Baptism

[Cameron143]

Cameron, thank you for your reply. I also agree that we are entirely corrupted by sin. I believe all humans are bound to sin, dead in their sin and incapable of saving themselves. There are none righteous, not even one. However, the theological term “total depravity” speaks to more than just that. It speaks to the idea, as you indicated, that a person cannot even believe the Gospel. I dont think the Bible teaches this at all. Using the phrase “dead in sins” as a catalyst to suggest that sinners cannot believe without God making them believe, I think is a leap the Bible does not make.

I‘m fine with your analogy that you can know things about George Washington but can’t know him relationally because you he is dead. But what I think you are discounting is that God wants us to know Him and the Gospel has sufficient power such that those dead in their sins can hear it. Paul puts it this way,



The Gospel is the Word of God and the power of God to save sinners. God does not have to cause people to believe His Word. It has sufficient power to speak to sinners.

So, let‘s assume for a moment your interpretation is correct. How do you reconcile the notion that God wants all men to be saved, yet He must first quicken the dead so that they will respond and believe? So if a ”whole man” is not dealt with by God, and they cannot believe as a result, then would you argue he does not want all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth? Put in another way, if someone cannot know God relationally (like George Washington) because they are dead, then would it not be up to God to want them to know him relationally?

You are breaching another subject...what is included in desire? Does desire require an action to be a desire?
Let's suppose I want to go on a vacation and I desire my family to come? Do I need to pay for their vacation for my desire to be genuine?
In like manner, we know God desires all to be saved. Does this necessitate on God's part any action for His desire to be genuine?
The way one answers this question will inevitably shape their belief.
As far as depravity goes, there are some that believe various things concerning what total depravity means. And some do believe people are unable to respond to God. I don't believe this, but I do believe the corruption of every aspect of man does render him unable to respond to God on a spiritual level. Since God is spirit, this aspect of man needs to be restored before, not after, a relationship with God can come to fruition.

 

[Cameron143]

The words I have in bold you are referring to. The words literally say, “not from (out of) works/deeds.“. The word ergon is the Greek word for works. As mentioned in my previous comment, the pronoun (touto) is neuter so it cannot be referring to faith.

If I were to diagram the sentence it would look like this…

For you have been saved.
by grace
through faith
This not out of your own works

So, the focus of the sentence is that we have been saved and that salvation is not of our doing. It comes by grace, through faith so that no one can boast.

Is the Gospel the power of God to save us, or does God save us that we might hear the Gospel? I believe the Bible teaches the former, not the latter

Since faith is produced by hearing and hearing by the word of God, the word produces the hearing...not of ourselves. Thus hearing isn't physical hearing, but spiritual hearing or understanding. It is this understanding or hearing that produces faith or belief...again, not our doing.
We already exist in a state of unbelief. If God doesn't open our spiritual ears and eyes, how will we understand and perceive?
I had an interesting conversation earlier today with another poster. The subject was choosing. I contended that we always choose based on what we believe. That is, it isn't our choices that lead to our beliefs, but our beliefs that always undergirds our behavior or choices. And that this is why we are saved through faith, because what we believe always governs our behavior. If you change an individual's belief, you inevitably change his response.

 

[Chaps]

You are breaching another subject...what is included in desire? Does desire require an action to be a desire?
Let's suppose I want to go on a vacation and I desire my family to come? Do I need to pay for their vacation for my desire to be genuine?
In like manner, we know God desires all to be saved. Does this necessitate on God's part any action for His desire to be genuine?
The way one answers this question will inevitably shape their belief.
As far as depravity goes, there are some that believe various things concerning what total depravity means. And some do believe people are unable to respond to God. I don't believe this, but I do believe the corruption of every aspect of man does render him unable to respond to God on a spiritual level. Since God is spirit, this aspect of man needs to be restored before, not after, a relationship with God can come to fruition.

Youre going to have to explain this concept more to me, because as it stands, I dont understand it. So, as I understand it, (correct me if I am wrong) you hold to the following:

1) God desires all to be saved.
2) All men are dead in their sins and unable to respond to the Gospel of God’s grace and salvation.
3) God quickens people to hear, cut to the heart, and capable of responding to the Gospel.
4) God does not quicken all people but only the elect.

