Conference yukon::christian_v7

      Hi Rodger,
    
        Thanks for your entry.  Welcome!
    
        I do see a couple of things differently, but I embrace the
        motivation of your heart.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    
    From the Westminster Confession.
    
			    Of Baptism

[6.154]
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus
Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into
the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the
covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of
remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus
Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's
own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the
world.

[6.155]
2. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith
the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called
thereunto.

[6.156]
3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism
is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the
person.

[6.157]
4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto
Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to
be baptized.

[6.158]
5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,
yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that
no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are
baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

[6.159]
6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein
it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this
ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited
and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants)
as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own
will, in his appointed time.

[6.160]
7. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any
person.

Hi Jeff,

It would be useful to qualify those statements with scripture references
- that being the conference basis!  ;-)

							Andrew

      I think baptism literally means immersion.
    
      I await the day that my daughters choose to be baptized.
      My expectation is that they are born of the Spirit before
      they choose to be born of water, i.e. that genuine faith
      precedes the choice to be baptized.
    
    						Tony

    1. Salvation
    2. Sealed/Filled by the Holy Spirit
    3. Water Baptism by Immersion

      Hi Mike,
    
        I wonder if points 1 and 2 are coincedent, i.e. occur at the
        exact same moment?
    
        My reasoning is that faith is the acceptance of salvation and
        is also the same moment the grace of God is permitted by the
        individual to indwell the heart.
    
        Whatever, but my thoughts...		
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    Yes, I agree.  1 and 2 are probably femtoseconds apart ;-)

>      I think baptism literally means immersion.
    
    
    I'm still trying to picture folks baptising their sofas...
    
    jeff

Re: .0  (Rodger)

Before you lobby for baptismal regeneration, would you please research
prior debates that several of us have had with Tony Balsamo?

I believe the last one was in note 574.* in ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6, dated
early 1993.

Thanks.

    I am presently studying Catholic Theology at the LUDWIG-MAXIMILIAN
    university in Munich, the major theme being baptism. For a thousand
    years there is very much evidence, in fact in almost every writing
    which was written, that in baptism we receive the forgiveness of sins
    which Jesus accomplished through his atoning sacrifice. 
    
    As Tony said, baptism is to be a response to faith and repentance. If
    someone isn't interested in truly making their life right with God
    through true repentance, then baptism is nothing different than dipping
    your sofa into water (or a dog). But, ministered as Jesus commanded us,
    to those who believe the gospel we preach, to those who wish with their
    whole hearts to repent and bring their lives in order with God, it
    brings forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), it saves us
    (Mk.16:16,Tit.3:5,1.Pet.3:21) and we become thereby a part of Christ's
    church. All of the early christians saw the scripture "Unless you be
    born of the water and of the spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of
    God" as to be refering to being born of through baptism and the holy
    spirit. 
    
    In the first 2 centuries, only 1 document even refered to a situation
    arising, where full emersion was not practiced (The Didache)! There is
    no doubt that John and Jesus command people to be dipped. In the
    Didache it is menitioned only if there is LITERALLY no possibility for
    being dipped, and in this case having water poured over the head 3
    times. Satan, who is such a deceiver, takes an outer exception, which
    is questionable just as the authority of the didache is questionable.
    Other things in it show that nobody takes it in its authority. For
    example, nobody is to be baptized unless they have first fasted some
    days with the one who is to baptize.
    
    But if you don't follow Jesus in such an important step, it is very
    likely that he will not regard the traditions of men the same as
    obedience to him in this very vital step. The early christians for a
    thousand years also were convinced that nobody could be saved unless he
    were baptized. I have many quotes starting in the 2nd century saying
    this. Even today this is believed in the orthodox and catholic
    churches, which are the only ones going back to the original church.
    The only exception to this was martyrdom in Christ's name.
    
    But if the repentance is real, that we really bring our lives under the
    feet of Jesus, turning from sin and to follow him as disciples, then
    baptism as Jesus commanded comes as a result. The deception preventing
    people from become full-hearted followers of Jesus is great, and it is
    a miracle how Jesus saves us anyway. Just as he said himself as answer
    to Peter, "Who then can be saved?", Jesus said, "with man it is
    impossible. But with God all things are possible."
    
    Let's search our hearts and seek Jesus' heart, that we truly have laid
    everything at his feet!
    
    
    Rodger Dusatko

    >                          -< Repent and be baptized >-
    
    Notice the order on how this is used in God's Word - (the Gospels and
    Acts).  The order is believe and repent first, baptism comes later.
    
    The extracurricular documents are sometimes useful, but if they
    contradict scripture, they are void.
    
    Mike

    Paul in speaking about circumcism says that true circumcisn is
    spiritual circumcisn and not physical.  If a person does evil then
    circumcisn becomes uncircumcisn and if a uncircumcized person does good
    then uncircumcisn becomes circumcisn.
    
    wouldn't this also apply to Baptism?  Is not true baptism spiritual and
    not physical.  If a person who has been physically baptised is evil
    does not the baptism become unbaptism?
    
                                 Patricia

'Baptism' per se is just declaration of something which has happened in
someone's life.  If nothing has actually happened, going through a baptism
doesn't alter that.  It merely makes the baptism a false claim or false 
declaration.

John's baptism (John the Baptist) was a declaration of rejection of a 
sinful lifestyle, in principle.  It didn't make the person righteous; it 
openly declared that the individual wanted to reject sin.  Someone _could_
have been baptised by John without really caring one way or the other about
sin, but it would seem to be extremely unlikely.  In that case, the false
'baptism' would seem to be even worse than not being baptised, because they 
are pretending to subscribe to a principle which they do not allow to enter 
their heart.

							Andrew

    >Is not true baptism spiritual and not physical.  If a person who has 
    >been physically baptised is evildoes not the baptism become unbaptism?
    
    I'm not sure the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the above
    statement.  While I do not believe that baptism is salvation, I
    certainly don't believe that baptism can be tossed to the wind by
    saying "true baptism" is spiritual.
    
    I think we tread very close to tossing the whole Bible off as a
    metaphor and that is dangerous.
    
    The Bible says repent and be baptized.  Therefore, one is spiritual and
    other is physical.  The physical baptism is "identification" with our
    Lord, Jesus Christ... as he was baptized.  We follow Him.
    
    When one fully understands how the commandments of the Lord can be both
    a physical following as well as spiritual, then salvation and baptism
    become one.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

Re: .11  (Rodger)

Once again, I want to point out that the issue of baptismal regeneration has
been addressed thoroughly and in detail in ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6, note 574.*.

Given that you have been diligent enough to research historic church writings
on the subject, I think you owe it to yourself and us to research what has
already been discussed in this forum, so as to eliminate needless retreading
of ground already covered.

I got a complaint on my DTN voicemail about my reply 756.13, to the effect 
that it was unnecessarily harsh.  I don't agree with the objection, but I'd
rather my notes not detract from the issue being discussed, so I have re-worded
and re-entered that reply. 

    I believe that repentance is the first step of salvation and, indeed,
    the essential part. Our salvation is a spiritual thing, not physical -
    so it cannot be solely achieved by a physical deed (this is justifying
    ourselves by our own works). I believe water baptism to be a statement
    of our faith, not the act by which we are saved. Only God sees the
    heart of man and only God sees who has truly accepted Jesus Christ as
    their Saviour. 
    
    If water baptism were essential for salvation then does that mean that
    a deathbed repentance is worthless?? - of course not!! It is our soul 
    which is born again, not our flesh. 
    
    I wholeheartedly believe in born-again believers getting baptised
    (whether by immersion or by sprinkling) and they should - but I don;t
    believe it is essential to their salvation.
    
    Love
    Ben

    Just to open up a new can of worms (you can delete this if you want
    mods!!)
    
    The criminal on the cross next to Jesus didn't get baptised in water
    but he did get saved.
    
    Love
    Ben

Re: .19  (Ben)
>
>    Just to open up a new can of worms (you can delete this if you want
>    mods!!)
>    
>    The criminal on the cross next to Jesus didn't get baptised in water
>    but he did get saved.
    
...and the advocates of baptismal regeneration will counter that your point
is moot because Christ hadn't died yet.

Please, don't open the can.  See ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6, note 574.*

    There is so much which has been said. In one of the replies it was
    mentioned that only what the bible says is to be taken as truth. All of
    the other writings are to be compared with the scriptures, and when
    they disagree, they are void.
    
