The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[Francisco]

reading comprehension...

reading comprehension...

agape:

Peter is not relating "water baptism" to our "spiritual baptism" as such ... he is speaking of SALVATION, and he compares the great salvation which those in the days of Noah experienced as they were saved in the arch through the waters of the flood to believers now being saved on the grounds of Christ's accomplishments which are affirmed by his resurrection and thus our baptism into his name is effective and provides salvation for us leading to an everlasting life.

Peter says the antitype of the flood waters is baptism WHICH NOW SAVES US, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peter does not say the flood waters are an antitype of the resurrection, or any of Christ's accomplishments. Peter says baptism saves us THROUGH the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So, baptism is how we enter into the salvation won for mankind by Jesus death and resurrection. And I think that is what you mean when you say 'his resurrection and thus our baptism into his name is effective and provides salvation for us leading to everlasting life.' So, now I am confused as to why you don't think water baptism has any effect on our salvation.

I would agree that baptism, in and of itself, does NOT save us. Only Christ's sacrifice on the cross can save us. But we enter into that salvation by being baptized in His name. Do you agree with this?

Your brother in Christ,

Francisco

 

[Kevin]

Agape,

The Word of God alone proves you have lied over and over again

Perhaps in your eyes, but I feel the word of God is on my side. In my eyes, I think you are the one teaching lies. I guess we'll know in the end who's the liar and who's not.

just as you lie when you say I have not provided ample scripture to prove that water baptism does not save.

I say again... NO YOU HAVE NOT. I have yet to see a scripture that says that water baptism (baptism in the name of the Lord) doesn't save.

I know the cloves were not there because the one and only time phrase "cloven tongues like as of fire" did not occur till the day of Pentecost and it has NEVER been mentioned again any place in the bible.

Oh really? What about Matt. 3:16 when the Spirit of God descended upon Jesus "alighting upon Him"? Are you going to tell me that it wasn't visisble there? What do you think the term "alighting" means?

Once again, all you have is an arguement of omission. That arguement would be valid if I didn't have verses that show that the HS is visible when falling, but I DO have those verse. You don't have a single verse to show that it wouldn't look like that. Not one. Your assertions without biblical support are meaningless. I have my verses (Matt 3:16 and Acts 2:3)... where are yours?

The holy spirit "falling on" people is NOT the same thing as the "cloven tongues like as of fire" SAT UPON each of them in Acts 2:3.

You are wrong again. When the HS "fell" upon the Gentiles in Acts 10:44, Peter who was certainly present in Acts 2:3, said in verse 47: "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have recieved the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE HAVE?".

So, I have a scripture that shows that the Gentiles recieved the HS "just as" Peter did in Acts 2:3. The HS FELL upon the Gentiles. The same thing happened to both parties. Now, where is your scripture, and I mean scripture - not unsupported speculation, to show otherwise?

when the initial outpouring of the gift of holy spirit didn't ever occur till the day of Pentecost.

Ok, I'll drop the Numbers 11:25 arguement. However, as I've addressed in my previous post, the gift of the HS in Acts 2:38 is differnent than when the HS falls upon somebody. The falling of the HS imparts miraculous ability, as shown in Acts 2:3 and Acts 10:44. Baptism in the name of the Lord does not impart this ability, as shown in Acts 8:16 (which you didn't address, I noticed).

YOU HAVE NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM PROVEN THAT WATER BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION AND THAT IT WAS PRACTICED AFTER THE DAY OF PENTECOST AS RIGHT AND COMMON DOCTINE ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES!

Yes I have, you just choose not to deal with them. It's so much easier to ignore them and keep touting your typical "PI PI PI!!!!!" horn, isn't it?

AND THAT'S FINAL.

Well, AGAPE has spoken! It's so easy to refute you: Yes I have provided scripture to prove my position, get ready for this... AND THAT'S FINAL. See how easy that is? Now, why don't you try actually dealing with the scriptures and evidence that I have provided. I can assure you that your "AND THAT'S FINAL" attitude is not impressive at all and is meaningless without scriptual backing.