So the connection I am not making is how is it God can desire all to be saved, but not quicken all? I visualize it like this…. Imagine I have a room full of people dying of thirst who have shackled themselves to a wall. In the middle of the room are thousands of glasses of water. I am a person of compassion and love and desire all of them to have a drink so they can live. I also have the keys to their shackles. How can I say I desire all of them to be saved and have a drink but only unshackle specific ones? Wouldn’t that “desire” be disingenuous if I had the capability of freeing them but chose not to? What am I missing?

As I see it, total depravity is a pretty clear cut theological concept. It means a person is totally depraved and incapable of responding in any way to God’s love and grace. However, how God acts upon the totally depraved is one area where some differ. Some believe God only saves the elect (predetermination) and causes them to hear and respond to the Gospel in His sovereignty. Those God elects will most certainly believe because God is sovereign and He has unconditionally chosen them and this grace is irresistible because man cannot resist His predetermined will. Others believe God moves upon the hearers of the Gospel with prevenient grace that enables them to respond, but this grace can be rejected or resisted. So the concept of total depravity for those who adhere to the doctrine, is the same, but how God moves upon the totally depraved is different in these cases.

I apologize if it seems I am switching subjects, but I am just addressing your statements about the concept of being “dead in sins” and the implications of viewing saving faith as a “gift” from God. If the ability to hear the gospel and the faith to recieve it is a gift, then the ultimate determining factor for salvation for an individual is God’s decision to grant them this gift…or not. I hope that makes sense.

I just also would like to say, I know we have different views on this, but I appreciate your kind approach to the topic and cordial discussion. I wish more Christians could disagree without becoming disagreeable

 

[Chaps]

Since faith is produced by hearing and hearing by the word of God, the word produces the hearing...not of ourselves. Thus hearing isn't physical hearing, but spiritual hearing or understanding. It is this understanding or hearing that produces faith or belief...again, not our doing.
We already exist in a state of unbelief. If God doesn't open our spiritual ears and eyes, how will we understand and perceive?
I had an interesting conversation earlier today with another poster. The subject was choosing. I contended that we always choose based on what we believe. That is, it isn't our choices that lead to our beliefs, but our beliefs that always undergirds our behavior or choices. And that this is why we are saved through faith, because what we believe always governs our behavior. If you change an individual's belief, you inevitably change his response.

I think you are omitting the context of the verse you are quoting. Paul‘s point is “how beautiful are the feet of those who share Good News.” The point is that the Gospel must be preached for people to hear and be saved. It’s not that the Gospel forces people to hear and be saved (if they are elect) but that people cannot be saved apart from the preaching of the Gospel. Again, I think these verses point to the power of the Gospel to save and why Paul was not ashamed to preach it, even though he was heavily persecuted for doing so.

So in answer to your question: God opens our spiritual eyes and ears by having the Gospel preached to us. The Gospel itself is the power of God to save people. God does not have to go before and make people alive prior to hearing the Gospel. It is faith in the power of the Gospel that does that. Yet, people can, and often do, resist and reject the truth. And that guilt falls on them for not believing. It is not because God has not permitted them to believe.

 

[obertarti]

Men do not spiritually baptize others. Plus, baptism existed before John's baptism.

17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

In the name of Christ

If in the region not exist person filled with the Holy Spirit it is not possible to receive Spirit

 

[obertarti]

The words I have in bold you are referring to. The words literally say, “not from (out of) works/deeds.“. The word ergon is the Greek word for works. As mentioned in my previous comment, the pronoun (touto) is neuter so it cannot be referring to faith.

If I were to diagram the sentence it would look like this…

For you have been saved.
by grace
through faith
This not out of your own works

So, the focus of the sentence is that we have been saved and that salvation is not of our doing. It comes by grace, through faith so that no one can boast.

Is the Gospel the power of God to save us, or does God save us that we might hear the Gospel? I believe the Bible teaches the former, not the latter

Receiving the Holy Spirit saving spirit of one but still to be saved should be soul and body

Soul saved being baptized into Christ -redressing

Body when changed

 

[obertarti]

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.


