.
This is not what Peter was refering to in Acts 2:38. Both baptisms were
mentioned, first the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins and
then the gift of the holy spirit, which the father promises those who
enter this covenant. The apostles waited 3 years for this promise, yet
their sins had already been forgiven. When they became disciples of Jesus
they were then baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. This was the
essence which John had taught, preparing the way for Jesus. He taught a
'baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins'.
The Holy Spirit baptism is not for the deliverance from sin, but, as
Paul states in Rom. 6.
I can only agree from my whole heart with you in the last statement
you make, that we may be made like Jesus Christ, who has delivered us
from our sins, whose fullness of Love, wisdom, etc. is unmeasurable.
Wayne,
You asked me to share my interpretation of 1.Pe.3:18-4:11.
I do not have the time to talk of every scripture, but 3:20-21:
(literal translation from Greek)
not having been obedient once, as patiently waited the longsuffering of God
in the days of Noah as the arch was constructed, in which few, that is
8 souls, through which saved through water. This also you picturally now
saves baptism, not flesh durtiness put off but concience good asking
to God.
The destruction of all the people in the World and the 8
people being saved from this destruction by the arch is a picture of the
eternal destruction of all the people in the World and how baptism saves
us from it, as the arch saved those who entered it. Those who believe
the gospel,(as believing Noah would have saved people at his time, since
they through their faith in his words would enter the arch, as his sons
and daughters in laws did!), and then are baptized enter the new covenant,
which is like entering the 'Arch'.
After the curtain was ripped in the temple, the old jewish covenant which God
made through Moses was no longer able of bringing this salvation.
By being baptized, we enter a new life by that same power which raised
Jesus from the dead, we are ressurected, made alive, through the ressurection
of Jesus Christ.
Baptism is NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Although it IS
the putting away of our old man, the body of sin being crucified (Rom.6),
we still have the same sinful flesh, just as even Jesus had this (God sent
his son in the likeness of flesh of sin (Rom.8:3). Although by my baptism
I was clothed with Christ's very own righteousness, my soul is still
being purified by obedience to the truth. Yet my righteousness has not
increased, for what can be greater than Christ's very own righteousness?
No, I have lived faithful to the covenant which I made with Jesus 23 years
ago and certainly it has had an amazing effect im my life! Yet my flesh
is still tempted, yet by his grace, and by the fear of God he has placed
in my heart, and the holy spirit, just as Jesus resisted the devel,
so do I.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.150 | be baptized for(to) the forgiveness of sins | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Sun Aug 04 1996 14:50 | 83 |
| Wayne,
Our clean conscience is directly related to our baptism. There we received
the forgiveness of all our sins. We received his righteousness, the blood
of Jesus washed us through and through. The word 'Answer' is wrong, it is
the word 'request' or 'ask' in Greek. Through us being baptized, with a
conviction of repentance in our heart, we can know that our sins have been
forgiven us.
Physical baptism is what is meant, with water. Peter even uses the picture
of the water at the time Noah! Paul used the same in 1.Cor.10.
The baptism of the holy spirit is for those who obey Jesus, and we need
it (not a substitute of it, or just to think we have it, but rather to
have the moving of the holy spirit a daily occurance in our lives, a being
lead by the spirit, a being filled with the spirit). But this is not a
substitute in any way for water baptism. When Peter saw that all the people
at Cornelia's house had received the holy spirit as they had on Pentecost,
he immediately commanded them to be baptized. This is no different today!
Concerning 145, Garth's replies in 756.31-44:
I have spoken of them in 756.46, 756.48, 756.51, 756.53, 54,55. I
also have given replies related to them in 855.8,13(indirect) ,
36(indirect), 57 (direct), 59 (direct), 61, 65, 77, 78, 84(indirect),
85, 123(indirect). There is probable over 1000 lines of text which I
believe I address every point which Garth put importance to. If there
is something specific you believe I have left out, I can point you to
it, or in the case where I have not mentioned it, I would very much like
to address it (when I have time).
