You must be born again through water baptism

[GodsGrace]

Christian baptism has TREMENDOUS spiritual implications, and that is why it was a commandment of Christ. See Romans 6 for details.

1. It tells the whole world that a former sinner -- perhaps a criminal or evildoer -- has totally turned his back on his former evil life, and will be under the total authority of Christ. Hence death, burial, and resurrection as symbolized in baptism by full immersion. That he is dead to sin and alive to God.

2. It is the first step of obedience and submission to God and Christ for one who was an enemy of God and an alien from Christ. Obedience to the Gospel is immediately followed by obedience to Christ's command. That is why in the book of Acts, Christian baptism was almost immediately after conversion (and that truth has been generally lost in Evangelicalism).

3. It tells the whole world that this person has been "raised to walk in newness of life" by the symbolic resurrection from water. Which means that the former sinner has renounced the world, the flesh, and the devil. And as we see from some ancient Christian writings, this was in fact how new converts were baptized while speaking out their renunciation.

4. It gives the believer an opportunity to "confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus". That (just like the Ethiopian with Philip) he believes with all his heart that Jesus is the Son of God (God manifest in the flesh) and that he has received Him as both Lord and Christ. Philip insisted that only upon such confession of faith could this man be baptized.

5. Baptism also symbolizes the inner washing with the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit. As Ananias told Paul "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Obviously, water does not -- and cannot -- wash away sins and guilt.

Hi E.
Great post.
I've copied it and put it in my file. (I don't use this stuff, it's for me)

I do see in the N.T. that John baptized for the forgiveness of sin.
Then we see Jesus telling the Apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit so they could be empowered.

Are there more?

Is believing a form of baptism?
That would make three types of baptism...

 

[Nancy]

We really shouldn't be arguing so much.

Fully agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GodsGrace]

We really shouldn't be arguing so much.

I distinguish between arguing and discussing.
It's sometimes in these discussions that we could learn something new.

 

[bbyrd009]

Christian baptism has TREMENDOUS spiritual implications, and that is why it was a commandment of Christ. See Romans 6 for details.

Christian baptism as practiced today is a heresy at best, and mostly makes twice the sons of hell you are just like we are plainly told in Scripture i guess. Turning confession into a "profession" is a great tell too

real baptisms are not rituals, none of the three baptisms, not even the water one imo

 

[Helen]

I distinguish between arguing and discussing.
It's sometimes in these discussions that we could learn something new.

I believe that a discussion become an argument as soon as one party is assertive, and tells the other person they are wrong...thus claiming that their own position is obviously right.

Then it has become an argument...most times I don't even bother to answer because why 'discuss' if either of persons is unmovable.

Thats my take.
When irritation, frustration, and harshness is posted I wont answer either.
It is pride which causes a person to be unteachable.
I pray to always stay open and teachable.

There is not much on these threads which I find worthy and a- 'beach worth dying on'.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe that a discussion become an argument as soon as one party is assertive, and tells the other person they are wrong...thus claiming that their own position is obviously right.

Then it has become an argument...most times I don't even bother to answer because why 'discuss' if either of persons is unmovable.

Thats my take.
When irritation, frustration, and harshness is posted I wont answer either.
It is pride which causes a person to be unteachable.
I pray to always stay open and teachable.

There is not much on these threads which I find worthy and a- 'beach worth dying on'.

You take stands many times H.
There are some things we are sure about.
If we're not sure about something...we shouldn't be disucssing it.

 

[Helen]

If we're not sure about something...we shouldn't be disucssing it.

But isn't the whole point of a discussion to find the balance of truth together?

 

[GodsGrace]

But isn't the whole point of a discussion to find the balance of truth together?

No.
Not all truths are true.
One of them has to be wrong.

We discuss so we could learn what others believe and maybe get some additional information from what we currently have.

What could the balance of truth be with OSAS and OSNAS??
It doesn't exist.
But if we discuss it,,,some light could be shed on the subject matter for either one or the other person. This is good.

There's a thread going on right now about the atonement theories.
There's one thread where NO ONE could be wrong,,,but there's much to learn.
I guess it depends on what is being discussed....

 

[GodsGrace]

You take stands many times H.
There are some things we are sure about.
If we're not sure about something...we shouldn't be disucssing it.

ooops. I misspoke here.
I didn't mean that we shouldn't discuss something that we're not sure about.
I meant that we shouldn't be ADAMANT about something we're not sure about.

 

[Enoch111]

I do see in the N.T. that John baptized for the forgiveness of sin. Then we see Jesus telling the Apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit so they could be empowered. Are there more?

