Baptist and Baptism

[Blik]

Our Lord uses symbols all through scripture to represent the spiritual to us who live in the flesh. We are told that we need not use certain symbols to lead us to the spiritual any longer such as fleshly circumcision and diet restrictions, but we are still to follow with other symbols and using water to represent purification is one of them.

Currently, our churches have abused the freedom we have from such as fleshly circumcision by using this freedom where it does not apply. What we do physically does reflect our spirit.

People abused that God gave fleshly rituals to help them understand the spiritual by obeying the rituals without using them to guide them to the spiritual. They understood the fleshly orders, but not the spiritual so God took them away. Now, people are going too far the other way, saying all the symbols we are still to use have no meaning, so they refuse to obey the Lord when we are told to use symbols such as water to symbolize cleaning.

 

[Sipsey]

Info for ROGERS FANS... i AM ALWAYS SUSPECT OF MEGA PREACHERS...except Billy Graham;

"Adrian Rogers, False Teacher

He sadly taught the following:

We’re talking about a person who has received Christ into his heart by faith, who has become a partaker of the divine nature, who has been twice born, who has received the new birth. This person can never, ever, ever again be a lost soul.

(How You Can Be Sure You Are Eternally Secure, audio-tape RA-1728, part 1, 8/1/93).



His statement is typical for a Southern Baptist “pastor”, which Adrian Rogers was. His doctrine implies that NO SIN, regardless what it may be, or becoming a heretic could ever produce spiritual death. This is wrong.



Here's another statement from the Southern Baptist Convention's homepage (which Adrian Rogers was the president of):



“All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

(http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp)..."

We

Preston39,

I studied he origins a few years back and did not remember baptism being considered “necessary “ for salvation by Baptist teachings. I just went back and restudied the issue going back to the early formation of its variants in the early 1600’s. There were some early adherents that “may” have taught that, but they never were in the majority and were a splintered group. I don’t know what variation of Baptist church you attended in the 60’s, but their beliefs pertaining to baptism were not the norm within mainstream Baptist church doctrine.

 

[Magenta]

Now, people are... saying all the symbols we are still to use have no meaning, so they refuse to obey the Lord when we are told to use symbols such as water to symbolize cleaning.

Who has said the symbols have no meaning?

 

[preston39]

The Biblical formula given was:
1. Repent
2. Believe
3. Be baptized

You may argue through assumption that the saved thief had been water baptized prior to his crucifixion, since many had been going to John the Baptist, but it is not stated whether he was or not, and we know he was not baptized after his confession of faith, before he died. Was John's a saving baptism? John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He stated that the One coming after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit. We know that because it is explicitly stated.

I opined......not assumed.
But, it certainly is not stated in scripture that He was not baptized.
The thief is not sufficient for or against baptism...(you are doing a little spin there I think) but, scripture is. See above quoted scriptures and debate them .....not the thief.

 

[preston39]

The scriptures nowhere say that.

You are wrong.
You can state ...no.... all you want..that has no bearing on the Bible language. If you are not going to stick with G-d's word we need not waste our time.

Please explain scriptures showing..... baptism is required.... I previously posted...a few posts back.

 

[Magenta]

I opined......not assumed.
But, it certainly is not stated in scripture that He was not baptized.
The thief is not sufficient for or against baptism...(you are doing a little spin there I think) but, scripture is. See above quoted scriptures and debate them .....not the thief.

I did not say you assumed. I was speaking to whether Scripture says the thief was water baptized or not, prior to his crucifixion. Fact of the matter is, which I already stated, we do not know. We do know he was not water baptized before he died following his confession of faith. He started out not believing in Jesus, so would a prior baptism devoid of faith or belief have been acceptable? I think not. God desires those who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Merely going through the motions does not qualify.

 

[preston39]

The book of Acts presents a TRANSITIONAL PERIOD where there were exceptions to the rule. But the truth of the matter is that Holy Spirit baptism PRECEDES water baptism.

Here is the Scripture passage that gives us THE TRUE SEQUENCE on events:

EPHESIANS 1
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

FIRST THE GOSPEL IS PREACHED
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation:...

THEN SAVING FAITH IS GENERATED
...in whom also after that ye believed...

THEN THE BAPTISM AND SEALING WITH THE SPIRIT TAKES PLACE
...ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance...

THEN ULTIMATE PERFECTION AND GLORIFICATION
...until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

You can not use Holy Spirit baptism to justify no baptism or baptism.
They are separate ...to be discussed later...new title..perhaps.

 

[preston39]

I did not say you assumed. I was speaking to whether Scripture says he was water baptized or not, prior to his crucifixion. Fact of the matter is, which I already stated, we do not know. We do know he was not water baptized following his confession of faith. He started out not believing in Jesus, so would a prior baptism devoid of faith or belief have been acceptable? I think not. God desires those who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Merely going through the motions does not qualify.