    I can only say that I agree wholeheartedly with this. The documents
    from the apostles in the first century have a special importance, and
    are a light which is certain.
    
    There are, however, many questions which may arise, which are hard to
    be certain about in some of the scriptures. And for this reason it is
    very helpful to see how the church in the first and second century saw
    these scriptures.
    
    When Peter said as answer to the question "What shall we do?", "Repent
    and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of
    sins", is this an answer which was only valid in the first century, or
    is it valid also today? I am convinced that Jesus has not changed, nor
    the truth, and it is valid today just as then. If baptism (directly
    connected to faith and repentance) was in the time of Peter for the
    forgiveness of sins, is it different today? No, of course not. When
    Ananias told Paul, "And why tarriest thou. Stand up, call on the name
    of the Lord, and be baptized, washing away your sins", he saw baptism
    also for the forgiveness of sins. From the very beginning baptism was
    for the forgiveness of sins. Starting with John: John the baptist was
    in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance for the
    forgiveness of sins. The baptism of Jesus includes also this
    forgiveness, just as Peter proclaimed in acts 2:37. 
    
    The sinner's prayer or conversions prayer does not, at least not 
    scripturally (Paul never prayed a prayer, he baptized those who
    believed, and they received the forgiveness of sins). Faith in the
    gospel of Jesus is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Without it
    there is no access to the forgiveness which happens in baptism, where
    we receive that for which Jesus died.  
    
    Shortly after the apostles, between 130 and 150 AD, one of the leaders
    of the church, Justin, wrote,
    
    "Then(after repentance and faith) they are led, where there is water,
    and experience the rebirth in the same way as we ourselves were reborn.
    In the name of God the Father and Lord of all things, and our Savior
    Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit they receive the washing in the
    baptismal bath in water. For Christ has also said, "If you are not born
    again, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven."
    
    The early church understood Jesus' speaking of being born again in John
    3 as refering directly to baptism, baptism resulting from a birth which
    the spirit had worked. 'Unless you be born of water and of the spirit'.
    They also understood baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
    
    Another note mentioned how baptism(Jesus ONLY taught a full dipping) is
    of little value, it is only the spiritual which has meaning. 
    Baptism is how we enter into the New Testament, it is the covenant, the
    circumcision of Christ, the way we enter into Christ's church, freed
    from the filth of the world. It is a covenant. 
    
    Marriage is also a covenant. Marriage reflects the covenant between
    Christ and his Church. Just because some people have been unfaithful in
    the marriage covenant, it DOES NOT mean that the covenant is
    meaningless. Some people have tried to tell me they live together and
    have the same good relationship with one another as others who are
    married. But God is the one who made the covenant of marriage. And if
    you disregard the covenant of marriage, then God charges you with
    fornication or adultry. In fact, such people are banned from Christ's
    church, unless they repent (1.Kor.5:11) The same is true about the
    covenant which we enter through baptism. Maybe some people seem to live
    a life more "christian" than those who have entered the covenant. Even
    though they have not been baptized as Jesus and the apostles taught,
    they try their best to follow Jesus. However, this is the same as
    people living together without being married. For that reason, those
    who have not entered the covenant should be excluded from communion.
    Again from Justin:
    
    "And also this Food which we call Eucharist, on which nobody is
    permitted to partake, except those who believe, that which is taught is
    true, and have received the forgiveness of their sins by the bath of 
    rebirth and live so, as Christ commanded us. For this is not normal
    bread and normal drink which we receive,..."

    An interesting sidebar to this is the controversy started by John the
    Baptist.  In those days, water baptism was strictly for Gentiles
    wanting to convert to Judaism.  It was only done by immersion.  
    Jews were not baptized!  This is why he was controversial.

    Mike

    Mike,
    
    If Jews were not baptized, why was Jesus?  
    
    Wondering,
    Pam

    	Pam --  That was part of the controversy Mike was talking about
    	in .22.  John was Baptizing Jews.

Re: .21  (Rodger)

You are making me sorry that I reworded my reply .13.  

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration that Rodger has presented is not
according to God's word, but is a perversion of the true gospel of Jesus
Christ.  Rodger and other followers of the Boston Church of Christ "Multiplying
Ministries" movement would have us believe that there is no salvation apart
from immersion in water for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness of sins.

Despite the ground that was covered in _V6 note 574.*, it looks like we
will have to rehash these issues once again.

A complete list of all the occurances in the bible of the words "baptism",
"baptisms", "baptize", "baptized", and "baptizing" are as follows: 

Matthew	 3:6,7,11,13,14,16, 21:25, 28:19			
Mark	 1:4,5,8,9, 10:38,39, 11:30, 16:16
Luke	 3:3,7,12,16,21, 7:29,30, 12:50, 20:4
John	 1:25,26,28,31,33, 3:22,23,26, 4:1,2, 10:40
Acts	 1:5,22, 2:38,41, 8:12,13,16,36,38, 9:18, 10:37,47,48,
	 11:16, 13:24, 16:15,33, 18:8,25, 19:3,4,5, 22:16
Romans	 6:3,4
1 Cor	 1:13,14,15,16,17, 10:2, 12:13, 15:29
Gal	 3:27			
Eph	 4:5			
Col	 2:12			
Hebrews	 6:2			
1 Peter	 3:21			

In a matter of minutes, you can read everthing there is to know about baptism
in the bible, and then decide for yourself.


			----	BAPTISM    ----


The word "baptize" comes from the Greek word <baptizo>, which literally means
"to immerse".  The English word "baptize" is a transliteration, an English word
invented to represent the Greek original that sounds like the Greek original.

The Greek words <rhantizo>, which means to sprinkle, and <cheo>, which means to
pour, are not used in connection with "baptism".

A complete list of all the occurances in the bible of the words "baptism",
"baptisms", "baptize", "baptized", and "baptizing" follows: 


Matthew	 3:6,7,11,13,14,16	Story of John the Baptist, Jesus baptized
	21:25			"John's baptism -- where did it come from"
	28:19			"Go therefore and make disciples..."
Mark	 1:4,5,8,9		Story of John the Baptist, Jesus baptized
	10:38,39		"Can you drink the cup I drink..."?
	11:30			"John's baptism -- was it from heaven or..."
	16:16			"Go into all the world..."
Luke	 3:3,7,12,16,21		Story of John the Baptist, Jesus baptized
	 7:29,30		(non-)baptized persons (didn't) accept testimony
	12:50			"But I have a baptism to undergo..."
	20:4			"John's baptism -- was it from heaven or..."
John	 1:25,26,28,31,33	Story of John the Baptist, Jesus baptized
	 3:22,23,26		Jesus' disciples vs. John's disciples baptizing
	 4:1,2			Jesus' disciples baptizing more than John's
	10:40			Jesus came to where John had been baptizing...
Acts	 1:5,22			"Do not leave Jerusalum, but wait..."
	 2:38,41		"Repent and be baptized, every one of you..."
	 8:12,13,16,36,38	Baptizing in Samaria / Ethiopian eunuch baptized
	 9:18			Saul baptized
	10:37,47,48		Baptizing Gentiles in Caesaria 
	11:16			Peter recalls events at Caesaria
	13:24			"John preached repentance and baptism to..."
	16:15,33		Lydia and household baptized
	18:8,25			Cor. baptized / Apollos knew only John's baptism
	19:3,4,5		Paul explains to Apollos
	22:16			Paul recalling his conversion
Romans	 6:3,4			Dead to sin, alive in Christ, "buried with him"
1 Cor	 1:13,14,15,16,17	Divisions -- "not baptized into Paul"
	10:2			"baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea
	12:13			"All baptized by one Spirit"
	15:29			"if no resurrection, why are people baptized..."
Gal	 3:27			"all of you who were baptized into Christ..."
Eph	 4:5			"One Lord, one faith, one baptism"
Col	 2:12			"having been buried with him in baptism"
Hebrews	 6:2			"...let us leave the elementary teachings..."
1 Peter	 3:21			"...and this water symbolizes baptism that..."

The BCC members appeal to the scriptures as their sole authority for doctrine
and practice.  They have testified to the invalidity of opinions, traditions,
personal testimonies, practical dilemmas, and even the numbers of people in
the Boston Garden, when defending the validity of their doctrine on water
baptism. 