JESUS CHRIST LEAVES YOU WITH: JOHN TRULY BAPTIZED WITH WATER BUT...BUT...BUT....CONTRAST...CONTRAST...CONTRAST...YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED "WITH THE HOLY GHOST...."

And I've said that I agree that this happened. SO WHAT. Are you going to ever deal with my arguements as to why this doesn't save anybody? Ever? Or should I just expect more of the same dodging and ramblings of "PI PI PI!!!"?

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

I am glad you admit it was for the apostles of that time

What are you trying to get at here? Do you not think the baptism that the apostles were commanded to do after the death on the cross is the same baptism that we are to be baptized in? Of course it is! This is the "ONE" baptism spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4:5, for it's what they practiced. Why did they practice it? Because it was commanded of them. Why wouldn't this be for us today?

 

[Kevin]

Francisco,

In regards to what you said to agape:

And I think that is what you mean when you say 'his resurrection and thus our baptism into his name is effective and provides salvation for us leading to everlasting life.' So, now I am confused as to why you don't think water baptism has any effect on our salvation.

I think this is because she doesn't believe that baptism in the name of the Lord uses water.

If I'm wrong about her belief, I'm sure she will correct me.

 

[Francisco]

Francisco,

In regards to what you said to agape:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I think that is what you mean when you say 'his resurrection and thus our baptism into his name is effective and provides salvation for us leading to everlasting life.' So, now I am confused as to why you don't think water baptism has any effect on our salvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this is because she doesn't believe that baptism in the name of the Lord uses water.

If I'm wrong about her belief, I'm sure she will correct me.

Surely not, Kevin. Do you think agape could overlook the direct correlation of water to baptism? Baptism is the antitype of the flood WATER, and that is the only point of correlation between baptism and the ark. That necessarily implies Peter is speaking of the water of baptism.

Because of the correlation between the flood water and the baptismal water, any other interpretation simply makes no sense. For instance, one way for which Mary was the antitype of Eve, was the correlation stemming from each being a woman giving birth to a new generation of men, Eve of the human race, Mary of Christians. Mary is also the antitype of the Ark of the Covenant, with the correlation being they each 'carried' the Word of God inside themselves. But to say Mary is the antitype of Eve because they were both brunettes, or to say Mary is the antitype of the Ark because she really likes acacia wood and had a coffe-table made of it, does not make sense.

Surely agape has more sense than that?

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Kevin]

Francisco,

Here are some statements from agape that lead me to my conclusion:

Kevin said:
"In Mark 16:16 shows baptism is necessary for salvation. Yes, this is speaking of water baptism, for this is what was practed (Acts 8:38, Acts 10:47-48, Acts: 2:38).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agape said
"PROVE IT WAS WATER BAPTISM."


Here's another quote from agape:

"Sorry, no news because Cornelius was never water baptized. Peter knew and believed what Christ said right before he ascended into heaven; "John truly baptized with water, BUT ye shall be baptized with the HOLY GHOST...." Peter understood what the word "BUT" meant."

She says this despite the fact that they were baptized in the name of the Lord after the Holy Spirit fell upon them. I realize that verse 47 spells it out that it uses water, but she refuses to accept that.

Agape said:
"Act 2:38:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter said repent (confess the Savior from sin) and be baptized. When one confesses Jesus Christ is the Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, they are saved and at that very moment they received the gift of holy spirit. This is exactly what occurred with Cornelius and his household."

Knowing that she doesn't believe the Cornelius household was water baptized, she doesn't believe that the people in Acts 2:38 were either, for she claims that the same thing happened in both instances.

Agape said:
"Cornelius and his household were never water baptized. I know it "appears" to say so in the ending verses of Acts 10, but I believe it was "spiritual water" that Peter was referring to. He closes saying that he had commanded (arranged towards) them to be baptized with the holy spirit as it was proven that they were already baptized with the holy spirit because they spoke in tongues."

