Evidence for God from Science

I understand James 2 just fine. I made no exegesis stating that dead faith is unsaved. It simply is disobidience to command from God, and you need to make things right. Your willingness to act or not act on a command from God directly reflects if you do believe in Christ and evidence of your faith. Walk the walk, not talk the talk. If you really do love God, do your actions reflect keeping his commandments? Do we stumble and do we make mistakes? Absolutely! But are you honestly trying or seeing what you can get away with? And that is where you would be toying with God and that's where it could be fatal.

Dom, if it makes you feel better, I was baptized (water)when I placed my faith in Christ.

As far as our willingness to act. I agree that acting on a command from God does reflect our faith in Christ. A Christian 'SHOULD' walk the walk. That however, is different than what you are speaking of. We are not talking about what a 'Christian' should do, but what an unsaved person MUST do to be saved. There are many things a Christian SHOULD do. If water baptism is required for an unbeliever, then why are there so many areas where it is not paired with rightly trusting Christ? If anything were a necessity, then why ever leave it out, even once?

Is water baptism necessary/required/conditional for regeneration? Afterall, that is the issue. If water baptism is necessary for regeneration, then I certainly want to be in the right. But based on my observations, I stand by my comments that you are playing fast and loose, in prooftexting to make this point. In fact, as I will point out, I think you are actually making things impossible for yourself.
This has nothing to do with seeing what one can get away with. It is trusting God at his word, and rightly dividing the word of truth.

Regarding John 3:5. Our savior also said, just a few chapters later, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John 7:38) Are we to construe that a true believer will have literal water flowing out of them? Or was Jesus speaking of something else? Does baptism always involve water. And, does water always mean physical h2o?

In regards to Israel, water baptism most definately played a significant if not necessary role. However, this preceded Jesus' earthly minsitry, and most certainly the cross. Paul, is hand picked by Jesus to take his Gospel (1 Cor 15:3,4) to the Gentiles. Paul himself says, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Cor. 1:17) Christ sent the 12 on a specific mission, which certainly included baptism. Then Paul says, his mission is NOT to baptize. Do we have a contradiction or a paradox, and if so why? Is Paul the 13th, or is he called for something unique from the 12?
When one establishes a doctrine on prooftexting they are bound to err. If I flip my bible open to Leviticus 13, and it gives instructions on what to do regarding mildew, should I say, "I must obey the command of God to show my faith." Or, would I be wise to consider context and follow sound exegetical methods to avoid wrong application? If so in the OT, why not so in the NT?

And water baptism is throughly biblical, jlay. I have imposed nothing into the text. Its is so blatantly in the bible.

There are hundreds of things that are thoroughly biblical that have no application for the Christian believer, or are conditional for salvation. That is a very weak argument, and I'm surprised one who argues so well regarding reason and logic would make it. In fact you are imposing on to the text, and then you do so again in Matt. 7, which only creates more problems.

Who is Jesus' audience in Matthew 7?
2ndly, where does Jesus EVER mention water baptism in the SOTM? Hint, it doesn't.
Look at the dangerous thing you are doing. Jesus opens Matt 7 by saying, "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matt 7:1. You are putting water baptism as a requirement for salvation and doing so under the context of what is said in Matthew 7. The requirement of perfectly doing the will of the Father, based on what Jesus says in the SOTM.

Do you state that you are perfect as He is perfect? That you are flawlessly obeying as laid out in the SOTM? Are you walking the walk or talking the talk?
If you are saying that you follow the will of God in obedience in everything, then we should question whether you are being truthful. 1 John 1:8
Perhaps, if you are going to make that the standard, you should go back, read the SOTM, and see if you are following the Father's will in all these areas.
It is poor exegesis to pull in water baptism and impose it upon the text where it is not even mentioned once. If you want to set the measure of salvation by water, based on this haphazard exegesis, then you can not conveniently pick out the things which YOU have obeyed and ignroe the others. You have to follow that line of reasoning all the way through. You have placed on your back a yoke you can not bear. A yoke which our savior came to lift. Christ came to set captives free, and it would seem to me that you seek to put them back in bondage.

Rick, again, you're severely misunderstanding my position and again making this an emotional and personal matter rather then one based on the bible

No, dom. I completely understand your position. You claimed that I am not saved, because I don't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, because I wasn't baptized in water. It is a matter that we all discussed in another thread, and your interpretation of the bible is different than everyone else that posted on the thread.

Disobidence to command from God is not in correct standing with God. End of story. Its one thing to be ignorant of the fact, and another thing to blatantly disobey. You will be judged on your response to the Gospel and general revelation if you never had a chance to hear it.

