|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/7/2008 11:13:16 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message." Acts 10:44
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Acts 10:47
This is not talking about the gift, it is talking about the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. And this was MANIFESTED in the use of the gifts OF the Spirit. For one can not use or even have the gifts of the Spirit UNLESS one has the Spirit in them. You are certainly free to believe that this is talking about the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Personally, I don't think "fell upon" or "receiving" necessarily means "indwelling presence."
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/7/2008 11:18:43 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: terryjohn
If someone came to faith or left their baptism until they were on their death bed or dying on a battle field or in a car crash, would we baptise them knowing full well that baptism would kill them? I mean moving seriously injured people and putting their heads under water could actually kill them. Who amoungst us would be willing to be acused of murder to do such a thing? The hypothetical situations that you describe are certainly possible, however, there are no examples in Scripture of anyone becoming a Christian without being baptized. Therefore, I don't see how I can teach that your hypothetical situations carry more weight than the Word of God.
Besides, I agree with FolkSingerBlues. Ultimately God is the judge as to whether or not baptism can be excluded in special circumstances, such as you describe, and a person still be saved.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 12:58:41 AM
|
|
|
stephanos
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message." Acts 10:44
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Acts 10:47
This is not talking about the gift, it is talking about the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. And this was MANIFESTED in the use of the gifts OF the Spirit. For one can not use or even have the gifts of the Spirit UNLESS one has the Spirit in them. You are certainly free to believe that this is talking about the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Personally, I don't think "fell upon" or "receiving" necessarily means "indwelling presence."
But again, how can the GIFTS of the Spirit be given to someone that does not HAVE the Spirit of God in them? Is it not the Spirit of God that guides us in the proper usage of those gifts? Is it not the Spirit, rather than us, that power those gifts? How can this be so if the Spirit is not in us until water baptism? How can this be so, when there are dozens of cases of the Spirit working in those BEFORE baptism.
While this thread is not about infant baptism, I also have to ask, if Baptism the means in which God saves us, what about all those who were baptized as infants. Is that baptism good for their salvation (thus negating the believers baptism)? Or are almost all Presbyterians, Methodists, ect not saved? When you start saying water baptism is "required" for salvation, then you start slamming the door on A LOT of people.
How about the quality or morality of the person baptizing? Suppose you find out later in life that your pastor/reverend was kicked out of office because of some great immoraltiy? Is your baptism still good? I mean if this baptism is so important, if it is required for salvation, does the morality of the person play any effect on it? Be careful going down this road or you will fall into the heretical camp of the Donatists, who said baptisms were invalid because they were done in the rival Catholic church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 7:21:01 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
But again, how can the GIFTS of the Spirit be given to someone that does not HAVE the Spirit of God in them? Is it not the Spirit of God that guides us in the proper usage of those gifts? Is it not the Spirit, rather than us, that power those gifts? How can this be so if the Spirit is not in us until water baptism? How can this be so, when there are dozens of cases of the Spirit working in those BEFORE baptism. You are certainly free to believe that the Holy Spirit is incapable of gifting someone whom He does not indwell. Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit distributes gifts as He pleases and that would include to unbelievers if He so decides. However, I do believe that if He does gift unbelievers it's not a permanent gift but given only for the moment.
In the case of Cornelius I think the gift of tongues was given, not to demonstrate salvation, but to demonstrate to Peter and the Jews with him that Gentiles were to be a part of the church. At least that's what Peter seemed to think based on Acts 10:47. Once Peter realized that, he knew that Cornelius and his household must be baptized in water.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 7:27:05 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
While this thread is not about infant baptism, I also have to ask, if Baptism the means in which God saves us, what about all those who were baptized as infants. Is that baptism good for their salvation (thus negating the believers baptism)? Or are almost all Presbyterians, Methodists, ect not saved? When you start saying water baptism is "required" for salvation, then you start slamming the door on A LOT of people. I am convinced the belief is necessary prior to baptism. Otherwise baptism would not be baptism. Therefore, since infants are incapable of belief, they weren't really baptized in the Biblical sense of the word.
