Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation

[godrulz]

I'm sure you have a VERY "interesting" explanation for 1 Peter 3:21. :juggle:

This 'proof text' must be understood in light of all relevant teaching on baptism.

The Greek grammar in Acts 2:38, etc. links regeneration with repentance, not baptism. Baptism is not a sacrament. It is an external ritual that symbolizes the repentance and faith that is a condition of appropriating His finished work.

In Peter, does the Ark or the water (that drowns) save? Does Jesus, the Ark, save, or does the water (baptism) save? (cf. Jn. 3:16; Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6; 1:12; Rom. 1:16; 10:9,10

Water symbolizes baptism and represents to the world a complete break from the former life. The Flood wiped away the old world, so baptism symbolizes old life washed away and entrance to new life in Christ. Water cannot save or regenerate. Only the blood of Christ can cleanse and the Holy Spirit regenerate upon faith, not based on external ritual also practiced by false cults.

Baptism is an important step of discipleship and witness in obedience to Christ as a testament of inner repentance and faith (God looks at the heart, but man looks at the outward).

The context, in the face of persecution, exhorts believers to have the courage to take a public stand for Christ. In other cultures today, baptism costs one their job and family, not saying a sinner's prayer (Islam; Hindu). The public act would 'save' them from the temptation to sacrifice a good conscience to avoid persecution (wisdom of God). For a first century believer (normative early church practice like communion that does not save either), baptism meant he was following through on a previous commitment to Christ (basis of regeneration), regardless of the cost.

Baptism saves from a bad conscience, not from sin. It is the pledge of a good conscience towards God, not a cleansing ritual. It symbolizes what has already occured in the heart and life of one who trusts Christ (cf. Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12).

To make the source of salvation clear, Peter adds the resurrection of Christ (cf. I Peter. 1:3 ...given us new birth through resurrection of Christ...appropriated by faith, not based on getting wet).

A more detailed exegesis could be given, but these are the principles that will help avoid proof texting and contradiction with more explicit passages about repentance, faith, regeneration.

One does not need Mid-Acts assumptions to dismiss baptism in the early church or to wrongly think that Jews vs Gentiles were saved by it.

Peter and Paul preached the same gospel after the cross and Pentecost.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

This 'proof text' must be understood in light of all relevant teaching on baptism.

The Greek grammar in Acts 2:38, etc. links regeneration with repentance, not baptism. Baptism is not a sacrament. It is an external ritual that symbolizes the repentance and faith that is a condition of appropriating His finished work.

In Peter, does the Ark or the water (that drowns) save? Does Jesus, the Ark, save, or does the water (baptism) save? (cf. Jn. 3:16; Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6; 1:12; Rom. 1:16; 10:9,10

Water symbolizes baptism and represents to the world a complete break from the former life. The Flood wiped away the old world, so baptism symbolizes old life washed away and entrance to new life in Christ. Water cannot save or regenerate. Only the blood of Christ can cleanse and the Holy Spirit regenerate upon faith, not based on external ritual also practiced by false cults.

Baptism is an important step of discipleship and witness in obedience to Christ as a testament of inner repentance and faith (God looks at the heart, but man looks at the outward).

The context, in the face of persecution, exhorts believers to have the courage to take a public stand for Christ. In other cultures today, baptism costs one their job and family, not saying a sinner's prayer (Islam; Hindu). The public act would 'save' them from the temptation to sacrifice a good conscience to avoid persecution (wisdom of God). For a first century believer (normative early church practice like communion that does not save either), baptism meant he was following through on a previous commitment to Christ (basis of regeneration), regardless of the cost.

Baptism saves from a bad conscience, not from sin. It is the pledge of a good conscience towards God, not a cleansing ritual. It symbolizes what has already occured in the heart and life of one who trusts Christ (cf. Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12).

To make the source of salvation clear, Peter adds the resurrection of Christ (cf. I Peter. 1:3 ...given us new birth through resurrection of Christ...appropriated by faith, not based on getting wet).

A more detailed exegesis could be given, but these are the principles that will help avoid proof texting and contradiction with more explicit passages about repentance, faith, regeneration.

One does not need Mid-Acts assumptions to dismiss baptism in the early church or to wrongly think that Jews vs Gentiles were saved by it.

Peter and Paul preached the same gospel after the cross and Pentecost.

...and you accuse ME of "proof-texting"? Wow! :doh:

 

[godrulz]

...and you accuse ME of "proof-texting"? Wow! :doh:

Many verses are explicit that grace/faith alone, not works or external ritual are the basis for salvation. An interpretation that takes isolated passages that mention baptism in a way that contradicts this is problematic proof texting (there are alternate understandings to these passages).

What is your denominational, theological bias? I am not familiar with your background and influences.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Many verses are explicit that grace/faith alone, not works or external ritual are the basis for salvation. An interpretation that takes isolated passages that mention baptism in a way that contradicts this is problematic proof texting (there are alternate understandings to these passages).

What is your denominational, theological bias? I am not familiar with your background and influences.

My "bias"?
My "influences"?