On the subject of what the scriptures teach vs. what they don't teach, I will
again summarize the points that we have brought up which the BCC members have
not answered, in their attempt to defend their position that water baptism (and
coincident understanding) is necessary for one's salvation. 

1.  We have shown that he word "for" (eis) is not by itself unambiguous.  The
BCC members have not demonstrated that the word "for" in Acts 2:38 must mean
"in order to get" as opposed to "in view of", grammatically or otherwise.  That
it must be the former remains the *opinion* of the BCC members. 

2.  Acts 2:38 does not mention water.  It has not been demonstrated by the
BCC members that the type of immersion being referred to by the apostle Peter
in Acts 2:38 is water immersion, as opposed to immersion of the Holy Spirit or
immersion into the name/body of Christ.  That water is implied is the *opinion*
of the BCC members.

3.  It has been shown grammatically that Acts 2:38 addresses the forgiveness
of the sins of the many and the baptism of *each* of the many, forcing the
conclusion that the former cannot be dependant on the latter.  The BCC members
continue to have no rebuttal to the grammatical facts that present this
dilemma.  

4.  The BCC members say that the only valid [water] baptism is [water]
baptism for the purpose of obtaining of the remission of sins, implying
eternal condemnation for anyone who was immersed in water without believing
that it was necessary for their salvation.  Put another way, a "retroactive
understanding" of baptism is "invalid".  They have not provided scriptural
support for this doctrine.  It is therefore a doctrine of men, not scripture. 

5.  The BCC members say that there are two kinds of works in the Bible:  Works
done to merit salvation and works done as a faith response.  No scripture has
has been provided that explicitly teaches this peculiar doctrine.  The BCC
members have only given us us their opinion of what they think the scriptures
as a whole imply. 

6.  In light of point #5 above, the BCC members haven't told us what kind of
"works" Eph 2:8-10 refers to.  Does it refer to "works" that do not save us
("...for it is by grace you are saved...not by works..."), or does it refer to
"works" that are done as a faith response ("...for we are God's workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus to do good works...").

7.  The BCC members say that baptism itself doesn't save you.  But 1 Peter 3:21
says that baptism does save you.  They have not answered this dilemma.

8.  The BCC members claim that the principle of saving faith is unchanged from
the Old Testament to the New Testament.  But Gen 15:6 shows that Abraham's
(Abram's) faith was credited to him as righteousness apart from any action on
his part.  The BCC members have provided no rebuttal to this fact.

That water baptism (and coincident understanding) is necessary for one's
salvation remains a doctrine based upon the BCC member's opinions, and should
not be taken as a doctrine of the bible.  The BCC members are only speaking
according to what is right in their own eyes.

Baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptismo (or something like that).
It means immersion.  The Hebrew is mikvah.  I think you can find references in 
the Tanakh (Old Testament).  It was used for purification as well as for conversion.
It is still done amongst the Orthodox today - every month for women, before the
high Holy days for men.  There is lots of Jewish literature on the mikvah.  It is
a requirement for conversion, but conversion is not the only use.  I do not think 
there was any conflict with Yochanon (John) officiating a mikveh for Jewish people.
The only controversy I know is that Yochanon knew Yeshua did not need the mikvah of
repentence!  He, Yochanon should have been going to Yeshua to be washed clean.

Leslie

More Later when I have time - references, bibliography, etcetera.

My disagreement was not with Garth's replies.  He is quicker at entering notes
than I am!  And he explained the word baptism better than I did.  But immersion
amongst the Jews was and is known.  They look at it quite differently than 
Christianity does however.

Leslie

    Leslie, thanks for the info.  I'll have to go back and check on my
    source that claimed it was only for Gentiles converting to Judaism. 
    Sounds like that was the only way it was used.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

When discussing the issue of baptismal regeneration, it is important to keep
in mind that the scriptures are the highest authority in the matter.  As Mike
Heiser already pointed out, it does not really matter what the traditions and
practice was during the history of the church, as documented in the various
writings.  So we should go to the inspired writings of the bible to see what
God has to say (or what God doesn't say) on the matter.  

I will proceed on the assumption that something so essential to our very 
salvation ought to be spelled out in the scriptures in no uncertain terms.
If the scriptures are vague and uncertain about a particular matter, then
I will assume it is not essential to our salvation.

The Boston Church of Christ (a.k.a. Multiplying Ministries) movement, the
mainline "Church of Christ" non-denomination, some factions of the "Christian
Church" non-denomination, and several pseudo-Christian cults teach that water
baptism is essential to one's salvation.  A collection of supposed proof-texts
is given, usually beginning with Acts 2:38.

In the three replies that follow, I will address Acts 2:38 as the first
"proof-text".

The word "baptize" is a transliteration of the original Greek word <baptizo>,
which simply means "immerse."  By "transliteration," I mean that the original
Greek word was modified to create a like-sounding English word.  But the word
actually means "immerse."

Now, usually "immersion" implies some sort of liquid, such as water.  But 
not always.  Consider the following as two examples:

	He was immersed in water.
	He was immersed in the story he was reading.

In the scriptures, we find that where the word "baptize" is used, there are
at least three things a person can be immersed into:

	Baptism (immersion) in water.
	Baptism (immersion) in the Holy Spirit.
	Baptism (immersion) in (the body of) Christ.

Sometimes the scriptures are explicit about the type of baptism (immersion).
Other times it is not.  

Let's see what Acts 2:38 says (and doesn't say) on the matter:

"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized (immersed), every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"  (Acts 2:38) 

As can be seen, the verse touted as the prime you-bet-you're-salvation
proof-text does not even mention water.

Now let's review what John the Baptist said:

"'I baptize (immerse) you in water for repentance.  But after me will come one
who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry.  He will
baptize (immerse) you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.'"  (Matt 3:11) 

And a few days before Peter's Pentecost speech, Jesus said:

"'Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you
have heard me speak about.  For John baptized (immersed) in water, but in a few
days you will be baptized (immersed) with the Holy Spirit."  (Acts 1:4-5) 

If water was the main point of Acts 2:38, then it would have been specified in
no uncertain terms.  Rather, there is something more important than water which
John the Baptist and Jesus taught about.  Let's not lose sight of it.

Consider the following two English phrases:

        1.  I have a warrant for your arrest.
        2.  I have a gift for your graduation.

In the first case, the word "for" implies a cause-effect relationship.  The
"warrant" is for the purpose of obtaining the "arrest".

In the second case, the word "for" implies a different relationship.  The
"gift" is given *on account of* or *as a testimony to* or *because of* the
"graduation".

Those advocating baptismal regeneration point to Acts 2:38 as a proof-text
that one must be baptized in water in order to obtain forgiveness of sins.
Let's see what Acts 2:38 says:

"Peter replied, 'Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  And you will receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit.'"  (Acts 2:38)

Those advocating baptismal regeneration make the assumption that the word "for"
(Greek <eis>) makes the forgiveness of sins the result of being immersed in
water.  This is both unprecedented and inconsistent with the rest of the Bible,
which teaches the forgiveness of sins that comes as a result of what Jesus did,
not us. 

What does one person's baptism have to do with the forgiveness of another's
sins?  Hopefully we all should agree that the answer is "nothing".

Let's take a close look at what Acts 2:38 says:

    Petros   de   pros autous      metanoesate        kai      baptistheno
    <Peter> <and> <to> <them>: <You (plural) repent> <and>  <let be baptized>

    ekastos      humon           epi   to   onomati   Iesou    Khristou
    <each>  <of you (plural)>   <on>  <the> <name>  <of Jesus> <Christ>

     eis     aphesin      ton     hamartion      humon          kai
    <for> <forgiveness> <of the>   <sins>    <of you (plural)> <and>

          lemphesthe             ten  dorean   tou    hagiou pneumatos"
    <you (plural) will receive> <the> <gift> <of the> <Holy> <Spirit>

Peter tells the crowd in attendance to repent.  He commands that "each" of them
should be immersed.  What is it which is "for" the forgiveness of the crowd's
sins?  The repenting (of the crowd)?  Or the immersing (of each of them)?  Or
both?  The point is that it cannot be the latter, so therefore it must be the
former. 

The conclusion:  Repentance must be associated with the forgiveness of sins,
while the directive to be baptized can be associated with neither.  

Logically, those advocating baptismal regeneration want Acts 2:38 to read
as follows:

        {repent and let each be baptized} ==> for the forgiveness of your sins

Grammatically, however, we are forced to read it as follows:

        repent {and let each be baptized} for the forgiveness of your sins
          |                                ^
          +--------------------------------+

One rendering links repentance with being baptized.  The other holds the "be
baptized" as parenthetical within the phrase.

Once again, that the latter (and admittedly, more awkward) rendering must
prevail is because each of them cannot be baptized for the forgiveness of the
sins of all of them.

Mark 16:16 is another proof-text used by those advocating baptismal generation.

Let's look to see what Mark 16:16 says (and doesn't say):

	"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
	believe will be condemned."  (Mark 16:16)

Q:  What does Mark 16:16 say about those who believe and are not baptized?
A:  Nothing.

Q:  What does Mark 16:16 say about water?
A:  Nothing.

So Mark 16:16 can be added to our list of scriptures that don't teach that
water baptism is necessary for one's salvation.

Next in the line of proof-texts used by people advocating the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration is 1 Peter 3:21. 

"...who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while
the ark was being built.  In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved
through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not
the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward
God.  It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:20-21) 

Clearly, 1 Peter 3:21 says that there is a baptism that saves you.  But what
kind of baptism?  To begin with, there is no water mentioned in connection with
the "baptism that now saves you".  Only water in connection with the Flood.  In
fact, the wicked who were immersed (i.e. baptized) in the Flood drowned,
whereas Noah and his family were merely sprinkled and survived!  In any case,
"water" doesn't symbolize water, so we should be looking for some greater
principle or truth which the water does symbolize. 

If that weren't enough, the apostle Peter goes on to emphasize that the
"baptism that now saves you" is *not* the removal of dirt from the body, 
which is literally what the ceremonial washing of Jewish baptism was.  Rather,
it is the "pledge of a good conscience toward God" which saves you.

And so in conclusion 1 Peter 3:21 does not demonstrate that water baptism is
necessary for one's salvation.

    Nice work, Garth!  I'm enjoying it and filing it away for future use.
    
>Let's look to see what Mark 16:16 says (and doesn't say):
>
>	"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
>	believe will be condemned."  (Mark 16:16)

    A good friend of mine at church is a former member of the BCC cult. 
    When God saved him, he did some pretty thorough study on this verse
    (and others).  He told me if you look at the Greek for this verse it 
    becomes much more clear.  Baptism always follows belief and salvation.
    
    If it wasn't practiced by the early church in Acts, and taught by the
    apostles in their letters, it is clearly not of God.  Sin is a
    spiritual problem not solved by water.  Check out these
    verses in Acts as well:
    
    Acts 2:37-41 - those who believed were saved and then baptized.
    Acts 8:36-38 - enuch had to believe first to be saved in order to be
                   baptized, which supports Romans 10:9-10.
    Acts 9:17-18 - Paul believed first, was saved, and then baptized.
    Acts 10:44-48 - believed, saved, and then baptized.
    Acts 16:14-15 - believed, saved, and then baptized.
    Acts 16:30-34 - this one is especially clear: believed, saved, baptized.
    Acts 18:8     - Crispus and his family believed, saved, and then baptized.
    
    You should notice a pattern at this point.
    
    Mike

Next, let's consider Acts 22:16, another alleged proof-text that is supposed
to demonstrate that water baptism is necessary for one's salvation.

"'So now, what are you waiting for?  Get up, be baptized and wash your sins 
away, calling on his name.'"
(Acts 22:16)

To begin with, water is not mentioned in this verse.  "Baptism" is mentioned,
but not water baptism.  "Washing" is cited, but not washing with water.
Finally, one has to consider whether "wash your sins away" is to be
associated with the directive to be baptized, or the directive to "call
on his name."  

Obviously, those advocating baptismal regeneration want the "baptism" to be
water baptism, the "washing" to be with water, and the washing away of sins to
be the consequence of the (water) "baptism."  But they have to read all that
into the verse.

This was an exhortation by Ananias to Saul (soon to be known as the Apostle
Paul).  Saul, a highly educated pharisee, would have been familiar with the
words of the prophet Joel:  "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord 
will be saved." (Joel 2:32), and would repeat the exhortation to those he
discipled:  "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved."
(Romans 10:13).

So we can add Acts 22:16 to our list of verses that don't prove that water
baptism is necessary for one's salvation.

For anyone who still supposes that "washing" always has to be with water,
I'll leave you to ponder the meaning of the following:

 "They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb."
 (Rev 7:14)

    This one isn't as strong as your previous ones.  Maybe you
    would be better off saying that in Saul's case the repentance
    and baptism ocurred at the same time.
    

Re: .39

>    This one isn't as strong as your previous ones.  Maybe you
>    would be better off saying that in Saul's case the repentance
>    and baptism ocurred at the same time.
    
Hmmm.  This is a good point that hadn't occurred to me.  You are right in
that this is an individual case, in which Paul is giving his testimony and
recalling the events of *his* conversion.

Next let's examine Col 2:12, and see if it proves that baptism is necessary
for our salvation.

"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,
not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision
done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him
through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."
(Col 2:11-12)

Advocates of baptismal regeneration usually only cite verse 12 in their 
presentation.  I have included verse 11 to give us a bit more context.  Once
again, there is no mention of water in connection with the above "baptism."
And verse 11 shows that we are dealing not with something that men do, but
rather something Christ did for us.  The parallel is clear:  There is a
circumcision of the flesh, and then there is the circumcision of the heart. 
But it is the circumcision of the heart that counts.  Likewise with baptism. 

So Col 2:12 does not demonstrate that water baptism is necessary for one's
salvation.

Next let's examine Romans 6:1-7 and see if anything there demonstrates that
water baptism is necessary for our salvation.

"What shall we say, then?  Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
By no means!  We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?  Or don't you
know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his
death?  We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order
that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father,
we too may live a new life.  If we have been united with him like this in his
death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.  For we
know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be
done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin -- because anyone
who has died has been freed from sin."  (Romans 6:1-7) 

Now where's the water here?  This language is so figurative that it is hard
to conceive of it otherwise.

For those who insist that the baptism being spoken of must be literal 
immersion into water, then how do you explain being literally "immersed into
death"?  And for that matter, into Christ's literal "death"?  And literally
"buried with him"?  Literally "crucified"?  Our "old" bodies literally "done
away with"?  And how do you reconcile literally being united with Christ
(future tense) in his literal resurrection (past event)?  Or the idea of being
a literal "slave" to an impersonal principle ("sin")? 

So Romans 6:1-7 does not prove that water baptism is necessary for one's
salvation.

"No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit"
(John 3:5)

Baptismal regeneration advocates often cite the above verse out of its context
in an attempt to prove that being baptized in water is necessary for salvation,
and that it is at this point where one receives the Holy Spirit and is born
again. 

For sure, no one can deny that water is mentioned here.  But look what isn't
mentioned:  Baptism.

So right away we can add John 3:5 to our list of scriptures that don't teach
that water baptism is necessary for salvation. 

Now let's put the verse back in its context and find out what the discussion
between Jesus and Nicodemus is really all about:

"In reply Jesus declared, 'I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom
of God unless he is born again.' 'How can a man be born when he is old?'
Nicodemus asked.  'Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's
womb to be born!' Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter
the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.  Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.  You should not be
surprised at my saying, "You must be born again."  The wind blows wherever
it pleases.  You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or
where it is going.  So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:3-8)

Now one can see that it is quite obvious that the "water" mentioned refers
to our natural birth from out of our mother's womb.

This also poses a dilemma for those advocating baptismal regeneration:  The
thief on the cross wasn't baptized in water, but was saved.  This fact they
write off based on the premise that baptism was not instituted yet, since
Jesus had not died yet and the Christian church hadn't started yet.  But if
this is the case, then why is Nicodemus not likewise exempt at the time of
this encounter with Jesus?

I have now cited the main verses used by those who would have us believe that
being baptized in water is necessary for salvation.  As can clearly be seen,
none of them support this doctrine.

Once again, there is no earthly action on our part which is necessary for our
salvation.  The only significant action is that which Jesus did:  He shed his
blood and died for us, paying the penalty for our sins on the cross at Calvary,
nearly 2000 years ago.  And so we are justified before God on account of our
faith in the Lord Jesus and what he did on our behalf.  Our faith, his action.

Let no one lose heart:  Jesus saves, and nothing else and no one else does.
Do not listen to those who would deter you in any way from "the faith, once
for all entrusted to the saints."  (Jude :3) 

    Good Stuff Garth.

    Garth,
    I read your comments. You seem to be somewhat upset with the BCC, and I
    don't even know what this group is or believes. But in your harsh reply
    in 756.21 (
    >The doctrine of baptismal regeneration that Rodger has presented is not
    >according to God's word, but is a perversion of the true gospel of Jesus
    >Christ.  Rodger and other followers of the Boston Church of Christ
    >"Multiplying Ministries" movement would have us believe that there is no 
    >salvation apart from immersion in water for the purpose of obtaining 
    >forgiveness of sins.
    
    you first mention that it is not according to God's word, but a
    perversion of the truth. I have seen again and again, to someone who
    believes a lie, the truth appears as a perversion. 
    
    We need to orientate ourselves, not with what the christian world
    thinks almost 2000 years after Jesus came, but rather on Jesus himself
    and the disciples and the early church, which did not have such a gulf
    which separated them from Jesus and the truth.
    
    Jesus himself is the truth, and what he says we need to hearken, and
    not try to explain away or make him agree with popular opinion of
    todays christianity. We also need especially to hearken to the
    apostles, first, because not only did they read the words of some
    manuscript, but they were with Jesus and could understand what he meant
    with his words. Paul was confirmed by Peter and reading Acts, there
    should be no doubt that we should also hearken to Paul. And the early
    church, which learnt from the apostles, were only a matter of decades
    or a hundred years apart from Jesus is also important to heed to,
    although we must understand that there may be some error. But orienting
    ourselves on all of these will help us have a better understanding on
    what Jesus really wishes from us.
    
    When Jesus said, Unless you be born of water and the spirit, you cannot
    enter the kingdom of God, he was talking to someone who was religious
    about being born of God. Just as a natural birth, there is a God-given
    part and a part we as people play. The Gospel is the seed, it allows
    for the Spirit to begin working in our lives. When the time of our
    salvation is near, we experience faith towards God's words. We are not
    yet born, but we begin experiencing that the Gospel is God's power to
    salvation for those who believe. At the right time, we believe and call
    on the Lord. This was worked by faith in the Word of God. By faith we
    are sons of God. But now the side of the church! As we recognize that
    someone believes the Gospel, Jesus has commanded us as his church that
    they be baptized and that we teach them to be disciples. 
    
    My hope is that as many people as possible are in heaven. I'm sure that
    is your heart, and for certain it is Christ's heart. But Satan is a
    deceiver, and is at work. We, as Christ's church, need to be aware that
    Satan is also at work trying to deceive those who know Jesus, and
    sincerly follow him. When I compare the writings of the early church,
    including the gospels and epistles, what the church now thinks or now
    is, I see large discrepencies. As a young christian these differences
    were not so obvious. But it is God's wish to restore his church, that
    she might be much more glorious, and seeing the weakness of the church
    today is not necessarily bad, but it can also give us a greater ability
    to bring restoration.
    
    Baptism can be compared to how a child is delivered. Romans talks about
    it being our death, our old man being crucified, so that we can live as
    saints, and not be still ruled by sin. It was Paul's answer for not
    continuing in sin. Sure, it was Christ whose death redeems us, this
    happens to us personally as we are baptized, as we receive that which
    Jesus died for, not alone by immersion, but just as Jesus said himself,
    by believing the Gospel and being baptized. Baptism is also something
    which happens from both sides, our promise to Jesus and Jesus' promise
    to us. By our baptism, we give our confession 'Jesus as Lord' of our
    lives, us submitted to him, and henseforth no longer to live in sin.
    Jesus gives us also promises, that our sins are forgiven, we are his
    sons, we have entered into the new covenant.
    
    This is how the writers of the scriptures and the early church saw
    baptism. As 1.Cor.12 says, we are all baptized by one spirit into one
    body(the church), just as with Peter, they that gladly received his
    words were baptized, and 3000 souls were added to them. 
    
    There was no sinners prayer for over 1500 years, there was no
    'receiving Jesus into your heart'. Let us orientate ourselves again on
    the Word of God, on Jesus, the apostles and the early church. It should
    be a common occurence that people are baptized upon believing, EVERYONE
    in Acts were baptized so. Paul was baptized in his first encounter with
    a christian, and even he was told, "What are you waiting for?" Should
    we not pose the same question to anyone who sincerly wishes to follow
    Jesus today but has not been baptized? Or maybe, because of the
    grevious effects of the teachings of men, have had water poured upon
    them as an infant, but never experienced the Jesus commanded "believe
    and be baptized" (he certainly didn't mean a little water on the head) 
    method. Baptism without faith is nothing more than getting wet. It is
    by one spirit we are baptized into one body. If the spirit is not
    involved with the regeneration necessary for rebirth, how can an act of
    man dunking someone in water and saying some words cause the true
    rebirth? 
    
    "As the goodnes and love of God appeared, our Saviour, he saved us, not
    according to the works of righteousness we have done, but according to
    his great mercy through the washing of rebirth(water) and the
    regeneration of the holy spirit(spirit) which he poured out abundantly
    on us through Jesus Christ, our saviour, that we might through the same
    grace be righteous and heirs of eternal life after this hope. THIS IS
    CERTAINLY TRUE!" Tit.5:3
    
    Garth, you trying to argue that Peter didn't baptize the people with
    water, that Jesus didn't mean that those who believe and are
    baptized(by water) will be saved is contradicted by every writing of
    any of the christians for the first 1500 years. You need to learn to
    rightly divide the word of God, and not to make such statements. Such
    unfounded declarations tend to taunt the rest of what you say. Try to
    understand what Jesus was meaning when he was speaking, instead of
    taking his words apart and putting your own comments in (saying if
    Jesus really wanted to understand we are saved through both faith and
    baptism that he wouldn't have said "believe and are baptized shall be 
    saved", but instead "believe and are baptized with water shall be
    saved". Jesus said what he said. It is your responsibility whether you
    can accept his words. 
    
    Rodger Dusatko
         

    Andrew,
    
    Thanks for your reply.
    
    I am not associated with BBC. I live in Germany, have worked beginning
    churches since 1974 (the first one in L.A.) In 1981 was ordained an
    evangelist in a meeting with leaders from throughout the world. Since
    1976 I have been working in Germany, where we have been preaching,
    baptizing and making disciples ever since. I have a wife and 3
    wonderful children. As the borders went down I went to east germany for
    a number of years and oversaw a work their. Now I am back in Munich. 
    
    Although I have been involved with a work for 20 years, called Gospel
    Outreach, just in the last years God has begun moving us into an
    organization-free relationship with his church. Presently I am leading
    a bible group which started with a few people believing and being
    baptized. At the same time we visit sundays a spirit filled church
    located not too far from us (it used to be a mennonite church). 
    
    In 1982 just after being ordained an evangelist, I had some pretty
    direct encounters with Jesus and the holy spirit. One of the major
    corrections I received was how I saw conversion. Until that time we
    (and I) would pray for people to receive Jesus, often connected with
    asking for forgiveness, accepting Jesus as Lord, and making a decision
    to follow him, become a part of our or another church was soon to
    follow. Many of these prayer conversions didn't match what happened in
    the scriptures (Acts). The Lord showed me clearly that conversions
    include definite parts which Jesus has ordained, and I was not to
    change this, but to be an evangelist as he wishes, in obedience to him.
    His word became a rock of authority in my life, and whatever it would
    cost, I decided I would stand on it. 
    
    Baptism was the very first point which he began to reveal to me. Its
    direct connection to salvation, conversion, repentance, receiving
    forgiveness. becoming a part of Christ's church, receiving the gift of
    the Holy Spirit, and a first step in making disciples were in this time
    solidified through him teaching me, not by the organization I was in,
    but by a growing working of the Holy Spirit in my life, and
    specifically in the area of being an evangelist. I could then
    understand why EVERYONE was baptized upon believing in every example in
    Acts, that it was not an exception that Ananias baptized Paul in his
    first encounter with him, or Philip with the eunuch, or Peter with the
    3000, or Philip with the city of Samaria. When we do not have Jesus'
    understanding of baptism and its place in the New testament in Christ's
    own blood, then we cannot understand why it is so important that it
    happened in EVERY instance in Acts upon believing the gospel. 
    
    Before I believed God concerning baptism, I almost never experienced
    conversions as in Acts, afterwards they have become the rule. Not only
    are the conversions stronger, but the pouring out of the Spirit is much
    more intense, where often Spiritual explosions similiar to Acts
    16:16-end with Paul happen. 
    
    Concerning whether baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, not only is
    it mentioned many times in the new testament that this is so, but ALL
    christians throughout the world believed this until after Luther, at
    least when you believe all of the writings. It is mentioned repeatedly
    in virtually every writing that handles the subject of baptism as being
    the major meaning of baptism, where we receive the forgiveness for
    which Christ died. In the Nicean Creed, from which the apostolic creed
    is based, it has been confirmed without hardly any contradiction for
    over 1500 years by the words,
    
     We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
    
    If John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins, as mentioned in 2
    gospels, do you suppose the baptism of Jesus is less? Peter did not
    make a mistake when he said 'be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
    for the forgiveness of sins', nor Paul, as he recounts, 'Be baptized
    and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord'. The
    scripture in Titus 5:3-4 was quoted by many of the early christians,
    Justin, Tertullian, etc. as refering to baptism. They were so certain
    that Justin says that he received it from the apostles (he was born
    before John had died!) Ignatius mentions this cleansing of baptism even
    earlier and Hermes, written just as early. But there is no writings I
    know of where they didn't believe that baptism was for the forgiveness
    of sins. I would be supprised you could find anything saying this from
    anyone until over 1500 years after Christ. 
    
    Today, most all christians error in this very important point. Either
    they take away the meaning Christ gave to baptism and do it as an
    obedience step or simply an outward confession, or infants are
    baptized, who are incapable of experiencing the glorious salvation and
    conversion which Jesus died for that we might receive.
    
    The scripture in John 3:3-5 is mentioned specifically by Justin,
    Tertullian and many others. They all believed in that time than nobody
    could belong to the church unless they were baptized. For over 1500
    years nobody was allowed to partake of communion unless they were
    baptized. (Unfortunately many were only christened as infants) But for
    the first 400 years christening was more an exception than a rule, and
    in these first 400 years if someone was visiting one of the churches,
    there are numerous accounts that they would be blessed by the bishop
    and sent home, while those who were baptized (at this time fully
    immersed together with their faith) partook of the Lord's blood and
    body. It was too sacred to have non-baptized people partake.
    
    The understanding for hundreds of years is that you became a christian
    by believing the gospel and being baptized, you were saved by believing
    the gospel and being baptized, you received the holy spirit once you
    believed and were baptized, etc. As I mentioned before, there was no
    sinners prayer like today with Billy Graham (who I really respect but
    do not simply copy him as a fellow evangelist). Baptism was often
    written about in parallel to marriage, where we enter a covenant
    through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ and baptism.
    
    "For we are all sons of God through your faith in Jesus Christ. For
    all of us who have been baptized into Christ have clothed ourselves 
    with Christ"
     Gal.3(end)
    
    We are Sons of God by faith, for when we were baptized we were clothed
    with Christ. There is an inseparable connection between believing and
    being baptized. Don't try to separate them, it was never intended by
    Jesus or the apostles. When Paul preached and people believed, they
    were baptized (on the same day). When Peter preached and people believed, 
    they were baptized (on the same day). When Phillip preached and people
    believed, they were baptized (on the same day). When I preach and people 
    believe, I take the boldness to expect the same thing. And I baptize
    them. Where those who believed Peter and yet chose not to be baptized
    also saved? The examples we see would pretty well answer this with No.
    If those who believed Paul and yet chose not to be baptized also saved?
    The examples we see would pretty well answer this with No. If those who
    believe the gospel when I preach it, and yet choose not to be baptized,
    are they saved? I would answer No. If they really believed the gospel,
    if they 'gladly receive our message', as they did in Acts 2:38-42, they
    will be baptized and then there is no question as to whether they are
    saved, provided they remain faithful to the covenant they make in
    baptism of renouncing sin and Satan, and receiving Jesus as Lord.
    
    I am not quoting any scriptures from a bible I have here. I only have
    my german translation, so the scripture quotes are not word for word as
    in King James or something. If this is a problem for you, let me know
    and I will try in the future to have an english bible. (I hardly ever
    read from an english bible after 20 years in germany)
    
    Rodger Dusatko
    

Re: .46,.48  (Rodger)

I see that you have no answer to my scriptural rebuttal of your position.
My point stands then, and we can conclude that the Bible, by itself, does
not teach that water baptism is necessary for one's salvation.

Regarding providing a scriptural defense, I think you are going to find that
most contributers in this forum exhibit a Berean attitude (Acts 17:11) to
"examine the scriptures every day" to see if things that people such as 
yourself say are true.  

Given your inability to scripturally defend your claim that water baptism
is necessary for salvation, you seem to be placing more emphasis now on 
your claim that the church for "1500 years" believed that water baptism was
necessary for salvation. 

Regarding your appeal to the authority of writers in the church during that
period of 1500 years to expound upon scripture, it appears that you are quite 
inconsistent.  When it suits you, you accept their view, such as is the case
with the significance of baptism.  Then when it does not suit you, you call
their teachings "grevious" and "teachings of men" (such as for the case where
you cited the practice of infant baptism.)  So you betray your _ad hoc_ 
(agenda-driven) motives.

So if you hold these church writings to be authoritative, then might I ask why
you are not submitted fully to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? 
And if you do not hold these church writings to be authoritative, then why
aren't you putting them to the test as I have put your writings to the test? 

You cannot have it both ways.  If you pick and choose what suits you, then you
demonstrate that it is your opinion and your preconceived notions which reign
in the development of your doctrine. 

Re: .48  (Rodger)

Another point that I want to add is that it appears that you also have a
propensity to read into some early church writings what is not there, just
as you read into the scriptures what is not there.  As an example, you cite
the Nicean Creed in an attempt to demonstrate that water baptism is necessary
for obtaining the forgiveness of sins: 

>     We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
    
Notice that nowhere in this statement is water mentioned.

Given that you cannot be relied upon to be faithful to the the text of
holy scripture, which most of us are familiar with, then we can assume
that you also cannot be relied upon to be faithful to the text of early
church writings, which most of us are not familiar with.

    Garth,
    
    Presently, I am extremely busy with a very important word for Digital
    and have therfore not had time to say much. There is a lot I would like
    to say, but now is not the time. Just very briefly,
    
    I know that you are just as interested as I in fullfilling the command
    which Jesus gave us, to preach the gospel and baptize those who
    believe, making disciples, and therefore bearing fruit for eternity. 
    
    It is not really the point, that we prove you cannot go to heaven if
    someone doesn't believe our message and be baptized. The world is lost,
    has ruling in it the spirits of darkness, blinding the people. But we
    have the message by which all who believe shall be saved. Just as in
    the time of the early church, those who gladly received Peters words
    were baptized, (Acts 2:41-43) those who received Phillips words were
    joyfully baptized, those who received Pauls words were baptized, and
    those who gladly receive our words are baptized. 
    
    Everyone in the new testament was baptized the very day they believed
    the gospel preached by someone. Jesus has not changed, nor the truth.
    If the complete christianity has gone astray to experiencing what we
    read in every page of the new testament, does it mean that we have
    something better? Or possibly, we have lost some things which Jesus and
    the early disciples had? If EVERYONE in the complete new testament were
    baptized spontaneously, and as they believed this was THE step to
    receiving what Jesus died and rose for, why should we not follow their
    examples? 
    
    When you say that you don't think baptism is for the forgiveness of
    sins, then you think certainly differently than those who wrote the new
    testament. Who do you think I am going to believe? In your comments you
    show a real fixation on the scriptures, which I have also, and I
    appreciate. 
    
    If the different places where baptism is directly mentioned or inferred
    as being for the forgiveness of sins, anyone who reads those scriptures
    without having someone trying to tell him something different will
    automatically believe it. And as I believe you agree, the bible means
    what it says, and says what it means, without twisting or turning. So,
    if the thief on the cross went to paradise together with Jesus, then we
    can most assuredly say, there will be people in heaven who were not
    baptized, at least one. Jesus himself is the one who gives eternal
    life, not on hand of dogma. 
    
    When you discredit what is written in the Nicean Creed, that WE believe
    in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, I think you are going a
    little too far. However, you don't stand alone. For a long time I also
    thought that the bible was wrong, even though I believed in Jesus with
    all of my heart, I thought that Peter made a mistake when he told all
    the people to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
    forgiveness of sins. Until the Lord Jesus began to show me these things
    personally they were closed. 
    