As far as slamming the door on people who do believe in infant baptism, I'm not doing that. I'm simply pointing out what the Word of God says. Anyone is certainly free to reject that and believe that it says something entirely different.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 7:30:54 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
How about the quality or morality of the person baptizing? Suppose you find out later in life that your pastor/reverend was kicked out of office because of some great immoraltiy? Is your baptism still good? I mean if this baptism is so important, if it is required for salvation, does the morality of the person play any effect on it? Be careful going down this road or you will fall into the heretical camp of the Donatists, who said baptisms were invalid because they were done in the rival Catholic church. The person who baptizes you does not effect what happens in baptism. If you should find out later in life that your pastor was kicked out of office because of some great immorality, your baptism is still good, since all he did was put you under the water. The saving that goes on during baptism has nothing to do with the person doing the baptizing. It's all God doing the saving. After all only God can save someone.
< Message edited by greatdivide46 -- 6/8/2008 7:41:23 AM >
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 1:21:26 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 587
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
Be careful going down this road or you will fall into the heretical camp of the Donatists, who said baptisms were invalid because they were done in the rival Catholic church.
I find this an interesting comment since the majority of Evangelical churches I have attended reject the infant baptism of those who become members of their local congregation, yet at the same time consider baptism only a symbol. If it is only a symbol, why the concern? Even John Calvin and Martin Luther, the great Reformers, accepted the baptisms of Roman Catholics. Of course, both Luther and Calvin also subscribed to and taught the validity of infant baptism.
Me thinks this discussion of baptism does not have to go on and on and on and on.....after awhile it becomes dizzying, don't cha think? I would think that where most can agree (of course on Crosswalk we always have dissenters  ), is that for one to blatantly, consistently refuse and reject baptism and insist on not doing it, is to disobey Christ. And that disobedience is a very bad reflection on that person's spiritual condition.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 1:32:53 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 587
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
I am convinced the belief is necessary prior to baptism. Otherwise baptism would not be baptism. Therefore, since infants are incapable of belief, they weren't really baptized in the Biblical sense of the word.
Greatdivide,
How do you understand the following passages? "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it wree better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck..." St. Matthew 18:6
The same is said in St. Mark 9:42.
While attending Lutheran instruction classes, these passages were given as reason to baptize infants and specifically not to refuse them baptism.
I would be interested to hear your take on this.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 2:02:52 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavendweller
Greatdivide,
How do you understand the following passages? "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it wree better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck..." St. Matthew 18:6
The same is said in St. Mark 9:42.
While attending Lutheran instruction classes, these passages were given as reason to baptize infants and specifically not to refuse them baptism.
I would be interested to hear your take on this.
I seems obvious to me that the little ones in Mathew 18:6 were capable of belief ("these littles ones which believe in me"), therefore they were not infants. I have nothing against baptizing children as long as they are capable of belief.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 2:23:13 PM
|
|
|
FolkSingerBlues
Posts: 554
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
|
Heavendweller,
makes sense to me that you can't "refuse" to baptize someone who doesn't desire to be baptized.
I never remember an infant voicing interest to be baptized. You've got me interested in attending a Lutheran church now. I'd like to see the infants requesting to be baptized.
_____________________________
My New Blog site
Proof texting is a very dangerous thing...If we were given the Scriptures it was to humble us into realizing God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.
-Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 2:38:09 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5921
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
While this thread is not about infant baptism, I also have to ask, if Baptism the means in which God saves us, what about all those who were baptized as infants. Is that baptism good for their salvation (thus negating the believers baptism)? Or are almost all Presbyterians, Methodists, ect not saved? When you start saying water baptism is "required" for salvation, then you start slamming the door on A LOT of people. I am convinced the belief is necessary prior to baptism. Otherwise baptism would not be baptism. Therefore, since infants are incapable of belief, they weren't really baptized in the Biblical sense of the word.
As far as slamming the door on people who do believe in infant baptism, I'm not doing that. I'm simply pointing out what the Word of God says. Anyone is certainly free to reject that and believe that it says something entirely different.
Where does the Word of God say infants are incapable of belief?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 3:04:00 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 587
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Along the lines of infants being able to believe....
Now there are some in the Calvinist camp who believe that since we have been chosen before the foundation of the world, therefore even in the womb, God's chosen ones can and do believe. But as to which ones do and don't believe, well, that cannot be known this side of Heaven. I once heard it said by a pastor and his wife that they could not assure a mother who had a miscarriage that the child had gone to Heaven. The reason was that this child could have rejected Christ even in the womb. Therefore they had no idea what the eternal destiny of this child was.