I simply find it odd that you dismiss, out of hand, any relevance of baptism to the Christian dispensation. And it seems to me that you've decided that YOU have a handle on truth that pretty much everybody else has missed.

Acts 2:38 does NOT say "repent for the forgiveness of your sins." Baptism is included.


Now, before you start telling me that you have all this "original language knowledge" that I certainly could NOT know, I'd suggest you consider the education & experience I very well might have...

 

[godrulz]

My "bias"?
My "influences"?

I simply find it odd that you dismiss, out of hand, any relevance of baptism to the Christian dispensation. And it seems to me that you've decided that YOU have a handle on truth that pretty much everybody else has missed.

Acts 2:38 does NOT say "repent for the forgiveness of your sins." Baptism is included.


Now, before you start telling me that you have all this "original language knowledge" that I certainly could NOT know, I'd suggest you consider the education & experience I very well might have...

Tell me more. For the record, I have been baptized by immersion and encourage others to do the same following the Lord.

 

[jeremiah]

I know of quite a few people who do not believe that Water Baptism is required for salvation............. and they may be right.

Ironically, I personally know of no such people who have been believers, for more than three years, who regardless of their beliefs in water Baptism, that did not get baptized.

I suspect that even Bob Hill got himself baptized.

Are there any people on TOL who will admit to not believing in Water Baptism as salvific and have therefore never been baptized.......... one way or another? :think:

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Tell me more. For the record, I have been baptized by immersion and encourage others to do the same following the Lord.

Good. I too have been immersed into Christ, and encourage others to do the same following the Lord!

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I know of quite a few people who do not believe that Water Baptism is required for salvation............. and they may be right.

Ironically, I personally know of no such people who have been believers, for more than three years, who regardless of their beliefs in water Baptism, that did not get baptized.

I suspect that even Bob Hill got himself baptized.

Are there any people on TOL who will admit to not believing in Water Baptism as salvific and have therefore never been baptized.......... one way or another? :think:

I don't spend a lot of time on TOL, therefore I'm not up on the "Bob Hill" comments. Sorry...

And I'm not sure what your last sentence meant.

However, it would seem to me that anybody who honestly studies the New Testament WILL come to the conclusion that they should be baptized (immersed) into Christ.

 

[jeremiah]

I don't spend a lot of time on TOL, therefore I'm not up on the "Bob Hill" comments. Sorry...

And I'm not sure what your last sentence meant.

However, it would seem to me that anybody who honestly studies the New Testament WILL come to the conclusion that they should be baptized (immersed) into Christ.

My last sentence meant if you think that Water Baptism is not required to be saved, have you, in fact, not been baptized! { Which would be a very strong proof of your belief.}

I find many people who believe, that it is not a requirement to be saved. Of those, I find virtually none that do not get themselves baptized anyway, within the first three years of expressing belief in Jesus as their saviour. I am wondering if there are any people here on TOL who have been believers in Jesus and have not gotten themselves baptized, regardless of their beliefs on the "saving" nature of baptism.

If you view the last five or so posts of Bob Hill you can read his theory of two gospels for the first believers, after the cross, and Resurrection.

There was one gospel preached by Jesus Christ and the eleven apostles which required that you must believe, and be baptized in water, in order to be saved.


If you were believing in that gospel and did not get baptized you were eternally damned.

Paul received a seperate gospel which required belief, and no water Baptism.

This gospel had a Baptism by the Spirit of God, done by Him for you after you believed, and did not require you to get water Baptized, after belief, as Jesus's and the eleven apostles "gospel" did.

That is what I understand from reading Bob Hill's posts. However he can explain the nuances better than I.

However, I have learned that if you misplace a "single" word of this teaching, you have completely misunderstood and misquoted everything and that you are therefore an idiot-ignoramus.
:idunno:

 

[ParsonJefferson]

My last sentence meant if you think that Water Baptism is not required to be saved, have you, in fact, not been baptized! { Which would be a very strong proof of your belief.}

I find many people who believe, that it is not a requirement to be saved. Of those, I find virtually none that do not get themselves baptized anyway, within the first three years of expressing belief in Jesus as their saviour. I am wondering if there are any people here on TOL who have been believers in Jesus and have not gotten themselves baptized, regardless of their beliefs on the "saving" nature of baptism.

If you view the last five or so posts of Bob Hill you can read his theory of two gospels for the first believers, after the cross, and Resurrection.

There was one gospel preached by Jesus Christ and the eleven apostles which required that you must believe, and be baptized in water, in order to be saved.


If you were believing in that gospel and did not get baptized you were eternally damned.

Paul received a seperate gospel which required belief, and no water Baptism.

This gospel had a Baptism by the Spirit of God, done by Him for you after you believed, and did not require you to get water Baptized, after belief, as Jesus's and the eleven apostles "gospel" did.

That is what I understand from reading Bob Hill's posts. However he can explain the nuances better than I.

However, I have learned that if you misplace a "single" word of this teaching, you have completely misunderstood and misquoted everything and that you are therefore an idiot-ignoramus.
:idunno:

I see.

It seems odd that if Paul was baptised if he believed that salvation had nothing to do with baptism.

