Evidence for God from Science

then I realized that once I accepted Christ as my Lord and Saviour, that I believe that He died and was ressurected and that I know He will come again, that I have already been "baptized" by the HS.

That is what I'm trying to say, as well. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, is what saves. Not a mere symbol of that true baptism.

But I understand that for some the act of baptizim as an adult has very deep and personal meaning.

OK, Gotcha.

domokunrox wrote:http://www.bebaptized.org

I read the site, and didn't change my mind. It is a hodge podge of proof text, forcing an interpretation.
Example.
Ephesians 4:4-5
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
First it should be pointed out that this verse mentions no requirement or command. No where does this indicate that baptism refers to water, or that it is required for salvation. It only says there is one, among many other things. In fact, the context indicates that baptism is something spiritual. If we read all of Eph. 2 it paints a beautiful picture of the regeneration, yet never mentions any ordiance being required. Only faith.

There is no question that the Bible requires faith as a response necessary for salvation. It isn't vaque about this. There are ample verses where faith is mentioned apart from baptism, but never vice versa.

â–ºRomans 6:3-5
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Again, I would 1st challenge you to verify that first this must indicate water. There are ample examples of water being referred to metaphorically. (John 7:38, Isaiah 12:3, Isaiah 44:3, Zec. 14:8, John 4:14) 2nd, where is water baptism being required? I would say there is just as much pointing to baptism, in this contex, as being spiritual.

That is not to undermine water baptism. Although not necesarry for salvation, I would be curious to know why someone professing faith would refuse the ordinance. Regeneration comes through the HS, which is received upon faith. Baptism is a beutiful ordinance, and one I hope every believer would go through.

â–ºMark 16:15-16
And he said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that disbelieves shall be condemned.
This is another popularly cited verse. However if we examine the 2nd part we see that disbelieving is the reason for condemnation, not failure to be water baptized.


In Acts 2:38, 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".
Some denominations see the word "for" in this verse as meaning that water baptism itself washes away sins.
But, the English word "for" in this verse is the Greek word "eis", which has, as one of it's meanings, "because of", the remission of sins. The New Testament teaches that their sins were forgiven already, and that their public baptism was a RITUAL to publicly acknowledge what God had already done.

Good post jlay.

I won't quote everything you posted, just to say that I agree with you. I did want to speak to one thing you said in your post though:

I would be curious to know why someone professing faith would refuse the ordinance.

I can only speak for myself here, but the reason why I never got baptized in water, is simply because I never felt God was urging me to. I tend to look at every day as being a day that I'm thankful for what God has given me. I don't really look at religious holidays, as being any more special than any other day, as pertaining to my faith. Although, I do love all that the Christmas season brings, except commercialism. In the same way, I never felt led to participate in rituals, including water baptism. I know what the real baptism of the Holy Spirit is, and I guess that's enough for me. That's not to say that if I felt God was leading me to be baptized in water, I wouldn't do it. I do respect a believer's choice to participate in water baptism, as long as it's done properly. I guess it's a conscience thing, similar to this passage in Romans.

Romans 14:1-9
1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the [a]servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person [c]regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, [d]does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Rick, thanks for the explanation.

My concern is more for those who upon believing are invited to baptism waters (not by those that require it) and refuse.

Certainly the early chruch was very faithful in preserving baptism and the Lord's Supper, which are both rituals I suppose.

PaulSacramento wrote:What I was trying to say is that, for some people, the symbolisim of the water purification of the baptizim is like being born again.
Baptizim in of itself means nothing without the grace of God through Christ by the power of the HS.
I was baptized as a infant (RCC) and I have at times though that I should get "re-baptized" as an adult, then I realized that once I accepted Christ as my Lord and Saviour, that I believe that He died and was ressurected and that I know He will come again, that I have already been "baptized" by the HS.

But I understand that for some the act of baptizim as an adult has very deep and personal meaning.

That infant baptism is invalid. Baptism requires full water burial, not a sprinkle of water. I have sorted that out with 8 people so far. Once again, look at the website. You obviously didn't care to read this page (http://www.bebaptized.org/ButIwasbaptizedasaninfant.htm)

1) an infant does not hear or understand the Gospel of Christ
2) an infant cannot therefore believe in Jesus
3) More importantly, an infant has no sin and therefore has nothing to repent of, and needs no forgiveness.

