David Miller wrote: >> I'm not aware of any Bible verse that says baptism >> is a sign confirming the spiritual work of grace >> that has already taken place in the person's heart.
Judy wrote: > Once more there may not be a particular Bible verse > that gives this phrase exactly but it is there > nevertheless and this is the example we see in > the book of Acts. I see something much different in the book of Acts. Perhaps together we should discuss every passage in the book of Acts that has to do with water baptism. Judy wrote: > See Acts 8:37 where Philip ministers to a eunuch > who is trying to understand scripture, (and this > is the model): The eunuch says "See, here is water; > what doth hinder me to be baptized? and Philip says > "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. > And he answered and said 'I believe that Jesus Christ > is the Son of God' .... so faith must be there first. Right, baptism must be entered into by faith or it is just taking a bath. But this passage teaches nothing like what you taught about water baptism being a symbol of something that has already taken place in the heart. The passage in Peter speaks about the answer of a good conscience toward God taking place in water baptism, and I have no doubt that the Eunuch experienced this fruit of salvation when he was baptized. David Miller wrote: >> The Scriptures teach that baptism saves us. ... What we >> need to do is understand what the Bible means by this >> teaching, not deny that the Bible teaches it. Judy wrote: > The Bible does not teach this, Yes it does. 1Pe 3:21 The 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: Judy wrote: > the rcc teaches it because in this way THEY can control > who is and who is is not saved. Salvation is either by > baptism or by faith through grace - it cannot be both. Baptism is simply a vehicle whereby one expresses faith in Christ. Your allegation that it cannot be both doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that most cars run by gasoline or by a piston, but it cannot be both. David Miller wrote: >> ... 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: (1 Peter 3:21 KJV) Judy wrote: > The above is preceded by "The like figure whereunto..." > which you left off and this is imagery. You are confusing the matter. The "figure" of baptism is how Noah and his family were saved by water. There is a type and antitype here. The type or figure is Noah's salvation by water, and the antitype is water baptism and our salvation. Just because water baptism has an Old Testament shadow or type does not negate that Peter said very plainly that baptism saves us. To argue such would be like trying to say that because the Passover lamb is a type of Christ, then Christ does not save us because "this is imagery." Judy wrote: > Ephesians 5:26 says "that he might sanctify and cleanse > it (the Church) by the washing of water by the Word" so > 1 Peter 3:21 should be understood in this context, that > is, without a good conscience toward God which is by faith > which comes by hearing God's Word, all baptism will do > is wash away the filth of the flesh. No doubt we agree that baptism without faith is just washing away the filth of the flesh. However, baptism done in faith washes away sins. Do not deny the Scriptures because of the popular teachings of men. The Scriptures teach that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21). Judy wrote: > Another example from scripture is Acts 10:47,48 at the > house of Cornelius (a gentile). God poured out the Holy > Spirit on these gentiles and after Peter heard them speak > with tongues and magnify God he said: "Can any man forbid > water, that these should not be baptized which have received > the Holy Ghost as well as we?" and he commanded them to be > baptized in the name of the Lord. Wouldn't you think that > if baptism in and of itself would have saved these ppl Philip > and Peter would have baptized them first in both instances? Philip? I'm not sure why you mention Philip here. Peter did not understand that salvation had been extended to these people, so he did not baptize them first. However, once he saw the fruit of salvation upon them, being evidenced by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, then he readily ordered that they be brought forth into the waters of baptism. Since that time, new Gentile converts were instructed to make their profession of faith in Christ through water baptism. This is the way the early Christians did it. I realize that most Protestants do not do it this way (but some do). Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