You are spinning.....obviously he was not following confession...since He was on a cross. That is the spin you are attempting....it doesn't work.

If you wish...drop the thief and discuss quoted scriptures I posted earlier, et al.

 

[preston39]

Our Lord uses symbols all through scripture to represent the spiritual to us who live in the flesh. We are told that we need not use certain symbols to lead us to the spiritual any longer such as fleshly circumcision and diet restrictions, but we are still to follow with other symbols and using water to represent purification is one of them.

Currently, our churches have abused the freedom we have from such as fleshly circumcision by using this freedom where it does not apply. What we do physically does reflect our spirit.

People abused that God gave fleshly rituals to help them understand the spiritual by obeying the rituals without using them to guide them to the spiritual. They understood the fleshly orders, but not the spiritual so God took them away. Now, people are going too far the other way, saying all the symbols we are still to use have no meaning, so they refuse to obey the Lord when we are told to use symbols such as water to symbolize cleaning.

Amen! Well said.
Currently...recently,,,Andy Stanley stated that we are not bound by G-d's commandments...they don't apply to us.
What a pile of male bovine residue that is. No doubt he is setting the stage for a book. LOL
If that be true...what standard am I to apply to determine if I am righteous? Geesscch!!!

 

[Magenta]

You are spinning.....obviously he was not following confession...since He was on a cross. That is the spin you are attempting....it doesn't work.

If you wish...drop the thief and discuss quoted scriptures I posted earlier, et al.

Spinning? No, I am trying to reason with you. If water baptism was a requirement for salvation, then the thief was not saved and you call Jesus a liar. You can try to dictate my participation, but you are not my boss, and I thank God for that

 

[Magenta]

Amen! Well said.
Currently...recently,,,Andy Stanley stated that we are not bound by G-d's commandments...they don't apply to us.
What a pile of male bovine residue that is. No doubt he is setting the stage for a book. LOL
If that be true...what standard am I to apply to determine if I am righteous? Geesscch!!!

You have no righteousness of your own. None of us do. We are covered by grace through faith in the shed righteous blood of Jesus.

 

[posthuman]

V.​

​

All mankind being thus fallen, and become altogether dead in sins and trespasses, and subject to the eternal wrath of the great God by transgression; yet the elect, which God has(1) loved with an everlasting love, are(2) redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, neither by their own works, lest any man should boast himself, but wholly and only by God of(3) His free grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that as it is written he that rejoices, let him rejoice in the Lord.​

​

1) Jer. 31:2
2) Gen 3:15; Eph. 1:3, 7; 2:4, 9; 1 Thes. 5:9; Acts 13:38
3) 1 Cor.5:21; Jer. 9:23, 24​

1644 Baptist confession of faith

 

[SpoonJuly]

How do you conclude the thief was not baptized?
He could have been and back slid. In any event
G-d can give special dispensation to anyone at any time any where.
The thief has ...0... to do with the Bible requiring baptism.

A feeble attempt at justification against specific Bible language requiring baptism....I submit.

According to Scripture, there is only one path to eternal life/salvation. Always has been.
If baptism was/is necessary for salvation, than ALL MUST but be baptized, no exceptions.
So any person who can not be baptized because of a medical condition, or because of any other reason beyond his control will just go to Hell. They have no hope.

This is false teaching

You are wrong.
You can state ...no.... all you want..that has no bearing on the Bible language. If you are not going to stick with G-d's word we need not waste our time.

Please explain scriptures showing..... baptism is required.... I previously posted...a few posts back.

Are there any exceptions ( in you opinion ) to baptism being necessary?

Have made several trips to the hospital in recent weeks and while there took opportunity to witness to many.
One man listened very intently, and after many questions and much prayer, He accepted Christ as his Savior.
This man will never be baptize because of medical reasons. He will never leave that hospital bed.

If what you are posting is true, than I lied to this man, wasted my time, because he will spend eternity in hell just because he can not be dunked in water.
What you believe is heresy.
God will never send a person to hell because he is not dunked in water.

 

[posthuman]

In light of research this seems to have occurred since 1960....(?).
Does anyone know of baptist association teachings, publications,writings,etc prior to 1960 which reflected that position.
I can find none.

XXV.​

​

That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,(1) is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a(2) sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made(3) a Prince and a Savior for such sinners.​

​

​

1) John 3:14, 15; 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37​

2) 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5; 5:8​

3) Acts 5:30-31; 2:36; 1 Cor. 1:22-24​

1644 Baptist Confession of Faith

 

[posthuman]

In light of research this seems to have occurred since 1960....(?).
Does anyone know of baptist association teachings, publications,writings,etc prior to 1960 which reflected that position.
I can find none.