And also:

"Peter knew that they were already baptized; "...but ye shall BE BAPTIZED with the Holy Ghost...." He was clearly saying that it was not with water that they should be baptized with, but with the HOLY SPIRIT. Why would he then turn around and have them water baptized? Makes no logical sense whatsoever."

Are you convinced yet, Francisco?

 

[JustAChristian]

I am leaving this thread...

I am leaving this thread...

I believe enough has been said on this thread to save all sinners. Those who have chosen to ignore the overwhelming evidence that one must be immersed for the remission of sins will have to answer to the Lord for their denial. Jesus sent his apostles to make disciples by teaching and baptizing believers (Matthew 28:18-20) and all was to receive the same message (Eph. 4:5). We have shown that the Holy Spirit is an important part in God's mission to save souls; he brought to the apostle's memory the Gospel and helped to have it written down without error. If we will read and rightly divide the scriptures we can understand them clearly, but if we all man to indoctrinate us so that we "wrest the scriptures" then we will get a false message and be in error. God will not give us a false message and cause us to be judged by the Word, so what we have is truth. Man made institutions with man made doctrines are causing more and more to be lost each year. You should seek to lean not on your own understanding, but that give us of God to know Christ ( 1 John 5:20). The understanding of Christ is found in the Gospel. It is God's path unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). It tells us to believe in Christ (John 8:24). It tell us to Confess Him publically (Matthew 10:32). It tells us to repent of sins (Luke 13:3,5). It tells us to be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38) and live righteous lives looking to eternal life (Gal. 6:8). It is my sincerest prayer that you come to this understanding, as I have, that your soul will be saved.

JustAChristian

 

[Francisco]

Kevin,

Surely someone pirated agape's handle on this forum and made those unbelievable statements. agape couldn't be guilty of that level of eisegesis could she?

Francisco

 

[Kevin]

Fransisco,

Surely someone pirated agape's handle on this forum and made those unbelievable statements.

Anything's possible, but I highly doubt that this is what happened.

agape couldn't be guilty of that level of eisegesis could she?

I'm afraid so, unless, of course, somebody did indeed pirate her handle, which I certainly don't think happened.

 

[Francisco]

Kevin,

Let's hope it's a case of handle piracy. That's better than thinking our good friend agape could twist scripture to her own destruction.

Francisco

 

[agape]

Originally posted by Francisco
Kevin,

Let's hope it's a case of handle piracy. That's better than thinking our good friend agape could twist scripture to her own destruction.

What a open display of childish mentality on both your parts which obviously carries over to how you handle the Word of God. You were both led by the nose into erroneous, religious man-made doctrines and creeds and you don't know how to use the brains God gave you to think for yourselves. You don't allow God's Word to teach you because you go to it with your pre-conceived thoughts and theories. All you do is blindly teach what they taught you and not what God's Word truly teaches.

 

[agape]

Re: JAC leaving this thread...

Re: JAC leaving this thread...

Originally posted by JustAChristian
I believe enough has been said on this thread to save all sinners.

Unfortunately, you have said enough lies to NOT SAVE ANYONE.

Those who have chosen to ignore the overwhelming evidence that one must be immersed for the remission of sins will have to answer to the Lord for their denial.

The truth is that there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that one must be immersed for remission of sin and YOU are the one who will have to answer to the Lord for teaching such lies.

It is my sincerest prayer that you come to this understanding, as I have, that your soul will be saved.

God forbid!! You have been a false teacher of God's Word and have perverted the truth of the gospel of the good news of salvation.

Acts 1:5; out of the very mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ, John truly baptized with water, BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST...

From the very mouth of John the Baptist: "I indeed have baptized you with water:BUT HE [CHRIST] SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST."

It's obvious what the true baptism is here and that it is for ALL WHO BELIEVE... not just the apostles. CHRIST does the baptizing for salvation, NOT MAN....NOT WORKS...AND CERTAINLY NOT WATER.

