[EIFS EXPERT]

The one about how we came to exist, and why we are here. I tend take the scientific approach to those type of questions.

[MoonlitWaves]

Do unborn babies that die in traffic accidents go to hell?

We do not have any passages that specifically tell us that anyone who does not understand salvation will go to heaven, but on the flip side, I have yet to see a passage that says they will go to hell. But there are a few things that are indications to most Christians, including me, that anyone who does not have the ability to understand what they must do to receive salvation will indeed go to heaven, like children and metally handicapped.

Perhaps the best indication of babies going to heaven is in 2 Samuel 12:21-23. David committed adultry and it resulted in a child. God sent the prophet Nathan to tell David that because of his sin God was going to take the child in death. This grieved David and so he began to fast and pray to God to spare his child. God took the child anyway and when the child died David stopped his grieving and fasting. This is where the scripture I am going to quote comes in at...

(21)"Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? Thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. (22) And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? (23) But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

The bolded words seem to indicate that David knew his child was in heaven as he said he would see the child again. David also seemed comforted by this as he stopped his fasting and mourning.

The other thing is that God loves us. He is also just, and so I have much faith that people who do not have the ability to understand salvation will be admitted to heaven because God is loving and just.

[De Maria]

It does not matter how soon after, it was not the same event. That is the point.

Yes, it does. It is essentially an introduction to Baptism. An explanation to the reason for Baptism.

Yes it is clear, but you appear to have missed what it says about the flesh and water.

No. I disagree with your interpretation. He does not equate flesh and water but contrasts, flesh and Spirit.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NKJV

Anyone who knows anything about birth knows that we are born through water. After the water breaks, the child is born.

That is why water is such a rich symbol for birth. And that is why Jesus says one must be born of WATER and Spirit. Because the water is a given and the difference between being a man of flesh and a man of God is that one must be born again of Spirit through the waters which Jesus sanctified in His own Baptism.

Simply saying "nope" is not convincing when scripture says otherwise.

ditto

.

I said, "nope" because I had previously addressed and rebutted your statements. I don't see a need for me to repeat it. See message #54.

Nowhere does scipture say that it is efficacious and necessary for salvation.

Jesus said, if they believe and are baptized they will be saved. If they don't believe they are condemned. I have already explained how that expresses a requirement.

Indeed if you read about why we bapgtize in scripture, and it source from the OT, you will see that it has always been symbolic, and scripture always speaks of it as symbolic.

And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, Baptism symbolizes a reality. Therefore it is efficacious and necessary.

If it was essential for salvation, then surely you could show us where, and surely you could expl;ain how people could be saved in scripture before water baptism - a point that I have raised a few times and is yet to be addressed.

Jesus made it a requirement for Christians. It was not a requirement for Jews.

Claiming it does not make it so. Show us the scripture!

It's the same Scripture we are discussing.

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Note, we are baptized into Christ Jesus because we are baptized into His death. No denial here of a reality.

4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Again, no denial of the efficacy of Baptism but a confirmation that we are buried with Him in Baptism so that we might walk with Him in glory.

5 For if we have been united together i

Notice, we are united together. No denial of efficacy.

n the likeness of His death,

Here one aspect of the symbolic nature of Baptism is explained. It is the symbol of His death. But the symbol unites us as previously explained.

certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

And here the symbolic nature of Baptism as new birth is explained. We are born to new life as Jesus was born to New Life in His Resurrection.

6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Here again, the efficacy of Baptism is confirmed and the symbolism as Crucifixion with Him is reiterated. Note that after Baptism we should no longer be slaves to sin.

his is going to be useless to discuss this with you if you deny the definitions of English words.

Please explain how the words "Baptism now saves us" denies the efficacy of Baptism?

An "efficacious symbol" is a non-scriptural oxymoron.

Huh? Any symbol worth its salt is efficacious. As I'm driving down the highway I see a sign which says, "Memphis 50 miles.". If Memphis is not 50 miles away then the symbol is worthless. But if it is, then it is efficiently and effectively describing a reality.

In the same way, the water poured over our flesh is a symbol of the new birth in our soul. It is efficacious.

Since I reject the CCC, as do most denominations, and since it is not scripture, quoting it will not move this discussion forward.

Scriptures says,
1 Peter 3 15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.

It doesn't say, quote Scripture. These explanations are as much for those who are reading them yet not participating as they are for you.

If you wish to disregard the Catechism, so be it. I reserve the right to quote any authority I consider relevant.

I'll stick with what God's word says.

So will I. God's word says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

But is does indeed because scripture ONLY says that baptism is symbolic and says in any places (and I'd be glad to quote several if you wish) that we are saved if we simply believe in Jesus as our Saviour.

Please do so. I will here quote what Jesus said about those who believe in Him yet refuse to do the Father's will:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It is not as though those verses were written in a vacuum. Belief in Christ entails obedience to His Word.

Not yet - you repeated the same half verse again - taken out of context of the second half.

Please explain because I'm certain I rebutted your statement effectively.

I am still waiting for any verse where Jesus says baptism is required, and if obedience is required, then Rom 3:23 says that we are all without hope.

No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention obedience. However,
Romans 1 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;

Romans 6
16 Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.

Romans 15 18 For I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed,

Sincerely,

[De Maria]

You guys are great. I love it. I can't figure out which of you is the pot and which one is the kettle, but you're both really good at pointing out each other's blackness.

It's a simple discussion. I have learned a great deal about my faith in these types of discussions. Don't you ever have disagreements with anyone?

I don't know what you mean by "pointing out each other's blackness". I haven't felt as though TJ3 has insulted me. I hope I haven't insulted him.

In fact, this is a much different discussion than I had with the atheists on this thread.

It looks to me like you've executed a perfect 180. To say that one thing is the result of another means that the former caused the latter.

Not so. A result is not always caused by the previous action. It is the final consequence of a series. God's grace, belief in God, obedience of faith, baptism, washing away sin, justification, perseverance in faith, salvation..

It is God who is the cause.

That's different from saying that it symbolizes or represents it.

