Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point is WHEN are we saved. When exactly is our point of pardon? I believe it is when we are baptized, and that the scriptures support my belief. There is nothing in the water that is magical. It is the time that God has chosen to redeem us. It is when we die, just as He died. It is when we are buried, just as He was buried. It is when we are raised to walk in a new life, just as He was raised. Baptism is WHEN we are saved, not HOW.
When you ask if I believe in the doctrine of justification, I'm not exactly sure what that entails. Are we justified by faith? I believe we are. But faith is never alone. From the very beginning of the Bible to the end, faith is always accompanied by action. Think about Cain and Abel. Which one obeyed by offering the better sacrifice? Story after story shows faith accompanied by action. That's what James meant when he said, "Faith without works is dead..
Katie
When are we saved.......... "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17
This is why we understand that scripture teaches "the means (plural) of Grace" and that damnation is due to "blaphemy of the Holy Spirit"
Baptism that saves is the power of Word connect with the water.
Faith that saves is the power of the Word that works in the heart.
Only unbelief "blaphemy of the Holy Spirit" will damn.
This is God's firm foundation that will stand firm.
This is why Jesus spoke Mark 16:16 the way he did.
You are calling baptism a symbol, which the scripture does not say. The word symbol is not mentioned.
Peter first tells us what baptism is not.
He says baptism is not putting away the filth of the flesh.
Then he tells us what baptism is.
He says baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience.
You said, "It is an appeal to God for a good conscience that baptism represents.
The scripture does not say that baptism "represents"an appeal to God for a good conscience. It says IT IS AN APPEAL. You have added the word "represents."
You said, "The baptism that now saves us that Peter refers to is the baptism of the Spirit."
No Kids. Look at the scripture closely without your preconceived idea that it is speaking of Holy Spirit baptism. Read what it says.
"in which a few, that is,eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this,now saves you,"
Baptism corresponds to the eight persons who were brought safely through the water. This now saves you.
Holy Spirit baptism is never mentioned.
If this passage were about Holy Spirit baptism, then why in the world would Peter not have said so. Why did he even bother to bring up Noah, the ark, and water?
You did three things to this passage that I can see. You added the word "symbol," "represents," and "Holy Spirit baptism," which none can be found here. You are trying to make this passage fit your preconceived idea of Holy Spirit baptism, which it does not.
When I read this passage, I read it and interpret it exactly word for word what it says. I don't try to apply any meaning to it. I don't have to. It speaks so clearly for itself.
I'd still like for you to answer my other post. I put a lot of time into it, and I'd be interested in knowing what you think. Thanks.
Katie
I use more than one "bible" translation. So of course, my wording will be different. The KJV translates verse 21 as “…the like figure[Gk. antitupos] whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh …” The King James Version translates the Greek antitupon as the “like figure”. “Baptism” is the like figure. According to the King James Version, “baptism” is a figure, type, or symbol of putting away of the filth of the flesh, a washing us clean of our sins. Following the King James rendering: the author says that it is not this figure of putting away the filth of the flesh that saves us, BUT [a contrast here] the answer of a good conscience toward God by Christ's resurrection. Verse 21 seems to have a two-fold application. So the “baptism” mentioned is not one dealing with water, but the answer of a good conscience toward ‘god’ that save us. So Katimygirl, tell me how does that good conscience toward ‘god’ come?
Last edited by kids in america_; 05-03-2011 at 04:20 PM..
Maybe I haven't been making myself clear. I absolutely believe we are saved by God's mercy (grace), and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. That is exactly HOW we are saved. I have never questioned that for a moment. God gets all the credit. I get none.
My point is WHEN are we saved. When exactly is our point of pardon? I believe it is when we are baptized, and that the scriptures support my belief. There is nothing in the water that is magical. It is the time that God has chosen to redeem us. It is when we die, just as He died. It is when we are buried, just as He was buried. It is when we are raised to walk in a new life, just as He was raised. Baptism is WHEN we are saved, not HOW.
Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Peter said, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I see absolutely no reason to boast about my salvation. God did it all. The only thing I did was to submit to His will.
When you ask if I believe in the doctrine of justification, I'm not exactly sure what that entails. Are we justified by faith? I believe we are. But faith is never alone. From the very beginning of the Bible to the end, faith is always accompanied by action. Think about Cain and Abel. Which one obeyed by offering the better sacrifice? Story after story shows faith accompanied by action. That's what James meant when he said, "Faith without works is dead."
