Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation
- Thread starter Bob Hill
- Start date
godrulz said:
How can we "lay hands on the Scapegoat"?
Only by water baptism.
The Scapegoat carried the sins and iniquities into the wilderness as a sign of the True Scapegoat for all in Adam, who took our sins and iniquities and bore them away "into the wilderness" called Sheol, and "the Abyss", where He left them
Christian Baptism in the Name of Jesus is the True "laying hands on the Scapegoat" for every believer who calls on the name of the LORD and is baptized, washing away their sins and giving an answer of a good conscience toward God.
Remission of sin is the sending away of that sin.
Only by submitting to water baptism in the name of Jesus can we "send our sins away".
To remit is send away.
1Pe 3:21The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Paul the Apostle of Scripture washed away His sins in obedience to the LORD Jesus' command;
Act 22:13Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
Act 22:14And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
Act 22:15For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
Act 22:16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
"Remission" of sins "in His name" is water baptism.
If your sins have not been remitted, then they are clinging to your old man nature and you are walking before the LORD with the filthiness of your old man clinging to your garment.
thelaqachisnext said:
No offense, but by your words, Jesus is a liar. He promised the thief on the cross that
he would be with Him in Paradise. The thief wasn't baptised. How do you explain Jesus
Himself? He was baptised and He was sinless. When you see baptism mentioned in
Acts, you see that it is in response to a person or persons receiving Christ as thier
Saviour. Acts 10:37 states that baptism was done AFTER they had recieved the Holy
Ghost. Acts 8:36-37, the Ethiopian eunuch asked what prevented him from being
baptised and Philip answered that if he believed with all his heart, he could be. As far
as remission of sin, Heb. 9:22 tells us that without the shedding of blood, there is no
remission and in Matt.26:28 Jesus said that "this is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Water baptism does not "send our
sins away" ONLY the blood of Christ can do that. In Mark 1:4 we find that John the
Baptist preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Even then, when
John saw Jesus, he proclaimed in John 1:29 "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away
the sin of the world." Baptism is an act of obedience in response to having sins forgiven,
again, refer to Acts 8:36-37 and Acts 10:37. We find that baptism always follows
salvation since the death and resurrection of Christ. As always, if there is ever a question
to the interpretation of Scripture, let Scripture interpret Scripture. If you think that a
particular verse means this, then check it against other Scripture. If other Scripture does
NOT agree with what you think this verse means, then that verse doesn't mean what you
think it does. Remember to keep everything in context.
I believe baptism is both an act of obedience toward Christ and also identifies a believer
with his Lord and Saviour. I think that it is extremely important for Christian to be
baptised, but Scripture does not support that thought that baptism washes sins away.
daddyugi said:
The sins are clinging to the old man nature like filth -wash the filth, bury the old man, or it is still hanging around stinking.
Jesus is our Passover, our Scapegoat, our Mercy Seat, and our Blood of Atonement, our unleavened Bread, our Hidden Manna.
# 1 the thief on the cross was in paradise, with Jesus, and did not live to need to be water baprized for the dead in spirit Adam, as he no longer wore it.
When he died, he left the dead Adam nature behind.
Water baptism is the sign in the dead Adam flesh that the Believer in the Name of Jesus wears, by the command of Jesus Christ.
The "blood" of Christ is His death; we are "immersed" into "His death" by the water.
We confess with our mouths, believe in our hearts, and obey with our bodies -our old man, the Adam. The whole body, soul, and Spirit is to be preserved blameless until the Day of His appearing, that we might be presented perfect in Christ Jesus.
Our whole man is involved in our Salvation, by faith.
Jesus was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness"; and we also are baptized in His name to "fullfill all righteousness" -we are sinless in our nature of the Spirit of Adoption but our old man which we wear, the Adam, is "dead' in spirit, and we accept the "death" of our old dead man in Christ's death, we bury him in the waters of baptism, which represent the "Abyss' where the Scapegoat departed with our sins, and we rise in His resurrection, "as the One New Man", joined to His Living Spirit, by adoption, but we confess that this old man nature we wear will rise in His image from the dust of this present creation by water baptism of "the dead".
The Scripture says He took our sins "Away"; He literally bore them away as the Scapegoat when He departed His Body of New Man flesh -they did not remain in His body which was the Holy Mercy Seat which received the Holy blood of the "Perfect Lamb".
