Saved by Water

[mailmandan]

I know that I know that I know that I am saved to the bone.

I know without a doubt that I am saved and have been saved ever since I placed my faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation several years ago. (Romans 4:5-6; 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..) Praise God!

Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed. (Romans 3:24-28)

1 John 5:11 - And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

We both don't agree on how we are saved so we can't both be right. One of us is deceived. Either we are trusting 100% in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation or else we are 100% lost.

 

[mailmandan]

I think that you also ought to consider the possibility that you have three fingers pointing back at you (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42).

And I say this not in order to return the insult but in the hope that the Lord might open your eyes to the truth.

My eyes were opened to the truth several years ago the very moment that I placed my faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and they remain open to this day. Prior to my conversion several years ago, while still attending the Roman Catholic, I was not trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, but was also trusting in "water baptism + other works" to save me when my eyes were still closed.

The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works (including water baptism) to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation. I pray that the Lord may open your eyes to the truth. So where do you attend church?

 

[Wansvic]

Do you sincerely want those Scripture?

WHAT JOHN THE BAPTIST SAID
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance (Mt 3:8)

WHAT CHRIST SAID
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Lk 24:47)

WHAT PETER SAID
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19)

WHAT PAUL SAID
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? (Rom 2:4)

So it should be clear that sins are forgiven when there is genuine repentance. This goes all the way back to the book of Jonah.

JONAH 3: HOW NINEVEH REPENTED AND WAS FORGIVEN
5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Repentance is necessary. However, it does not remit sin. As Jesus said in Luke 24:47 both repentance AND remission of sin would be preached in His name beginning in Jerusalem. That prophetic statement became a reality of the Day of Pentecost when Peter gave the following command, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sin..." (Acts 2:38)

 

[Evmur]

Is confessing the Lord Jesus with your mouth a work of righteousness, also? For it is something that we must do to be saved.

I totally agree that baptism is the no.1. way, God's ordained way. of testifying to the world that we have died and are buried with Christ and God has raised us up to walk in newness of life. But this still falls short of making it essential to salvation.

Baptism signifies it doe not save. We can testify without being baptised.

 

[mailmandan]

Repentance is necessary. However, it does not remit sin. As Jesus said in Luke 24:47 both repentance AND remission of sin would be preached in His name beginning in Jerusalem. That prophetic statement became a reality of the Day of Pentecost when Peter gave the following command, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sin..." (Acts 2:38)

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ implied in genuine repentance (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*

 

[Evmur]

Receiving the Holy Ghost is a different thing than receiving remission of sins. We need both. We need to be born of water and to be born of the Spirit. Baptized in water (which a man sent of God does) and baptized in the Holy Ghost (which only Jesus does).

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

How impossible it is for anyone to receive the Holy Spirit unless our sins are washed away. Baptism signifies that this has happened to us, that we are truly born again.

Baptism with water does not impart anything to us.

 

[Evmur]

In Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water for repentance.. (NASB) Now was this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance? (which makes no sense at all) or was this baptism for "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Obviously the latter. So water baptism does not obtain repentance or the remission of sins, but is done "in regards to/on the basis of" remission of sins received upon repentance. It's the same in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. This baptism was for "in regards to/on the basis of" remission of sins received upon repentance.

Luke 24:47 - and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 5:31 - Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life." This was prior to receiving water baptism. (Acts 10:43-47)

100%

 

[Wansvic]

SophieT said:
you have been presented with every scripture that refutes your false beliefs

His eyes are as tightly closed as the other poster's are.

Actually his eyes are open. (John3:3-5)

 

[mailmandan]

Actually his eyes are open. (John3:3-5)

There those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.

If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Bible says................. no one has seen God and if we did we must surely die.
Therefore, as Christ on earth we did not see God...we saw Christ.

Whoeever saw Christ, saw the Father (John 14:7-11).

 

[justbyfaith]

I know without a doubt that I am saved and have been saved ever since I placed my faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation several years ago. (Romans 4:5-6; 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..) Praise God!

Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed. (Romans 3:24-28)

1 John 5:11 - And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

We both don't agree on how we are saved so we can't both be right. One of us is deceived. Either we are trusting 100% in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation or else we are 100% lost.

I am trusting 100% in Jesus and what He did for me on the Cross.

My baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins is an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection; and as such, it is a confession of Jesus Christ before men.

As the result, Jesus will confess me before the Father and before the holy angels (Matthew 10:32, Luke 12:8).

No doubt, you have also confessed Jesus before men. More power to you.

Have you received remission of sins?

What verse tells you that you have received the remission of sins and on what basis?

I would contend that the blood is in the water of baptism (compare Acts 2:38 to Hebrews 9:22).

That we appropriate the blood through being baptized in Jesus' Name.

But you have no reason to argue with this since you have been baptized in Jesus' Name...

You just don't believe that the experience was salvation to you.

But it was salvation to you whether you believe it or not.

And if you have only been baptized in titles, then all of the arguing back and forth only serves to give you a false assurance. If I am right and you are wrong, then you need to be baptized in Jesus' Name. So why not just do it instead of being stubborn by arguing with a spirit of debate?

Because there is a distinct possibility that I am right and you are wrong.

Are you going to gamble your eternity on the concept that you are right on this issue?

If you are wrong, then you lose out on the gamble and will perish eternally because of it.

I know...I am saying that the way to life is narrower than you previously thought...and that means that certain people that you know and love and care about won't make it in unless you convert and also convince them to convert to what I am preaching to you.

But is it not worth it to not take any chances?

Again, pascal's wager.

 

[justbyfaith]

To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.

Then why not be identified with it by being baptized in His name for the remission of sins?

 

[justbyfaith]

I totally agree that baptism is the no.1. way, God's ordained way. of testifying to the world that we have died and are buried with Christ and God has raised us up to walk in newness of life. But this still falls short of making it essential to salvation.

Baptism signifies it doe not save. We can testify without being baptised.

And of course I am not purporting that baptism in Jesus' Name is essential to salvation.

I am saying that there is a conditional promise in Acts 2:38-39 and that if we fulfill the condition, we will receive the promise.

 

[justbyfaith]

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So the only logical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ implied in genuine repentance (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*

Of course in teaching this you are gambling on eternity...if you are wrong then baptism is for the remission of sins as it is also written in Acts 22:16. So, you have to butcher both verses the same way in order to keep your theology.

 

[justbyfaith]

There those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.

If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

It is expedient to take "water" in John 3:5 literally as being the waters of baptism.

 

[Duckybill]

No doubt, MANY have been truly Christians who haven't been baptized!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument:

"If I live a good life and then find there is no afterlife, that's still ok.

If I live a bad life and go to hell, that's not ok.

It would be a better idea to live a good life (just in case.)"

-Pascal's Wager

Thanks. I'll stick with Scripture. I have eternal life based on faith in Christ (John 5:24), so I will never perish (John 10:28).

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Hm. They walked across the sea bed "on dry ground". Nary a drop of water. However, the Egyptian army were fully immersed in the Red Sea and they all were killed. Hm.

Similar to flood in Noah's day.

Correct! Two examples of getting fully dunked and being killed by the dunking.

But, sadly, even how Paul described the Exodus generation as being "baptized in the sea" seems not to faze them.

It was an ACTUAL or REAL baptism or identification. They stayed with Moses and were identified with Him.

Water baptism is a RITUAL baptism. One is identified with Christ through the symbol of water baptism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
I guess you really don't understand how contradicted you are here.

First you say you don't deny "there are two Persons".

Then you end with "they are the same Person".

So, you claim that "two Persons" are "the same Person".

I'll just let that sink in for a while.

Has it not been said that the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible?

Don't try to change the subject and DODGE my point.

I don't think the Trinity is in ANY WAY "incomprehensible". That's just an excuse for those who can't or won't think deeply.

I have no problem understanding that there are 3 separate Persons who ALL have the exact same characteristics, attributes. That isn't even difficult to grasp.

Your theory cannot explain how 1 Person can sit at the "right hand of the Almighty". Huh? It takes 2 Persons to do that.

And it takes 2 Persons for one in heaven to speak to the other on earth.

In fact, it is ridiculous to view one Person praying to Himself. Jesus the Son prayed to His Father just before the crucifixion. He not only asked for something specific, but noted "not MY will, but YOURS be done".

If that is 1 Person talking to Himself, we have a very mental Savior.

And all you can do in defense is hide behind what "has been said" about the Trinity being incomprehensible.

I don't care who has said that. They just aren't thinking very deeply or at all. Just a bogus claim.

The same logic can be used when we consider that we have one God in three Persons.

You mean the same STUPID logic? No thanks.

How is He one God if He is three Persons?

Let me repeat: all 3 Persons have the exact same characteristics and attributes. They are co-equal. That is not deep at all. And it fully explains what your theory cannot explain and must hide behind the excuse of "incomprehensibility". Nonsense.

Is God not a Person, who identifies Himself as "I" (for example, Malachi 3:6)?

All 3 members of the Trinity are Persons. And they talk to each other, and sit beside each other. Your theory cannot comprehend that.

Can you answer me that?

And if you use Isaiah 55:10-11 to explain your viewpoint, I will just say that the same passage can be used to explain mine.

I don't need that passage. I have given you clear examples of the total nonsense of God being 1 Person.

It takes 2 people to talk to each other (unless you think talking to oneself isn't mental), and 2 people to sit beside each other.

And Jesus asking His Father (that DEMANDS 2 People) to remove the cup, but then saying "not MY will, but YOURS be done" absolutely proves they are separate Persons.

Again, a father cannot be his own son.
A son cannot be his own father.

Maybe in an insane world. But not in the real world. God is not insane. He does not talk to Himself. He talks to the other members of the Trinity or Godhead.

What you may think about it doesn't matter. The examples in Scripture prove they are separate and all you can do is mumble something about being "incomprehensible".

Maybe for you that is true, but not for me.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You have the same confusion in thinking that two Persons can be one God; and yet not be the same Person / God.

It is your own thinking that is totally incomprehensible. That's all.