Hope that explains where I am coming from. I don't expect you to agree, and that's okay. Each of us has to give an account of himself/herself. Thank you. I have enjoyed our discussion. I really would have liked your take on my long post, but I understand if you'd rather not comment.
Katie
Actually I get what you are saying, and it makes logical sense. If that were the only verse that said we are saved by baptism, I would agree with you 100%. But to say that baptism or any other action NECESSARY for salvation is saying that we are not justified by faith alone, but by faith plus a certain WORK, which is the work of baptism.
The apostle Paul would have opposed the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation just as strongly as he opposed the similar idea that circumcision was necessary for salvation. You can see that in Gal. 5:1-2.
You argue that baptism is necessary for salvation quoting Mark 16:16: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. But have you thought about the evident answer to this is simply to say that the verse says nothing about those who believe and ARE NOT BAPTIZED?
The verse is simply talking about general cases without making a formal qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes and is not baptized. But since you so eloquently let me know in a previous post about letting Scripture stand on it's own merit, then this verse should not be pressed into service and made to speak of something it is not talking about.
Let's even go a little further into this. What about Jesus' statement to the dying thief on the cross? Didn't Jesus say: "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). The thief could not be baptized before he died on the cross, but he was certainly saved that day. Some would say but the thief was under the old covenant and baptism wasn't necessary. But Jesus told him that he would be with Him in Paradise.
That's why I asked you about when a person accepts Jesus as his savior on his death bed, and is too weak to get out of bed to be baptized, is he lost? You sorta hopscotched around that answer by saying that God has the final say on that. But wouldn't that contradict that verse and what you said in the last post about something happening to us when we are immersed under water? In other words, what you are saying is that God can't make up His mind when we are saved and that what Jesus did for us wasn't enough on the cross.
I hope and pray that what I am saying at least gets you to think about what you are saying about God needing to save us through water baptism. Another reason why baptism is not necessary for salvation is that our JUSTIFICATION (which I was trying to see had you studied this doctrine) from sins takes place at the point of saving faith, not at the point of water baptism, which usually occurs later. But if a person is already justified and has sins forgiven eternally at the point of saving faith, then baptism is not necessary for forgiveness of sins, or for the bestowal of new spiritual life.
As I have been saying all along, baptism, then is not necessary for salvation. But it is necessary if we are to be obedient to Christ, for He commanded baptism for all who believe in Him---not in order to be saved.
One post script to this is that some commentaries that I have read argue that it is doubtful whether Mark 16:16 should be used in support of a theological position at all, since there are many ancient manuscripts that do not have this verse or (Mark 16:9-20, and it seems most likely that this verse was not in the gospel as Mark originally wrote it. Some bible scholars are saying that the manuscript evidence and considerations of style suggest that these verses were not originally part of the gospel that Mark wrote.
Check it out for yourself. Mark 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On that page it says: Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus' resurrection appearances and several miracles performed by Christians.
Here's another scholar point but he's clear to state that not all agree that these verses were added. Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. Below are some excerpts from various scholarly sources that conclude that the verses are a later addition.
Nevertheless, some scholars have not been impressed with the evidence against these verses, and have maintained that they are original. These scholars have pointed out that the witnesses which bring the verses into question are few, and that the verses are quoted by church Fathers very early, even in the second century. To represent this point of view we give below a long excerpt from F.H.A. Scrivener, together with its footnotes.
I don't think that I need to go on because as you said, God has the final authority, and all we can do is step out on faith as how we read and interpret His Scriptures. Sorry for the delay but I hope that I was able to do justice to this topic as the Lord led me.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
16He that believeth. Believeth the gospel message; believes in Christ as his Savior. And is baptized. These are the conditions of pardon; faith in Christ and obedience to his command. If any one has not faith enough in Christ to obey him he has not faith enough to be saved. He that believeth not. Remains in a state of unbelief. Such has no promise. See John 3:18
B.W. Johnson.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever dose not believe will be condemned .( Jesus speaking) -NIV-
what caused Adam and Eve to be expelled from the Garden of Eden? Disobedience.
What caused the great flood? Disobedience. ( Noah and the Ark)
What kept Moses and Aaron from entering the promised land? Disobedience.
What ruined Saul's reign as Israel''s 1st King? Disobedience
What cause the complete destruction and ultimate dispersion of the Jewish nation, no longer to be God's chosen people? Disobedience.