We identify with His taking our sins "away" -into the wilderness, the "deep" as our Scapegoat by water baptism, and rising, we rise in Him, by faith in His name.
cellist
New member
I think Spitfire is right on. What Godrulz is doing is another example of exactly what I am talking about. Those who deny baptismal regeneration feel justified to go against clear, more natural reading of texts in favor of an "interpretation" of a passages that is convoluted, simply because they feel it "contradicts" other concepts. In this case, however, I think this presupposition creates a false dilemma. Let's stick with the everyday meaning of the texts. If we don't, we can make Scripture say whatever we want. I am not saying that there are not figures of speach either, but the context needs to make that clear.Spitfire said:
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. (Acts 2:38)
If this vs said, "Repent and be believe, 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, Godrulz would not try to separate believing from the forgiveness of sins.
It is assumed that baptism is a "work" so it would contradict what Paul said that works do not save. It's a false dilemma. Godrulz would have no problem saying that God saves through preaching. Isn't that a "work?" The preacher had to prepare the sermon, we have to go to church to hear it and we have to pay attention to what is said. Are not all of those things works?
God is a God of means. God saves us through ink and paper, the sound of a preachers voice, water, bread and wine. He takes things that the world considers mundane and "foolish" and saves us through them. Where there is word and sacrament, God is there, pounding away at the human heart, creating faith and repentance.
No one says that just because someone is baptized that automatically means they sare saved. That is a straw man argument.
The Greek grammar, not a superficial English reading, of Acts 2:38 links regeneration with repentant faith, not baptism.
No wonder there are so many denominations
Preaching is not a work, but baptismal regeneration would be a work. Preaching tells us to receive Christ by faith alone, not by works. An outward ritual is superfluous in light of the finished work of Christ appropriated by faith alone (I thought you were a Reformer?).
Sacramentalism is not biblical.
No wonder there are so many denominations
Preaching is not a work, but baptismal regeneration would be a work. Preaching tells us to receive Christ by faith alone, not by works. An outward ritual is superfluous in light of the finished work of Christ appropriated by faith alone (I thought you were a Reformer?).
Sacramentalism is not biblical.
Baptismal regeneration? Are you really trying to communicate?godrulz said:The Greek grammar, not a superficial English reading, of Acts 2:38 links regeneration with repentant faith, not baptism.
No wonder there are so many denominations
Preaching is not a work, but baptismal regeneration would be a work. Preaching tells us to receive Christ by faith alone, not by works. An outward ritual is superfluous in light of the finished work of Christ appropriated by faith alone (I thought you were a Reformer?).
Sacramentalism is not biblical.
If a person calls on the name of the Lord before they die of cancer or the plane crashes, will they go to heaven even though they were not able to be baptized in water? Does the mode of baptism matter? Does the formula said at baptism matter?
Legalists, the lot of you.
Legalists, the lot of you.
cellist
New member
I won't argue the Greek with you because I have not studied it, but there are obviously many Greek scholars who disagree with you.godrulz said:The Greek grammar, not a superficial English reading, of Acts 2:38 links regeneration with repentant faith, not baptism.
No wonder there are so many denominations
I agree with Augustine that the Gospel, the announcement of Christ's work for the forgiveness of our sins, comes to us aurally in preaching but is also visibly displayed before our eyes. Hence, he coined the phrase that the sacraments are the "visible word" of God. The sacraments work in the same way the preached word does. We are not saved because we are baptized but because baptism works faith in the finished work of Christ. But, this work of faith can be resisted (man can prevent his conversion) as in the preached word so this is not something automatic. Also, someone can come to saving faith apart from baptism through the preached word at which time baptism would increase his faith, as does the preached word. I think you have a false dilemma.
Is water baptism essential or optional? Can a person call on the name of the Lord on their death bed or before a plane crash and be saved (Rom. 10:9, 10; Jn. 1:12; 3:16, 36)? If they can, then water baptism is NOT a condition of salvation and is not essential to faith. Did Luther, the king of faith alone, make baptism regenerational or essential for salvation?
I guess this is anothe reason I am not Catholic or Lutheran.
I guess this is anothe reason I am not Catholic or Lutheran.
cellist
New member
All that is necessary is faith in the finished work of Christ. So yes, a person can be saved without baptism. Also, baptism is not necessary to have faith. Someone can come to faith apart from baptism. In fact, in adults, this is probably more often the case.godrulz said:
You will see in Luther's writings statements that baptism is necessary for salvation but you have to read all of his qualifications. He clearly believed that one can come to faith without baptism. It ultimately came down to this: "It is not the absence of baptism that damns but the despising of it." In other words, if a person refuses to be baptized that brings into question the genuineness of their faith.