Again, you believe Jesus commanded you to be baptized in water for your salvation, I don't. If I'm wrong, and God wants me to be baptized, then He'll speak to me, and convict me to be baptized. I'm not telling anyone else not to get baptized. It's a personal choice, between a believer and God. If you're wrong, then you are promoting "baptismal regeneration", as the means to be saved, and are leading others astray.

I never said that you cannot feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, or something of that sort. I simply said there is no basis at all that the holy spirit is residing IN YOU with a dry, unburied, and invisible "baptism".

Dom, you are saying that unless one is baptized in water, then one can't be saved. You are saying that I don't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, because I wasn't baptized in water. Dom, when I believed on Christ, I was baptized by the hands of God, not a ritual done by the hands of men. The baptism that I received, and all others that believe on Christ receive, is the baptism that saves.

It simply makes no sense at all. I however am going by the book and carefully following the instructions and the examples.

Of course it makes no sense to you, because you aren't interpreting the bible correctly.

I never said the water saves you. Your FAITH does. Baptism is just the beginning of your faith

Dom, just because you didn't directly say that the water saves me, you still are saying that water baptism is the beginning of faith. You're saying that until I'm baptized in water, then I have no saving faith.

Again, Rick, I also do not understand and connect the dots anywhere in Romans 14 that negates John 3:5 and Titus 3:5, and the many examples of water baptism

Dom, nobody is negating John 3:5, and Titus 3:5. We are just negating your interpretation of those verses. Both those verses do not pertain to water baptism.

Rick, I have anxiety in front of large groups of people. Severe anxiety. I can empathize with people who have this problem or are just really shy. There's nothing wrong with that, and there shouldn't be any pastor, deacon, etc who should refuse to fill the baptistery for a more intimate setting as I asked for.

Dom, doesn't that kind of twist the purpose of what water baptism is for. It's supposed to be public confession of what Christ did for us. How can it be a public ceremony, if it's only you and the baptizer?

Dom, your "baptismal regeneration" theology is heretical, and you don't even see it. You are telling me that I'm not saved, and I don't have the indwelling Holy Spirit, because I haven't been baptized in water. It's plain to everyone else here, that that is completely unbiblical. Just think about what you're saying when you are making that claim.

I've been baptized 3 times .... once as a child, once in the name of Jesus and once in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I haven't been baptized for the dead yet even though something like that is mentioned in the bible as well.

Baptism to my understanding is an outward sign of an inward reality. Regeneration is a work of God internally.

It was important culturally at the time of Christ because baptism was a part of Jewish ritual for conversion to Judiasm. Early Christianity remember was not seen as a new religion; it was seen as a Jewish sect and as a result many Jewish practices carried over, albeit at times with slightly different significance in its understanding. Much of this then ties to the conflict within the early church between the Judiazers and the Gentile believes who were particularly identified with Paul. In addition to things like baptism, Judiazers were very adamant about the need for new converts to undergo circumcision, keep kosher and keep the festival days of Judaism.

If there's anything that is clear in the Bible in this matter, it's that under grace all these things fall away in terms of being foundational to our salvation. Salvation is by grace and grace alone. Baptism can be and often is a very meaningful experience both for those being baptized and those observing but it isn't a foundation of anyone's salvation. Those who wish to present it as such really to be consistent need to accept the whole package of law and legalistic thinking from which it springs. Funny thing is that most baptismal regeneration advocates aren't willing to do that. They pick and choose what they want or don't want and then hold these elements up to somehow make them more special and loved by God than others. It's a very human practice motivated by very base desires to stand in judgment of others in terms of salvation. That truly is what I believe Jesus spoke about when He stated that we're not to judge others lest we be judged.

Imagine the surprise that might be in store for those who have added to gospel in this manner when they face God and Christ and perhaps find out that they're going to be judged by how well they kept the rest of the law while placing a stumbling block in front of others in terms of baptism?

jlay wrote:If water baptism is required for an unbeliever, then why are there so many areas where it is not paired with rightly trusting Christ? If anything were a necessity, then why ever leave it out, even once?