Truth be known, I have heard so many different understandings as to the fate of babies who die that I'm truly baffled. Now as to what I believe, well..... 
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 3:40:22 PM
|
|
|
stephanos
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: offline
|
The reason why I brought up infant baptism, was not to start a debate on if babies have the capability to believe or not, but rather to point out that several denominational groups use infant baptism as their primary means of baptism. Presbyterians and Lutherans come to mind. In saying that believers baptism (that is as traditionally known as believers baptism and not asking if infants can "believe") is "required" for salvation, that thus as a direct result indicates that all those who were baptized as infants, that is nearly everyone apart of the Presbyterian or Lutheran style of denomination, is not saved. There is no other logical way to explain your views greatdivide. Do you concur with this logic? How do you understand the salvation state of the average presbyterian?
As to the movement of the Holy Ghost. "I do believe that if He does gift unbelievers it's not a permanent gift but given only for the moment." With all due respect there is no biblical evidence for "temporary" fillings. The bible is quite clear that when someone is filled with the Spirit it is for good. There is no "training" period, there is no "trial" period. Either you have the Spirit or you do not. And while the Spirit can work in your life preparing you prior to belief, during such time, you will not have the gifts of the Spirit in you. In Scripture when it talks on Spiritual gifts, specifically when Paul speaks on them in Romans and 1st Corinthians, Paul talks about the spiritual gifts in terms to and for believers. There is no scripture in any context that tells us that there are "trial" periods of gifts before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, if God had chosen to use Cornelius in this manner, would this not imply that God had already chosen Cornelius to be saved? Would the "temporary" giving of a gift imply future salvation? So if someone manifests a Spiritual gift, does that not mean that they are saved, for again would God do that for someone who he knows will not turn to Him? Or again, is the filling of the Holy Spirit the point of salvation, the use of the gifts happens ONLY as a result of such a filing. And such a filling will lead to a desire to be baptized as a submission to the teachings of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
Let me say that the reason why I left the Presbyterian church, despite being more Reformed then my current denom (SBC), was due to infant baptism. I fully agree that it is not scriptural. But I also believe that believers baptism is symbolic. As such, it is not required for salvation, but rather the sign of salvation. As such a Presbyterian who is devoted to God, but theologically believes they were baptized as a infant and that is enough, is still saved in my opinion despite the difference in theological understanding of the method of baptism. For again, salvation is about belief, not any action, even if such an action is commanded of God for believers to do.
I leave you with the words of Paul (Romans 10:13) when he quotes the Prophet Joel (Joel 2:32) "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord, WILL BE SAVED." Notice no mention of baptism as part of this salvation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 4:45:15 PM
|
|
|
FolkSingerBlues
Posts: 554
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Stephanos wrote:
Presbyterians and Lutherans come to mind. In saying that believers baptism (that is as traditionally known as believers baptism and not asking if infants can "believe") is "required" for salvation, that thus as a direct result indicates that all those who were baptized as infants, that is nearly everyone apart of the Presbyterian or Lutheran style of denomination, is not saved.
Stephanos,
The answer to your question is easy, but may be hard to swallow.
Christ doesn't ask us to believe what the preacher, pastor, denomination, headquaters, spiritual genius, Calvinist, Arminianist or any other RELIGIOUS figure, head or leader tells us to believe. He does hold us (the individual) responsible for what we do with His word.
I for one do not believe that God appreciates anyone who does "spiritual gymnastics" with His word.
I don't believe that EVERYONE that doesn't see things as I do is going to hell. But I do believe in a God that judges the heart and our faith. That faith includes how we regard, follow, read and apply His Words to our life. I believe that have been preachers, popes and pastors that have distorted God's Word for many years.
I believe that those preachers, popes and pastors will be held responsible for what they have taught. I also believe with the AVAILABILITY of Scripture to us that God will be looking at us asking why we wouldn't read it for ourselves and rely on Him to teach us and lead us.
That is why I'm against denominations, creeds etc.
So the answer is this:
There comes a point when just accepting tradition is abominable to God. If we are baptizing in our congregation because it's a tradition, we have abandoned the teaching of Christ and belittled His instructions. If we teach it to be that "magic" step that forces God to do something we again have belittled His instructions. If we teach that faith in God is required to have a relationship with Him, then we in turn must teach that ALL His Word is to be taken seriously, reverently and equal.