Concerning "eis", as I have said before, it means almost always 'in',
'to', 'on' or 'for'. In the greek interlinear translation you can see
that almost all places (all that I have found) it is translated as one
of these. The problem in taking the king james version is that it was
not written to make every word clear, but rather to make the meaning
clear. I read now the new testament regularly in greek.
Regarding 855:63:
Garth mentioned in Matt. 3:11,
Ego men umas Baptizo en udati eis metanoian
I then you baptize in water to repentance (eis = to)
He mentioned Mat.10:10:
me peran eis odon
not backbag for way (eis = for)
In John 7:10:
Os de anebesan oi adelphoi autou eis ten eorten
as but went upto the brothers of his to the feast (eis = to)
In John 12:7
aphes auten, ina eis ten emeran tou entaphiasmou mou terese auto
let her that for the day of burial of mine preserved this
(eis = for)
1.Cor.10.31:
eite oun esthiete eite pinete eite ti poieite panta eis dozan theou poieite
whether now you eat or drink or what you do all to glory God do
(eis = to)
The other examples he gave are no different.
If then all the verses which Garth uses are understood by the experts as
meaning 'to' or 'for', why should anyone want to interpret them as 'because
of' or anything else. Let the words of the scriptures speak for themselves!
They are clear enough.
and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins
and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to the forgiveness of your sins
I am going for a month on vacation. I'll be looking at your response
first when I get back! May God bless you with revelation and much, much
love.
Rodger Dusatko
|
| 855.151 | Acts 2:38, Greek <eis>, English "for" | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Mon Aug 05 1996 01:48 | 105 |
| Re: .150 (Rodger Dutsako)
> Concerning "eis", as I have said before, it means almost always 'in',
> 'to', 'on' or 'for'. In the greek interlinear translation you can see
> that almost all places (all that I have found) it is translated as one
> of these. The problem in taking the king james version is that it was
> not written to make every word clear, but rather to make the meaning
> clear. I read now the new testament regularly in greek.
================================================================================
Note 855.63 "The Discipler's Baptism" 63 of 150
NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" 91 lines 8-MAR-1996 00:44
-< Acts 2:38, Greek <eis>, English "for" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .61 (Rodger Dutsako)
Regarding the Greek word <eis>, I think your study of this word is a bit
limited. This preposition occurs 1764 times in 1511 verses of the New
Testament. In the English translation that I use, just that inflection of
the word, used alone, is translated all of the following ways: aboard,
about, against, among, as, as far as, at, attaining to, become, before,
beyond, bring into, bring to, brought, by, do, doing, down upon, for,
for purpose, from, full of, go, granted, how to gratify, in, in dealing
with, in order that, in order to bring, in regard to, increases, intended
to bring, into, leading to, leads to, make, of, on, on to, onto, over,
receive, regarding, result in, so as to, so that, supply, that, the place
of, there to, through, throughout, till, to, to bring, to cause, to do,
to serve, toward, under, until, unto, up, where, will turn out, with.
In my English translation, <eis> is translated "for" 142 times in 135 verses
of the New Testament. Sometimes it implies a cause and effect relationship
(like you suppose it must) and other times it does not. Let's look at a
few examples of how it does not:
For example, in Matt. 3:11 John the Baptist says "I baptize you for
repentance...". Did he mean that his baptism would cause repentance, or
was his baptism done because of repentance?
For example, in Matt. 10:10 Jesus says "Take no bag for the journey...".
Did taking the bag cause the journey, or was the bag to be taken because of
the journey?
For example John 7:10 says "However, after his brothers had left for the
Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret." Did the brothers leave
to bring about the Feast, or did they leave on account of the Feast?
For example, in John 12:7 Jesus says "Leave her alone. It was intended
that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial." Did saving
the perfume bring about the day of his burial, or was the perfume saved
on account of the day of his burial?
