The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[Joyful]

But Rom 8:38-39 says neither trouble, hardship, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger or sword, death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate the elect from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Ephesians scriptures also says we are sealed until death. God wouldn't contradict himself right? Looks to me that Jesus is faithful to US till the end...

You get this if you are sold to Jesus with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.

 

[Wormwood]

You still have not provided the exposition for which I asked: 'Please show me where 'water' is mentioned for baptism in Romans 6?'

Oz, I think you are missing my point. Allow me to answer by asking you a couple questions. Show me where water is mentioned in Matthew 28. Show me where water is mentioned in Acts 2:38. Show me where water is mentioned in Acts 16:33. Show me where water is mentioned in Acts 22:16. Show me where water is mentioned in Col. 2:12. Hardly any scholar I have ever read denies these other passages are explicit references to water baptism. The fact is, the word, as you know, means to dip or dunk and was associated with dipping a person in a substance such as water. This was the practice of the early church and would have been the clear understanding of any first century reader. It is t he equivalent of someone today saying they are taking a bath, and them someone else injecting, "how do you know this bath includes water?" Of course a bath includes water, unless otherwise noted. I think your theology is really filtering you from a simple reading of this passage.

You claim in #189 that I'm the one who 'shared your practical reasons for your view, but I am not seeing your Scriptural ones'. What are yo u doing when you state: 'I think it is a wild assumption to argue that Paul's statement, "Don't you know when you were dunked that you were buried with Christ" would ever be understood by readers to be a "spiritual" dunking'. That is your speculation. To this point, you have not provided an exposition, based on the exegesis, of Romans 6.

Could this be the pot calling the kettle black?

Again, to assume that the repeated references to baptism in the NT in conjunction with narratives explaining the physical act of baptism in water....along with the easily traceable practices of the early church and their understanding on baptism....would mean anything other than water baptism is really hard for me to grasp. Again, its like someone reading a book that talks about someone taking a shower and then a person from another culture saying, "well, prove to me that person was taking a shower in water. How do you know its not a spiritual shower?" I find this an amazing stretch that ignores the basic meaning of words and how they were understood in the first century (not to mention the basic practices and teachings of the early church).

 

[StanJ]

We are not born again unless we are committed to follow Jesus' teachings.

We are born again as soon as we do what Paul instructs in Rom 10:9-11

 

[StanJ]

Again, to assume that the repeated references to baptism in the NT in conjunction with narratives explaining the physical act of baptism in water....along with the easily traceable practices of the early church and their understanding on baptism....would mean anything other than water baptism is really hard for me to grasp. Again, its like someone reading a book that talks about someone taking a shower and then a person from another culture saying, "well, prove to me that person was taking a shower in water. How do you know its not a spiritual shower?" I find this an amazing stretch that ignores the basic meaning of words and how they were understood in the first century (not to mention the basic practices and teachings of the early church).

Not surprising, but this is indeed the fact. Jesus never baptized anyone in water, that was John the Baptist's mission and calling, and he himself said Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire. 3000 people did not get baptized in water in Acts 2:41, they were baptised by the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had been.

 

[ATP]

You get this if you are sold to Jesus with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.

That's not what it says though, you are simply adding to scripture. There is no "if". Notice the words in bold. Neither present nor future can separate the elect from God. We are also sealed until death. Death is death Joyful.

Rom 8:38-39 ESV For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Eph 1:13-14 NIV And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Eph 4:30 NIV And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

 

[OzSpen]

Nope, you have to be faithful to Jesus until the end. This is the commitment.

On that, I do agree with you:

10“At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11“Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12“Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. 13“But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come (Matt 24:10-14).

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, I think you are missing my point. Allow me to answer by asking you a couple questions. Show me where water is mentioned in Matthew 28. Show me where water is mentioned in Acts 2:38. Show me where water is mentioned in Acts 16:33. Show me where water is mentioned in Acts 22:16. Show me where water is mentioned in Col. 2:12. Hardly any scholar I have ever read denies these other passages are explicit references to water baptism. The fact is, the word, as you know, means to dip or dunk and was associated with dipping a person in a substance such as water. This was the practice of the early church and would have been the clear understanding of any first century reader. It is t he equivalent of someone today saying they are taking a bath, and them someone else injecting, "how do you know this bath includes water?" Of course a bath includes water, unless otherwise noted. I think your theology is really filtering you from a simple reading of this passage.