The water washing the body represents the Spirit washing the soul.
The water washing the body - the symbolic aspect of Baptism.
The Spirit washing the soul - the reality aspect of Baptism.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

That's exactly what the Greeks and Romans did when they did not understand something - they created gods to explain it.

Isn't that what you have done as well. Piece together some understanding of life by your experience.

However, we have a revelation from God. Why should we ignore it?

[Tj3]

Due to length, my response to your last message was broken up into two posts. This is #1 of 2

Yes, it does. It is essentially an introduction to Baptism. An explanation to the reason for Baptism.

That does not make sense. An event which happens after the first event does not necessary have anything whatsoever which what was said during the first incident. To say otherwise, you would have demonstrate that is the case by the context of scripture, not just "I said so".

He does not equate flesh and water but contrasts, flesh and Spirit.

I accept what Jesus said in his word. You can disagree if you wish.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
NKJV

Anyone who knows anything about birth knows that we are born through water. After the water breaks, the child is born.

Precisely why water and flesh are used in conjunction with each other in scripture, and that is why Jesus equated them in John 3:5. That is exactly right. The other reason is because flesh itself is about 75% water.

I said, "nope" because I had previously addressed and rebutted your statements. I don't see a need for me to repeat it. See message #54.

#54 is not from you, but perhaps you mean #53 which I refuted in #62.

Jesus said, if they believe and are baptized they will be saved. If they don't believe they are condemned. I have already explained how that expresses a requirement.

Grammatically and logically it does not make baptism a requirement. That only works if you take the first half out of context. If the second half has said that he is who is not baptized is condemned (and indeed if you can find that anywhere in scripture), I would agree. But since scripture does not say that, but rather tells us throughout that to believe in Jesus alone will save us, then I must submit to the word of God, not traditions of men.

And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, Baptism symbolizes a reality. Therefore it is efficacious and necessary.

That is not logical. You were okay up to the point where you said that baptism symbolizes a reality. But by being symbolic, that means that it is NOT that reality, and to be efficacious and necessary, it must be that reality, not symbolic of it - by definition.

Jesus made it a requirement for Christians. It was not a requirement for Jews.

First, I find your differentiation between Jews and Christians offensive. The first Christians were Jews.

Second, you are telling us that there are two ways to be saved, contrary to scripture which says that there is only one way.

And BTW, you are wrong. Baptism was a symbolic ritual for the Jews also and it is described as such in the NT. Perhaps you were unaware of that. Baptism was not something new that started in the NT. If you are not familiar with the scripture that speaks of the symbolic nature of Baptism from the OT through NT, let me know and I'd be happy to guide you to it.

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Note, we are baptized into Christ Jesus because we are baptized into His death. No denial here of a reality.

4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Again, no denial of the efficacy of Baptism but a confirmation that we are buried with Him in Baptism so that we might walk with Him in glory.

5 For if we have been united together i

Notice, we are united together. No denial of efficacy.

n the likeness of His death,

Here one aspect of the symbolic nature of Baptism is explained. It is the symbol of His death. But the symbol unites us as previously explained.

certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

And here the symbolic nature of Baptism as new birth is explained. We are born to new life as Jesus was born to New Life in His Resurrection.

6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Here again, the efficacy of Baptism is confirmed and the symbolism as Crucifixion with Him is reiterated. Note that after Baptism we should no longer be slaves to sin.

Read carefully. This passage argues against your position.

Rom 6:4-6
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
NKJV

Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.

The going into the water and coming back up is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ, and we are told that specifically in this passage. The word used in Greek here for "likeness" means the same thing in Greek as it does in English and it refers to the symbolism. There is nothing either stated or implied which goes beyond symbolism for baptism.

Please explain how the words "Baptism now saves us" denies the efficacy of Baptism?

It would be easier if you would simply read the posts when I put them up the first time. I dobn't intend to post it a third time, though:

1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV

We see three things discussed here:

1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
2) Water baptism
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.


This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.

[Tj3]

Huh? Any symbol worth its salt is efficacious. As I'm driving down the highway I see a sign which says, "Memphis 50 miles.". If Memphis is not 50 miles away then the symbol is worthless. But if it is, then it is efficiently and effectively describing a reality.

But the sign is efficacious at informing you of the reality, it is NOT efficacious at making Memphis 50 miles away.

Similarly, baptism is symbolic of what has already happened and can be used to show you how it already happened, but it cannot make it happen.

If you wish to disregard the Catechism, so be it. I reserve the right to quote any authority I consider relevant.

You can indeed. But I want to make you aware that my belief and my doctrine is established upon the word of God, not the word of man.

Please do so.

Okay, let's examine what scripture says about the requirements for our sins to be remitted.

Matt 26:27-29
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.
NKJV

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding
of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

Luke 24:46-47
46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to
suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
NKJV

Acts 10:43
43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will
receive remission of sins."
NKJV

Matt 26:28
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.
NKJV

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Nowhere in scripture will you find any statement which says the same about water. It is only through the blood of Jesus shed on the cross that we are saved.

I will here quote what Jesus said about those who believe in Him yet refuse to do the Father's will:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It is not as though those verses were written in a vacuum. Belief in Christ entails obedience to His Word.

Good, now I hope that you are aware that when you cross a line and you make obedience a requirement for salvation, you have put yourself under the law and if you must obey any part of the law perfectly to be save, you must obey it all:

James 2:10-11
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
NKJV

If it were true that we had to be ffirst obedient to any part of the law to be saved we would all be going to hell because none of us have perfectly obeyed His commandments. That is the essence of the gospel. Because through sin, we all condemned ourselves to hell and had no means by which to pay the penalty for sin, Jesus came to earth as a man to die on the cross and paid the price for us.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

Gal 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the
Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV

God understands that we as humans will sin - that's why He offers us grace. Of course none of us have perfectly obeyed his commands and God knows this and he tells us through Paul. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. If it were possible for us to live perfect lives there would be no need for Him to offer us grace. We are saved by grace, but grace is not the only thing that saves us as you seem to believe.