What delays the conversions of the world? Disobedience.
What keeps people out of the Church of Christ ? Disobedience.
What has caused so much division or denominations ? Disobedience
What CURSES the world and BOLTS the gates to heaven to so many?
Disobedience.
God has Never compromise with Sin, rebellion or alternations and He Never will----------
Many claim to wear the name Christian, that have never responded to God's gospel .
God has done His PART . He has had the Holy Spirit write down ALL we need to know in the scriptures for salvation.
So everything depends on us . We either ACCEPT or REJECT the offer presented to us in the gospel .
Acts 2:38 Peter replied " 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 .
When you ask if I believe in the doctrine of justification, I'm not exactly sure what that entails. Are we justified by faith? I believe we are. But faith is never alone. From the very beginning of the Bible to the end, faith is always accompanied by action. Think about Cain and Abel. Which one obeyed by offering the better sacrifice? Story after story shows faith accompanied by action. That's what James meant when he said, "Faith without works is dead."
Katie
I am surprised that you haven't studied the doctrine of Justification to see where you stand on this doctrine in terms of whether you think it's biblical or not. But when Paul gives an overview of the process by which God applies salvation to us, he mentions justification explicitly. He says: Those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also JUSTIFIED; and those whom he JUSTIFIED he also glorified Romans 8:30. Here Paul mentions that this is something that God Himself does: Those whom he called he also justified. Paul makes it quite clear that this justification comes after our faith and as God's response to our faith. Paul says that God "justifies him who has faith in Jesus" Romans 3:26, and that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law Romans 3:28. He says, "since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Romans 5:1. "A man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ" Gal 2:16.
Justification is defined as an instantaneous legal act of God in which he:
1. thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ's righteousness as belonging to us
2. declares us to be righteous in his sight.
Read what Paul said in Romans 1:18-3:20. No one will ever be able to make himself righteous before God. "For no human being will be JUSTIFIED in his sight BY WORKS of the law" Romans 3:20. Paul goes on to explain that "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace" as grace means his unmerited favor.
Because we are completely unable to earn favor with God, the only way we could be declared righteous is if God freely provides salvation for us by grace, totally apart from our work. That's why Paul said "for by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast" Eph. 2:8-9. Grace is clearly put in contrast to works or merit as the reason why God is willing to justify us. God did not have any obligation to impute our sin to Christ or to impute Christ's righteousness to us, it was only because of his unmerited favor that He did this.
When are we saved.......... "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17
This is why we understand that scripture teaches "the means (plural) of Grace" and that damnation is due to "blaphemy of the Holy Spirit"
Baptism that saves is the power of Word connect with the water.
Faith that saves is the power of the Word that works in the heart.
Only unbelief "blaphemy of the Holy Spirit" will damn.
This is God's firm foundation that will stand firm.
This is why Jesus spoke Mark 16:16 the way he did.
Twin, we agree that we are saved by the gospel. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. I just don't believe it stops there. We cannot ignore all of the baptism scriptures, nor can we ignore 1500 years of history, which say baptism was done for forgiveness of sins. Not to mention that throughout the entire Bible, faith is always accompanied by actions of obedience.........over and over.
No one, including myself, has ever said that we are not saved by grace. That is how we are saved. I believe we get that grace when we obey the commands of Jesus.
My understanding of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is that it is more than unbelief.
Jesus deals with this subject in Matthew 12 and Mark 3. Matthew 12 does not give us the answer specifically, but Mark does. Jesus performed miracles to prove He is the Son of God (John 20:30-31). No one who witnessed these miracles could deny them. They could attribute them to the power of Satan or the power of God. If they attributed the miracles to God they would have to say Jesus is from God. The Scribes chose to attribute them to Satan, rejecting Christ's deity; therefore, rejecting the only means of forgiveness. That was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
The nearest thing to blasphemy of the Spirit today would be to read the New Testament and say, "I believe Jesus performed these miracles, but I believe He did them because He had an unclean spirit." That is exactly what Mark said blasphemy against the Spirit is. "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" --- Because they said, "He has an unclean spirit" (Mark 3:29-30)
I think you are assuming a lot when you say, "This is why Jesus spoke Mark 16:16 the way he did." You don't know why Jesus spoke the way He did any more than I do.
