This Messageboard will be shut soon. Please go to
New Messageboard to continue your discussions.
We want to hear from you... A query that needs an answer, a word to uplift the people, a statement of concern that needs prayer, a cry for help...
God bless you...
An Easier to Read Article of the Previous Posting
Defense on The Misconception about the Thief on the Cross (-=[ crazy fella ]=- 8))
Your objections can be easily explained... (edmund)
Rebutt on the Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration. 8) (-=[ crazy fella ]=- 8))
|
Okay, I went to the website and got alot of materials there.
Although it says 'brief', but it's actually quite long... 8)
So here I go...
>A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration >by James White
>"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as >silver or gold that you were redeemed...but with the >precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." >So wrote the Apostle Peter to the early Christians (1 Peter >1:18-19). He, as all the other Apostles, believed that we >are redeemed, cleansed, forgiven, in the blood of Jesus >Christ. Yet, there are many today who would replace the >blood of Christ with the water of a baptistery. They teach >that we are regenerated, made alive, cleansed, by water >baptism. Some insist that it must be baptism by immersion; >others say that sprinkling accomplishes the same thing. In >either case, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross cannot be >said to be finished and efficacious until man does something- >-in this case, adds his work of baptism to the work of God >in Christ. Baptism is said to be the means of salvation, the >method by which Christ's work at Calvary is taken from the >merely theoretical to the actual. Okay, once again, baptism is not work. What is the meaning of 'work of baptism' anyway? In Colossians 2:12, baptism is by faith in the resurrection, without the correct faith, baptism cannot happen, so they are one, as I've said in my previous posting. By the way, baptism is only by immersion. Look at the Lexicon for baptism (you can find it in any bible website), you'll find the the interpretation of this word means to immerse. Sprinkling and other false doctrinces like infant baptism occurred not after a few hundred years from the first century.
>It is not our intention to engage in a lengthy discussion of >the topic of baptismal regeneration in this article.
>Such would require far more space than we have available at >this time! Instead, we wish to point out a basic, >foundational error of the position taken by such groups as >the Church of Christ and the Mormon Church--both have some >doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Then, we will briefly >respond to a couple of the more often used proof-texts >provided by proponents of baptismal regeneration. We realize >that there is a whole area of discussion that we are leaving >to the side by taking this approach, that being the >sacramental concept of regeneration in infant baptism. Infant baptism is wrong anyway. This is because like I've said above, true baptism can only occur with the right faith. Since babies is incapable of having faith, baptism will not occur at all. It'll be just a ceremonial washing.
>This view is found in Roman Catholicism (indeed, baptism is >the original means of justification in Roman theology) and >in various of the sacramentally-oriented Protestant >churches.
>Underlying the idea that man, by an action such as baptism, >can bring about his own regeneration, is the rejection of >the Biblical teaching of sin, and most especially, the truth >that sin enslaves man, debilitates man, brings spiritual >death to man. The Lord Jesus spoke clearly of this truth:
>To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold >to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will >know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They >answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never >been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set >free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who >sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:31-34). This passages teaches us that just by believing is not enough, but we need to be committed to God's words. To put it into practice in our lifes. I fail to see the connection with baptism. I think this paragraph is saying that "if you believe in baptism, then you are believing that you can attain salvaion by working for it." Well, this is obviously unbiblical. Then again, the writer of the paragraph is thinking that :"If I got myself baptised, then God MUST save me." Which is totally unbiblical! Baptism is a choice that God made for us, not the other way round. We can never work towards our salvation. And then again, how can one act, referring to baptism, saves us if not by God's grace??? If we can really work towards salvation, then I think we all need to be crucified for our sins then, just like Christ, for our sins are so many and disgusting. How merciful God is, that he choose to save us when we obey him by believing, repenting of our sins and getting ourselves baptised! Let us not confuse baptism with 'work towards salvation'. They are totally different! Baptism and faith are one. If the doctor tells you to take 3 pills to be cured, would you just take 2? Nope. We need to believe, repent and get baptised to be saved. =======================
>Man in sin must be freed from slavery to sin. He cannot free >Himself, but must be freed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. >This is an offensive truth to the unregenerate man, as the >response from these would-be self-made disciples indicates >(8:41, 48). Men do not like to hear that they are, in fact, >totally dependent upon God's grace for salvation--they do >not want to know that they are incapable of saving >themselves, or even of coming unto Christ for salvation, >outside of God's gracious drawing (John 6:44). But as the >Lord Himself said, we are slaves to sin. Slaves must be >freed.