_____________________________
My New Blog site
Proof texting is a very dangerous thing...If we were given the Scriptures it was to humble us into realizing God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.
-Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 5:19:47 PM
|
|
|
stephanos
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues
quote:
Stephanos wrote:
Presbyterians and Lutherans come to mind. In saying that believers baptism (that is as traditionally known as believers baptism and not asking if infants can "believe") is "required" for salvation, that thus as a direct result indicates that all those who were baptized as infants, that is nearly everyone apart of the Presbyterian or Lutheran style of denomination, is not saved.
Stephanos,
The answer to your question is easy, but may be hard to swallow.
Christ doesn't ask us to believe what the preacher, pastor, denomination, headquaters, spiritual genius, Calvinist, Arminianist or any other RELIGIOUS figure, head or leader tells us to believe. He does hold us (the individual) responsible for what we do with His word.
I for one do not believe that God appreciates anyone who does "spiritual gymnastics" with His word.
I don't believe that EVERYONE that doesn't see things as I do is going to hell. But I do believe in a God that judges the heart and our faith. That faith includes how we regard, follow, read and apply His Words to our life. I believe that have been preachers, popes and pastors that have distorted God's Word for many years.
I believe that those preachers, popes and pastors will be held responsible for what they have taught. I also believe with the AVAILABILITY of Scripture to us that God will be looking at us asking why we wouldn't read it for ourselves and rely on Him to teach us and lead us.
That is why I'm against denominations, creeds etc.
So the answer is this:
There comes a point when just accepting tradition is abominable to God. If we are baptizing in our congregation because it's a tradition, we have abandoned the teaching of Christ and belittled His instructions. If we teach it to be that "magic" step that forces God to do something we again have belittled His instructions. If we teach that faith in God is required to have a relationship with Him, then we in turn must teach that ALL His Word is to be taken seriously, reverently and equal.
So if God judges us on our faith, not on the denominational practices we follow, then the whole idea of believers baptism is "REQUIRED" for salvation is thrown right out the window. If we say that believers baptism is required, then as a result, anyone who was never baptized as a believer, is unsaved and destined to hell. But again, if we say "It is God who judges based on faith", then we have to acknowledge that it is not baptism that saves us, but rather the will of God who sees the heart and not the outward action. As such, baptism becomes a command to follow AS a Christian, not a requirement to BE a Christian.
Furthermore, while I disagree with infant baptism, it should be noted, that it is no more "tradition" than believers baptism. It is what theologians and scholars and thinkers found in their study of the bible. The same as how those in support of believers baptism came to the opposite conclusion. I have known some very Godly and wonderful Presbyterian pastors/reverends. And they are not/were not apart of some conspiracy, some satanic plot to mislead their congregation. They were Presbyterian because that is where their study of the bible lead them to be. Just as, my study of the bible lead me to leave the strongly reformed Presbyterian church (as a 5 point Calvinist), for the SBC (in which some want to ban Reformed/Calvinistic theology) based almost solely on the issue of infant baptism. Yes, I believe that their theology is wrong, but that does not make them non-Christians, non-believers because they have a different baptismal theology than I do.
The line between tradition and command is almost nonexistent in this context. You say baptism is a command of God, but how is that not a tradition? We follow the will and commands of God just as our fathers and our forefathers have. Again is that not a tradition of following the will of God?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 5:53:49 PM
|
|
|
FolkSingerBlues
Posts: 554
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
|
Stephanos,
That is ONE SPIN that could be added to what my previous post was.
quote:
So if God judges us on our faith, not on the denominational practices we follow, then the whole idea of believers baptism is "REQUIRED" for salvation is thrown right out the window. If we say that believers baptism is required, then as a result, anyone who was never baptized as a believer, is unsaved and destined to hell. But again, if we say "It is God who judges based on faith", then we have to acknowledge that it is not baptism that saves us, but rather the will of God who sees the heart and not the outward action. As such, baptism becomes a command to follow AS a Christian, not a requirement to BE a Christian.
What you stated above can't be true if our faith is in God and His Word.
The why is easy. God's salvation is not based on man's interpretation because it's not man's to interpret. It's man's to follow because God was graceful enough to share that plan with us.
If we discuss what God does during baptism we assume that we know. If we discuss what we know about baptism we are called legalists. If we suggest that others do not acknowledge what God's word says about baptism we are told we have have a salvation based on works.