Again, to assume that the repeated references to baptism in the NT in conjunction with narratives explaining the physical act of baptism in water....along with the easily traceable practices of the early church and their understanding on baptism....would mean anything other than water baptism is really hard for me to grasp. Again, its like someone reading a book that talks about someone taking a shower and then a person from another culture saying, "well, prove to me that person was taking a shower in water. How do you know its not a spiritual shower?" I find this an amazing stretch that ignores the basic meaning of words and how they were understood in the first century (not to mention the basic practices and teachings of the early church).

Wormwood,

I consider you have built a strong case for Rom 6:3-4 (ESV) referring to water baptism and I accept the evidence you have provided. However, there are others who accept that this refers to spiritual baptism, i.e. baptism into Christ at the time of conversion.

However, there is a danger that we must avoid: That danger is that wherever the word 'baptize' or 'baptism' is used that it refers to water baptism. I'm thinking of these verses in the NT where baptize does not have that meaning:

• Mark 10:38-39 (ESV): 'Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized'.
• Luke 12:50 (ESV): 'I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!'.

Romans 6:3-4, understood as spiritual baptism, is accepted by some. See

• 'Baptism and Romans 6:3-5'.
• 'The true baptism of the Spirit' (Ray Stedman).
• Eminent evangelical commentator, Leon Morris, does not accept Rom 6:3-4 as referring to water baptism:

'Paul turns to baptism, which is perhaps surprising. But it helps him make his point emphatically. "Or" points to the alternative to what he has just been saying. If his readers do not understand what it means to die to sin, they do not understand what baptism means, and baptism comes right at the beginning of the Christian life. His question implies that this is something the Roman Christians would be expected to know. Since Paul had not been to Rome he plainly regards this as knowledge common to all Christians. We may perhaps miss something of what he is saying because for us "baptized" evokes liturgical associations; it points to a comforting and inspiring piece of ceremonial. But in the first century, while the verb could denote this ceremony and Paul certainly means that here, to "baptize" evoked associations of violence. It meant "immerse" rather than "dip". It was used, for example, of people being drowned, or of ships being sunk. ...When it is applied to Christian initiation we ought not to think in terms of gentleness and inspiration; it means death, death to a whole way of life. It is this that is Paul's point here. Christians are people who have died, and their baptism emphasizes that death. Death runs through this passage and is mentioned in every verse up to v. 13. We should not let the modern associations of baptism blind us to the point Paul is making so strongly. He is saying that it is quite impossible for anyone who understands what baptism means to acquiesce cheerfully in a sinful life.The baptized have died to all that' (Morris 1988:246-247).

Even in English, we use 'baptism' to refer to other than water baptism. When I was doing the defence of my PhD dissertation (orals), I encountered a baptism of fire from a theological liberal on the panel. I can assure you that it had nothing to do with water and had everything to do with an immersion in firey antagonism towards my evangelical beliefs.

When I took up my first job with the use of computers, I was baptised into the world of computers through the use of Word Perfect DOS. It is now an anachronism.

In Christ,
Oz

Works consulted
Morris, L 1988. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company / Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

[OzSpen]

I did, you just don't accept it.

good day.

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question at #213: 'So, is the remainder of the NT not important for understanding how to inherit God's kingdom?'

To say that it is 'double speak' does not answer my question.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

But Rom 8:38-39 says neither trouble, hardship, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger or sword, death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate the elect from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 bibles I have all say

Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

There is a big difference between "us" and the "elect".

Anyone can be saved the elect are another group.

In all His Love

 

[Joyful]

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question at #213: 'So, is the remainder of the NT not important for understanding how to inherit God's kingdom?'

Jesus teaches all of it; about how to inherit Gog's kingdom.

 

[Wormwood]

Not surprising, but this is indeed the fact. Jesus never baptized anyone in water, that was John the Baptist's mission and calling, and he himself said Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire. 3000 people did not get baptized in water in Acts 2:41, they were baptised by the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had been.

StanJ,

The question the people were asking was, "What shall we do?" I don't think it makes sense that Peter would point to something they had no control over. The text does not say, "Repent and you will be baptized and receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit." It says "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins..."

Oz,

Thanks for your response.

However, there is a danger that we must avoid: That danger is that wherever the word 'baptize' or 'baptism' is used that it refers to water baptism. I'm thinking of these verses in the NT where baptize does not have that meaning:

• Mark 10:38-39 (ESV): 'Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized'.
• Luke 12:50 (ESV): 'I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!'.

I think the context in the passages make it evident what Jesus is speaking about, just as the examples you gave such as "baptized into the world of computers." Its no different than if I say, "I took a shower" in contrast to "I was showered with praise." The context makes it evident what we are speaking about.

I enjoy Leon Morris (especially his work on Atonement). Can you provide more context for that quote? I don't see that he is denying that this baptism is a reference to water baptism in this citation. It could be he is denying it refers to some meaningless, ceremonial event that does not indicate the death of the participant. I think we can accept what he says and still say this takes place in water baptism (especially if the believer is cognizant of the fact their old life is being terminated). I don't know how a "spiritual" reckoning of baptism in this instance makes it any more meaningful or the word "baptism" any more harsh than how it is used elsewhere in Paul's or Luke's writings. Again, its hard for me to determine what he is saying here with this small excerpt.

The most likely understanding is that Paul is referring to the concrete act of water baptism (which corresponds to their spiritual baptism as the NT only makes distinctions between one and the other in unusual circumstances...the didactic passages on baptism indicate that spiritual baptism takes place in physical baptism as the two are meant to go together). I think we should heed the words of one author as he reflects on how we determine the original meaning of the authors:

In spite of this dialectical relationship—or perhaps because of it—we must be very skeptical of any system that forces us to go against the natural and obvious meanings of any large number of texts especially on the same subject, such as baptism. We must question the validity of any system that requires us to interpret such texts in a consistently unnatural or strained manner or in a way that causes them to say something not actually found in the texts themselves. In other words, if the only reason for consistently doing violence to a whole category of texts is a dogmatic one, then we probably need to revise our theological system in a way that allows us to be true to the texts

.

 

[Wormwood]

Oz,

I actually have Morris' commentary on Romans and I read through the passage. If you look at the footnote where he questions the liturgical associations, he says (at the bottom of the footnote):

It may readily be conceded that what the Spirit does rather than the physical act of baptism is most important in Christian initiantion. But it is quite another matter to say that the language of this verse is such athat it does not mean baptism in water.

So, Morris does not think it is reasonable to claim this verse is not a reference to water baptism. He merely points out that the emphasis of Paul is what the Spirit is doing in this act (being buried and raised with Christ). And I would agree with this assessment.

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus teaches all of it; about how to inherit Gog's kingdom.

You are still avoiding my question about the rest of the NT.

Do you place more importance on Jesus' words than on the remainder of the NT?

 

[OzSpen]

I enjoy Leon Morris (especially his work on Atonement). Can you provide more context for that quote? I don't see that he is denying that this baptism is a reference to water baptism in this citation. It could be he is denying it refers to some meaningless, ceremonial event that does not indicate the death of the participant. I think we can accept what he says and still say this takes place in water baptism (especially if the believer is cognizant of the fact their old life is being terminated). I don't know how a "spiritual" reckoning of baptism in this instance makes it any more meaningful or the word "baptism" any more harsh than how it is used elsewhere in Paul's or Luke's writings. Again, its hard for me to determine what he is saying here with this small excerpt.



This section, 'We are raised with Christ: Romans 6:1-7', has plagiarised some of Leon Morris's material, word for word, from his commentary on Romans 6.

Leon Morris, commenting on Rom 6:4, stated:

The logical consequence continues (therefore). Not only are we dead, but we are buried with him. Being "with Christ" is an important category for Paul. It is interesting that we are never said to have been born with Christ or to have been baptized with him....But we are crucified with him [v. 6; Galatians 2:20], we have died with him [2 Timothy 2:11], were buried with him [here, Colossians 2:12], were made alive with him [Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13], were raised with him and made to sit with him in the heavenlies [Ephesians 2:6], we are co-heirs with him [Romans 8:17] sharers of his glory [Romans 8:17], and we will reign with him [2 Timothy 2:12]. The burial has unexpected emphasis in the New Testament [see Acts 13:29; 1 Corinthians 15:4; Colossians 2:12]. It even finds a place in the Creed, a short statement which necessarily omits much that is important. Perhaps the point is that the burial emphasizes the completeness and finality of the death. Christ's death was no momentary faint but real death, death followed by a tomb. Jesus really died. And our identification with that death is also complete. When we were baptized we have died. In baptism we are buried with Christ. An old way of life passes away completely [Morris 1988:247-248].