For example, Paul asks in Romans 9:21 "Does not the potter have the right
to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and
some for common use?" Is pottery made to bring about noble purposes in the
mind of the potter, or is it made on account of the noble purposes that
already existed in the mind of the potter?
For example, Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or
whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." Are we to eat and drink
to bring about the glory of God, or are we to eat and drink with the glory
of God in mind?
For example, Paul says in 1 Tim 6:19 "In this way they will lay up treasure
for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age...". Do we lay up
treasure to bring about the coming age, or do we lay up treasure with the
coming age in mind?"
For example, Paul says in Tit 3:14 "Our people must learn to devote
themselves to doing what is good, in order that they may provide for
daily necessities and not live unproductive lives." Do we provide to
bring about the daily necessities of life, or do we provide on account
of what is necessary?
For example, Heb 9:9 says "This is an illustration for the present time...".
Does the illustration cause "the present time" or is the illustration given
with the present time in mind?
For example, 2 Pet 2:9 says "the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from
trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment...". Does
holding the unrighteous bring about the day of judgment, or are they held
because of the coming day of judgment?
For example, 2 Pet 3:7 says "By the same word the present heavens and earth
are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction
of ungodly men." Does keeping the present heavens and earth cause the
day of judgment, or are the present heavens and earth kept on account of
the day of judgment?
For example, Jude 1:6 says the fallen angels are "bound with everlasting
chains for judgment on the great Day." Does binding them with chains
cause the judgment, or are they being bound because of the coming judgment?
These are all examples of the Greek word <eis>, translated "for", but not
used in the way you insist it can only be used.
You say about Acts 2:38,
> all bible translators world wide have also clearly
> stated that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins in all of the
> languages in which the book of acts has been translated. Your
> translation is in NONE of them.
So now I affirm to you again that the translations are correct and baptism
is "for" the forgiveness of sins. The problem is not the text, but what
you insist on reading into it.
|
| 855.153 | RE: .150 | ROCK::PARKER | | Mon Aug 05 1996 23:37 | 20 |
| Rodger,
| Our clean conscience is directly related to our baptism. There we received
| the forgiveness of all our sins. We received his righteousness, the blood
| of Jesus washed us through and through. The word 'Answer' is wrong, it is
| the word 'request' or 'ask' in Greek. Through us being baptized, with a
| conviction of repentance in our heart, we can know that our sins have been
| forgiven us.
** So, then, you hold that water baptism is what gives us a clean conscience?
The word "answer" is NOT wrong. The Greek word is EPEROTEMA, a legal term,
not a request, but an appeal. The water is a symbol of baptism which saves
BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.
Our clean conscience is the work of the Holy Spirit, the ground of an
appeal. We know that our sins are forgiven by the witness of the Word and
the Spirit.
/Wayne
|
| 855.152 | RE: .148 | ROCK::PARKER | | Tue Aug 06 1996 12:29 | 17 |
| Hi, Rodger.
| As both you and I agree, Peter's answer was right.
** Yes, as I said, Peter's answer was right, but not according to your
understanding.
| I can agree that we cannot free ourselves from sin, and also that it
| is God's work of grace by faith. But your statement that 'water baptism
| is symbolic of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that delivers the believer
| from sin' I cannot accept, nor do I believe you have a scriptural foundation
| for saying such a statement.
** Really? Who is the Deliverer, with what does He baptize and how exactly are
we delivered from sin?
/Wayne
|
| 855.154 | RE: .150 | DELORA::PARKER | | Tue Aug 06 1996 17:05 | 12 |
| Rodger,
| I am going for a month on vacation. I'll be looking at your response
| first when I get back! May God bless you with revelation and much, much
| love.
** Thank you for this gracious blessing. I desire the same for you.
I would seek to know nothing except by revelation of our Lord. Truth in/of
the Word will be commended to and effected in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
/Wayne
|
| 855.155 | Friendly Reminder RE: .144 & .145 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Aug 17 1996 11:30 | 42 |
| RE: .144
> Okay, I asked Rodger to interpret the 1Pe.3:18-4:11 passage in terms of his
> belief about water baptism being necessary for salvation. I'll be glad to
> provide my interpretation after the question has been answered. My
> observation was that this passage points to something other than
> actual physical contact with water for those saved and cleansed.
> In Christ,
> /Wayne
Wayne,
Given Rodger's replies in 148-150, do you feel comfortable sharing
your thoughts on 1 Peter 3 and why it fits well with spiritual
baptism into Christ but misplaced with water baptism?
RE: .145
> Will there be soon forthcoming a response to Garth's replies in 756.31
> through 756.44?
> I think further dialog is moot until past issues have been laid to
> rest.
> /Wayne
Just as a reminder, I have started my response in .147 and .147
has questions that need to be answered before continuing.
I realize I was away for almost two weeks and other discussions
were taking place, so this is just a friendly reminder.
In Him,
Peter (who won't be back until Wednesday)
|
| 855.156 | RE: .155 May it be unto us according to our faith | ROCK::PARKER | | Sat Aug 17 1996 12:47 | 43 |
| Hi, Peter.
| Given Rodger's replies in 148-150, do you feel comfortable sharing
| your thoughts on 1 Peter 3 and why it fits well with spiritual
| baptism into Christ but misplaced with water baptism?
** Actually, Rodger didn't answer my question in terms of interpreting the
entire passage in context. He only dealt with two verses, and I think the
context is important. However, I'll speak to the same two verses Rodger
did.
Eight persons were brought safely through the water. And corresponding to
that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an
appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. (NAS)
What was the actual means of salvation? The ark. Those in the ark lived.
Those in the water outside the ark died.
We enter the ark, Christ's body, by the Holy Spirit through faith. Christ
was raised from the dead. He lives and so shall we. Abiding in Christ
saves. Being immersed in water does not.
I'm impelled to debate no more. The Truth can be seen in just these two
verses. My saying more would be vain. If water baptism is the "stake-in-
the-ground" to which you can point as the time you entered Christ's body,
then praise God and move on--the engrafted word now saves your soul.
| Just as a reminder, I have started my response in .147 and .147
| has questions that need to be answered before continuing.
** Your questions are rehashing old territory. Garth dealt with those
questions earlier, and I would say nothing different. If Garth's answers
weren't satisfactory then, nothing I could say now would satisfy you.
The Holy Spirit was sent to lead us into Truth. May we both hear the
witness of God's Word and Spirit. If you feel I do not speak truly, then
by all means reject my understanding. My words are void, but God's Word
always accomplishes His purpose.
In Christ,
/Wayne
|
| 855.157 | How do sinners understand for the forgiveness of sins | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Mon Sep 09 1996 12:00 | 112 |
| Hello my brethren,
Garth,
Thank you for your reply. I can tell you take a long in your responses. It
is certainly a theme worth much consideration.
As we now both agree, Peter was right when he said,
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".
We also both agree, that the translators did correctly translate the greek
words into english.
So, in agreement to the huge amount of writings from every century of the
church, at least until 1500, we can safely agree that baptism is for the
forgiveness of sins.
This agreement was made throughout all of the churches in the nicean creed,
(4th century)
"We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
This really was nothing more than restating what Peter had said in Acts 2:37.
Jesus died, and his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins.
When someone recognises the conviction of the Holy Spirit, yes, even the
testimony of their own conscience, which often agrees with the conviction
of the Holy Spirit, then we see why baptism is an appeal to God for a clean
conscience. We have sinned. Our conscience bears witness to this. The
individual sins we have done cause guilt, and rightly so. Now if we
repent, make an end to this sin, OBEY the conviction of the Holy Spirit, then
by this very same Holy Spirit we are led to our baptism, that we may receive
the forgiveness which Jesus accomplished for us on the cross.
"For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." (1.Cor.12)
It was the Holy Spirit which caused the words of Peter to pierce the hearts
of those who heard, with such conviction that they said as answer to being
part of Jesus' crucifixion, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
When the Holy Spirit convicts people today, we must give them the same answer
which Peter gave. "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins". Any answer not including the commanded necessity
of repenting and being baptized is incomplete. Any perversion, such as praying
a prayer, or trying to weaken the conviction of sin, or having them be given
council, without clarity being given of how to enter the covenant of Jesus
through baptism can be compared to giving a man dying of snake poison only
an aspirin.
The antedote to sin is agreeing with the Holy Spirit, resolving firmly in your
heart to turn from sin, yes, calling sincerly on the Lord that you do not
return, a broken heart calling for God's mercy, and a great joy as we receive
the forgiveness for all of these sins through faith in Christ's blood which
cleanses us as we are baptized into this covenant. The Holy Spirit itself
testifying to the words of Peter, that our sins our forgiven through our
being baptized. The appeal to God for a clean conscience has been heard and
answered. Our faith is firmly fastened to his words, and strengthened by the
Holy Spirit, that we are clean, redeemed, saved, inheritors of eternal life,
a part of Christ's church, freed from sin. Yes, the blood of Jesus Christ
has cleansed us from all sin. As John wrote in 1.John, there are 3 that bear
witness on earth, the spirit, the water and the blood, and these all agree
in one.
In reply .152, Wayne,
you say my understanding is not right, that "Repent and be baptized... for
the forgiveness of sins" in Acts 2:38 must mean something else than really
'for the forgiveness of sins". When I tell a sinner to repent and be
baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, what do you think he will understand
from these words? How did all of the people understand Peter? He was presenting
baptism as the means to "Save yourself from this perverted generation." All
that gladly received his words were baptized, they were saved from this
perverted generation. I am certain after they were baptized, they knew their
sins had been forgiven, that Peters words were not empty. And I certainly
would assert that any who had rejected Peters strong reproof to save themselves
and were not baptized, were not accounted by Peter as having received the
forgiveness of their sins, whether they 'believed' or not.
If you tell someone there is coming a great flood, and you show them the arc
you have made by which they may be saved, if they believe you they will enter
into the arc. The people at the time of the arc of Noah BELIEVED God, and
therefore entered into the arc. They entered 7 days before the rains even
started! But when the rains came, God himself had closed the door, and the
arc was no longer available. Only those who really believed had entered in.
We need to heed the words of Paul, Today is the day of salvation. We do not
enter into an arc to be saved from a flood, but we enter into Jesus' covenant,
made with his very own blood, as we are baptized. The church (not the
organization or the building) are the people who entered into Jesus' covenant.
The 3000 people in Acts 2 entered into this covenant by being baptized. The
other examples in acts are no different. There is no NEW door into this
covenant, it is still the same one no matter what man says. The complete church
of Jesus Christ for 1500 years did not err when they believed that Pauls words
'by one spirit we are all baptized into one body' were referring to water
baptism, nor were they erring when they believed that baptism was essential
for the forgiveness of sins. This door, when properly upheld, causes that
satan stays out of the church, nobody enters without repenting and being
baptized, nobody enters without the oath (confession) of Jesus as their Lord,
their head, and nobody enters without Jesus cleansing them of their sins
and freeing them from sin, which happens in a spirit led baptism. This is so
they no longer live as before and the church is saved from the world. And for
that reason Paul writes we should remove the leaven of sin, even leading to
expelling many who do not remain faithful to their baptismal vows and do not
once again repent. (2.Cor.5) Communion should be for each of us an examination
of our covenant relationship to Jesus, and anything which may distort it should
be confessed and turned from. And according to God's great mercy, his love
for us is expressed as we then are forgiven and cleansed through the partaking
of the blood (wine).
|
| 855.158 | By one spirit we are all baptized into one body | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Mon Sep 09 1996 12:01 | 92 |
|
Wayne, you asked who the deliver is.