It does not mean that we are to take advantage of grace, not at all, because if we love God, we will seek to be obedient, but we will fail. Scripture shows that man fails through trying to obey the law. That is legalism. That is why Christ came to write the law on our hearts and why the Holy Spirit indwells us, so that we would not be tied to legalistic obedience to the law, but rather we would abide by the spirit of the law.

Does this mean we will do it perfectly? No! Does this mean we should strive to do it perfectly? Yes! If we cannot do it perfectly, then our salvation is dependent upon His grace, not our obedience, or we would lose our salvation every time that we slipped.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness.
NKJV

It is also important to note that prior to salvation, we are subject to the sin nature (desire to sin) and the one thing that we obey prior to that is to receive Jesus as Saviour.

Rom 6:17-18
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart
that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
NKJV

Prior that that, we do not have the helper, the Holy Spirit, who guides us and helps us to grow to be obedient to God by changing our desires to be consistent with the things of God.

Please explain because I'm certain I rebutted your statement effectively.

And I yours (#62)

No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention obedience.

Let's read it together:

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

You don't think that sin has anything to do with failing to be obedient?

I am still waiting for you to explain how those saved in Acts 10:47 were saved before being water baptized.

[Tj3]

It's a simple discussion. I have learned a great deal about my faith in these types of discussions. Don't you ever have disagreements with anyone?

I don't know what you mean by "pointing out each other's blackness". I haven't felt as though TJ3 has insulted me. I hope I haven't insulted him.

Let me add that I have not felt insulted by De Maria either. Our beliefs are dramatically different, but we can disagree respectfully.

In fact, this is a much different discussion than I had with the atheists on this thread.

Agreed.

[De Maria]

Due to length, my response to your last message was broken up into two posts. This is #1 of 2

Ok

That does not make sense. An event which happens after the first event does not necessary have anything whatsoever which what was said during the first incident. To say otherwise, you would have demonstrate that is the case by the context of scripture, not just "I said so".

They are speaking of water and spirit. Baptism is the combination of Water and Spirit as shown when Jesus Himself was baptized. The next thing Jesus does after speaking to Nicodemus is to take the Disciples to baptize in in an area where water is plentiful.

I accept what Jesus said in his word. You can disagree if you wish.

OK. Agree to disagree.

Precisely why water and flesh are used in conjunction with each other in scripture, and that is why Jesus equated them in John 3:5. That is exactly right. The other reason is because flesh itself is about 75% water.

Agree to disagree.

#54 is not from you, but perhaps you mean #53 which I refuted in #62.

Lol! Getting dizzy.

Grammatically and logically it does not make baptism a requirement. That only works if you take the first half out of context. If the second half has said that he is who is not baptized is condemned (and indeed if you can find that anywhere in scripture), I would agree. But since scripture does not say that, but rather tells us throughout that to believe in Jesus alone will save us, then I must submit to the word of God, not traditions of men.

The inference is strong. Jesus says, "believe AND be baptized" not "believe or be baptized".

That is not logical. You were okay up to the point where you said that baptism symbolizes a reality. But by being symbolic, that means that it is NOT that reality, and to be efficacious and necessary, it must be that reality, not symbolic of it - by definition.

It is God who causes the reality. He has assigned water as the sign of that reality. In fact, the word Baptise insinuates water since it means to "wash in water" This was a common practice since before the Baptism of John.

First, I find your differentiation between Jews and Christians offensive. The first Christians were Jews.

I don't know why? Were Jews required to be baptized? They were required to circumcize. If I said, Jews are required to circumcize but Christians are not, would that also offend you?

Yes, the first Christians came of Jewish stock, but they did not remain Jewish. St. John frequently speaks of "the Jews" to differentiate them from the Apostles and Disciples.

John 3 1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

John 5 16 Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.

Second, you are telling us that there are two ways to be saved, contrary to scripture which says that there is only one way.

There is only one way. Through Jesus Christ. Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains.

The Jews did not even believe in Jesus Christ did they? Yet it is only by one name we are saved and if they never even heard that name, how were they saved? If they did, they learned of him in their spiritual abode after they died, didn't they? Or do you believe that the just Jews have not entered heaven?

I believe the Just Jews were saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Even though they never knew him in their earthly lives.

and BTW, you are wrong. Baptism was a symbolic ritual for the Jews also and it is described as such in the NT. Perhaps you were unaware of that. Baptism was not something new that started in the NT. If you are not familiar with the scripture that speaks of the symbolic nature of Baptism from the OT through NT, let me know and I'd be happy to guide you to it.

I'm quite familiar. It is the Baptism of Jesus which sanctified the waters and it is His Sacrifice which released the grace to make it an efficacious symbol. Thereafter, the symbolic ritual revealed the reality of what happened in the soul.

[quote]Read carefully. This passage argues against your position.

Rom 6:4-6
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
NKJV

Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.
But do I walk with Christ? Yes.
Am I united with Christ? Yes.
Do I walk in the newness of life? Yes.
Do I believe I died to sin? Yes.

Therefore Baptism is an efficacious sign, revealing in symbol the interior reality which we can't see with our eyes of flesh.

The going into the water and coming back up is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ, and we are told that specifically in this passage.

Did I deny this?

the word used in Greek here for "likeness" means the same thing in Greek as it does in English and it refers to the symbolism. There is nothing either stated or implied which goes beyond symbolism for baptism.

Yes, but the words "united together" express a fact. He does not say, "as though we were united together". He says "united together". In other words, by this ritual and sign of washing with water which is the likeness of his death, we are "united together" in the Body of Christ. And if we are united together in His death, CERTAINLY we are united together in the same symbol of the likeness of His Resurrection.

It would be easier if you would simply read the posts when I put them up the first time. I dobn't intend to post it a third time, though:

I did. As I said, I already refuted that statement.

1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went
and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the
Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which
a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been
made subject to Him.
NKJV

We see three things discussed here:

1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood

Correct.

2) Water baptism

Which he unequivocally states, "now saves us".

3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Correct.

This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins. This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

- One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
- An opposite or contrasting type.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin

Good. Notice the definition. The antitype is foreshadowed by an earlier figure. The flood as I explained is the foreshadow of Baptism because we are saved through water. The flood destroyed the sinful as the water of Baptism washes away our sin.