Trusting Christ OUGHT TO result in water baptism if the person in question BELIEVES and reads the bible and comes across these things. Most importantly, an evangelist SHOULD mention it to a new convert. Your criticism on the text is misguided. This is exactly the kind of skepticism that atheists try to work with, just the other way around. Its fallacious.

jlay wrote:Is water baptism necessary/required/conditional for regeneration? Afterall, that is the issue. If water baptism is necessary for regeneration, then I certainly want to be in the right. But based on my observations, I stand by my comments that you are playing fast and loose, in prooftexting to make this point. In fact, as I will point out, I think you are actually making things impossible for yourself.
This has nothing to do with seeing what one can get away with. It is trusting God at his word, and rightly dividing the word of truth.

jlay, again, Titus 3:5 cross references with John 3:5

The washing is the regeneration and the Holy spirit renews. There is no way you can back out of it, friend.
Look at the next cross reference for the washing
1 Peter 3:20-21

Again, how do you explain this?

jlay wrote:Regarding John 3:5. Our savior also said, just a few chapters later, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John 7:38) Are we to construe that a true believer will have literal water flowing out of them? Or was Jesus speaking of something else? Does baptism always involve water. And, does water always mean physical h2o?

This is poor theology criticism, jlay and you know it. Seriously, rethink this again.

jlay wrote:In regards to Israel, water baptism most definately played a significant if not necessary role. However, this preceded Jesus' earthly minsitry, and most certainly the cross.

Its also proceeded into post resurrection, post Pentecost events, jlay. Keep reading Acts.

jlay wrote:Paul, is hand picked by Jesus to take his Gospel (1 Cor 15:3,4) to the Gentiles. Paul himself says, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Cor. 1:17) Christ sent the 12 on a specific mission, which certainly included baptism. Then Paul says, his mission is NOT to baptize. Do we have a contradiction or a paradox, and if so why? Is Paul the 13th, or is he called for something unique from the 12?

No contradiction, jlay. No paradox, either. Because Paul's mission is to not perform the baptisms, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have it done. He simply has a job to do. Why is that hard to understand? Why is that controversial? For example, firefighters have a team. Some guys man the fire hose, theres a search and rescue team, someone is on the rescue ladder, and so forth. Read more of Paul's letters. He got in some really heated discussions with Peter, and quite a few others.

jlay wrote:When one establishes a doctrine on prooftexting they are bound to err. If I flip my bible open to Leviticus 13, and it gives instructions on what to do regarding mildew, should I say, "I must obey the command of God to show my faith." Or, would I be wise to consider context and follow sound exegetical methods to avoid wrong application? If so in the OT, why not so in the NT?

Again, this is bad theology criticism and you know it. This is straight out of the atheist bible critic textbook. I suppose your next supporting argument is on God commanding the israelites to drive the canaanites by killing all the men, women, and children? Is the next thing you're going to assert is that I worship an evil God? Think about that, again.

jlay wrote:There are hundreds of things that are thoroughly biblical that have no application for the Christian believer, or are conditional for salvation.

You misunderstand, again. John 3:5 again has a very strong proposition value and its in RED and WHITE. I don't know about you, jlay. I take the RED and WHITE text VERY seriously.

jlay wrote:That is a very weak argument, and I'm surprised one who argues so well regarding reason and logic would make it.

So far, I'm fine. Ball in your court, again.

jlay wrote:In fact you are imposing on to the text, and then you do so again in Matt. 7, which only creates more problems.

Where did I mention and impose anything into Matthew 7 1-12? I have mentioned verses 13-29. Read them again and get back to me.

jlay wrote:2ndly, where does Jesus EVER mention water baptism in the SOTM? Hint, it doesn't.

What? In all cases, Jesus' words are vastly important no matter where they are. His every word is good, true, and righteous.

jlay wrote:Look at the dangerous thing you are doing. Jesus opens Matt 7 by saying, "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

What?! Are you kidding? Where did I say I am the judge, jury, and executioner? I have never asserted anything so ridiculous. Are you sure you're in the right thread talking to the right guy?

jlay wrote:Matt 7:1. You are putting water baptism as a requirement for salvation and doing so under the context of what is said in Matthew 7. The requirement of perfectly doing the will of the Father, based on what Jesus says in the SOTM.

I have never done any such thing. You can't be perfect. You are expected to be honest with God, and do not toy with the commands from God to fit your life for your connivence. His commands are not burdensome. What is so controversial about this? Is getting the water baptism that heavy for some folks out there? Where is this?

jlay wrote:Do you state that you are perfect as He is perfect? That you are flawlessly obeying as laid out in the SOTM? Are you walking the walk or talking the talk?

No, what does that have to do with obeying command? You have to try. You have to be honest with God. Again, there is a difference between ignorance and blatantly disobeying the 1st command God asks to obey. Don't you agree? If you can't take the 1st step, how can you take the 2nd, 3rd, and so forth?

jlay wrote:If you are saying that you follow the will of God in obedience in everything, then we should question whether you are being truthful. 1 John 1:8
Perhaps, if you are going to make that the standard, you should go back, read the SOTM, and see if you are following the Father's will in all these areas.