XXVIII.​

​

That those which have union with Christ, are justified from all their sins, past,(1) present, and to come, by the blood of Christ; which justification we conceive to be a gracious and free(2) acquittance of a guilty, sinful creature, from all sin by God, through the satisfaction that Christ has made by His death; and this applied in the manifestation of it through faith.​

​

1) John 1:7; Heb 10:14; 9:26; 2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 3:23
2) Acts 13:38, 39; Rom. 5:1; 3:25, 30​

1644 Baptist Confession of Faith

 

[posthuman]

I have recently been made aware that the Baptist denomination has re-interpreted the Bible to say that baptism is not necessary for salvation, even though scripture says ...very clearly...it is required. In light of research this seems to have occurred since 1960....(?).
Does anyone know of baptist association teachings, publications,writings,etc prior to 1960 which reflected that position.
I can find none.

XXXIX.​

​

That Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized (Added later: "...and after to partake of the Lord's Supper.")​

​

Acts 2:37, 38; 8:36-38; 18:8​

XL.​

​

The way and manner of the(1) dispensing of this ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water: it being a sign, must answer the thing signified, which are these: first, the(2) washing the whole soul in the blood of Christ; secondly, that interest the saints have in(3) death, burial, and resurrection (of Christ) ; thirdly, together with a(4) confirmation of out faith, that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and rises again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints by raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ.​

​

1) Mat. 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38
2) Rev. 1:5; 7:14; Heb. 10:22
3) Rom. 6:3-5
4) 1 Cor. 15:28, 29​

1644 Baptist Confession of Faith

 

[posthuman]

I have recently been made aware that the Baptist denomination has re-interpreted the Bible to say that baptism is not necessary for salvation, even though scripture says ...very clearly...it is required. In light of research this seems to have occurred since 1960....(?).
Does anyone know of baptist association teachings, publications,writings,etc prior to 1960 which reflected that position.
I can find none.

i am wondering about some more specific explanation of what it is you did that you called 'research' ?
because none of what i posted was particularly difficult to find: the founder of the baptist denomination clearly thought & taught that baptism did not save, but was a symbol of a saving faith coupled with repentance, and this was the core of his argument against the baptism of children over which he split with the anglican church and formed the first baptist groups. this is in the early 1600's

in London in 1644 the beliefs of this new denomination were codified in a confession of faith -- 2 years before the westminster confession. in reading these it is very clear that they did not believe baptism saved, but believed that salvation was a matter solely of God's mercy, and involved no necessary preconditions, legally binding ordinances or ritual acts whatsoever, but being wholly and completely achieved through faith by the work of God alone. they believed that water baptism, as a symbol of what had already occurred in the regenerate man or woman, most certainly "ought" to be carried out but they did not consider it the means of grace nor the key to unlocking salvific mercy - to wit: neither necessary nor sufficient.

i am also wondering whether you are quite sure it was a baptist© or whether possibly it was a church of christ© church you were attending 60+ years ago? because baptismal regeneration is a coc thing, not a baptist thing, as i've demonstrated to you, going back 400 years, not just 40.
one of the early founders of the separatist movement ((which became the baptists, among other sects)) was Thomas Helwys, who was close to John Smyth, but who differed with him on a number of things - baptismal regeneration being one of them ((tho that made Helwys' position on infant baptism a wee bit self-contradictory)) -- through him is the theological legacy that passes through Armstrong and becomes the coc.

 

[garee]

That Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized (Added later: "...and after to partake of the Lord's Supper.")

Acts 2:37, 38; 8:36-38; 18:8

The water baptism according to the discussion in John 3:25 had to do with a Old Testament ceremonial law (shadow) administered by a Levi . Christ from the tribe of Judah (not eligible ) came as the High Priest of our calling after Melchizedek the New testament manner . it is a sign according to a person desire to become a member of the kingdom priesthood of believers . Christ set the example before he began his ministry sent out into the wilderness as our scapegoat

Its foundation is not found in the New testament. Where the idea comes form that it does confirm anything other than a desire, remains a mystery.

 

[posthuman]

what standard am I to apply to determine if I am righteous? Geesscch!!!

you think you have righteousness by comparing yourself to a standard?


it is truly like you said:

you need to study the Bible.

 

[dcontroversal]

Wrong...you can't change the clear Bible teaching. It is required.
See Matt., Mark, Acts, John, I Peter, etc.

No, it is not required for salvation and a watered down gospel that you are peddling has no power to save a flea.......faith is what saves a man......faith plus anything for salvation = false gospel straight from the pit!!