That is why he goes on to say, "Baptism now saves us".

This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:

That is correct. The symbol points to the interior reality.

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death,
certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should
no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.

And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, the symbol points to a reality.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

But the sign is efficacious at informing you of the reality, it is NOT efficacious at making Memphis 50 miles away.

Correct. I did not say that the water washed our sin. The water is the sign of God, the Holy Spirit, washing sin from our soul.

And I also said it is God who has now tied this symbol to the reality. As you mentioned earlier, Baptism has happened long before even John baptized. Yet it was not efficacious then. It is efficacious now because Jesus said we must be born of water AND Spirit. And we must be baptized to be saved because Jesus said if we believe AND are baptized we will be saved.

Similarly, baptism is symbolic of what has already happened and can be used to show you how it already happened, but it cannot make it happen.

God does that. But God tied the ritual of Baptism to birth into new life.

You can indeed. But I want to make you aware that my belief and my doctrine is established upon the word of God, not the word of man.

I believe mine is also. Jesus Christ did not establish the Church so that we could thumb our nose at Her did He?

Indeed it is the Word of God in Scripture which enjoins us to be obedient to the Church and which extolls the Church as the pillar of truth. Therefore, if I believe the Church it is because I am instructed so by Scripture.

Okay, let's examine what scripture says about the requirements for our sins to be remitted.

Ok.

Matt 26:27-29
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
NKJV

Matt 26:28
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
NKJV

I believe these literally. The Cup of Communion is truly the Blood of Christ in the guise of wine.

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

Luke 24:46-47
46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
NKJV

Acts 10:43
43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
NKJV

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

No question. It is because of Jesus sacrifice that the rite of Baptism is efficacious.

Nowhere in scripture will you find any statement which says the same about water. It is only through the blood of Jesus shed on the cross that we are saved.

Acts Of Apostles 22 16 And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.

Good, now I hope that you are aware that when you cross a line and you make obedience a requirement for salvation, you have put yourself under the law and if you must obey any part of the law perfectly to be save, you must obey it all:

James 2:10-11
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
NKJV

I don't make obedience a requirement. God does.

And that is correct. If we disobey we are under the law. But if we obey we are not under the law but are free of the law. Let us take the context of St. James teaching:

8 If then you fulfill the royal law, according to the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; you do well.

This is reference to Christs second great commandment. If we obey this law, we won't break any of the others.

9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors.

By respect of persons St. James means if we discriminate between the poor and the rich. Giving the rich more respect than the poor because of their status. If we do that we sin against the second great commandment. Doing so we sin against all the Commandments.

10 And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.

There he says it.

1 For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as being to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy. And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. 14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

Here he explains that faith is not faith if it is not accompanied by works of love.

If it were true that we had to be ffirst obedient to any part of the law to be saved we would all be going to hell because none of us have perfectly obeyed His commandments.

In His wisdom, God provided the Sacrament sof Baptism and Reconciliation.

That is the essence of the gospel. Because through sin, we all condemned ourselves to hell and had no means by which to pay the penalty for sin, Jesus came to earth as a man to die on the cross and paid the price for us.

That is correct. But it begs the question, do you believe that all the Jews who died without knowing Christ were condemned to hell?

And what of those who do not accept Christ even now?

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

Have we drifted into a discussion of faith and works? I don't mind, but perhaps we should start another thread.

Gal 3:19-25
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
NKJV

That is all true, but have we nullified or destroyed the law?

Matthew 5 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Romans 3 31 Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.

What does that mean then? It means that as long as we have faith in Christ and live according to our faith we will do away with sin. If we do not sin we have not destroyed the law but confirmed it.

Romans 6
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?

God understands that we as humans will sin - that's why He offers us grace.

Correct.

Of course none of us have perfectly obeyed his commands and God knows this and he tells us through Paul. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. If it were possible for us to live perfect lives there would be no need for Him to offer us grace. We are saved by grace, but grace is not the only thing that saves us as you seem to believe.

That is a false assumption. The Church teaches we are saved by the grace of God alone.

Here is where we Catholics differ with the various nonCatholics with whom I've discussed the subject.

They claim that faith alone, that is, a simple declarative statement of faith, is all that is required to save them. I'm assuming this is what you believe.

Whereas, the Catholic Church teaches that it is a complete conversion of life and persevernce in this conversion until the end.

It does not mean that we are to take advantage of grace, not at all, because if we love God, we will seek to be obedient, but we will fail. Scripture shows that man fails through trying to obey the law. That is legalism. That is why Christ came to write the law on our hearts and why the Holy Spirit indwells us, so that we would not be tied to legalistic obedience to the law, but rather we would abide by the spirit of the law.

That is correct.

Does this mean we will do it perfectly? No! Does this mean we should strive to do it perfectly? Yes!

Amen!

If we cannot do it perfectly, then our salvation is dependent upon His grace, not our obedience, or we would lose our salvation every time that we slipped.

And by His Grace He has established Sacraments of reconciliation.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
NKJV

Correct. We believe confession is a Sacrament, a fountain of grace which Jesus established for our reconciliation with His Body.

It is also important to note that prior to salvation, we are subject to the sin nature (desire to sin) and the one thing that we obey prior to that is to receive Jesus as Saviour.

Rom 6:17-18
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
NKJV

Correct.

Prior that that, we do not have the helper, the Holy Spirit, who guides us and helps us to grow to be obedient to God by changing our desires to be consistent with the things of God.

Then who guides us to faith?

Let's read it together:

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

You don't think that sin has anything to do with failing to be obedient?

Sin has everything to do with failing to be obedient. It all began with the first act of disobedience by Adam and Eve.

I am still waiting for you to explain how those saved in Acts 10:47 were saved before being water baptized.

I'm still waiting for you to show that they were saved before Baptism.