As far as the whole issue goes there comes a time when religion must be separated from Christianity.
We argue and debate these issues while totally ignoring what else God has to say about religion and the dangers there of.
_____________________________
My New Blog site
Proof texting is a very dangerous thing...If we were given the Scriptures it was to humble us into realizing God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.
-Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 6:04:46 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
The reason why I brought up infant baptism, was not to start a debate on if babies have the capability to believe or not, but rather to point out that several denominational groups use infant baptism as their primary means of baptism. Presbyterians and Lutherans come to mind. In saying that believers baptism (that is as traditionally known as believers baptism and not asking if infants can "believe") is "required" for salvation, that thus as a direct result indicates that all those who were baptized as infants, that is nearly everyone apart of the Presbyterian or Lutheran style of denomination, is not saved. There is no other logical way to explain your views greatdivide. Do you concur with this logic? How do you understand the salvation state of the average presbyterian? As far as I'm concerned the salvation state of the average Presbyterian is totally up to God. But just because a lot of people were baptized as infants doesn't mean that I can ignore what the word of God teaches. I don't think that denominational experiences should be given more weight than the Word of God. If God desires to save people who were baptized as infants, I'm all for it. But I simply can't teach that as the norm because I don't see infants, specifically, being baptized in Scripture.
So, to answer your question: No, I do not concur with this logic.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 6:27:57 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
As to the movement of the Holy Ghost. "I do believe that if He does gift unbelievers it's not a permanent gift but given only for the moment." With all due respect there is no biblical evidence for "temporary" fillings. I respectfully disagree. There are a number of examples of people in the Old Testament who were filled with the Spirit on more than one occasion. Either they were filled and the Spirit left so they could be filled again, or they were filled with another spirit the second and subsequent times.
Samson: And the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him (Judges 13:25). And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him mightily (Judges 14:6, 19; 15:14). But he did not know that the Lord had departed from him (Judges 16:20). Apparently the filling of Samson was temporary since it occurred three times and finally the Lord departed from him.
Saul: Then the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you mightily and you shall prophesy (1 Samuel 10:6, 10). Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:13). Apparently the filling of Saul was temporary since the Spirit of the Lord departed from him.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 7:49:33 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 587
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues
"That's why I'm against denominations and creeds."
"What you stated above can't be true if our faith is in God and His Word.
The why is easy. God's salvation is not based on man's interpretation because it's not man's to interpret."
"As far as the whole issue goes there comes a time when religion must be separated from Christianity.
We argue and debate these issues while totally ignoring what else God has to say about religion and the dangers there of."
So FolkSinger,
What's the answer? If all Christians stopped going to church and all denominations ceased, and every Christian just picked up their Bible and asked the Holy Spirit to lead them into true interpretation of Holy Scripture, would they all come to the same consensus?
Seems to me Christians have been picking up their Bibles and claiming the Bible says this and that, and claiming the Holy Spirit led them to that conclusion, yet disagreeing with others who make the same claim, ever since the printing press has made Bibles available to the masses.
I would say that even you have your creeds. Everyone does. They just don't call them that. And once you pick up a Bible and claim that the Holy Spirit is leading you, and that the Holy Spirit is revealing a certain truth to you, you become like all the pastors who make the same claim to their congregations.
We each have our particular tradition from which we understand Holy Scripture. And even if we depart from a particular understanding because we claim that the Scriptures proved to us something different...well, we are still interpreting Holy Scripture. Then our understanding becomes the standard whereby we judge what Holy Scripture teaches.
So in abandoning what other preachers/teachers/early church fathers have taught, we only replace that with our own interpretation.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/8/2008 8:50:48 PM
|
|
|
FolkSingerBlues
Posts: 554
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
|
Heavendweller,
I most certainly believe that if more Christians picked up their Bibles and read them without an "agenda" that us as a body of Christians would be much better off and better examples of Christ than we currently are.
I believe that if more Christians stopped attending buildings that they think make them church folks and started meeting in small groups it may give them a glimpse of what the real "church" is about.
I also believe that when a paster/preacher/pope/teacher gets up and says that God revealed something they should be pealing the pages of their Bible to ensure that the message meets God's Word.
_____________________________
My New Blog site
Proof texting is a very dangerous thing...If we were given the Scriptures it was to humble us into realizing God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.
-Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/9/2008 3:29:05 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GreatDivide46
Interesting that you have to clarify that baptism you're referring to doesn't include water. Maybe you think an element, such as water, is inherent in the word "baptism" after all.
No, just trying to be real clear :)
quote:
quote:
The problem with having Paul's sins washed away being dependent upon something he did is that it then becomes a works gospel.
I disagree. The fact that the washing away of Paul's sins was dependent on his baptism in water doesn't mean that the baptism in water is what washed his sins away. I never said you thought the "water" per se is what washed away Paul's sins. But, the very fact that the washing away of Paul's sins is dependent upon anything, including his decision to be water baptized, makes it a works gospel.
quote:
Only God can wash away someones sin. The fact that He chooses to do that in baptism is simply that, a choice. And, that is simply an assumption on your part - that God washes aways sins in water baptism.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/9/2008 3:52:56 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
It is clear from Eph 5:26 "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" that water baptism cannot be in view. The "washing" is done by the Word of God when the Holy Spirit applies it to our heart. This is the same Greek word used for "washing" in Titus 3:5 - we are "washed" when we become regenerated - "the washing of regeneration"
Again, both these verses Titus 3:5 and Eph 5:26 cannot have water baptism in view. Only the Holy Spirit regenerates us and only He applies the Word to our hearts.
I agree with your interpretation of Ephesians 5:26. Except, that I believe that the "washing" done by the Word of God when the Holy Spirit applies it to our heart occurs when we are baptized in water. If the Holy Spirit has applied the Word to our hearts, it means He has given us a new spiritual heart - we've become born from above - we are regenerated. There is no scriptural evidence that this occurs in water baptism. That is simply a theological construct.
quote:
Certainly we are "washed" when we become regenerated and that occurs when we are baptized in water, "the washing of regeneration." However, it's not the washing itself that regenerates us. It is the Holy Spirit that does that. Without the "washing" there is no regeneration. But, it is not the washing by water which is in view, it is always the "washing away of our sins" when the Holy Spirit opens our hearts and gives us spiritual eyes to see and ears to hear, iow, "the washing of water by the word". The water here is a reference to the Holy Spirit - not to H2O.
quote:
It IS the same Greek word used for "washing" in Titus 3:5 but as I said earlier, with only three exceptions (Acts 9:37; 16:33; 2 Peter 2:22) all the uses of louo are related to freeing from sin, and especially to baptism.
Yes, Titus 3:5 and Eph 5:26 are definitely related to freeing from sin; but, not related to water. In Eph we are washed by the "word". In Titus we are washed by the "new birth".
quote:
As far as slamming the door on people who do believe in infant baptism, I'm not doing that. I'm simply pointing out what the Word of God says. Anyone is certainly free to reject that and believe that it says something entirely different. I disagree, you are slamming the door about as hard as it can be slammed.
You are not pointing out what the Word of God is saying, simply your theology, since there's been no evidence offered that water is necessary for salvation.
Inherent with such a belief, that water baptism is necesssary for salvation, is the rather strong implication that those who disagree with that particular theology are, in fact, not saved.
< Message edited by kelman -- 6/9/2008 4:01:38 AM >
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 6/9/2008 3:58:37 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
Me thinks this discussion of baptism does not have to go on and on and on and on.....after awhile it becomes dizzying, don't cha think? I would think that where most can agree (of course on Crosswalk we always have dissenters ), is that for one to blatantly, consistently refuse and reject baptism and insist on not doing it, is to disobey Christ. And that disobedience is a very bad reflection on that person's spiritual condition. Actually, we don't all agree with your statement. Some here would say it is not a matter of disobedience but a matter of no salvation without water - big difference.
And then others would say, this unscriptural demand of water baptism for salvation equals a works gospel; and, works gospels can never save. So indeed, we have a "great divide" :)
quote:
Now there are some in the Calvinist camp who believe that since we have been chosen before the foundation of the world, therefore even in the womb, God's chosen ones can and do believe. That's not what Calvinists believe. Generally speaking, the elect are not saved in the womb. They are born and live the same as any other reprobate - spiritually dead until such time as the Holy Spirit regenerates them.
The fact that John the Baptist was saved from his mother's womb teaches us that, yes, unborn babies, children and mentally deficient people can become saved. They do so when the Holy Spirit regenerates them, w | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