Peter Water Baptized these Gentiles in the Name of Jesus. You clearly do not understand verses 47-48.

I understand the bible not one action of apostle

You do not understand prophesy of John like apostle Peter

Why for Christ was needed apostle Paul instead of 12

Traditions were not giving them spiritual progress

It is development of the mystery of Christ and we should follow it

 

[obertarti]

Maybe I misread this.
Are you saying they were saved and filled with the Holy Spirit before being Water Baptized?

Their spirit was saved especially before water baptism
Salvation of the soul and body should be continued

The Holy Spirit showed by this that baptism in water not needed any more

 

[Cameron143]

Youre going to have to explain this concept more to me, because as it stands, I dont understand it. So, as I understand it, (correct me if I am wrong) you hold to the following:

1) God desires all to be saved.
2) All men are dead in their sins and unable to respond to the Gospel of God’s grace and salvation.
3) God quickens people to hear, cut to the heart, and capable of responding to the Gospel.
4) God does not quicken all people but only the elect.

So the connection I am not making is how is it God can desire all to be saved, but not quicken all? I visualize it like this…. Imagine I have a room full of people dying of thirst who have shackled themselves to a wall. In the middle of the room are thousands of glasses of water. I am a person of compassion and love and desire all of them to have a drink so they can live. I also have the keys to their shackles. How can I say I desire all of them to be saved and have a drink but only unshackle specific ones? Wouldn’t that “desire” be disingenuous if I had the capability of freeing them but chose not to? What am I missing?

As I see it, total depravity is a pretty clear cut theological concept. It means a person is totally depraved and incapable of responding in any way to God’s love and grace. However, how God acts upon the totally depraved is one area where some differ. Some believe God only saves the elect (predetermination) and causes them to hear and respond to the Gospel in His sovereignty. Those God elects will most certainly believe because God is sovereign and He has unconditionally chosen them and this grace is irresistible because man cannot resist His predetermined will. Others believe God moves upon the hearers of the Gospel with prevenient grace that enables them to respond, but this grace can be rejected or resisted. So the concept of total depravity for those who adhere to the doctrine, is the same, but how God moves upon the totally depraved is different in these cases.

I apologize if it seems I am switching subjects, but I am just addressing your statements about the concept of being “dead in sins” and the implications of viewing saving faith as a “gift” from God. If the ability to hear the gospel and the faith to recieve it is a gift, then the ultimate determining factor for salvation for an individual is God’s decision to grant them this gift…or not. I hope that makes sense.

I just also would like to say, I know we have different views on this, but I appreciate your kind approach to the topic and cordial discussion. I wish more Christians could disagree without becoming disagreeable

I also am thankful for your gracious manner of discourse. And I'm not against widening any discussion. Invariably a good discussion will branch out in many directions.
I generally don't use terms like election and predestination in my discussions of salvation. From a biblical perspective, I'm not opposed to doing so. They are biblical terms. From a practical perspective, they are hot button words and often lead to emotional responses rather than rational ones. I don't believe this is so with you, but in an open forum like this I hardly imagine you alone are reading through this thread.
You employ a very emotionally laden example designed to move the reader to compassion. I do believe it's an accurate depiction of what actually happens, in many regards. Helpless people have brought on their own destruction, and God alone is able to help. And the implication is that if he does not, how can He truly desire all men to be saved? I would offer an actual scenario. In the OT, God chose one nation out of all the nations of the earth to call His own. He does this purposefully to the exclusion of every other nation. Do you find God's desire for all mankind disingenuous because of this? Did God's desire that all be saved only begin with the onset of the new covenant? How do you reconcile God's desire and His actual behavior towards mankind?
As far as who made this choice, who was it? Did the nations have a say in this? To which nation does God say...come let us reason together? I read of only one. So it seems to me that God has always acted sovereignly in the affairs of men doing His good pleasure...Daniel 4:35. Noah found grace in the sight of the LORD...Genesis 6:8. And it has always been God who has initiated relationship with man and not the other way around.
So the question arises: is there unrighteousness with God? And the answer is found in Romans 9. And in my view, it is difficult for many to wrap their head around the idea that God is different than who they have believed He is. And the reason I believe is this: people can easily imagine that God is glorified in His exercise of love and mercy and grace, but stumble that He is equally glorified in the exercise of sovereignty and justice and vengeance.. It's not that they don't give intellectual assent to it, but believe that God's love will override His justice. But God's actual behavior says otherwise. 200,000 people die everyday. I imagine most die without the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, God hasn't unchained them from the wall.