Here's the verse:
46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

If they were washed of sin, why does St. Peter recommend Baptism? Are St. Peter's words not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

In addition, this verse does show that the Holy Spirit moves amongst those who are seeking God and have not accepted Jesus Christ in their lives.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[ordinaryguy]

I don't know what you mean by "pointing out each other's blackness". I haven't felt as though TJ3 has insulted me. I hope I haven't insulted him.

Let me add that I have not felt insulted by De Maria either. Our beliefs are dramatically different, but we can disagree respectfully.

When I say "pointing out each other's blackness", all I mean is that you both do what you accuse each other of doing, i.e. interpreting scripture according to "your own presuppositions". If neither of you feel insulted by this, good for you.

Not so. A result is not always caused by the previous action.

It is God who is the cause.

Yes, but your central point of disagreement with Tj3 is that you think baptism is required, while he thinks it it's optional, isn't that right? To argue that it's required, means that the result can't happen unless the requirement is met. Saying that God is the cause of the requirement doesn't change the basic argument.

The water washing the body represents the Spirit washing the soul.
The water washing the body - the symbolic aspect of Baptism.
The Spirit washing the soul - the reality aspect of Baptism.

So can the Spirit wash the soul even if the water doesn't wash the body?

[Tj3]

They are speaking of water and spirit. Baptism is the combination of Water and Spirit as shown when Jesus Himself was baptized. The next thing Jesus does after speaking to Nicodemus is to take the Disciples to baptize in in an area where water is plentiful.

Yes, they are speaking of water and spirit and Jesus explains the water to be representation of the flesh. You have shown nothing else in that passage nor can you because it isn't there. What he does afterward it not in the same context. I would hate to think of what strange doctrines one could come up with if they interpreted what Jesus or an Apostle did throughout the NT on the basis of the context of what they did afterward.

The inference is strong. Jesus says, "believe AND be baptized" not "believe or be baptized".

There may be an inference in the first half of the verse, but when taken in context, we can see clearly what is meant. Doctrine cannot be properly based on inference of partial verses.

It is God who causes the reality. He has assigned water as the sign of that reality. In fact, the word Baptise insinuates water since it means to "wash in water" This was a common practice since before the Baptism of John.

Actually, baptism does not just mean wash in water. It CAN mean that, but it also means much more. When it means to wash, it refers more specifically to a ceremonial or ritual washing which, we are told in Hebrews is purely symbolic. Other things that the word used in Greek can mean include:

- Identification with someone or something else (i.e. pure symbolism)
- To become the property of
- dye articles
- to be overwhelmed

I don't know why? Were Jews required to be baptized? They were required to circumcize. If I said, Jews are required to circumcize but Christians are not, would that also offend you?

The offence would be the same if you differentiated between Indians and Christians, and told how Christians differ from Indians. The implication is that you cannot be both.

What is baptism in Judaism? Check out this article which addresses that specific point, from scripture:

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo...OT-baptism.pdf

Yes, the first Christians came of Jewish stock, but they did not remain Jewish. St. John frequently speaks of "the Jews" to differentiate them from the Apostles and Disciples.

They did indeed remain Jewish. I am shocked that anyone would say such a thing. They no more changed their racial extract than a Chinese person or a Caucasian person would upon being saved.

What about Paul?

Acts 22:1-4
22:1 "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now." 2 And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent. Then he said: 3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
NKJV

He remained a Jew. He learned who the Jewish Messiah was an received Him as His Saviour, but He remained a Jew. What about Peter:

Gal 2:14-15
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
NKJV

Note that Peter did not change racially. He remained a Jew.

There is only one way. Through Jesus Christ. Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains.

The Jews did not even believe in Jesus Christ did they? Yet it is only by one name we are saved and if they never even heard that name, how were they saved? If they did, they learned of him in their spiritual abode after they died, didn't they? Or do you believe that the just Jews have not entered heaven?

I believe the Just Jews were saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Even though they never knew him in their earthly lives.

Gal 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

If you say that baptism is required for salvation, then you have added to the gospel and said that they is one gospel (means of salvation) for one group of people and a different means for another.

I might add that you comment about the differentiation does not make sense. Let me explain. You said:

"Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains."

No one is a Christian until they have received Christ as Saviour. Everyone after receiving Christ as Saviour is a Christian. So how can you say that God requires something more for Christians to be saved than Jews? It makes no sense. I think that you are getting confused on terminology.

No one is saved by a different means.

So if baptism was not required for the Jews in the OT, it is not required for anyone.

That is the point. Accept that logical outcome of the reality that no one is saved by a different means and this discussion ends.

I'm quite familiar. It is the Baptism of Jesus which sanctified the waters and it is His Sacrifice which released the grace to make it an efficacious symbol. Thereafter, the symbolic ritual revealed the reality of what happened in the soul.

It does not sound like you are familiar at all with the mikveh. You really need to check out the link that I gave earlier in this post.

Did you actually die with Christ? No.
Were you actually buried with Christ? No.
But do I walk with Christ? Yes.
Am I united with Christ? Yes.
Do I walk in the newness of life? Yes.
Do I believe I died to sin? Yes.

Therefore Baptism is an efficacious sign, revealing in symbol the interior reality which we can't see with our eyes of flesh.

Not at all. You already agreed that the OT Jew did not need to be baptized to be saved, and you agreed that no one is saved by a different means, so if you have truly come to the point where you can honestly say YES to all those items above, then it was solely the sacrifice on the cross which was efficacious is making it happen, and baptism is something that we do afterward in obedience to symbolize what Christ has ALREADY done in our lives.

Yes, but the words "united together" express a fact. He does not say, "as though we were united together". He says "united together". In other words, by this ritual and sign of washing with water which is the likeness of his death, we are "united together" in the Body of Christ. And if we are united together in His death, CERTAINLY we are united together in the same symbol of the likeness of His Resurrection.

Now read the rest of that sentence and see what did it:

Rom 6:6
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

It happened on the cross, and baptism is the symbol of what ALREADY happened on the cross.

I did. As I said, I already refuted that statement.

You tried, but I saw nothing that refuted what I said. You appeared to deny what the word "anti-type" means, and appeared to read the passage as though that word was not there. That word changes everything. We cannot alter scripture without consequences!