Repentant faith?
cellist
New member
We would say that baptism would not fall under a step of obedience, like acts of love towards God and neighbor (law) but promise (gospel).godrulz said:
I understand your concern to preserve justification apart from works. We are both eager to preserve this doctrine but do so in different ways. You say baptism is a step of obedience but doesn't save while I say it isn't a law to be obeyed but a promise to be believed (visible word). Both of these views reject baptism as something that we offer to God to be saved.
Let me give an example. God promised that He would never destroy the world by flood again and he attached the visible sign of the rainbow to this promise. The rainbow now communicates the promise of God (visible word). Merely looking at the rainbow doesn't do anybody any good; you have to believe the promise attached to the rainbow. Likewise, God has promised that Christ is our propitiation and in Him is found our reconciliation with God. He attaches this promise to visible elements.
Tico
New member
I think you are referring the following passage:
Timothy was called while uncircumcised and after Paul received the mystery of the dispensation of the grace of God. Nonetheless, Acts 16 tells us that he circumised Timothy because of the Jews. I would submit that though he writes through the inspiration of the Lord Himself that there is only one baptism, this is why he would have done so early in his ministry
I would agree and point out that he didn't teach those Jews who were saved while under circumcision to become uncircumcised, i.e. to live by the dispensation of the grace of God just as he pointed out in 1 Cor. 7:18. The gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision were operating simultaneously in the NT (Gal. 2:7-9).
Which of the numerous baptisms is Paul referring to in Eph. 4:5 when he says that there is only ONE?
In the commission of Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus commanded the disciples to teach all that He commanded which included adherence to the Law of Moses (Mat. 5:17-20, Mat. 23:3, etc.). Do you oberve the feasts, food regulations, circumcision, the Sabbath (including putting the disobedient to death), and all the other ceremonial and religious laws contained therein? If not, they why since Jesus at that time taught them?
Tico
New member
Excellent points and questions. Actually, there was a considerable Jewish contingency in Corinth. We read in Acts 18:
Paul may very well have caused division by the issue of baptism (just as he did with his treatment of the Law). I think that evidence of this is seen in 1 Cor. 1:
Not to mention it would be strange if the leader of the Church were not called to baptize, but it were to be a perpetual ordinance.
Once Paul was given the dispensation of the grace of God, wholly unknown in times past (Eph. 3:1-9, Col. 1:24-29), then God ordained the one baptism mentioned in Eph. 4:5 which is our identification with Christ through the Spirit (Romans 6:1-5, 1 Cor. 12:13). At this point, baptism in water for repentance and the remission of sins was no longer necessary. Paul continued baptizing from time to time, for the sake of the Jews.
Nope. Great question. However, I wouldn't expect such a statement. It would be like making the statement each time a believer after Acts 15 was saved that he was not circumcised.
Honestly, baptism is low on my theological issue list, but it's a fun discussion. I wouldn't be opposed in the least bit if we had baptismal ceremonies where we declared that they represented our death, burial and resurrection with Christ into the newness of life as long as we didn't say it was a biblical mandate.
chrysostom said:
A few authors coined the term since repentance and faith are conditions of salvation. They are like two sides of one coin or two wings of a bird. In Acts, there is a verse about turning from sin or Self and turning to God. Turning from sin is the first step to turning toward the Savior. It is giving up the gods in our lives to follow the true God and to love Him supremely rather than living supremely for King Self.
We cannot cling to sin and Self and follow Christ as Lord and Savior. We do not tack Jesus on as fire insurance while persisting in godless sin and unbelief. Some verses talk about repentance, while others talk about belief or faith (trust, love, obedience). 'Repentant faith' shows the close connection between turning from something (sin) to someone (God). It is a change of ultimate intention to make God 'Boss' instead of living a godless life. He has a right to rule our lives because of His value and authority. We must cease rebellion and selfishness if we are to embrace God and the finished work of Christ.
Those who make Jesus one guru out of many gurus are fooling themselves. He is Lord and Savior, not just one of many gods people add to their lives.
This suggests that you can repent without believing and you can believe without repenting. I don’t think sogodrulz said: