Saved by Water

[peldom10]

I don't "brush off" any verse. I explain them. It's up to each believer to have the discernment to understand the verse.

Water baptism is a symbol for our identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. That's what it is. 1 Peter 3:21 says it is a symbol. Go to biblehub.com and see the 28 English translations and just count now many have "symbol" in it.

All dry baptisms are real identifications. Like the Israelites being baptized INTO Moses, and IN the sea. (They didn't get wet. Ask the Egyptian army their experience with immersion!)

All wet baptisms are symbols of being identified with something else.

I suggest you stay with scriptures;

Baptism is Required


Peter 3: 21.... 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:


John 3:5 .......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.


Acts 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.

Acts 22;16... And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Roman 6;3.... Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Galations 3:26...... For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Mark16;16.... He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.....




Many others

 

[KelbyofGod]

That is not the biblical understanding. You are correct that to be indwelt means that the Holy Spirit is IN every believer.

However, to be filled is a command, not an amount. The whole Holy Spirit is IN each believer. The issue is whether the believer is being filled or not.

So, let's examine the command to be filled:

Eph 5:18 - Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit,

So, we see a comparison here. Don't be "filled with wine" but instead be "filled with the Spirit".

What does wine to to people when consumed to excess? It changes them. It INFLUENCES them.

The same is true of the filling of the Holy Spirit. When good deeds are done when FILLED with the Spirit, the works are worthy of God's reward. But, otoh, when good deeds are done in the power of the flesh they are odious to God. Jer 64:6 - All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

The red words in "filthy rags" actually refers to used menstrual rags in that verse.

Unbelievers, even atheists, are able to produce good deeds from their will power. And all that offends God.

Even believers can produce good deeds from their will power. And all that offends God.

ONLY when the believer is filled with the Spirit are the good deeds (fruit of the Spirit) acceptable to God and rewardable.

So, now the question: how is the believer filled with the Spirit?

I like the beginning of that explanation because it sounds good, but at least one of the base premises is a wrong assumption. And it only takes one scriptural example to highlight it.

Here's the faulty premise that you presented...:

Unbelievers, even atheists, are able to produce good deeds from their will power. And all that offends God.

And the scriptural example that shows it is wrong is Cornelius in Acts 10. Please pay close attention to the last half of verse 4.

Acts 10:1-5 KJV

There was a certain man in Cæsarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, [2] A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. [3] He saw in a vision... an angel of God ... saying unto him, Cornelius. [4] And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. [5] And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:​

Acts 10:34-35 KJV
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

And skipping down to the end of the chapter we see that it ends well for Cornelius:

Acts 10:44-48 KJV

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.​

His alms deeds were accepted before he received the Holy Ghost... which goes against that suggested premise.

Love in Jesus to those reading the thread,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

I guess I could/should have included this other foundational statement in the false category when comparing it to the Cornelius account.

ONLY when the believer is filled with the Spirit are the good deeds (fruit of the Spirit) acceptable to God and rewardable.

Acts 10:4 KJV
...Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
Acts 10:35 KJV
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Acts 10:44 KJV
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

 

[SophieT]

he has a major reading comprehension problem.

yah think?

 

[FreeGrace2]

These which you have seen posted on this thread (convenient posturing....LOL);

Baptism is Required
Peter 3: 21.... 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:

OK, one more time. I'm going to address each of these abused verses.

Notice the red words in 1 Peter 3:21. They refer to WATER baptism. Water is used to remove dirt from skin. And the verse says NOT water. So, the baptism that does NOW save us refers to baptism of the Holy Spirit.

What you guys ignore or reject is what John the baptizer said:

Mark 1:8 - I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

John's baptism was symbolic and used water. Jesus' baptism was REAL and was dry. The indwelling Holy Spirit is a real and dry baptism.

John 3:5 .......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.

Tired. "born of water" means physical birth, while "born of the Spirit" means spiritual birth or regeneration.

Acts 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.

The crowd had already realized their sin from v.37. They were convicted by the fact that they HAD crucified the Messiah. So that means they were ALREADY SAVED when Peter stated v.38.

Acts 22;16... And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Paul had 3 days to meditate on having met the Messiah. By the time Ananias showed up, Paul already knew that the resurrected Jesus WAS the Messiah. He was ALREADY SAVED.