Good. Notice the definition. The antitype is foreshadowed by an earlier figure. The flood as I explained is the foreshadow of Baptism because we are saved through water. The flood destroyed the sinful as the water of Baptism washes away our sin.

Perhaps you missed the part about contrasting types. You appear to be interpreting it as though the word was type, which does not mean the same thing. The flood and baptism are contrasting types. Go back and read what I said again with that in mind.

And again, the symbolic aspect of Baptism is not in question. However, the symbol points to a reality.

Right and if it points to the reality - then baptism is not that reality.

[Tj3]

Correct. I did not say that the water washed our sin. The water is the sign of God, the Holy Spirit, washing sin from our soul.

Then the water baptism is not efficacious in salvation.

And I also said it is God who has now tied this symbol to the reality.

Please don't lengthen these messages by repeating this over and over. If we agree that it is symbolic, then you need to focus attention on your claim that it is necessary for salvation. And to be honest, you appear in many cases in our discussion to have argued against your own position.

As you mentioned earlier, Baptism has happened long before even John baptized. Yet it was not efficacious then. It is efficacious now because Jesus said we must be born of water AND Spirit. And we must be baptized to be saved because Jesus said if we believe AND are baptized we will be saved.

Don't tell us - show us where in scripture this change took place. Rather than long messages, I would like to get focused on that singular specific point.

God does that. But God tied the ritual of Baptism to birth into new life.

As symbolic only!!

I believe mine is also. Jesus Christ did not establish the Church so that we could thumb our nose at Her did He?

You and I may be using th term church differently to refer to your denomination, which I think you know that I can and would refute readily. However, this post is already long enough for let's not add to the scope of the discussion. If you want to discuss that, please start a new thread.

My point was that when a specific denominational doctrine disagrees with scripture, the standard must always be the word of God. Now you will likely say that you see no disagreement, but that is what we need to focus on - where does scripture say that baptism is essential for salvation?

I believe these literally. The Cup of Communion is truly the Blood of Christ in the guise of wine.

Again, let's keep focused. Open another thread and I will gladly show you where Jesus himself said that those who believe that they need to drink His blood betrayed Him.

But regardless, if you think that it is the communion cup that causes remission of sins, you have already turned away from the cross of Christ where the Bible says that the remission takes place.

No question. It is because of Jesus sacrifice that the rite of Baptism is efficacious.

These verses do not say that. They do not even touch on baptism. You are adding to scripture.

Acts Of Apostles 22 16 And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.

Acts 22:16
Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV

There are three things mentioned in this passage:

1) We are to arise and be baptized
2) We are to call upon the name of the Lord
3) We are to have our sins washed away.

Scripture speaks strongly regarding the fact that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord. Here are some examples: Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11

Let's also look at Hebrews 9 which speaks of the that which cleanses us from sin:

Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood
of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of
a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this
reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of theof the eternal inheritance.
NKJV

We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross. Why should we assume that the sins are washed away by baptism when we see throughout the NT that we are saved by calling upon the name of the Lord and nowhere are we told that we are saved through baptism. Why ignore the second half of that verse when what it says is consistent with the rest of scripture?

I don't make obedience a requirement. God does.

Really? Then why did Jesus come to die on the cross? If obedience is essential for salvation, then the cross is a waste of time, because Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. If, on the other hand, Christ came because we are NOT obedient, then we have the gospel that we find in scripture today.

And that is correct. If we disobey we are under the law. But if we obey we are not under the law but are free of the law.

Can you honestly say that you have obeyed all of the law perfectly and thus never sinned?

BTW, it makes no sense to say that we are under the law if we disobey, but not under it if we obey it. That makes no sense whatsoever and is completely contrary to scripture. Go back and read Gal 3 again. What scripture tells us is that if we are in Christ, we are not under the law, but if we are not, then we are under the law, and the reason is because the law is there to point us to Christ.

Let us take the context of St. James teaching:

8 If then you fulfill the royal law, according to the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; you do well.

This is reference to Christs second great commandment. If we obey this law, we won't break any of the others.

9 But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors.

By respect of persons St. James means if we discriminate between the poor and the rich. Giving the rich more respect than the poor because of their status. If we do that we sin against the second great commandment. Doing so we sin against all the Commandments.

10 And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.

Yep, and that is what I said. So if you fail on any point of the law, you have failed on them all. So it is useless to be baptized if you ever lusted, stole a penny, lied, because these are all sins and if you did any of them, then you are going to hell - if what you claim is true, and that is that obedience is required.
[QUOTE]

That is correct. But it begs the question, do you believe that all the Jews who died without knowing Christ were condemned to hell?

And what of those who do not accept Christ even now?

As for the OT saints who died before Christ, I believe that we find that answer in scripture:

James 2:23
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
NKJV

In the OT times, those who were faithful to God looked forward to the coming Messiah and now we have the full revelation and look back to the cross. No one was ever saved except by Christ. There are many other passages, but again, I would prefer not to extend the scope of this thread - the posts are far too long now.

Have we drifted into a discussion of faith and works? I don't mind, but perhaps we should start another thread.

You brought up work by suggesting that it was not finished by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but we have to do something in order to be saved.

That is all true, but have we nullified or destroyed the law?

If you make a law requiring baptism in order to be saved, then you have placed yourself back under a law of works.

That is a false assumption. The Church teaches we are saved by the grace of God alone.

Here is where we Catholics differ with the various nonCatholics with whom I've discussed the subject.

They claim that faith alone, that is, a simple declarative statement of faith, is all that is required to save them. I'm assuming this is what you believe.

Whereas, the Catholic Church teaches that it is a complete conversion of life and persevernce in this conversion until the end.

I do not follow the dictates of any specific denomination - I follow what scripture says which is to believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

And by His Grace He has established Sacraments of reconciliation.

Correct. We believe confession is a Sacrament, a fountain of grace which Jesus established for our reconciliation with His Body.

Let's stick to the Bible, okay, rather than pushing doctrinal stances of a specific denominations.

Then who guides us to faith?

Holy Spirit.

Sin has everything to do with failing to be obedient. It all began with the first act of disobedience by Adam and Eve.

Good - it was not clear to me why you were disagreeing with me when I said that previously.

I'm still waiting for you to show that they were saved before Baptism.

I answered that a couple of times. They received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which scripture says only comes to those who are saved.

Now, please answer my question (which I think I have asked 4 or 5 times now)

If they were washed of sin, why does St. Peter recommend Baptism? Are St. Peter's words not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I never said anything against being baptized. It is an act of obedience following salvation. This discussion is not about whether we should be baptized, it is trying to find any scripture which would validate or claim that it is required to be saved.

In addition, this verse does show that the Holy Spirit moves amongst those who are seeking God and have not accepted Jesus Christ in their lives.

"moving amongst" is not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit as the Apostles did.

[Tj3]

De Maria,

For future messages, I see that for so much of this discussion, we are going around and around and getting nowhere and now you are trying to broaden the scope yet further. This does not do anything but distract away from the key point which is - where is your scripture that says that if we are not saved, we go to hell?

Either you can shorten it in your response by focusing on what you believe to be your one or two strongest points, or if you do not, then I will review your response, and I will decide what are your strongest points and will ignore the rest of the post.

[De Maria]

When I say "pointing out each other's blackness", all I mean is that you both do what you accuse each other of doing, i.e. interpreting scripture according to "your own presuppositions". If neither of you feel insulted by this, good for you.

Ok.

Yes, but your central point of disagreement with Tj3 is that you think baptism is required, while he thinks it it's optional, isn't that right? To argue that it's required, means that the result can't happen unless the requirement is met. Saying that God is the cause of the requirement doesn't change the basic argument.

Ok. However, I wanted to clarify that the water does nothing unless God willed it so. Baptism existed before Christ. But since Christ God has tied Baptism to salvation.

So can the Spirit wash the soul even if the water doesn't wash the body?

I believe I posted this before:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

In other words, the Sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation which God has revealed to us. But God is not bound by these Sacraments.

Sincerely,

[Tj3]

Ok. However, I wanted to clarify that the water does nothing unless God willed it so. Baptism existed before Christ. But since Christ God has tied Baptism to salvation.

Only in a symbolic sense!

[De Maria]

De Maria,

For future messages, I see that for so much of this discussion, we are going around and around and getting nowhere and now you are trying to broaden the scope yet further.

Actually, I thought it was you who was broadening the scope.

This does not do anything but distract away from the key point which is - where is your scripture that says that if we are not saved, we go to hell?

I agree. Let us start over.

Either you can shorten it in your response by focusing on what you believe to be your one or two strongest points, or if you do not, then I will review your response, and I will decide what are your strongest points and will ignore the rest of the post.

What I see as the main difference in our arguments is that you don't see Baptism as required by Jesus Christ.

So, it seems to me, that if Jesus says,

If they believe AND are baptized, they will be saved. If they believe not, they will be condemned. Note the AND. Jesus did not say, believe OR are baptized. He tied the two together and required them.

Without faith you can't please God. Without faith and baptism you won't be saved. Simple as that.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Actually, I thought it was you who was broadening the scope.

I cannot comprehend how you came to that conclusion.

I agree. Let us start over.

Okay, so why not answer my question about Acts 10:47. How did those people get saved before they were water baptized?

What I see as the main difference in our arguments is that you don't see Baptism as required by Jesus Christ.

Then you have not been listening to me. I see baptism as an important matter of obedience. The difference is that you believe that a person cannot be saved unless they are baptized.

So, it seems to me, that if Jesus says,

If they believe AND are baptized, they will be saved. If they believe not, they will be condemned. Note the AND. Jesus did not say, believe OR are baptized. He tied the two together and required them.

He tied the know insofar as pointing out that it is important (though I think that there are probably stronger argumenst for that also), but this actually demonstrates that bapgtism is not necessary for salvation, as has been pointed out many times.

Without faith you can't please God.

This is scriptural

Without faith and baptism you won't be saved.

This is not

Can I suggest that to avoid getting off track once again that if you make a claim such as that last one, that the scripture to validate you claim be provided.

[Wangdoodle]

Without faith you can't please God. Without faith and baptism you won't be saved. Simple as that.

I would not want to rule out baptism of desire. If a person has the desire to be baptized, but is unable, I believe this person could still be saved. Perhaps the phrase "may not be saved" is something I could agree with.

[De Maria]

Yes, they are speaking of water and spirit and Jesus explains the water to be representation of the flesh.

No He doesn't. He contrasts the flesh and the Spirit. Do we really need to go over this again?

You have shown nothing else in that passage nor can you because it isn't there.

I don't need to show anything beyond what I've already shown. It is all there.

What he does afterward it not in the same context.

Yes. It follows perfectly. He instructs Nicodemus on the efficacy of Baptism in Water and Spirit and then proceeds to baptize.

I would hate to think of what strange doctrines one could come up with if they interpreted what Jesus or an Apostle did throughout the NT on the basis of the context of what they did afterward.

Very good doctrines actually. Jesus said He would die for our sins and then what happened. He died for our sins. Wow! He said it then He did it afterward.

There may be an inference in the first half of the verse, but when taken in context, we can see clearly what is meant. Doctrine cannot be properly based on inference of partial verses.

The word AND makes it very clear. You can't change the English grammar simply because you disagree with the Scripture: There are two conditions for salvation expressed by Jesus in this sentence, belief AND Baptism.

Actually, baptism does not just mean wash in water. It CAN mean that,

And it does in this context. They are speaking of water.

but it also means much more. When it means to wash, it refers more specifically to a ceremonial or ritual washing which, we are told in Hebrews is purely symbolic.

Provide the Scripture.

Other things that the word used in Greek can mean include:

- Identification with someone or something else (i.e. pure symbolism)
- To become the property of
- dye articles
- to be overwhelmed

Therefore the context is very important.

The offence would be the same if you differentiated between Indians and Christians, and told how Christians differ from Indians. The implication is that you cannot be both.