Faith must always precede baptism.

jlay, you say you looked in the website and cannot find the command? You ever read Acts 2:38 where they asked Peter what shall we do? He didn't say this was optional

Repent and be baptized, 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.

Have you ever read Acts 8:36-38 where Philip preached the gospel and the Ethiopian found water and order his chariot to stop at the water?

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Baptism is clearly done in the water.

Also, your objection to "eis" was addressed on that website. http://www.bebaptized.org/EIS.HTM

You guys are just disobeying the command and saying the water means nothing. Of course its just water, but God wants you to have faith in him and obey him. Consider the story of Naaman.

The world’s standards and ideas of salvation seem so much more logical in comparison to God’s which seems foolish and so simplistic. “Go wash in the Jordan seven times . . . and you shall be clean.” A very simple thing to do, surely, but Naaman objected. And so the Bible teaches, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). But simple faith is not so simple. Men object. Ironically, Naaman “was willing to pay any price, willing to do any great deed of prowess, to make any fatiguing pilgrimage, but he was unwilling to obey a simple command "wash and be clean."

What was the issue here? The washing? No. Would that cure him? No. It was the obedience of faith. It was personal faith in the command of the prophet and not the evidence of his faith, washing, which cured him. It was his simply obeying the word of God. Washing was simply the result.

Man is so self willed. By his ego, his reason, by his own experience and desires. He wants things his own way, he wants to be saved his way, he wants to be spiritual his own way, he wants the church to operate his way, and on the list goes. But man must submit humbly to the wise plans of God once you know what his plans are or there can be no salvation, no real joy and fruitfulness, no deliverance.

WATER baptism most certainly is not required at all for SALVATION!!! However, if we are to be Christ-like and love our Father we should want to... besides the public announcement side of it shows and tells everyone present Whom you believe in, worship, honor, praise, and represent; for we know in Whom we believe... 2 Timothy 1:12

1 Peter 3:20-21 (Read other versions than this one) Since I use KJV this is what is says... "Who formerly were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, by which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water. 21) The like figure unto which even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

The water didn't save but the ark did! Their souls weren't saved as in from sin, but physically saved from death (drowning).

Notice "The Like Figure"... what is water baptism but "The Like Figure"? So would the water saved and not Christ alone, or the things or person in this case, that its a "LIKE FIGURE" of?

So water (no power in itself) baptism, doesn't save the soul, but FAITH in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which water baptism is a "LIKE FIGURE" of, Saves the SOUL!!! (Rom 6:3-5, 1 Cor 15:1-4, Eph 1:14, Col 1:20-22)

It is clearly evident in verse 21 that at time of baptism the conscience is already supposed to be good and clean and baptism merely answers to it.

Baptism: Greek- baptidzo or baptize- always means immersion or submersion

7 Baptisms taught from Gen- Rev
1) Moses' baptism in the cloud and in the sea. (1 Cor 10:2)
2)John's baptism in water in the name of God (Matt 3, Luke 3, John 1:31-34, Acts 1:5)
3)Baptism in water by Christ's disciples in the name of the Father (John 3:22-23, 4:1-2, 5:43, 10:25)
4)Baptism of suffering (Luke 12:50)
5)Baptism into body of Christ (Rom 6:4, 12:4-5, 1 Cor 10:17, 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:5, Col 2:12)
6)Baptism into water (Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 41, 8:12-16, 36-38, 9:18, 10:48, 18:8, 1 Cor 1:13-17)
7)Baptism into the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28-29, Matt 3:11, Acts 1:4-8, 2:1-4, 19:1-7)

Baptisms 1,2, and 3 are not for the modern church today. Of the remaining four, pray you never have to experience the baptism of suffering such as Christ did in becoming a martyr for you and I. Water baptism isn't essential for salvation, faith alone.

Three elements of every Biblical baptism:
1. The one doing the baptizing
2. The one being baptized
3. The one or thing being baptized into

Baptism into Jesus
1. Holy Spirit
2. Person
3. Jesus

Baptism into water
1. Preacher
2. Person
3. Water

Baptism into Holy Spirit
1. Jesus
2. Person
3. Holy Spirit

The baptisms into Jesus and into the Holy Spirit have the same three element; the persons of the Godhead are reversed.

Reference: Dake, and Rev. Don Ferrell- Chief Cornerstone Ministries, Flovilla, Ga.

Hope this helps!!!

I am sorry, but it does not help. I am going to have to disagree with the above.