I just take His words at face value. I don't try to read anything into them. I do believe Mark 16:16 belongs in the Bible. There are documents which were written long before the two questionable manuscripts that leave out the end of Mark's gospel, and these documents make reference to Mark 16:16.
The great commission of Matthew 28 supports Mark 16. Jesus told his apostles to make disciples by baptizing them. Peter also reaffirmed this on the day of Pentecost. "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Paul, himself, was baptized to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16).
I've said it all along, we each have to give an account of ourselves. You can choose to take these scriptures just as they are written, or you can try to apply a different meaning to them other than what they actually say. It's your choice. I choose to read and take them literally exactly as written.
I am surprised that you haven't studied the doctrine of Justification to see where you stand on this doctrine in terms of whether you think it's biblical or not. But when Paul gives an overview of the process by which God applies salvation to us, he mentions justification explicitly. He says: Those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also JUSTIFIED; and those whom he JUSTIFIED he also glorified Romans 8:30. Here Paul mentions that this is something that God Himself does: Those whom he called he also justified. Paul makes it quite clear that this justification comes after our faith and as God's response to our faith. Paul says that God "justifies him who has faith in Jesus" Romans 3:26, and that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law Romans 3:28. He says, "since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Romans 5:1. "A man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ" Gal 2:16.
Justification is defined as an instantaneous legal act of God in which he:
1. thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ's righteousness as belonging to us
2. declares us to be righteous in his sight.
Read what Paul said in Romans 1:18-3:20. No one will ever be able to make himself righteous before God. "For no human being will be JUSTIFIED in his sight BY WORKS of the law" Romans 3:20. Paul goes on to explain that "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace" as grace means his unmerited favor.
Because we are completely unable to earn favor with God, the only way we could be declared righteous is if God freely provides salvation for us by grace, totally apart from our work. That's why Paul said "for by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast" Eph. 2:8-9. Grace is clearly put in contrast to works or merit as the reason why God is willing to justify us. God did not have any obligation to impute our sin to Christ or to impute Christ's righteousness to us, it was only because of his unmerited favor that He did this.
Antredd, I have read and studied the book of Romans and Galatians many, many times. I tried very hard to put my prior beliefs behind me and keep an open mind. I prayed and asked God to show me the right way. I tried to see the side of "faith alone." I have read many articles that support "faith only." No matter how much I studied, read and prayed, I just couldn't buy into it.
I agree that we are not saved by works. But what are the works that do not save us?
Galatians 2: 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Is water baptism commanded by Jesus a work of the law of Moses?
Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faithapart from works of the law
When Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," was He saying that baptism was a work of the law of Moses and therefore essential to salvation? No, of course not. Why would the savior of the world tell us that baptism saves if it was a work of the law of Moses?
What did Peter preach on the day of Pentecost? Did he preach salvation by keeping the law of Moses? Peter preached Jesus as Lord and Savior. When the people heard the word and asked, "What shall we do?" Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.
Was Peter telling them to repent and be baptized because it was a work of the law of Moses and their sins could be forgiven? No, of course he wasn't.
Faith in Jesus is not a work of the law of Moses (John 3:16).
Confession is not a work of the law of Moses (Romans 10:9-10.
Repentance (the intellectual committment to turn from sin and turn toward God is not a work of the law of Moses
Baptism is not a work of the law of Moses (1 Peter 3:21).
These are all essential to accept the grace of God, the free gift of salvation.
Being obedient to God's terms of pardon is not being obedient to works of the law of Moses.
Actually I get what you are saying, and it makes logical sense. If that were the only verse that said we are saved by baptism, I would agree with you 100%. But to say that baptism or any other action NECESSARY for salvation is saying that we are not justified by faith alone, but by faith plus a certain WORK, which is the work of baptism.
The apostle Paul would have opposed the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation just as strongly as he opposed the similar idea that circumcision was necessary for salvation. You can see that in Gal. 5:1-2.
You argue that baptism is necessary for salvation quoting Mark 16:16: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. But have you thought about the evident answer to this is simply to say that the verse says nothing about those who believe and ARE NOT BAPTIZED?
The verse is simply talking about general cases without making a formal qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes and is not baptized. But since you so eloquently let me know in a previous post about letting Scripture stand on it's own merit, then this verse should not be pressed into service and made to speak of something it is not talking about.