Roman 6;3.... Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Being baptized "into Jesus Christ" would refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, who places believers "in Him" or in union with Him as Eph 1:13 says. And "baptized into His death" would refer to the symbolic meaning of water baptism.

Galations 3:26...... For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Very clearly a reference to baptism of the Holy Spirit. Mark 1:8

Mark16;16.... He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.....

First, scholars note that the text from v.9-20 isn't found in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, which means those verses were ADDED later on by scribes. Therefore, NOT inspired. However, that said, we do NOT know the scribe's thoughts about what he wrote. He could have easily been thinking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Many others

ditto, ditto, ditto.

You've made no points here. In fact, just the opposite by failure to "rightly divide the Word of God", per 2 Tim 2:15.

Paul made a clear point about NOT being sent to baptize but to preach. Your view demands baptism along with preaching.

Your view is unbiblical. As easily shown.

 

[Gideon300]

We clearly know that water cannot save anyone. Water baptism was a representation of what the Lord would do.. baptize us with the Holy Spirit.

It's interesting, however, to witness people trying to justify this position. To even imagine and unrepentant sinner could be forgiven if you dunk him/her in water is beyond the pale. Let's just water baptize the whole world and everyone will be forgiven. Problem solved. Not.

.

It's just another contentious and pointless argument from people who do not believe God's word. Some Christians seem hell bent on making a work out of something that is God's gift. People need to remember what Lord Jesus said. Some will say, "Lord, Lord, didn't we....." and go on to boast about what they have done. My only boast is in the Lord Jesus and what He has done. The rich young ruler adopted the same position, "What must I do......?" Those who imagine that salvation is keeping God's commandments need to note that the rich young ruler kept them, but was still not accepted by Jesus.

If water baptism was instituted by man, it is just a ritual that can and should be completely disregarded.
If water baptism was instituted at the mouth of God, then it becomes important to understand what it is meant to accomplish.
If water baptism was instituted by God AND is for remission of sins as Acts 2:38, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3 and others suggest, then it is truly a matter of salvation.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Before you make such sweeping statements, you should know that there are two salvations. Being born again requires only that you receive Christ, hence the thief on the cross could be saved. The second salvation is the salvation of the soul. It is progressive, unlike being born again, which is instantaneous. A lot of people die before they are in a position to be baptised. God is not going to reject them because they did not get wet. It's good and right to be baptised. It most assuredly is not necessary to be baptised in order to be born again.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not peldom10...THE BIBLE says it is required for sin repentance and forgiveness;
Baptism is Required

I've already shown from Acts 10:43 that forgiveness is based on faith in Christ.
"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Why don't you believe this verse? The few verses that mention repentance and forgiveness are specific to the people being addressed.

Paul NEVER wrote that water baptism is required for salvation. And the context for the few verses you keep quoting do NOT mention salvation, so you are only speculating about it.

Peter 3: 21.... 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:

Addressed in previous post.

John 3:5 .......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.

Physical and spiritual birth.

Acts 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.

Acts 22;16... And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

These are the ONLY 2 verses that mentions repentance and sin cleansing. And the context is specific to the addressees. Not for everyone in the human race.

Roman 6;3.... Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Galations 3:26...... For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

It is amazing that you refuse to accept the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus. You simply lack discernment and the ability to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I like the beginning of that explanation because it sounds good

The criteria isn't about what "sounds good" but what agrees with Scripture. False teaching tickles the ears. Be careful.

but at least one of the base premises is a wrong assumption. And it only takes one scriptural example to highlight it.

Here's the faulty premise that you presented...:

FreeGrace2 said:
Unbelievers, even atheists, are able to produce good deeds from their will power. And all that offends God.

How is this a faulty premise? Are you really so naive that you are totally unaware that many unbelievers are quite moral, obey the laws of the land and are kind to others? You need to get out more. Such naivety keeps your mind closed to reality.

And the scriptural example that shows it is wrong is Cornelius in Acts 10. Please pay close attention to the last half of verse 4.

Acts 10:1-5 KJV

There was a certain man in Cæsarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, [2] A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. [3] He saw in a vision... an angel of God ... saying unto him, Cornelius. [4] And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. [5] And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:​

Acts 10:34-35 KJV
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

And skipping down to the end of the chapter we see that it ends well for Cornelius:

Acts 10:44-48 KJV

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.​

His alms deeds were accepted before he received the Holy Ghost... which goes against that suggested premise.

How naive of you. It appears you never read ch 11 then.