As a reflection on the work of Leon Morris, one of my lecturers in Bible College here in Australia told me that Leon, when he spoke to a group or congregation only spoke with his Greek NT in his hand - no notes. He exegeted the passage and developed it from the Greek text without referring to any notes. However, he was not the most riveting kind of communicator. He could just about send one to sleep, according to my lecturer.

But some of his writings are so insightful. He taught for many years at the evangelical Anglican Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia. He went to be at home with the Lord in 2006.

Works consulted
Morris L 1988. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company / Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

[Joyful]

You are still avoiding my question about the rest of the NT.

Do you place more importance on Jesus' words than on the remainder of the NT?

This question is so convoluted. NT is all about Jesus and His teachings. He is the center of salvation. Think about it, friend.

 

[StanJ]

StanJ,

The question the people were asking was, "What shall we do?" I don't think it makes sense that Peter would point to something they had no control over. The text does not say, "Repent and you will be baptized and receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit." It says "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins..."

.

Clearly they did, and if you read what Paul also did in Acts 19, you will see the Apostles had the ability or ministry to lay hands in people and have them receive that baptism. Being baptized BY the Holy Spirit means you receive the Holy Spirit, just as examples in Acts confirm that speaking in tongues is an initial evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit, laying hands on people confirms it is also a ministry given to some.
if they were baptised in the name of Jesus Christ and John said Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit and Fire, then that is what their baptism was. Water baptism was in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Jesus commanded in the Great Commission, which IMO ended when Jesus rose from the dead and gave them NEW instructions to WAIT for the Holy Spirit and Power.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

I actually have Morris' commentary on Romans and I read through the passage. If you look at the footnote where he questions the liturgical associations, he says (at the bottom of the footnote):


So, Morris does not think it is reasonable to claim this verse is not a reference to water baptism. He merely points out that the emphasis of Paul is what the Spirit is doing in this act (being buried and raised with Christ). And I would agree with this assessment.

But you've missed what he stated before the quote he gave at footnote #12 (p. 246 of his commentary on Romans):

Brown rejects a reference to the physical act of baptism; the words "cannot be understood of the baptism by water.... "Baptism into Christ" is that of which water baptism is the emblem - that union to Christ...." Lloyd-Jones also rejects a reference to water baptism in favor of the view that it is "a baptism by the Holy Spirit" (cf. 1 Cor. 12;13). It may readily be conceded that what the Spirit does rather than the physical act of baptism is most important in Christian initiation (cf. Mk. 1:8 and parallels; Acts 1:5; 11:16). But it is quite another matter to say that the language of this verses is such that it does not mean baptism in water (Morris 1988:246, n. 12).

I have several other evangelical commentaries that indicate that Rom 6:3-4 does not refer to the physical act of baptism but baptism into the body of Christ as initiation into new life in Christ.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus teaches all of it; about how to inherit Gog's kingdom.

Try telling that one to the apostle Paul and his teaching in the epistles.

 

[zeke25]

But you've missed what he stated before the quote he gave at footnote #12 (p. 246 of his commentary on Romans):

I have several other evangelical commentaries that indicate that Rom 6:3-4 does not refer to the physical act of baptism but baptism into the body of Christ as initiation into new life in Christ.

Oz

Oz,

The commentaries could be right, or Romans 6:3-4 could be an simile. A simple comparison of what water baptism does in regards to the crucifixion. We are symbolically dunked into death, then taken out of the water into life. Christ was killed and brought back to life. In other words, these verses are not spiritualizing water baptism, they are merely making a comparison as to what is symbolically taking place. So, recognizing that we have undergone a spiritual change, prior to water baptism, we crucify the old man and should no longer submit our bodies to sin.

Zeke25

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

The commentaries could be right, or Romans 6:3-4 could be an simile. A simple comparison of what water baptism does in regards to the crucifixion. We are symbolically dunked into death, then taken out of the water into life. Christ was killed and brought back to life. In other words, these verses are not spiritualizing water baptism, they are merely making a comparison as to what is symbolically taking place. So, recognizing that we have undergone a spiritual change, prior to water baptism, we crucify the old man and should no longer submit our bodies to sin.

Zeke25

I can't disagree with your sentiments. However, it seems to me that the baptism analogy of being baptised into Christ at conversion seems to be more in line with what is being taught in Rom 6:3-4.