The Gentiles heard and believed what Peter preached concerning CHRIST and they were BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT and they spoke with tongues. They were the first of many other GENTILES...(all nations) who would believe in Christ and be baptized with the holy spirit.

I truly pray and hope that some day, JAC, you will see the true light of the true gospel of salvation, which is that all repent and be baptized with the HOLY SPIRIT for the total remission of sins. When the new birth occurs, one is BORN AGAIN OF "INCORRUPTIBLE SEED" AND IS GUARANTEED ETERNAL LIFE. "THUS SAITH THE LORD."

 

[Francisco]

agape,

It is you who follow the man-made doctrines, created by men over a thousand years after the ascension of Our Lord. We can trace our belief in water baptism to the earliest period of Christianity, you can trace yours to the 16th century at best. YOU choose to follow that man-made doctrine of the 16th century in lieu of the doctrine preached from the beginning of Christianity.

We 'blindly teach' what Jesus taught the apostles, and the apostles taught their successors, and they taught their successors, etc... You 'blindly teach' doctrine created in the minds of some 16th century northern Europeans who, in their arrogance, presumed to know better than all the Christian scholars for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Do you believe God revealed something new to these folks??? If you do, you're lack of intelligence is greater than I previously thought.

And you have proven that you read scripture through the thickest of tinted lenses, applying incredible levels of eisegesis to each verse. The way you choose to totally ignore the correlation Peter draws between the WATER of the flood and the WATER of baptism proves this abundantly.

Why do you want to struggle with every verse to find a way to read into it what you want to see? Wouldn't you rather take off the glasses and see the truth? Are you more intelligent and better prepared than the early Christians to know what the true doctrine should be?

1 Peter 3:20-21
...In the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, ... a few ... were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you....

John 3:5
I tell you solemnly, unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Titus 3:5
It was for no reason except his own compassion that he saved us, by means of the cleansing water of rebirth and by renewing us with the Holy Spirit...

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptised will be saved.

I know, I know, prove it's water baptism. Prove baptism means baptism, prove Peter really said that, prove this and prove that....

Consider this agape, you refuse to believe water can have an effect, that grace can be conferred by water. If the blind man, on who's eyes Jesus rubbed the mud, had decided not to go to Siloam to wash the mud from his eyes but wiped his eyes on his shirt tail instead, do you think his blindness would have been cured?

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Kevin
c.moore,



What are you trying to get at here? Do you not think the baptism that the apostles were commanded to do after the death on the cross is the same baptism that we are to be baptized in? Of course it is! This is the "ONE" baptism spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4:5, for it's what they practiced. Why did they practice it? Because it was commanded of them. Why wouldn't this be for us today?

Because we have the Spiritual baptism that our Spiritual God appreciates and see`s this is the real baptism that we were waiting for , and that John talked about that jesus will baptized.



God bless

 

[Francisco]

c.moore,

If water baptism was no longer necessary, having been replaced with 'Spiritual' baptism, why did Philip baptize the eunuch with water in Acts 8?

Why did Peter insist on water for baptizing the gentiles in Cornelius house in Acts 10? After all, these men already had the Holy Spirit descend on them.

What was Paul talking about when he told the crowd at Jerusalem to be baptized and WASH away their sins in Acts 22?

How can baptism be the antitype of the flood water (1 Peter 3:21) if baptism is not with water?

BTW, the baptism of John the Baptist was a symbol of repentance only. The water baptism performed by Jesus' disciples was a baptism into the salvific accomplishments of Jesus' death and resurrection.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[agape]

Originally posted by Francisco
Surely not, Kevin. Do you think agape could overlook the direct correlation of water to baptism?

Yes, and so did God and Peter...lol. God was looking at SALVATION, and so was Peter.

Baptism is the antitype of the flood WATER, and that is the only point of correlation between baptism and the ark. That necessarily implies Peter is speaking of the water of baptism.