You're making someone else's perfection in obeying command a prerequisite to someone else's adoption into the family of God. You realize how ridiculous your proposition is? Think about that, again.

jlay wrote:It is poor exegesis to pull in water baptism and impose it upon the text where it is not even mentioned once.

No, its not! Its poor theology to impose that Jesus' commands should be ignored in some cases. Thats ridiculous!

jlay wrote:If you want to set the measure of salvation by water, based on this haphazard exegesis, then you can not conveniently pick out the things which YOU have obeyed and ignroe the others. You have to follow that line of reasoning all the way through.

Its not conveniently picking anything out. All of his words are to be taken seriously and we should meditate on them. We should especially obey the very 1st thing he asks us to obey. Again, wouldn't you agree?

jlay wrote:You have placed on your back a yoke you can not bear. A yoke which our savior came to lift.

Matthew 11:28-30
28“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30“For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

1 John 5:3-4
3For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

Can I get an AMEN here?

jlay wrote:Christ came to set captives free, and it would seem to me that you seek to put them back in bondage.

If obeying Christ is bondage, then put on the shackles and throw the key away! I will serve him!

Something neat to consider ... Jesus' first miracle of turning water into wine speaks of containers of water that were used to store water the use of which included Baptism. Think about that. This was Jesus first recorded miracle after His own Baptism. When John the Baptist objected to Jesus' coming for Baptism, Jesus told Him He was there to fulfill all righteousness as it was prescribed by the law and Jewish Tradition. Yet Jesus throughout His ministry tweaked the legalists by many things including not keeping the sabbath as they required, not ceremonially washing his hands before He ate and eating with "sinners." The list can go on of course.

Jesus took water in "sacred vessels" used in baptisms and changed them into wine for no other reason than to allow for celebration at a wedding and I think Jesus was deliberate in tweaking those who get caught up in religious legalism and raise symbols and traditions above what they represent.

One of the key elements of legalism is that it takes a symbol and over time makes that symbol more important than what it represents. Over time it becomes a hollow, meaningless shell of what it once was because we've lost sight of what the reality behind it is. Those who believe that God is more worried about you getting wet than He is your heart being regenerated have lost sight of what is important and sadly, they are misleading others by inviting them to join in their traditions and symbols without Christ remaining in the center of it all.

Something to think about I believe ....

Shouldn't somebody put this poor fella out of his misery and just go ahead and acknowledge jlay's right. I hate to see otherwise intelligent people make themselves look overly silly . . .



edit:

Bart, I'm not too sure I'd make a the point you made there a part of a sermon or Bible study, but I have to say, it's certainly an interesting take on the passage. Jesus never was all that big on protecting the symbol (especially at the expense of truth). But then again, neither was He in the OT (see Isa 1:10-20).

It's a stretch and to be honest it's not original with me. It's a paraphrase from The End of Religion by Bruxy Cavey, a non-traditional Mennonite minister who ministers where I grew up near Toronto. I have some cousins who have worked with him (which I found out after I read his book and reviewed it.

It rings true to me overall in terms of how I view Jesus' ministry and his response to religious dogma elevated over the human condition. It's certainly not an exegetically anchored observation that I'd press too hard.

koopa184 wrote:So, I haven't really gotten any input from other people on this, nor am I very knowledgeable about it, so I figured that this would be the best place to ask my question.

My question is this: What is the role of water baptism for the Christian? Is it something necessary for salvation, or is it just baptism in the Holy Spirit? If water baptism is indeed necessary for salvation, how do we explain Christ's promise of salvation to the unbaptized criminal on the cross next to him?

From one of your newest users,
Koopa184

Eternal salvation for forgiveness of all sins , is strictly based on the shed blood of CHrist at Calvary because that is Gods only appointed way . It can only be recieved by simple Faith because of Gods grace, which is Gods intended free gift to mankind . Therefore, nothing else is required to be saved....not us adding something to it including the water from a Baptism fountain or adding what we can personally do by way of works, deeds, or church attendence.

IF there is time after one gets saved, we should get Baptized shortly thereafter because Water Baptism symbolizes that the Saved individual is now united with Christ, that his sins have been washed away by the blood sacrifice of Christ, and he has become a new Person being reconciled to God . A personal testimony is often accompanied with water Baptism as a declaration to all in attendence .