This is what Cornelius relayed to Peter when he arrived at Cornelius' house.

13 He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter.
14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

In v.13 Cornelius explains why he sent for Peter. And angel from God told him to.

In v.14 the angel tells Cornelius how he and all his household "will be saved". Did you get that? Future tense of saved. iow, Cornelius was NOT saved when the angel visited him. And he wasn't saved UNTIL he heard the gospel message from Peter and believed it.

v.15 proves that Cornelius was saved WHILE Peter was preaching the gospel.

v.16 gives us the difference between the symbol of baptism, which is by water, AND the real baptism that saves, that being the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Read Mark 1:8 until it sinks in.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I guess I could/should have included this other foundational statement in the false category when comparing it to the Cornelius account.

FreeGrace2 said:
ONLY when the believer is filled with the Spirit are the good deeds (fruit of the Spirit) acceptable to God and rewardable.

Acts 10:4 KJV
...Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
Acts 10:35 KJV
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Acts 10:44 KJV
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

10:44 is noted in 11:15

You demonstrate a failure of discernment and "rightly diving the Word of Truth.

Cornelius was saved WHILE Peter was preaching the gospel. That is proven by the fact that Peter saw the evidence of the Holy Spirit in Him.

Cornelius wasn't water baptism UNTIL AFTER he received the Holy Spirit.

When Peter was explaining to the other Jews in Jerusalem why he visited a Gentile (verboten among Jews) he made NO comment about Cornelius being water baptized. But he did point out the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[KelbyofGod]

Before you make such sweeping statements, you should know that there are two salvations.

Two salvations? That's a new one to me. I'm not generally agreeing with it because I'd say that anything instant plus any/all things that take time are all part of the single and complete salvation God is offering us...And some people decide they only want part of it... BUT... there is also some wisdom in what you're saying because it acknowledges the FACT that "save, saves, saved" can be accurately used / applied to things other than "permanent, instantaneous, inescapable, New Testament salvation". And the Bible proves this to be the case with many examples.

Bible believing people who think "saved" has only one "permanent-instantaneous-inescapable-New-Testament-salvation meaning are deceived in that area and likely don't realize how dangerous that deception is.

I may also disagree with some of the other parts of your post, but i appreciate it and consider it as being shared with good will.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[FreeGrace2]

Gideon300 said:
Before you make such sweeping statements, you should know that there are two salvations.

Two salvations? That's a new one to me. I'm not generally agreeing with it because I'd say that anything instant plus any/all things that take time are all part of the single and complete salvation God is offering us...And some people decide they only want part of it... BUT... there is also some wisdom in what you're saying because it acknowledges the FACT that "save, saves, saved" can be accurately used / applied to things other than "permanent, instantaneous, inescapable, New Testament salvation". And the Bible proves this to be the case with many examples.

Bible believing people who think "saved" has only one "permanent-instantaneous-inescapable-New-Testament-salvation meaning are deceived in that area and likely don't realize how dangerous that deception is.

I may also disagree with some of the other parts of your post, but i appreciate it and consider it as being shared with good will.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

One could easily argue that there are three salvations.

It's all in the tenses.

 

[KelbyofGod]

Cornelius was saved WHILE Peter was preaching the gospel.

Your statement earlier was that a person's deeds could NOT be accepted by God until AFTER a person is "saved"... Yet, in this quote, you are stating that Cornelius "was saved WHILE Peter was preaching the gospel". But His deeds were accepted by God BEFORE Peter preached to him. Your doctrine says that's impossible. That makes your doctrine faulty. (Not ALL your doctrines, but definitely the one about God not accepting good deeds from the unsaved) Are you able to acknowledge that error and move past it?

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

BTW, this thread is not a battle of one person against another. It's us against errant or incomplete doctrines, of which we all have at least a few. Whoever says otherwise is like that man that says he has not sinned.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[HisKid]

BTW, this thread is not a battle of one person against another. It's us against errant or incomplete doctrines, of which we all have at least a few. Whoever says otherwise is like that man that says he has not sinned.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

What are your errant and incomplete doctrines?

 

[KelbyofGod]

What are your errant and incomplete doctrines?

Somehow I knew someone would ask that. I almost dismissed it as slightly absurd like the question of "On what will you trip next?" BUT, in thinking further I have a LOT of incomplete and possibly errant doctrines. For example:

It seems that some things existed before the creation... Like wisdom, perhaps the angels, and God himself. So it SEEMS reasonable that there is an amount of TIME before the creation began. But my doctrine is possibly errant or incomplete at least in the following ways:

1. TIME might not be the appropriate word.
2. Even if TIME IS the appropriate word, I don't know what quantity of time it is.

That is an example of only one of my incomplete doctrines that I recognize could ALREADY contain an error.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

@HisKid Now I have a question for you. Are you able to see my answer as showing honesty and wisdom... or do you only see evil?

Because if you only see a person as speaking evil, it is hard for that person to share wisdom, no matter how much they have or how honestly they share it.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your statement earlier was that a person's deeds could NOT be accepted by God until AFTER a person is "saved"... Yet, in this quote, you are stating that Cornelius "was saved WHILE Peter was preaching the gospel". But His deeds were accepted by God BEFORE Peter preached to him. Your doctrine says that's impossible. That makes your doctrine faulty. (Not ALL your doctrines, but definitely the one about God not accepting good deeds from the unsaved) Are you able to acknowledge that error and move past it?

You simply miss the point. When I discussed deeds that "were acceptable" to God, I was referring to what God rewards. And those rewards are what will be given in eternity. See Rev 22:12.

I was making the point that good deeds done in the flesh (presumably to impress God) don't. Only a believer who performs good deeds in the power of the Holy Spirit will be rewarded.

Cornelius isn't even about that. He is the example of how ALL people should respond to what God has done, according to Rom 1:19-21.

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

OK, what's this all about? God has revealed Himself to mankind, so that no one has any excuse for not glorifying Him as God or giving thanks to Him.

Cornelius, as an unsaved man, DID recognize Him as Creator God, and DID glorify Him through prayers and gave thanks to Him by giving alms to the poor.

He was doing all that he was able to do in fulfilling Rom 1:19-21, even though he never read the passage.

And God, as always, provides more info when info is being sought out.

Cornelius was giving God honor in the only way he could. And God gave him the gospel.

When people actively seek out God, God gives them the info they need.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about Rom 3:10. That verse is a direct quote from Isa 14:1-3 and 53:1-3. The context involves atheists who deny the existence of God. That is who doesn't seek God.

Rom 3:10 does NOT describe every human being in history.

 

[rayzor]

You simply miss the point. When I discussed deeds that "were acceptable" to God, I was referring to what God rewards. And those rewards are what will be given in eternity. See Rev 22:12.

I was making the point that good deeds done in the flesh (presumably to impress God) don't. Only a believer who performs good deeds in the power of the Holy Spirit will be rewarded.

Cornelius isn't even about that. He is the example of how ALL people should respond to what God has done, according to Rom 1:19-21.

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

OK, what's this all about? God has revealed Himself to mankind, so that no one has any excuse for not glorifying Him as God or giving thanks to Him.

Cornelius, as an unsaved man, DID recognize Him as Creator God, and DID glorify Him through prayers and gave thanks to Him by giving alms to the poor.

He was doing all that he was able to do in fulfilling Rom 1:19-21, even though he never read the passage.

And God, as always, provides more info when info is being sought out.

Cornelius was giving God honor in the only way he could. And God gave him the gospel.

When people actively seek out God, God gives them the info they need.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about Rom 3:10. That verse is a direct quote from Isa 14:1-3 and 53:1-3. The context involves atheists who deny the existence of God. That is who doesn't seek God.

Rom 3:10 does NOT describe every human being in history.

will not true:Seem like any one could have a good because of god.

 

[rayzor]

the only reason any one can enjoy life is because of god the good the bad the ugly

 

[HisKid]

Somehow I knew someone would ask that. I almost dismissed it as slightly absurd like the question of "On what will you trip next?" BUT, in thinking further I have a LOT of incomplete and possibly errant doctrines. For example:

It seems that some things existed before the creation... Like wisdom, perhaps the angels, and God himself. So it SEEMS reasonable that there is an amount of TIME before the creation began. But my doctrine is possibly errant or incomplete at least in the following ways:

1. TIME might not be the appropriate word.
2. Even if TIME IS the appropriate word, I don't know what quantity of time it is.

That is an example of only one of my incomplete doctrines that I recognize could ALREADY contain an error.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

It seems to you that perhaps God Himself existed before everything He created? Yes, that is definitely errant. There is no perhaps involved there. Where do you think everything came from in the first place?