Let's even go a little further into this. What about Jesus' statement to the dying thief on the cross? Didn't Jesus say: "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). The thief could not be baptized before he died on the cross, but he was certainly saved that day. Some would say but the thief was under the old covenant and baptism wasn't necessary. But Jesus told him that he would be with Him in Paradise.
That's why I asked you about when a person accepts Jesus as his savior on his death bed, and is too weak to get out of bed to be baptized, is he lost? You sorta hopscotched around that answer by saying that God has the final say on that. But wouldn't that contradict that verse and what you said in the last post about something happening to us when we are immersed under water? In other words, what you are saying is that God can't make up His mind when we are saved and that what Jesus did for us wasn't enough on the cross.
I hope and pray that what I am saying at least gets you to think about what you are saying about God needing to save us through water baptism. Another reason why baptism is not necessary for salvation is that our JUSTIFICATION (which I was trying to see had you studied this doctrine) from sins takes place at the point of saving faith, not at the point of water baptism, which usually occurs later. But if a person is already justified and has sins forgiven eternally at the point of saving faith, then baptism is not necessary for forgiveness of sins, or for the bestowal of new spiritual life.
As I have been saying all along, baptism, then is not necessary for salvation. But it is necessary if we are to be obedient to Christ, for He commanded baptism for all who believe in Him---not in order to be saved.
One post script to this is that some commentaries that I have read argue that it is doubtful whether Mark 16:16 should be used in support of a theological position at all, since there are many ancient manuscripts that do not have this verse or (Mark 16:9-20, and it seems most likely that this verse was not in the gospel as Mark originally wrote it. Some bible scholars are saying that the manuscript evidence and considerations of style suggest that these verses were not originally part of the gospel that Mark wrote.
Check it out for yourself. Mark 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On that page it says: Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus' resurrection appearances and several miracles performed by Christians.
Here's another scholar point but he's clear to state that not all agree that these verses were added. Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. Below are some excerpts from various scholarly sources that conclude that the verses are a later addition.
Nevertheless, some scholars have not been impressed with the evidence against these verses, and have maintained that they are original. These scholars have pointed out that the witnesses which bring the verses into question are few, and that the verses are quoted by church Fathers very early, even in the second century. To represent this point of view we give below a long excerpt from F.H.A. Scrivener, together with its footnotes.
I don't think that I need to go on because as you said, God has the final authority, and all we can do is step out on faith as how we read and interpret His Scriptures. Sorry for the delay but I hope that I was able to do justice to this topic as the Lord led me.
Antredd, I have looked at quite a few studies on whether the Mark 16 passage belongs in the Bible. I can see only two manuscripts out of about 500 that do not include this passage, and other passages as well. There are documents that have been written prior to the two manuscripts in question that reference Mark 16. There are also other scriptures to support Mark 16. I've said it before. It's a personal choice. I choose to believe the 498 manuscripts that do include it, and the other scriptures that support it. Sorry I couldn't spend more time on your post, but I did spend quite a bit of time on answering your other one. I'll try to get back to this post later today so I can address it more thoroughly. I know you put a lot of time into it, and I feel like you deserve a better and longer answer than the one I am providing.
I use more than one "bible" translation. So of course, my wording will be different. The KJV translates verse 21 as “…the like figure[Gk. antitupos] whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh …” The King James Version translates the Greek antitupon as the “like figure”. “Baptism” is the like figure. According to the King James Version, “baptism” is a figure, type, or symbol of putting away of the filth of the flesh, a washing us clean of our sins. Following the King James rendering: the author says that it is not this figure of putting away the filth of the flesh that saves us, BUT [a contrast here] the answer of a good conscience toward God by Christ's resurrection. Verse 21 seems to have a two-fold application. So the “baptism” mentioned is not one dealing with water, but the answer of a good conscience toward ‘god’ that save us. So Katimygirl, tell me how does that good conscience toward ‘god’ come?
Hi Kids,
You are right to look at various translations. I'm going to post them from biblos.com, a really good site to check out if you haven't already. It's got paralell translations, commentaries, and lexicons.
The general idea I am getting here is that the water symbolizes baptism which now saves you. The water is the symbol here. Water is a picture of baptism. Baptism is not the symbol, the water is.
I think your real argument is that baptism in this passage is speaking of baptism with the Holy Spirit , and not with water. Am I right? You believe baptism with the Holy Spirit saves. Let me know if I'm wrong on this.
No matter how hard you try, you can't take water out of this passage. I have addressed "water baptism" in my other post to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