Wrong. Peter is not talking about "water baptism" at all. Water baptism for repentance of sins came with John the Baptist. Also, water does NOT SAVE. Show me a verse of scripture that states this. How does H20 literally cleanse one of their sin nature.? How could "water" before Christ even shed his blood for the remission of sins, save anyone? I really would like to see you answer those questions with scripture.

Water baptism is not mentioned at all in these verses. The "llke figure" is the eight souls saved by water. How were they saved by water? Were they dunked into the water? NO. Does it say they repented of their sins, and were baptized? NO, because it wasn't available then for them to be baptized with water because John the baptist came at a later time. That RULES OUT WATER BAPTISM. So how were they saved by water? They were saved by water because it kept the Ark alfoat. It kept them bouying across the waters. It prevented them from drowning. The flood which killed and destroyed the sinners and unbelievers, were the same waters that saved Noah and those with him. This like figure, the eight souls being saved by water, is the whereunto also baptism SAVES by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The emphasis still falls on being SAVED. Through his death and resurrection, we are save. Through HIS BAPTIZING WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, we are SAVED. In this same manner, Christ SAVED us from the penalty of sin which is death and by his resurrection we have eternal life. This can only occur through baptism with the holy spirit. The baptism of the holy spirit is an inward regeneration not an outward one which Peter specifically makes note of--(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. It is not by any act of man, it is not by works man can do. Again, this RULES OUT water baptism.

GOD saved them by putting them into the Ark which kept them alive because it kept above waters...not in waters. Noah and the others were saved by God's grace because they kept their faith in God, unlike the others.

I Peter 3:21 reads "the like figure"--the eight souls saved by water, baptism now saves you (not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. After Christ died for the sins of the world and was raised again from the dead and was ascended into heaven, baptism with the holy spirit became available to ALL WHO BELIEVE. Peter is already talking to the born-again Christians.

The context surrounding Acts 3:21 is referring to THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST...and that this hope is in us (the return of Christ) lives in our hearts. When Christ returns for his church, the body of Christ, we will all receive new spiritual bodies like Christ who was "quickened or made alive by the Spirit."

I Corinthians 12:13 --For by ONE SPIRIT are we ALL BAPTIZED into one body [OF CHRIST], whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into ONE SPIRIT.

Mary was the antitype of Eve, was the correlation stemming from each being a woman giving birth to a new generation of men, Eve of the human race, Mary of Christians. Mary is also the antitype of the Ark of the Covenant, with the correlation being they each 'carried' the Word of God inside themselves.

Now I heard it all. Mary is not the antitype of Eve. Such a comparison is never made. And to say Mary is the anitype of the ark of the covenant is really going to the extremes. ROFL.

Surely agape has more sense than that?

Thanks, Yes, a whole lot more sense than what you posted altogether!

 

[agape]

Originally posted by Francisco
agape,

It is you who follow the man-made doctrines, created by men over a thousand years after the ascension of Our Lord. We can trace our belief in water baptism to the earliest period of Christianity, you can trace yours to the 16th century at best. YOU choose to follow that man-made doctrine of the 16th century in lieu of the doctrine preached from the beginning of Christianity.

I don't care how far back one can trace their belief in water baptism which is man's doctrine. All I care about is what the Bible teaches...What GOD tells to us believe, which is SPIRIT BAPTISM.

We 'blindly teach' what Jesus taught the apostles, and the apostles taught their successors, and they taught their successors, etc...

Yes, if what they teach is not in accordance with God's Word. The Apostles did not teach "water" baptism." They taught "spiritual baptism," the one baptism, which Christ taught... and said that in contrast to Johh baptizing with water, he, Christ would baptized them with the holy spirit. The truth is simple and clear to see when you do not allow what men tell the Scripture say and rather allow God to speak through His Word. God and I make the majority not people and I make the majority. In other words, I stand by what the Scriptures teaches, what God teaches and this is what makes the majority.

Consider this agape, you refuse to believe water can have an effect, that grace can be conferred by water.