Jesus is the deliverer. His command to his disciples to preach the gospel
throughout the world and all who believe and are baptized shall be saved shows
how Jesus delivers. Yes, it is Jesus, and it is through the preaching of the
gospel, yet it is only to those who believe and are baptized. The Holy Spirit
is certainly the initiator of this, as it is written, 'and how shall they
preach when they are not sent'. (Rom.10) But the Holy Spirit will never
come against Jesus' most important words to his disciples. Instead, he
will confirm them, yes, even with the signs which follow in the next verses.
Wayne,
We both agree that:
** We enter the ark, Christ's body, by the Holy Spirit through faith.
The only difference we have, is your 'faith' does not include 'going
through the door'. Peter's did. 'They that gladly received his word were
baptized".
* Christ was raised from the dead. He lives and so shall we. Abiding in Christ
* saves. Being immersed in water does not.
Jesus' words 'they that believe and are baptized shall be saved' show most
certainly that BOTH are necessary. Otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned
baptism as necessary for being saved. The church believed this for 1500
years. The churches which the apostles established believed this, and
Peter and Paul and Jesus even say it.
Where the early church erred greatly was not where they saw the necessity
of baptism to be saved, but rather where they left out the necessity to
believe. In the 3rd century there are the first writings mentioning the
baptism of infants. This is just as wrong as thinking that we only need
to believe to be saved. Jesus didn't say "They which believe shall be saved"
nor did he say "they which are baptized shall be saved" but he mentioned
both, because both are necessary. Being immersed in water, without believing,
is no different than putting a dog under the water. The dog is certainly
no different. But of a truth, all of those people in Acts (and today of
course) who believe the gospel and upon believing are baptized, they are
saved. All those people who believed Peter preaching the gospel and were
baptized were saved, all 3000 of them. They all went through the door, they
all entered the ark.
You say:
** If water baptism is the "stake-in-the-ground" to which you can point as
** the time you entered Christ's body, then praise God and move on--the
** engrafted word now saves your soul.
Can you give me a single example of someone entering the early church
who did something other than baptism? There are not MANY doors into the
Church as you may think. Many may have stumbled into the door by simple
obedience. They may have believed they were saved when they prayed with
Billy Graham. Then later, someone might say, baptism is a step of obedience,
simply because Jesus says we are to do it. So they are baptized, not
believing God concerning baptism, but simply by being obedient. It is a
sad, weak way to enter into the boat, and usually lacks the confirmation
of the Holy Spirit as in the complete book of acts. But at least they have
entered in (provided that they truly have repented, believed with their
whole heart, and have been immersed, not some altered pouring or sprinkling).
Whether we believe that our baptism is for the forgiveness of sins does not
determine whether it is valid. However, how much more meaningful is baptism
when we believe what the bible says about it, and not simply do the action
because it is a 'necessary step of obedience'.
Wayne,
You say,
* If you feel I do not speak truly, then
* by all means reject my understanding. My words are void, but God's Word
* always accomplishes His purpose.
I appreciate your humbleness. I know you believe the word of God with
a sincere heart. And I'm sure that you have been baptized, that you are
a disciple of Jesus Christ, and have his Holy Spirit. This is not the
question, not with you, or Garth. There is a different interest I have,
that the foundation which Jesus laid be re-established in the Church today.
That the way of salvation be identical as when Peter and the apostles
baptized those 3000 people. Through dreams and visions I have been
persuaded that the pouring out of his spirit on all flesh will require that
this foundation be pure, just as Jesus had layed it, and very, very strong.
Unclearness is not from the light of the Holy Spirit, nor is justification
of how it has been done or how we are presently doing it. Let us be
disciples as those in the new testament, let us preach the same message,
baptize the same way those that believe, and see the church the same way.
Rodger Dusatko
In Christ,
/Wayne
|
| 855.159 | RE: .158 | ROCK::PARKER | | Mon Sep 09 1996 12:42 | 9 |
| Okay, Rodger. Mine is not to convince another of Truth, rather to
present that which has been commended to me as Truth by God's Word and
Spirit together.