    Everything Jesus or the Holy Spirit reveal to us agrees with the
    scriptures and makes them much more alive and working in our lives. It
    is the spirit which brings anything, everything else is just dry.
    Obedience to the holy spirit is what is important in God's eyes. So
    much of what we do needs to be tested whether it is of God's spirit, or
    if we are just doing it of ourselves. May God bless you with this
    outpouring of his Spirit, this freshness, as Peter had when he said
    those words concerning baptism. Without the Spirit, the words would
    have had no lasting effect.
    
    May God bless you in your service to him,
    
    
    Rodger Dusatko  

Re: .51  (Rodger)

Once again you have delivered an emphatic monologue that gives the appearance
of great confidence and conviction, while failing to provide any scriptural
backing for most of what you say, much less answer the scriptural objections
that I raised in replies .31 through .44. 

Let's examine some of your claims:

>    Just as in the time of the early church, those who gladly received 
>    Peters words were baptized, (Acts 2:41-43) 
    
The converts of Peter's Pentecost speech were all baptized per Acts 2:41-43,
true enough, but now let's check out the rest of your claims:

>    those who received Phillips words were joyfully baptized, 

>    those who received Pauls words were baptized,

>    Everyone in the new testament was baptized the very day they believed
>    the gospel preached by someone. 

>    EVERYONE in the complete new testament were baptized spontaneously, 
>    and as they believed this was THE step to receiving what Jesus died 
>    and rose for, 
    
These claims of yours are total presumption, since they go beyond what the
scriptures document.  You should take note of the following warning at the
end of the book of Revelation:

	"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:
	If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues
	described in this book.  And if anyone takes words away from this
	book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree
	of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
	(Rev 22:18-19)

>    When you say that you don't think baptism is for the forgiveness of
>    sins, then you think certainly differently than those who wrote the new
>    testament. 

And again, you have not demonstrated that anyone who wrote the new testament
believed as you do.  Your bold claims are without substance or foundation, and
nobody who is diligent enough to search the scriptures with an open heart is
going to believe you. 

>    If the different places where baptism is directly mentioned or inferred
>    as being for the forgiveness of sins, anyone who reads those scriptures
>    without having someone trying to tell him something different will
>    automatically believe it. 

In reply .26 I listed every reference to baptism in the new testament.  In a
matter of minutes, anyone who wants to can read all these references and see
for themselves if what you are saying is true.  So far, I see no one coming to
your defense, though the readership of this forum is substantial. 

>    So if the thief on the cross went to paradise together with Jesus, then
>    we can most assuredly say, there will be people in heaven who were not
>    baptized, at least one. Jesus himself is the one who gives eternal
>    life, not on hand of dogma. 
    
Why then does this not refute your claim?  If one may go to heaven without
having been immersed in water, then might not more?  Why is it that Nicodemus
is supposed to understand that he can't be born again without having been
immersed in water, but later the thief on the cross is exempt? 

>    When you discredit what is written in the Nicean Creed, that WE believe
>    in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, I think you are going a
>    little too far. 

I did not discredit the Nicean Creed.  In fact, I found nothing wrong with it
at all, just as I concur with the apostle Peter in 1 Pet 3:21 that "baptism"
saves you.

Once again, it is you who are reading into the Nicean Creed what is not there.
Every time you see the word "baptism", you think of someone being immersed in
water.  The rest of us recognize that there is a spiritual baptism that is
significant, the act of being immersed into water being an earthly
representation of this spiritual reality. 

Garth,

You asked me where the scriptures were which speak about baptism happening
at the time someone believes the gospel. The following are the scriptures.
I actually took every example of baptism in the book of acts. In the baptism
of John as well as the baptism of Jesus before his crucifixion people went out
to the Jordan and were baptized.

Mr. 1:5
and they were all baptized of him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

Joh.    4:1     
  When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and 
  baptized more disciples than John.
  (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

First, I would like to show all the scriptures concerning baptism as to WHEN
baptism in water was practiced. It was always at the time of believing the 
Gospel, as the step to becomming a disciple(christian) of Jesus Christ. All 
those people who did this were considered part of Christ's church. The 4 
Spiritual laws tract did not exist, instead the simple command of Jesus, Preach
the Gospel, they that believe and are baptized shall be saved. (Mk.16:16) 

Ac.     2:38    
  Then Peter said unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized every  one of you 
  in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
  the  gift  of the Holy Ghost... Then they that gladly received his word were
  baptized: and  the  same  day  there  were added unto them about three 
  thousand souls.
Ac.     8:12    
  But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning  the  kingdom 
  of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Ac.     8:13    
  Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was  baptized, he continued 
  with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Ac.     8:16    
 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only  they were baptized in the 
  name of the Lord Jesus.)
Ac.     8:36    
  And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water:  
  and  the  eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
  And he commanded the chariot to stand still:  and  they went  down  both into
  the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Ac.     9:18    
  And immediately there fell from his(Saul-Paul) eyes as it had been scales:  
  and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Ac.     10:47   
  Can any man forbid water, that  these  should  not  be baptized, which have 
  received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized 
  in  the  name  of the Lord. 
Ac.     16:15   
  And when she was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she besought  us, saying, 
  If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and 
  abide there. 
Ac.     16:33   
  And he took them the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and washed  their  
  stripes;  and  was  baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Ac.     18:8    
  And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on  the Lord with 
  all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were 
  baptized.
Ac.     19:4    
  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with  the  baptism of  repentance, 
  saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come 
  after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were 
  baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ac.     22:16   
  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
  calling on the name of the Lord.

If we wish to base our faith on the Word of God, then we must give as the answer
to the question "When were people baptized?" simply,

   "when the Gospel was received, believed". 

Now the question we need to impose on ourselves. 

   Does the church today baptize as it was done in the New Testament?

If we in truth cannot answer this question with "Yes", we need to examine
the difference. 

Was your conversion the same as the examples in the New Testament? When you
heard the message of your salvation, did you do what those in the new Testament
did?

1. "they that gladly received his words were baptized" 
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY) That DAY 3000 souls were added to their number.
2. "when they believed Philip... they were baptized"
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY) They were baptized by the one who was preaching the 
   gospel.
3. the eunuch believed and said "what does hinder me from being baptized? 
  "and they went  down  both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and 
   he baptized him"
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY)
4. And immediately there fell from his(Saul-Paul) eyes as it had been scales:  
   and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY)
5. Can any man forbid water, that  these  should  not  be baptized, which have 
   received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized 
   in  the  name  of the Lord. 
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY)
6. And he took them the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and washed  their  
   stripes;  and  was  baptized, he and all his, straightway.
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY) the SAME HOUR, straightway.
7. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on  the Lord with 
   all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were 
   baptized.
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY) 
8. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with  the  baptism of  repentance, 
   saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come 
   after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were 
   baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY) 
9. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
   calling on the name of the Lord.
   (BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY). Even a matter of minutes later was considered long,
   resulting in Ananias saying to Saul, "Why are you still waiting? (Today's 
   english)

If we do not heed these examples, we cannot say we are following the example 
of Jesus and the apostles concerning WHEN we baptize. All of the examples 
AGREE, and all were done together with believing the Gospel. They did not follow
the 4 spiritual laws tract. They followed the command of Jesus!

All of the scriptures agree. I didn't leave any out. There are none as we 
practice today, where someone heard about Jesus, was invited to a church for
a while, lifted their hand or went forward to 'accept Christ', and then weeks,
or maybe months later had an appointment made with the pastor to be baptized 
in water. Nor are there any examples where non-believers or infants were
baptized, nor are there any examples where pouring of water or sprinkling 
occured.

Garth,

    I still cannot figure out your scriptual foundation where you say that
    the baptism Jesus means with "they that believe and are baptized shall
    be saved" is not the water baptism. You really have to wrestle
    with the scriptures to say this.
    
When Peter brought the gospel to the gentiles at Cornelius' house, 
Ac.10:44   
  While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
  heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed  were  
  astonished,  as  many  as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also 
  was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with 
  tongues,  and  magnify God. Then answered Peter. Can any man forbid water, 
  that  these  should  not  be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost 
  as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in  the  name  of the 
  Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Now the scripture says 'he commanded them to be baptized'. It doesn't mention
water, but we know what Peter meant. Just as Jesus commanded Peter to baptize
those who believe, Peter commanded those who believed to be baptized. He even
said "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,..."