You have covered the three baptisms found in the NT. (1) John's baptism was strictly for Israel. (2) Everyone who believes is baptized with the Holy Spirit (identical with receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit). (3) And then there is Christian baptism by full immersion AFTER receiving the gift of the Spirit (see Acts 10). But believing is saving faith (Acts 16:30,31).

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I see. I've never seen this refusal.
My brother, who changed denominations, was asked to be baptized AGAIN,,,and he agreed after much thought.

I became born-again as an adult but I had been baptized in a liberal mainline church when I was a baby. Some, who have been baptized as infants feel that there is "no need" to be "re-baptized" but, if they were born-again as adults, then they would really be getting baptized for the first time (as in my case). Many evangelical churches now offer "infant dedication" where babies and young children are "dedicated" by the parents. The parents pledge to raise the child as a Christian and the church agrees that they will help the parents to honor their pledge, as a church body. But baptism is really just reserved for believers, as it is the outward sign of repentance and faith in addition to a public declaration of Jesus as the Lord of their lives. Babies and young children have no life of sin to turn away from (repentance) nor do they have faith in and identification with Jesus or an ability to publicly declare their intention to follow Jesus for the rest of their days. If your brother only had infant "baptism", then it was right for him to be baptized as a believer. In symbolically "going into the grave" of water, and rising up out of the watery grave, it is a heart-level acceptance of His Lordship over our lives (in the ancient world, one who was saved from death, owed their loyalty and their lives, if necessary, to the one who saved). Baptism SHOULD be packed with meaning, not an empty religious observance. By the way, that is likely the reason why John the Baptist was so offended by the Jewish religious authorities coming to be baptized by him. He knew they had no repentance nor did they have an intention to rightly follow Yahweh.

I believe this was wrong. We're baptized into Christ NOT a denomination.

While this is true, many denominations insist that one is baptized into membership in that particular denomination. This is false of course.

Also, the ECFs believed baptism removed sins. This is what was believed.

Well, it is true in a somewhat round-about way. There is "baptism" (as illustrated by the above example of infant "baptism") and there is baptism. If it is the former, it is just getting sprinkled or taking a bath wearing clothing. It must contain the elements of faith in and identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, and repentance--a turning away from "worldliness, the flesh and the pride of life." It is the outward sign of an inner change that brought one "under the Blood of Christ" in the born-again identification with Him.

But they also taught that we are to obey God for salvation.
To them both were necessary.

As in the Book of James, outward obedience is the evidence of an inner change of heart. If that rebirth has occurred, one will desire to please Him and be obedient to Him. But we can be eternally secure in our new birth, even if we fail to have total obedience at every moment. He understands our occasional lapses--we can be at peace on that score. Without that assurance, we would be constantly tortured by the thought, "Have I been obedient enough to warrant salvation?" On the contrary, after John points to evidence of a changed life and salvation, he tells us at the end of 1 John that he was writing so that believers could KNOW that they have eternal life.

I would tend to agree with you.
If one refuses baptism...he might not be really converted.
I say MIGHT because only God can know for sure.

True that only God can know for sure, but I have seen testimony by a few believers, at their ultimate baptisms, that they resisted baptism because they thought it was important to "clean up " their lives first. That is why many evangelicals advise coming, "just as I am" and that, if there is "cleaning up" to be done, He will do the job. Self-effort accomplishes nothing (and often, it just hides grievous sin under a religious cloak).

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

No.
Not all truths are true.
One of them has to be wrong.

Or both could be wrong

We discuss so we could learn what others believe and maybe get some additional information from what we currently have.

That is why the community of faith is so vital to the life of a saint.

What could the balance of truth be with OSAS and OSNAS??
It doesn't exist.
But if we discuss it,,,some light could be shed on the subject matter for either one or the other person. This is good.

I have seen too many fake "conversions" and "easy believism" to think that OSAS is good theology. However, as I argued above, I believe that the Bible teaches Eternal Security.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I distinguish between arguing and discussing.
It's sometimes in these discussions that we could learn something new.

If I said that I "argued" something, it would mean that I posited a point of view and then supported it by citing Scripture. But, arguing, in the minds of most people would be laden with accusation, rancor, etc. "Discussing" would be a much less emotional term, for sure.

 

[GodsGrace]

If I said that I "argued" something, it would mean that I posited a point of view and then supported it by citing Scripture. But, arguing, in the minds of most people would be laden with accusation, rancor, etc. "Discussing" would be a much less emotional term, for sure.

Yes, I understand what your saying and I agree.
Argument has become a bad word.
It just represents a point of view.

 

[Helen]

If I said that I "argued" something, it would mean that I posited a point of view and then supported it by citing Scripture. But, arguing, in the minds of most people would be laden with accusation, rancor, etc. "Discussing" would be a much less emotional term, for sure.