 

[Cameron143]

I think you are omitting the context of the verse you are quoting. Paul‘s point is “how beautiful are the feet of those who share Good News.” The point is that the Gospel must be preached for people to hear and be saved. It’s not that the Gospel forces people to hear and be saved (if they are elect) but that people cannot be saved apart from the preaching of the Gospel. Again, I think these verses point to the power of the Gospel to save and why Paul was not ashamed to preach it, even though he was heavily persecuted for doing so.

So in answer to your question: God opens our spiritual eyes and ears by having the Gospel preached to us. The Gospel itself is the power of God to save people. God does not have to go before and make people alive prior to hearing the Gospel. It is faith in the power of the Gospel that does that. Yet, people can, and often do, resist and reject the truth. And that guilt falls on them for not believing. It is not because God has not permitted them to believe.

I would only add that God opening our spiritual ears and eyes is the imparting of life...quickening.

 

[Wansvic]

This is past before coming of the Holy Spirit

In house of Kornilius the Holy Spirit showed that baptism in the water not needed
Confirming what was said by John Baptist

Peter by tradition continued it

Each of the accounts happened AFTER the coming of the Holy Spirit. And the Apostle Paul was still water baptizing people in the name of Jesus over 20 years after Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-6)

 

[Wansvic]

Men do not spiritually baptize others. Plus, baptism existed before John's baptism.

OT washings differed from John's baptism. He introduced water baptism for remission of sins. The water baptism John preached was later modified to include the name of Jesus as it relates specifically to His death, burial and resurrection. Those believers of Jesus living in the NT are promised their sins will be washed away upon repentance and obedience to the command.

 

[Magenta]

OT washings differed from John's baptism. He introduced water baptism for remission of sin.

When priests were baptized it was a symbolic cleansing before they assumed their duties,
commanded by God. I don't really see that as being different. Water does not wash away
people's sins. Jesus certainly had no sins to wash away. His baptism fulfilled all righteous
because the law commanded priests be baptized, and Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of
the law. Baptism did not originate with Christians or with John. To add to what I have said,
I will include something GQ says: Jews practiced baptism as a traditional act of purification
and the initiation of converts to Judaism long before the coming of the Messiah.

 

[obertarti]

Each of the accounts happened AFTER the coming of the Holy Spirit. And the Apostle Paul was still water baptizing people in the name of Jesus over 20 years after Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-6)

Apostle Paul was not sent by God to baptize in water

This is the point

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Apostle Paul was not sent by God to baptize in water

This is the point

yes he was sent to suffer for Christ name sake, for being a naughty donkey he was made the donkey of burden.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Apostle Paul was not sent by God to baptize in water

This is the point

You know you shouldn't be mocking commandments and baptism

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

I understand the bible not one action of apostle

You do not understand prophesy of John like apostle Peter

Why for Christ was needed apostle Paul instead of 12

Traditions were not giving them spiritual progress

It is development of the mystery of Christ and we should follow it

None of what you say relates to my answer because I thought you claimed they did not Water Baptize the Gentiles in the example of Cornelius.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Their spirit was saved especially before water baptism
Salvation of the soul and body should be continued

The Holy Spirit showed by this that baptism in water not needed any more

Agreed, 2 Baptism's 1. Spirit, 2. Water

 

[obertarti]

You know you shouldn't be mocking commandments and baptism

You mocking not me

Comandment-receive the Holy Spirit

And baptism spiritual changing for water baprism

 

[obertarti]

None of what you say relates to my answer because I thought you claimed they did not Water Baptize the Gentiles in the example of Cornelius.

It is about priorities

Water baptism is allegorical sign to spiritual

Water to water of life

Christ died for that -to buy with his blood the Holy Spirit for everyone who believes and receives