Now there is a baptism in the Holy Spirit, which usually we receive at about
the same time as our water baptism. And usually this baptism of God's Spirit,
this outpouring of his Spirit upon us, is accompanied with speaking in other
languages and/or other gifts, such as prophesy, visions, etc. 

There is no explanation about some mystical baptism, or that we are 'baptized'
when we believe in Jesus automatically. No, those who believed, whether at
Pentecost, by Cornelius, by Paul, Peter, Philip, or Ananias, were then brought
to where there was water and were baptized. It was not optional, nor was it
some symbolic ritual which didn't really need to be followed. It was an
essential part of entering the New Covenant, which Jesus made through his blood.
Those in Acts who didn't get baptized were NOT added to them, just as surely
as those who did get baptize WERE added to them.
Ac. 3:41
  Then they that gladly received his words were baptized; and the same day were
  added unto them about 3000 souls.

Garth,
    
You seem to really doubt whether baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
    Peter said "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
    the forgiveness of sins". (New American Standard)
    
    Why is this so hard for you to accept? Have you not done this yourself?
     
    Did Peter make a mistake? (or maybe Luke, who wrote Acts?) Do you
    believe that John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins, as stated
    in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3? If Johns' baptism was for the forgiveness of
    sins, why shouldn't Jesus' baptism also be for the forgiveness of sins?
    

God began the foundation of baptism through John the baptist. In the first 
chapter(s) of every Gospel, the baptism of John is talked about. 

Mr.     1:4     
  John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the  baptism of repentance 
  for the remission of sins.
Lu.     3:3     
  And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of 
  repentance for the remission of sins;
Ac.     2:38    
  Then Peter said unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized every  one of you in 
  the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive  
  the  gift  of the Holy Ghost...

Peter confirmed that the baptism of Jesus INCLUDED the complete essence of John"s
baptism. To think that the baptism of Jesus was LESS than the baptism of John
is wrong, in fact, the baptism of Jesus was MORE than the baptism of John.
Those baptized by John were rebaptized, because the baptism of John did not 
include all that the baptism of Jesus included.

Don't be confused by the word 'remission'. It is only because of the translation.
Without exception, the word remission is the same word in Greek as the word
forgiveness.

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

Baptism is for the washing away of sins. As Peter says:

1.Pe.   3:21    
  The like figure whereunto even baptism  doth  also  now save us (not the 
  putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the  answer  of  a  good  
  conscience  toward God.

it is therefore the answer of a good conscience toward God, for when we are
    baptized, we know our sins have been forgiven.

Col.    2:12    
  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye  are  risen with him through the 
  faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of  your  flesh, 
  hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Just as in Ro.6.3,4, he has quickened us together with Christ through baptism.
So, we are buried in baptism, AND "wherein(baptism) ALSO ye are risen with
him through the faith of the operation of God"

The faith in the operation of God is the faith that, when we are baptized, there
is an operation of God, something happens. We believe the operation of God, 
that we are buried in baptism, and we believe in the operation of God, that we
are raised with Christ in baptism. We also believe, our sins are forgiven when
we are baptized.


Another purpose for baptism is the "being freed" from sin. 

Ro.     6:2     
  God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 
  Know ye not, that so many of us as  were  baptized  into Jesus Christ were 
  baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into  death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should  walk  s
  of life.
Ro.     6:6     
  Knowing this, that our old man is  crucified  with  him, that  the body of 
  sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
  For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Ro.     6:18    
  Being then made free from sin, ye became  the  servants of righteousness.

However, since we are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer in it? Those 
who are baptized were servants of sin, but are now dead to sin, and henseforth,
free, so long as they do not again yield their members to sin, and become its
slave, as warned in Peter:
2.Pe.   1:9     
  But he that lacketh these things is  blind,  and  cannot see  afar off and 
  hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
Ga.     2:18    
  For if I build again the things which  I  destroyed,  I make myself a 
  transgressor.
Ga.     2:19    
  For I through the law am dead to the law, that I  might live unto God.
  I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless  I  live;  yet not  I,  but  Christ 
  liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith
  of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

We look back at our baptism and we see OUR being crucified with Christ. We 
no longer live, but Christ lives in us.
 "that our old man is  crucified  with  him, that  the body of
  sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

There are many more WHYS, in a nutshell:

  1. by one spirit baptized into one body. 1.Cor.12:13
  2. Sons of God through faith, FOR all who have been baptized have been 
     clothed with Christ. Ga. 3:27

Baptism, in the New Testament, was an essential part necessary for becoming a
christian. Sprinkling or pouring didn"t exist and wasn't commonly practiced 
until after 590 in the western "One apostolic and catholic Church". In the 
eastern(Orthodox) church even till today baptism is done following the example
of Jesus and the apostles, where both pouring and sprinkling is rejected.

The baptism of non believers, whether infants, or natives, is also not in the
New Testament. Even when whole households were baptized, these same whole
households first believed the Gospel. But if you understand the WHY of baptism,
it is much simpler to understand that baptism WAS NEVER meant to be practiced
on those who don't believe or receive the gospel. Dunking a person in water 
and calling this a baptism, when the spirit has not done the necessary 
preliminary work, is no different that dunking a dog in water. At most, the
person comes out wet, but not freed from sin, forgiven from sins, etc.

    
    I have already told you that I am convinced that there will be some
    people in Heaven who were not baptized. The thief on the cross, who had
    no chance to be baptized, is the scriptural basis for me being
    convinced. All those of the Old testament like Abraham, Isaak, Jakob,
    David, Daniel, even John the baptist (who wasn't baptized) are most
    certainly to be there. This discussion is not to prove that baptism is
    necessary for going to Heaven. We both agree it is not. I never did
    believe this, nor do the Catholics or Orthodox.
    
    If, however, we preach the Gospel and people are not baptized, refuse
    to believe us concerning the necessity of repentance, faith in Jesus
    Christ and baptism in water for the forgiveness of their sins, then we
    cannot say that these people are saved, whether they go to church
    sundays or not. Those who gladly receive Peter's words concerning Jesus
    Christ were baptized, and those who gladly receive my words concerning
    Jesus Christ are baptized, not weeks or even days in the future, but as
    by Paul and Peter, straightway. Otherwise I would be like a cloud
    without rain. I would speak of the love of God, sending his son to die
    as an atonement for sins, that we may be reconciled with God, and
    forgiven for our sins. But unless those who believe are baptized, the
    forgiveness of their sins, their being freed from sins, their putting
    on Christ (Gal.3:) could not happen.
    
    Rodger Dusatko 

Re: .53, .54, .55  (Rodger Dutsako)

First you demonstrated your propensity to twist the scriptures, reading into
the scriptures what was not there.

Then you demonstrated your propensity to twist the writings of those in the
early church, reading into those writings what was not there.

Now this has carried on into this conference as you have twisted what I have
wrote, reading into my writings what I did not say.  Case in point:

>    I still cannot figure out your scriptual foundation where you say that
>    the baptism Jesus means with "they that believe and are baptized shall
>    be saved" is not the water baptism. You really have to wrestle
>    with the scriptures to say this.

I did not say that.  

You continue to fail to answer the scriptural objections that I raised in 
replies .31 through .44. 

In reply .51 you made the following claim, which I called you on:

>    Everyone in the new testament was baptized the very day they believed
>    the gospel preached by someone. 

Your response was to list a fair amount of scriptures that documented where
people did indeed get baptized, at least some of them on the very day they
believed.  This falls short of your claim.  Where are the scriptures
documenting that Barnabus, Silas, Priscilla, Aquila, Phoebe, Andronicus,
Ampliatus, Urbanus, Apelles, Herodian, Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis,
Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, Philologus, Julia,
Nereus, Olympas, Tertius, Gaius, Erastus, Quartus, Stephanas, Fortunatus,
Achaicus, Onesiphorus, Erastus, Trophimus, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia
were baptized the very day they believed? 

Again, many of your claims are total presumption, since they go beyond what the
scriptures document.  Again, you should take note of the following warning at
the end of the book of Revelation: 

	"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:
	If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues
	described in this book.  And if anyone takes words away from this
	book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree
	of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
	(Rev 22:18-19)

    Re: -1
    
    and if you think that warning only applies to Revelation, here's
    another reference:
    
    "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust
     in him.  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be 
     found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)