The above is affirming a plural salvation method. Its not a matter of "if we want to be Christ like". You are commissioned to baptize by Jesus himself. To go forth and make disciples of all nations and baptize them in Matthew 28. The apostles began to do so in Acts. Water was a necessary component as you can see as you read on.

There is absolutely no way around the commandment. Jesus said "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE light". This is NOT plural. 1 way to do it. 1 Lord, 1 faith, 1 baptism.

Some of you are citing that Paul was stating that he did not baptize only but a few. This does not affirm that you should not be baptized. Because he did baptize some. His concern was people performing baptisms in the INCORRECT NAME, because the wrong name would INVALIDATE your baptism. It still affirms that baptism was needed AND shows he felt it was VERY important to repent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Dom, Do you belong to the Church of Christ? If not, can you please tell me which church you attend?

Eis, according to strongs.
into, unto, to, towards, for, among
"For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.


Like many words in the Greek lanquage, eis is not a definative term, but is rather ambigious preposition. Just pull up any Greak lexicon and look at its usage in the book of Acts alone. Then take a look at how many words are translated 'for' and you will see that the writer had many available, which would have certainly clarified what you are defending. You are certainly welcome to say that water baptism is required, but you are going to find little agreement. And it really comes down to who you are trusting in regards to the definitions.
Actually the most common usage of the word in acts is, 'into, unto, to.' If you look at the uses of 'for' you will see that it is not as you would hope it would read. There are two examples in the context of where we are debating.
Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always * * before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: (Acts 2:24-25)
"For David is not ascended into the heavens:...."(Acts 2:34) These verses are in the same context. In neither case is it used to defend the usage your interpretation requires. A more modern useage would be, "because David is not ascended."

...Well, I'm sorry; don't see how it couldn't help... I suppose what Christ did is pointless since all we need is WATER to save us in which case its not Christ who saves but WATER, sort of your same stance on freewill right, that if we have freewill then its really not Christ who saves but our freewill, hmmm, interesting!!! (Acts 4:12)

I suppose....
Rom 14:5

...let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind!!!

Rom 12:2

...so you can prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

I guess we are back at John 3:16 yet again,

..."whosoever believeth", please show me where it says the conditional "whosoever believeth and is baptized (water)"

Acts 10:47

The Holy Ghost fell upon others after they were baptized, to confirm them in the faith; but upon these Gentiles before they were baptized, to show that God does not confine himself to outward signs. The Holy Ghost fell upon those who were neither circumcised nor baptized; it is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.

Acts 11:17

1 John 1:7
Matt 3:11

Rom 5:1... justified by faith
Eph 2:8 ... not of yourselves

Rom 6:3-5... baptized "into" Christ
Gal 3:27
Acts 22:16... the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (I Cor 10:2)
1 Cor 12:13... into one body

Reference: http://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation BELOW

Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."
...The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us. It is not the symbol that saves, but the reality. The reality is the blood of Christ.

John 3:5, "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

Some say that water here means baptism, but that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism is not necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.

Col. 2:11-12: "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." In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. Baptism replaces the Old Testament circumcision because

1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and
2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood, but in baptism no blood is shed. This is because the blood of Christ has been shed and circumcision, which ultimately represented the shed blood of Christ in his covenant work of redemption, was a foreshadowing of Christ's work.

If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 12:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).

Third, the Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel you are saved..." (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." Neither of these verses, which tell us what saves us, includes any mention of baptism.

Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism is not necessary for salvation. If he goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, is not enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?

Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation. That is wrong! See Gal. 2:21; 5:4.

Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ezk.44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12).

I thought splitting baptism from the free will thread was a good idea but they will inevitably re-converse.

Here's a question for free will believers, if it takes an action on our part (using our free will) to believe and be saved then why is that so much different than believing water baptism saves? They are both actions initiated by our free will. Does the act of believing make it any less of a work than the act of baptizing in water?

Byblos wrote:I thought splitting baptism from the free will thread was a good idea but they will inevitably re-converse.

Here's a question for free will believers, if it takes an action on our part (using our free will) to believe and be saved then why is that so much different than believing water baptism saves? They are both actions initiated by our free will. Does the act of believing make it any less of a work than the act of baptizing in water?

First define free will? Haahhaa. That is a serious question though.