 

[jeremiah]

I see.

It seems odd that if Paul was baptised if he believed that salvation had nothing to do with baptism.

Yes, and I think their answer would be that the gospel's were transitioning at that time, and that Paul was "probably" saved under Jesus's gospel.

He then receives the revelation, from Jesus, of the new gospel and dispensation, sometime after his conversion. This gospel continues through the transition time, {up to 70 A.D.???} right up to the present moment, and ends at the rapture.

My question on the table, yet to be answered, is what gospel or gospels will be in effect after the rapture and the Body of Christ is gone. His theory, requires an absolute pre-trib rapture, and no transition period to the next dispensation.

Hence the title of this thread, "Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation."

To which you and I rightly observe, just about everyone does get Water Baptized, for whatever reason, despite its salvific requirement being eliminated in the "new" gospel.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Yes, and I think their answer would be that the gospel's were transitioning at that time, and that Paul was "probably" saved under Jesus's gospel.

He then receives the revelation, from Jesus, of the new gospel and dispensation, sometime after his conversion. This gospel continues through the transition time, {up to 70 A.D.???} right up to the present moment, and ends at the rapture.

My question on the table, yet to be answered, is what gospel or gospels will be in effect after the rapture and the Body of Christ is gone. His theory, requires an absolute pre-trib rapture, and no transition period to the next dispensation.

Hence the title of this thread, "Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation."

To which you and I rightly observe, just about everyone does get Water Baptized, for whatever reason, despite its salvific requirement being eliminated in the "new" gospel.

Sounds like an extremely complicated and convoluted approach to the Gospel of Grace.

Somehow I doubt that God intended it to be nearly as complicated as some people make it.

 

[jeremiah]

Sounds like an extremely complicated and convoluted approach to the Gospel of Grace.

Somehow I doubt that God intended it to be nearly as complicated as some people make it.

Yes, I would agree with you, but I think his theory answers some questions, but at the same time it creates more!

Instead of finding the answer between two seemingly contradictory approaches taken by Peter and Paul, as God's grace, to two different people groups, Jews and Gentiles. He jettisons the gospel given by Jesus to the apostles and then says Jesus supplanted it with the "easier" gospel given to Paul. Thus neither Jew or Gentile can any longer be saved, as Peter and the apostles and the hundreds of thousands that were saved, both Jew and Gentile, by their preaching, and their gospel, given to them by the Lord Himself.

That doesn't sound like grace to me, and it just doesn't "seem" right. Even if it were true, God has taken away a method of salvation which included belief in the crucified and risen risen Lord and Saviour, that saved hundreds of thousands of people. It would seem to me that our Saviour, would at the very least, leave both gospels, as a way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile.

Again, what will be the next and newest gospel, or the original gospel? for the tribulation saints?

A mid- Acts dispensation, of a second gospel, seems more convoluted to me, than one gospel, based upon the death burial and Resurrection of Jesus, to two different groups of people.

 

[godrulz]

I know of quite a few people who do not believe that Water Baptism is required for salvation............. and they may be right.

Ironically, I personally know of no such people who have been believers, for more than three years, who regardless of their beliefs in water Baptism, that did not get baptized.

I suspect that even Bob Hill got himself baptized.

Are there any people on TOL who will admit to not believing in Water Baptism as salvific and have therefore never been baptized.......... one way or another? :think:

I think Bob Hill has not been baptized in water. I think that he is a man of God either way.

 

[jeremiah]

I think Bob Hill has not been baptized in water. I think that he is a man of God either way.

That would surprise me, if he is not. However from an overall reading of his posts, I would definately agree that he is a man of God.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse,

Thanks for your excellent posts. Great work!

Bob

Thank you.

 

[Bob Hill]

Jeremiah,

I know of quite a few people who do not believe that Water Baptism is required for salvation............. and they may be right.

Ironically, I personally know of no such people who have been believers, for more than three years, who regardless of their beliefs in water Baptism, that did not get baptized.

I suspect that even Bob Hill got himself baptized.

I have never been water baptized. I believe water baptism passed away during Paul's ministry.

Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

I also believe that water baptism was essential for salvation during the time that Christ was on earth and the 12 Apostles were His gospel preachers.

When God raised up the Apostle Paul, at first Paul baptized, later in his ministry we see that he no lovnger did that.

Bob

 

[Vaquero45]

I got sprinkled by the Catholics as an infant, and also dunked by the Charismatics just in case. (it was a Charismatic church, I'm not linking water baptism to charismania) The same church I got water baptized in, told my brother-in-law that some parts of the Bible say to do it, and some don't so they do it just in case. Not a direct quote, but words to that effect.

I did the latter baptism thinking it was out of obedience. I don't regret it, or look down on anyone who does it, but I now agree with Bob's take on the subject. I don't put any stock in the idea that my water baptism effected my standing with God.

 

[Bob Hill]

I also do not look down on anyone who gets baptized.

There is a lot of pressure to get baptized in different churches.

I went to some of these churches when I was young, but I am convinced that water baptism has passed away.

I'm glad I never got baptized.

But, so what?

Bob