Just to be clear, are you saying that physical baptism in water is a
necessary condition for sins being forgiven such that none can be saved
apart from water baptism?
/Wayne
|
| 855.160 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Mon Sep 09 1996 13:48 | 12 |
| Re: .157 (Rodger Dutsako)
>Garth,
>
>Thank you for your reply. I can tell you take a long in your responses. It
>is certainly a theme worth much consideration.
>
>As we now both agree, Peter was right when he said,
You make it sound like I agree with your stand on water baptism.
That is not the case, as my reply .151 explains.
|
| 855.161 | RE: .159 | SUBPAC::HIRMER | | Sat Sep 14 1996 16:51 | 41 |
| 855.162 | RE: .161 | ROCK::PARKER | | Sun Sep 15 1996 21:39 | 38 |
| 855.163 | Acts 2:38 vs. Acts 3:19 | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Tue Sep 17 1996 01:15 | 47 |
| 855.164 | It IS for the forgiveness of sins! | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Fri Sep 27 1996 11:55 | 71 |
| 855.165 | I'd like to read what you're reading | DYPSS1::DYSERT | Barry - Custom Software Development | Fri Sep 27 1996 13:09 | 10 |
| 855.166 | | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Sep 27 1996 13:20 | 8 |
| 855.167 | John 3:5 vs. thief: Calling Peter | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Sep 27 1996 13:47 | 10 |
| 855.168 | John 3:5 vs. thief: Calling Barry | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Sep 27 1996 13:48 | 10 |
| 855.169 | Or did I miss something historical? | ROCK::PARKER | | Fri Sep 27 1996 15:33 | 6 |
| 855.170 | a misunderstanding | DYPSS1::DYSERT | Barry - Custom Software Development | Fri Sep 27 1996 16:45 | 17 |
| 855.171 | Oops. Wrong target. | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Sep 27 1996 18:20 | 11 |
| 855.172 | The Thief wasn't saved through the new covenant. | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Wed Oct 02 1996 07:17 | 89 |
| 855.173 | RE: .172 | ROCK::PARKER | | Wed Oct 02 1996 11:28 | 47 |
| 855.174 | John 3:5 vs. thief on cross: Rodger? | NETCAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Wed Oct 02 1996 20:27 | 30 |
| 855.175 | The new covenant - door is baptism | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Mon Oct 07 1996 08:51 | 101 |
| 855.176 | Freed from sin means, he saved us from sin | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Mon Oct 07 1996 08:53 | 46 |
| 855.177 | The thief was not born of water and spirit, nor belonged to the kingdom of God | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Mon Oct 07 1996 09:35 | 94 |
| 855.178 | RE: .175 & .176 | ROCK::PARKER | | Mon Oct 07 1996 09:40 | 1 |
| 855.179 | Born Again | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Oct 07 1996 11:33 | 13 |
| 855.180 | John 3:1-21 | N2DEEP::VISITOR | Be One in The Spirit | Mon Oct 07 1996 19:46 | 15 |
| 855.181 | | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Oct 07 1996 20:04 | 7 |
| 855.182 | 2 Timothy 2:15 | N2DEEP::VISITOR | Be One in The Spirit | Tue Oct 08 1996 10:46 | 24 |
| 855.183 | Please Explain! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Oct 08 1996 12:18 | 10 |
| 855.184 | Now I am a speed boat! | N2DEEP::VISITOR | Be One in The Spirit | Tue Oct 08 1996 19:07 | 25 |
| 855.185 | Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure! | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Mon Oct 14 1996 08:39 | 74 |
| 855.186 | Baptism and Salvation | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Oct 14 1996 09:25 | 43 |
| 855.187 | Tony, have you repented and been baptized upon believing? | RTOOF::CSO_SUPPORT | | Mon Nov 04 1996 11:15 | 89
|