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.
Baptism in water is just an outward expression of your faith and belief in the name of Jesus, although I have see many additional miracles occur during submersion.
Don't get tied up with this one, otherwise the next conversion I come across I will have to rush them to the bathroom while saying don't die before I baptise you. The God of the Universe and Eternity is way beyond all that sort of nonsense.
Assalaamu Alayk
Of course He is and his scripture teaches that so plainly.
If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1:14)? Why would he have said, “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 Corinthians 1:17)? Granted, in this passage Paul is arguing against the divisions that plagued the Corinthian church. However, how could Paul possibly say, “I am thankful that I did not baptize…” or “For Christ did not send me to baptize…” if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, “I am thankful that you were not saved…” and “For Christ did not send me to save…” That would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make. Further, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the gospel lack a mention of baptism?
Paul did so refer to Baptism when he wrote:
1 Corinthians 6:11
And that is what some of you were. But you werewashed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 10:22
let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washedwith pure water.
Ephesians 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
Titus 3:5
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,
Well you think you have an answer for everything you disagree with concerning the Gospel of grace. I suppose if your going to reject God's program for today you need to think you have a reason. Good luck with that.
No, I don't think I have an answer for everything and no, I do not disagree with anything concerning the Gospel of grace. I do not even reject God's program for today. It may seem that way to some because I have a Biblical view of the Gospel of grace and God's program for today rather than a view that is based upon man made doctrine.
Because he's talking about division in the church. He's not make a statement on the necessity or lack of necessity of baptism.
Because he recognized that his primary mission from God was to preach the gospel. Again this says nothing about whether or not baptism is necessary.
So, you think that just because Paul didn't baptize some of the people that no one did? That's an unbelievably ridiculous assumption to make.
Because the people he was writing to already understood the meaning and purpose of baptism. Paul knew that because he's the one who taught them. Therefore, it was unnecessary to mention it again.
I'm sorry, but your attempt to harmonize 1 Cor. 1, 15 and other portions of Paul's letters with salvational water baptism is just totally underwhelming. Clearly you need to come up with some explanation, and it's not really working.
I said this in previous threads, but some of these passages are just incredible odd and strange if there is indeed an implied "and be baptized in water" throughout.
I'm sorry, but your attempt to harmonize 1 Cor. 1, 15 and other portions of Paul's letters with salvational water baptism is just totally underwhelming. Clearly you need to come up with some explanation, and it's not really working.
I said this in previous threads, but some of these passages are just incredible odd and strange if there is indeed an implied "and be baptized in water" throughout.
I don't find any of the passages dealing with baptism and linking it to salvation to be odd at all. In fact if there was a verse that said that baptism is "an outward sign of an inward grace," I would find that to be incredibly odd given what the rest of Scripture says about baptism.
No, I don't think I have an answer for everything and no, I do not disagree with anything concerning the Gospel of grace. I do not even reject God's program for today. It may seem that way to some because I have a Biblical view of the Gospel of grace and God's program for today rather than a view that is based upon man made doctrine.
Well then if you have the same view as God and I, we welcome you.
I agree that baptism by the Holy Spirit and salvation are inseperable. What is flat out wrong is making that a separate and distinct event from baptism in water. The Scripture doesn't do that and neither should we.
Acts 1:5 - for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now
Separate and distinct - both the act and the person with whom the act is identified.
If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1:14)? Why would he have said, “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 Corinthians 1:17)? Granted, in this passage Paul is arguing against the divisions that plagued the Corinthian church. However, how could Paul possibly say, “I am thankful that I did not baptize…” or “For Christ did not send me to baptize…” if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, “I am thankful that you were not saved…” and “For Christ did not send me to save…” That would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make. Further, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the gospel lack a mention of baptism?
Just a comment on the passage...
Paul said he was thankful he did not baptize. He said he was not sent to baptize. He did NOT say baptism was not necessary for salvation.
So the requirement to be baptized remains - it's just not Paul's duty. So whose duty is it? It's spelled out in each gospel.
Matt. 3:11 - "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Mark 1:8 - "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
Luke 3:16 - John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
John 1:33 - "I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, `He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'
If water was to be included, he would have said so.
Paul's job is to preach the gospel. When people hear and believe, Jesus, from heaven, baptizes the new believer with the Spirit. No water is necessary. Our role in the "baptism" portion of the Great Commission is to get unbelievers to believe the gospel so that Jesus can baptize them with the Holy Spirit - which is the seal of our salvation.
Ephesians 1:13-14 - In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Acts 1:5 - for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now
Separate and distinct - both the act and the person with whom the act is identified.
Absolutely! I never said that John's baptism and Jesus' baptism are not separate and distinct. What this verse says to me is that John baptized with water only, but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and water. It makes John's baptism separate and distinct from Jesus' baptism, but it does not make Jesus' baptism one without water.
Paul said he was thankful he did not baptize. He said he was not sent to baptize. He did NOT say baptism was not necessary for salvation.
So the requirement to be baptized remains - it's just not Paul's duty. So whose duty is it? It's spelled out in each gospel.
Matt. 3:11 - "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Mark 1:8 - "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
Luke 3:16 - John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
John 1:33 - "I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, `He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'
If water was to be included, he would have said so.
Why would he? Only people today, who for whatever reason want water baptism left out of the gospel, would require that Paul state baptism is with water everytime he mentions it. It's like me saying I'm going to take a bath and having to specify that its gonna be in water each time I say that. People understand that a bath takes place in water unless its otherwise specified. Same thing with baptism. People in Paul's day understood that baptism always took place in water unless specified otherwise.
Quote:
Paul's job is to preach the gospel. When people hear and believe, Jesus, from heaven, baptizes the new believer with the Spirit. No water is necessary. Our role in the "baptism" portion of the Great Commission is to get unbelievers to believe the gospel so that Jesus can baptize them with the Holy Spirit - which is the seal of our salvation.
In the Great Commision Jesus tells his disciples to make other disciples by baptizing them and then teaching them. He does not tell them to teach them and then He would baptize them.
Ephesians 1:13-14 - In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. [/quote]
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.