Yes, nicely said.

Even though some don't, I still like the phrase .."We need to learn how to disagree agreeably.."
The thing that is distasteful and causes a negative atmosphere is when it gets personal...and the issue moves off the subject of discussion to the people themselves name calling and insults .

I've even stopped reading threads where people do that.
Which is sad really because I may be missing some good posts in between. ( Like the new thread against BOL and other threads , which have got very personal )

 

[Helen]

Yes, I understand what your saying and I agree.
Argument has become a bad word.
It just represents a point of view.

I don't mind it in the Debate section...and that is really where 'arguments' belong. It when there is a nice friendly thread bobbing along well, people disagreeing in a good spirit... then bam, in jumps someone who is always argumentative and changes the whole feeling of the thread.
That makes me sad.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Yes, nicely said.

Even though some don't, I still like the phrase .."We need to learn how to disagree agreeably.."
The thing that is distasteful and causes a negative atmosphere is when it gets personal...and the issue moves off the subject of discussion to the people themselves name calling and insults .

I've even stopped reading threads where people do that.
Which is sad really because I may be missing some good posts in between. ( Like the new thread against BOL and other threads , which have got very personal )

After seeing this, I looked for what BOL could mean and found it. It wasn't a post I would have read anyway.

 

[Grams]

Eph.2:

8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
II Timothy 2:15

 

[GodsGrace]

I became born-again as an adult but I had been baptized in a liberal mainline church when I was a baby. Some, who have been baptized as infants feel that there is "no need" to be "re-baptized" but, if they were born-again as adults, then they would really be getting baptized for the first time (as in my case). Many evangelical churches now offer "infant dedication" where babies and young children are "dedicated" by the parents. The parents pledge to raise the child as a Christian and the church agrees that they will help the parents to honor their pledge, as a church body. But baptism is really just reserved for believers, as it is the outward sign of repentance and faith in addition to a public declaration of Jesus as the Lord of their lives. Babies and young children have no life of sin to turn away from (repentance) nor do they have faith in and identification with Jesus or an ability to publicly declare their intention to follow Jesus for the rest of their days. If your brother only had infant "baptism", then it was right for him to be baptized as a believer. In symbolically "going into the grave" of water, and rising up out of the watery grave, it is a heart-level acceptance of His Lordship over our lives (in the ancient world, one who was saved from death, owed their loyalty and their lives, if necessary, to the one who saved). Baptism SHOULD be packed with meaning, not an empty religious observance. By the way, that is likely the reason why John the Baptist was so offended by the Jewish religious authorities coming to be baptized by him. He knew they had no repentance nor did they have an intention to rightly follow Yahweh.

While this is true, many denominations insist that one is baptized into membership in that particular denomination. This is false of course.

Well, it is true in a somewhat round-about way. There is "baptism" (as illustrated by the above example of infant "baptism") and there is baptism. If it is the former, it is just getting sprinkled or taking a bath wearing clothing. It must contain the elements of faith in and identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, and repentance--a turning away from "worldliness, the flesh and the pride of life." It is the outward sign of an inner change that brought one "under the Blood of Christ" in the born-again identification with Him.

As in the Book of James, outward obedience is the evidence of an inner change of heart. If that rebirth has occurred, one will desire to please Him and be obedient to Him. But we can be eternally secure in our new birth, even if we fail to have total obedience at every moment. He understands our occasional lapses--we can be at peace on that score. Without that assurance, we would be constantly tortured by the thought, "Have I been obedient enough to warrant salvation?" On the contrary, after John points to evidence of a changed life and salvation, he tells us at the end of 1 John that he was writing so that believers could KNOW that they have eternal life.



True that only God can know for sure, but I have seen testimony by a few believers, at their ultimate baptisms, that they resisted baptism because they thought it was important to "clean up " their lives first. That is why many evangelicals advise coming, "just as I am" and that, if there is "cleaning up" to be done, He will do the job. Self-effort accomplishes nothing (and often, it just hides grievous sin under a religious cloak).

You wrote a lot LC,
but my reply is going to be very short because I agree with everything you've said.
I even can agree about eternal security by the way that you describe it.
I also believe we need to be secure in our salvation.

The church I used to go to dedicated babies to God.
I understand they now also baptize them...not sure.

Thanks for such a nice reply.

 

[GodsGrace]

Or both could be wrong

That is why the community of faith is so vital to the life of a saint.

I have seen too many fake "conversions" and "easy believism" to think that OSAS is good theology. However, as I argued above, I believe that the Bible teaches Eternal Security.

If we're on the same wavelength...
I can say that I believe in eternal security
BUT NOT in OSAS.