No. You are mixing apples and oranges. I was not distinguishing between races but between covenants. The Judaic covenant does not require baptism. The Christian covenant does.

What is baptism in Judaism? Check out this article which addresses that specific point, from scripture:

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo...OT-baptism.pdf

As I said, I am quite familiar. No need to broaden the scope to the Old Testament practice. We are discussing whether Jesus requires Baptism for Chrisitans and whether it is an efficacious symbol which effects what it symbolizes or whether it is an empty symbol which does nothing for the soul.

They did indeed remain Jewish. I am shocked that anyone would say such a thing. They no more changed their racial extract than a Chinese person or a Caucasian person would upon being saved.

But we are not speaking of the race. We are speaking of their faith. Did they acquire faith in Jesus Christ and become Christian? Or did they remain faithful to Moses and eschew Jesus Christ?

What about Paul?

What about Paul?

Acts 22:1-4
22:1 "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now." 2 And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent. Then he said: 3 "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
NKJV

Paul is a Christian of Semitic descent. He is a Jew by race but a Christian by faith.
What are we discussing, race or faith? Have I been asking or detailing physical features, language or culture? No, I have been discussing Baptism. So why have you suddenly changed to a discussion of race?

He remained a Jew.

No one can change their origins. Certainly, I would not dispute that he is a Jew born of Jews. He says so himself. But does he believe in Jesus or does he continue to believe in Mosaic covenant and ignore Jesus?: If so, why don't we refer to him any longer as Saul?

He learned who the Jewish Messiah was an received Him as His Saviour, but He remained a Jew

He remained a Jew by race but not by faith. By faith he became a Christian.

. What about Peter:

What about Peter?

Gal 2:14-15
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
NKJV

Note that Peter did not change racially. He remained a Jew.

Did I ever say that Peter changed racially? No? Then why bring it up?

Gal 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Correct.

If you say that baptism is required for salvation, then you have added to the gospel and said that they is one gospel (means of salvation) for one group of people and a different means for another.

No. Jesus said it was required as I have shown. And Baptism is required of any Jew or Gentile who become Christian. But Moses did not require Baptism of any Jew. Nor did the Gentile gods require Baptism of any Gentile.

But have you answered the question? Since Moses did not require Baptism in the Old Covenant, how did the Jews who died before Christ come to salvation?

And what about those who did not accept Christ in His earthly life?

I might add that you comment about the differentiation does not make sense. Let me explain. You said:

"Even the Jews were saved by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. But you and I are speaking of the efficacy of Baptism and whether Jesus Christ requires it for Christains."

No one is a Christian until they have received Christ as Saviour. Everyone after receiving Christ as Saviour is a Christian. So how can you say that God requires something more for Christians to be saved than Jews? It makes no sense. I think that you are getting confused on terminology.

I believe you have misunderstood the question. How were Jews of the Old Covenant saved? Did they all go to hell? Obviously not, since Abraham is depicted in heaven and God says He is the God of the Living. So, how were they saved without knowing Christ?

So if baptism was not required for the Jews in the OT, it is not required for anyone.

Jesus says without belief AND Baptism you will not be saved. There is no getting around the conjunction.

That is the point. Accept that logical outcome of the reality that no one is saved by a different means and this discussion ends.

There is only one means and that is God's grace. But God has established His Sacraments in the New Covenant that we may avail ourselves of His grace. The Old Covenant did not afford these vehicles of Grace. But in the New Covenant Jesus provided these fountains of Grace because we are under the New Law of Grace. It is by Grace we are saved.

It does not sound like you are familiar at all with the mikveh. You really need to check out the link that I gave earlier in this post.

I am quite. But again, why do you want to broaden the scope of this discussion? Let us continue reviewing the Scriptures about Baptism in the New Covenant. We can begin another thread on whatever you want in the future. Agreed?

Not at all. You already agreed that the OT Jew did not need to be baptized to be saved,

Correct.

and you agreed that no one is saved by a different means

Correct. The only means is God's grace.

, so if you have truly come to the point where you can honestly say YES to all those items above, then it was solely the sacrifice on the cross which was efficacious is making it happen, and baptism is something that we do afterward in obedience to symbolize what Christ has ALREADY done in our lives.

No. Here is where you are gone wrong. If that were true, then even nonbelievers would be saved. But they are not. Or are you saying that even belief is optional?

Jesus tied belief AND baptism to salvation. Neither is optional.

Now read the rest of that sentence and see what did it:

Rom 6:6
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

It happened on the cross, and baptism is the symbol of what ALREADY happened on the cross.

The grace was released on the Cross. But we need to apply that grace to our lives. Otherwise all would be cleansed including nonbelievers. There would be no necessity of faith, no necessity of morals, nor of Bible Teaching.

Yes, Jesus Christ died that the body of sin might be done away with, but we must cooperate with His death in order to apply those graces. We do so by dying with Him in Baptism and raising with Him in newness of Life.

Acts Of Apostles 2

38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You tried, but I saw nothing that refuted what I said. You appeared to deny what the word "anti-type" means, and appeared to read the passage as though that word was not there. That word changes everything. We cannot alter scripture without consequences!

No. I used the definition you provided and substituted it for the word. The anti-type as you showed is foreshadowed by the type. The type being the flood and the anti-type being Baptism. Just as the flood cleansed the world of sin, Baptism now saves us by cleansing us of sin.

Perhaps you missed the part about contrasting types. You appear to be interpreting it as though the word was type, which does not mean the same thing. The flood and baptism are contrasting types. Go back and read what I said again with that in mind.

I understand typology. It is a very important part of Catholicism. Adam foreshadows Christ. Therefore Adam is a type of Christ. Christ is the antitype of Adam. Eve foreshadows Mary. Joseph of many colors foreshadows Joseph the spouse of Mary. The Manna of heaven foreshadows the Holy Eucharist. And there are many other types and anti-types.

Right and if it points to the reality - then baptism is not that reality.

Correct. It is the efficacious sign of the reality within. Now if you agree that Baptism is the efficacious sign which points to the reality within, we can focus on the necessity of Baptism. Can we not?

Sincerely,

De Maria