2nd, I would say that neither faith or faith in baptism are necessarily a work. Faith is a response. A response to being acted upon. Therefore a reaction. I think it is in error to ascribe the term 'work' to any action or reaction. In this case the reponse being acted upon is to that of hearing the gospel. Believing is only effective because of the object in which we are responding to. That being the person and work of Christ. So, if someone if faithing/believing/trusting that the act of baptism in water saves, then what is the object of their faith? I suppose that in some way the finished work of Christ could be seen in that. But in the end, it is still the person trusting in Christ. Even if they are under the belief that water baptism is necessary. They could and likely are still trusting in Christ, and thus are soundly saved. I come from very entrenched Church of Christ family, so these debates are not foreign to me.

The proper flow is that faith is a response to the gospel of Christ and baptism is a secondary response to receiving salvation. Physically manifesting what is spiritually done.

Here's a question for free will believers, if it takes an action on our part (using our free will) to believe and be saved then why is that so much different than believing water baptism saves? They are both actions initiated by our free will

Byblos, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to answer this, because, while I believe in a certain amount of "free will", I don't lean heavily towards the free will side of the spectrum.
Your statement:"They are both actions initiated by our free will", is assuming that our belief is initiated by our free will. I disagree. I believe our faith is initiated by God's prompting. But maybe those that lean heavily towards free will, without God's influence, see the actions as initiated by our free will.

Does the act of believing make it any less of a work than the act of baptizing in water?

I'm with jlay on this one. I can't see "believing" as a work. The act of baptizing in water is a work done by human hands.

I come from very entrenched Church of Christ family, so these debates are not foreign to me.

jlay, is it safe for me to assume you are no longer with the Church of Christ? And, if you are no longer with them, what led you to leave that church?

The proper flow is that faith is a response to the gospel of Christ and baptism is a secondary response to receiving salvation. Physically manifesting what is spiritually done.

That's what I believe, as well. That's why I have such a problem with domokunrox' statement, that started this discussion, here:

But in short, You receive the holy spirit AFTER Baptism.

jlay, is it safe for me to assume you are no longer with the Church of Christ? And, if you are no longer with them, what led you to leave that church?

I was never church of Christ. My mother grew up in a COC home. My grandfather was a Sunday school teacher for 40 years and was very hard line. Nashville. My mother left the COC after she started her own family. We went for a while when I was very young, but had joined a SBC by the time I was around 12. I can still remember hearing the debates when the COC people came to the house. I remember they were arguing about piano music. Hard line COC have no music. The COC rep said, there is no mention of musical instruments in the NT. My mom said, "OK, what about pews? Your church has pews, and there is no mention of pews in the NT."

Rick, you're the 2nd person to ask me if I am a COC member. I currently have no church home. I am on ministry. I discuss apologetics in Spanish to primarily Spanish speaking churches in northern California. Mostly south SF bay. However, I am intrigued by your question. I have heard of COC and people's comments have been that they are categorized as a cult. I have yet to investigate this matter myself. However, like jlay had mentioned, I heard that some don't allow instruments to be played for worship. Musical instruments are not unbiblical. They are used to praise our Lord, and its all good. My wife and I once attended a church in Oakland that didn't have instruments, and we were just visiting. We were the only ones who were not dark skinned (I mean this in no offense to anyone), but we both enjoyed the singing immensely and they were all so kind. We do not mind praise without instruments so long as people sing with joy in their hearts.

However, I can see the flipside to it. My wife and I attended a church where the worship was conducted like it was a concert and we did not enjoy it. In fact, we found it distracting and egotistical to a worship band. I believe this is possibly what some people take issue with and the solution to them was to take the instruments out of church.

Anyhow, Rick, I am curious, what is your opinion on COC? Can you explain further?

Zach, I like your passion. I however still disagree with you. In fact, 2 verses you cite go against you. Actually, you shoot yourself in the foot with one in particular pretty bad.

Byblos poses an interesting question, but jlay handles it very well.

Jlay, the "eis" issue is very notorious in theology. However, looking at complete context, I believe it supports my conclusion. We shouldn't put faith in translation and then argue semantics to our view. I don't particularly like Peter, but he filled with the holy spirit selected his words VERY CAREFULLY for good reason. Peter did make a very authoritive statement in its entirety and its simpler then your view is making it out to be. There wouldn't be a point in making the statement or that particular part of his statement if it was to convey a command. The command and the reason. We talk in terms to make sense and to convey REASONABLILTY FOR doing so.

Peter is without a doubt an interesting character though, don't you all think? He would have got on my nerves.