Water Baptism does NOT join us to a particular religious Institution as Roman Catholicism teaches, nor does it have any meritorious saving value . Water Baptism on Infants is completely meaningless , as the Infant is incapable and hasnt recieved Christs atoning calvary work unto himself , which water Baptism is supposed to follow ; this does not rule out the DEDICATING of an infant to God as a ceremony and asking the Congregration to support the spiritual growth of that Infant as he grows and praying that eventually the person will recieve Christ followed by water Baptism at the appropriate time .

You recieve Gods spirit whenever you sincerely and authentically recieve Christ as ones personal Saviour and King ...again, by Faith alone (plus nothing) .

Thank you Dave,

I wanted to take a day before responding to Dom. But before I can go any further let's clarify the question.
Dom,
Is water baptism ESSENTIAL for salvation?

Hello again, everyone. I don't have much time lately to visit the boards here, but I wanted to get back here to address a few things on this topic. Mainly, to clear up my stance here to the board.

Jlay, to directly address your previous post. I want to reiterate to you that you should re-read our dialog here because I answered your question already.

Short answer: We ALL will be judged based on OUR RESPONSE to what WE KNOW.
Elaborate on that?

Persons who are GENUINELY uniformed or misinformed about HOW to accept Christ (directly from his instruction) and begin a love relationship with him cannot be condemned for their failure or misstep in the salvation process.

However, persons who ARE INFORMED and able to FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS condemn themselves due to REJECTING God. They would be DOING IT THEIR OWN WAY.

It really just is that simple, jlay. It is logical for a just and loving God, and biblically consistent.

What isn't biblically consistent is "x is symbolic, so we don't need to do it".

Bart,

I never got a chance to respond to your thoughts. I really like your input. However, let me clarify my position a bit more. I take no pleasure at all in legalism. Jesus never presented anything EXPLICITLY as symbolic. To say it is symbolic would be saying he spoke about CRITCITAL propositions in an IMPLICIT fashion. I don't buy that and how does that change the proposition? Let's look at an example shall we?

The Lord's supper, Jesus said, this IS my body and this IS my blood. Did he say, this is a symbol? Or this is just symbolic? Absolutely not. He finishes with telling us to take them in remembrance of him. He didn't say, this is just optional, guys. Feel free to do it only if you want.

I mean, this is something that we do at church, guys. How do you guys feel about someone who calls themselves a Christian, yet refuses to and will not take communion? Saying, "its just crackers and grape juice. Who cares"?

Who here believes that such a person would be walking right with God?

I want to pound this yet again here. The "symbol" isn't the argument here. The proposition is. Its far fetched to say that being legalistic with the words of Christ brings in a slew of other problems. Every single word is righteous. Does anyone want to contend this?

Dom, are you saying that you believe in the real presence in the Eucharist? I don't mean to change the subject but I just wanted to clarify this point.

Byblos wrote:Dom, are you saying that you believe in the real presence in the Eucharist? I don't mean to change the subject but I just wanted to clarify this point.

Byblos,dom did say that communion isn't a symbol:domokunrox wrote:

The Lord's supper, Jesus said, this IS my body and this IS my blood. Did he say, this is a symbol? Or this is just symbolic? Absolutely not.

So dom, I have two questions for you
1) If communion isn't symbolic, is it the "literal"eating of Christ's flesh, and "literal" drinking of His blood?
You keep quoting Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

You are saying that the washing of regeneration spoken of here is "literal" water. The water of water baptism.

And, this question was asked of you before by jlay, and you never answered him. My second question is:

2) If the washing in Titus 3:5 is "literal" water as you say, then is the water in John 7:38, literal water, as well? If not, why not?
John 7:38 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From [a]his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”

Byblos wrote:Dom, are you saying that you believe in the real presence in the Eucharist? I don't mean to change the subject but I just wanted to clarify this point.

Its off the subject.

I want us to stop discussing the "symbol" and instead discuss the proposition.

RickD wrote:Byblos,dom did say that communion isn't a symbol

Its off topic, I didn't say that.

RickD wrote:So dom, I have two questions for you

You know what? I wish I had answers to my questions.

RickD wrote:1) If communion isn't symbolic, is it the "literal"eating of Christ's flesh, and "literal" drinking of His blood?

At the last supper, did Jesus say that it is symbolic?
In the proposition, did he tell us to do it in remembrance of him?

RickD wrote:You keep quoting Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

You are saying that the washing of regeneration spoken of here is "literal" water. The water of water baptism.

Correct. Please refer to John 3:5

RickD wrote:And, this question was asked of you before by jlay, and you never answered him. My second question is:

2) If the washing in Titus 3:5 is "literal" water as you say, then is the water in John 7:38, literal water, as well? If not, why not?
John 7:38 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From [a]his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”

I did answer him. Go back and read it.