Water can have no effect whatsoever on salvation and grace can only be conferred by God's spirit life or the life of God, His nature IN us. Water does not cleanse you of your sins. Water is water and that is all it is. Water baptism could not save anyone and that is why Christ came to baptize us the holy spirit. It was a physical, outward act of the greater, spiritual inward act that would be done by Christ.

Tell me how water cleanses you of your sins? Explain how it does this. Explain how one can have Christ in them by water baptism. Explain how one can operate the manifestation of the gift of holy spirit in them with water baptism and not spirit? Explain how we are redeemed, justified, made righteous and are sanctified with H20? Explain why, if water is where it's at, Jesus Christ said to be baptized with the holy spirit? Explain how water baptism saved anyone before the blood of Jesus Christ was even shed for the remission of sins. Explain why John the Baptist said he baptized with water BUT HE (CHRIST) would baptize them with the HOLY GHOST?? Please explain all of this to me. Then we'll really talk.

If the blind man, on who's eyes Jesus rubbed the mud, had decided not to go to Siloam to wash the mud from his eyes but wiped his eyes on his shirt tail instead, do you think his blindness would have been cured?

And you talk about my not having any intelligence?? Jesus worked with each person who came to him for healing in different ways. In this case, he told him to wash the mud from his eyes. Jesus walked by revelation from God and knew this is what he needed to do to build this man's believing. It was not the water nor the mud itself that healed him. It was his believing in Christ and what he told him to do that healed him. Are we all not suppose to put mud on what ails us and jump into the water at Siloam??

Sorry, your understanding of the Scriptures appears to be based on man's opinion and doctrines rather than on "thus saith the Lord."

 

[agape]

John 3:4-7:
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

(7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Nicodemus asked Jesus, "how can a man be born when he is old?"..."can he enter the 'second time' into his mother's womb, and be born?"

Jesus replied; verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water (referring to water in the mother's womb).... He responded to Nicodemus' asking him if he can enter a "second" time in his mother's womb. The water here is NOT referring to water baptism. It is referring to the water in a mother's womb. You water baptism people read baptism every time you see the word "water" in the scriptures. We need to remain within the context to understand what the word "water" is referring to.

That which is BORN [BEGOTTEN] OF FLESH IS FLESH and that which is BORN [BEGOTTEN] OF SPIRIT IS SPIRIT. Jesus explained it all.

Hence, unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, you must be BORN AGAIN. To be "born again" is to be born from above of God's spirit, His seed, which one receives when baptized with the holy spirit.

 

[Francisco]

Originally posted by agape

Originally posted by Francisco

Surely not, Kevin. Do you think agape could overlook the direct correlation of water to baptism?

Yes, and so did God and Peter...lol. God was looking at SALVATION, and so was Peter.
quote:

Baptism is the antitype of the flood WATER, and that is the only point of correlation between baptism and the ark. That necessarily implies Peter is speaking of the water of baptism.

Wrong. Peter is not talking about "water baptism" at all. Water baptism for repentance of sins came with John the Baptist. Also, water does NOT SAVE. Show me a verse of scripture that states this. How does H20 literally cleanse one of their sin nature.? How could "water" before Christ even shed his blood for the remission of sins, save anyone? I really would like to see you answer those questions with scripture.

You are still missing my point agape. The correlation Peter draws is between water and water, the water of the flood that saved the eight on the ark, and the water of baptism; the flood water 'saved' the people on the ark by keeping their vessel afloat, and the water of baptism saves us by entering into the salvation won for us by Jesus' death and resurrection. For you to read anything else into this requires you purposely ignore the plain words of scripture.

Water baptism is not mentioned at all in these verses. The "llke figure" is the eight souls saved by water. How were they saved by water? Were they dunked into the water? NO. Does it say they repented of their sins, and were baptized? NO, because it wasn't available then for them to be baptized with water because John the baptist came at a later time. That RULES OUT WATER BAPTISM. So how were they saved by water? They were saved by water because it kept the Ark alfoat. It kept them bouying across the waters. It prevented them from drowning. The flood which killed and destroyed the sinners and unbelievers, were the same waters that saved Noah and those with him. This like figure, the eight souls being saved by water, is the whereunto also baptism SAVES by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The emphasis still falls on being SAVED. Through his death and resurrection, we are save. Through HIS BAPTIZING WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, we are SAVED. In this same manner, Christ SAVED us from the penalty of sin which is death and by his resurrection we have eternal life. This can only occur through baptism with the holy spirit. The baptism of the holy spirit is an inward regeneration not an outward one which Peter specifically makes note of--(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. It is not by any act of man, it is not by works man can do. Again, this RULES OUT water baptism.

You've drawn no correlation here at all. You try to make a connection between the water of the flood and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you want to correlate the salvation of the resurrection with something, Noah's ark would be the element that relates to the resurrection. So, as the flood water saved the eight by keeping their vessel afloat, so the water of baptism saves us when we enter into the salvation of the cross through it. And that's exactly what Peter says, 'saved through water'.

GOD saved them by putting them into the Ark which kept them alive because it kept above waters...not in waters. Noah and the others were saved by God's grace because they kept their faith in God, unlike the others.

We are all saved by God's grace. And God's grace can be conferred by water, just as it did for the blind man who Jesus directed to wash the mud from his eyes in the pool at Siloam.

I Peter 3:21 reads "the like figure"--the eight souls saved by water, baptism now saves you (not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. After Christ died for the sins of the world and was raised again from the dead and was ascended into heaven, baptism with the holy spirit became available to ALL WHO BELIEVE. Peter is already talking to the born-again Christians.

Your problem here is that is NOT what Peter says. He said: '...saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you....' You can't draw a sensible correlation from 1 Pt 3:21 between the flood water and 'spiritual' baptism. It is abundantly clear Peter was talking about WATER, 'saved THROUGH water.'

The context surrounding Acts 3:21 is referring to THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST...and that this hope is in us (the return of Christ) lives in our hearts. When Christ returns for his church, the body of Christ, we will all receive new spiritual bodies like Christ who was "quickened or made alive by the Spirit."

I Corinthians 12:13 --For by ONE SPIRIT are we ALL BAPTIZED into one body [OF CHRIST], whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into ONE SPIRIT.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I deny a baptism by the Spirit. I don't deny this at all. But one does not preclude the other.

Originally posted by agape

Originally posted by Francisco

Mary was the antitype of Eve, was the correlation stemming from each being a woman giving birth to a new generation of men, Eve of the human race, Mary of Christians. Mary is also the antitype of the Ark of the Covenant, with the correlation being they each 'carried' the Word of God inside themselves.

Now I heard it all. Mary is not the antitype of Eve. Such a comparison is never made. And to say Mary is the anitype of the ark of the covenant is really going to the extremes. ROFL.

I doubt you have 'heard it all' now. Particularly if you have not previously heard these analogies drawn between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, or with Mary and Eve. Both have been in use for well over a thousand years. You should read the early fathers. You should also read the Reformers on Mary, particularly Luther and Zwingli who both make the same correlations about Mary as I did. By the way, just as Mary is the 'New Eve', guess who the 'New Adam' is...

Originally posted by agape

Originally posted by Fracisco
Surely agape has more sense than that?

Thanks, Yes, a whole lot more sense than what you posted altogether!

Sorry, I have to take back what I originally said. If you can't comprehend the plain words of scripture, as with 1 Peter 3:21, and obviously haven't read the most basic of church writings, like the early fathers, yet persist in exalting your own reasoning above that of 2000 years of Christianity, you're an arrogant fool that has no sense.

Goodbye,

Francisco

 

[Francisco]

agape,

Tell me how water cleanses you of your sins? Explain how it does this.

The same way the blind man's sight was restored when he washed in the pool at Siloam.