>Paul describes the lost man's condition with the graphic >language of death. "As for you, you were dead in your >transgressions and sins" he tells the Ephesians (2:1). How >can a dead man be made alive? Only by the work of God, just >as he told the Colossians, "When you were dead in your sins >and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive >with Christ" (Colossians 2:13). This deadness has tremendous >results according to the inspired Apostle. First, it means >that there is no man who, in and of himself, seeks after >God: "There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God" >(Romans 3:11). Likewise, there is no man who understands the >things of God unless he is first changed from >being "natural" or "carnal" to "spiritual": "The man without >the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the >Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he >cannot understand them, because they are spiritually >discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). Paul says that when men are >alienated from God, they are His enemies in their minds >(Colossians 1:21). These are strong words, and they well >describe the hatred and enmity that exists in the heart of >the man who continues to live in his rebellion against God. >What is even more striking is Paul's absolute belief that >this condition cannot be changed by man--not only is it not >the natural man's desire to be at peace with the Holy One, >but it is beyond his capacity to do so, even if he were so >inclined. Note Paul's words in Romans 8:5-8:
>For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on >the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the >Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the >flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and >peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward >God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for >it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh >cannot please God. I agree with this paragraph. 8) I'm not completly objectional to everything, you know. :) But we need to note that this applies only to people who had either softened or hardened their hearts towards God. A person can choose to repent when he sins (Luke 15: the prodigal son), or his salvation can be taken away as in 2 Peter 2:20-22 and Hebrews 10:26-27.
>Those who hold to baptismal regeneration would have us to >believe that one passes from being a "natural man" to >a "spiritual man" through baptism; Okay, here is where I have to say something.8) In Romans 6:3- 5, baptism is describes as being "buried together with Christ", and afterwhich, we are raised together with him into a new life. Now does that not describe as being passed from a un-saved man to a saved one?
>yet, from whence does >this desire to be baptized come? Is God not pleased when we >are baptized? Of course. Here the writer is confused. In one hand, he says baptism does not saves, and on the other hand he says it is something we need to do. So why did God instituted baptism in the first place if it is redundant for salvation? I believe our God is not someone who does something for nothing. Baptism means a lot for: 1) We can only be added into the body of Christ through baptism -> 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 2) Those who are baptised are sons of God, clothed with Christ -> Galatians 3:27 3) Baptism is about having a new life in Christ after we buried with Christ in our sins. -> Romans 6:3-4 We need to read the bible as a whole and not pick words or choose to hear what we want to hear, meaning combining all the words together and not isolating passages. If one passages says believe to be saved (John 3:16) and another says baptised to be saved (1 Peter 3:21), then we do both.
>Yet, Paul said that the one who is >still fleshly cannot please God. If such a person is the >enemy of God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to >do such a spiritual and pleasing thing as to desire to be >baptized? Obviously, this is impossible. Okay, this is very wrong here. Even pagans have some godly virtues that we can learn! Like the pagan friends you have around you right, who are disciplined (which I need to repent of more.. 8)), hard-working, honest, etc, etc, etc. An example in the bible is Cornelius, in Acts 10, he was giving to the poor and doing good deeds BEFORE he was baptised. Another good example, the Eithopian Eunach in Acts 8, he was a devout observer of the laws BEFORE he was baptised by Philip. (he went to Jerusalem all the way from Eygpt to observe a Feast!) So, the writer is greatly mistaken here.
>Baptism signifies >our death to the old way of life and our resurrection to new >life in Christ, as Paul uses it in Romans 6:1-4. Unless we >have died to sin, and been raised with Christ in reality >prior to our baptism, the symbol becomes meaningless. How can someone do this prior to baptism? Let's look at the passages again. "Or have you forgotten that when we became Christians and were baptized to become one with Christ Jesus, we died with him? For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives. Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised as he was. Our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin. And since we died with Christ, we know we will also share his new life. We are sure of this because Christ rose from the dead, and he will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. He died once to defeat sin, and now he lives for the glory of God. So you should consider yourselves dead to sin and able to live for the glory of God through Christ Jesus." (Romans 6:3-11, New Living Translation) How did the writer interpreted this? The passages means that when we are baptised, we are one with Christ, in his death to sins and in his resurection also, for we'll be raised as he was. Our old sinful self will be dead, crucified together with Christ, and sin has no power in our lifes anymore, for we'll be cleansed from all sins. We are set free from sin. The writer has grossly misinterpreted these passages and belittle the true significant of baptism. =========================================
>So we >see that the position that posits baptism as the means of >regeneration and forgiveness ignores the most basic >teachings of Scripture regarding man's inability. In taking >the position they do, the baptismal regenerationists not >only make man capable of things he is not, but they reduce >God's grace to a mere aid, and make the death of Christ a >theory that is dependent upon man's act of obedience, rather >than the finished and effective work that the Bible teaches >it to be (Hebrews 10:10-14). Baptism is a true and effective work, it saves and also man is capable of doing good. All these can be read from above.
>When we keep in mind the foundational truth that man is >unable to save himself, but that salvation is the work of >God, we are able to understand why it is said that we are >justified by God's grace (Titus 3:7), justified by the blood >of Christ (Romans 5:9), and justified by faith. Grace, and >the blood of Christ, are both things that are beyond man's >ability to manipulate; and faith, if it is true, saving >faith, is the gift of God as well. Hence, we are justified >by God's action, not by any action of our own. Never is it >said that we are justified by baptism. Now I can feel that there is a strong smell of Calvanism here. God has given us all a choice, we are free will beings capable of choosing our own paths. We are not trying to manipulate God, but that we know the God has given us a choice because he loves us. Love is about letting people choose. Without a choice, there is no love at all. How do you feel if someone forces you to love him/her? Is that true love? Nope. God is love and he has given us a choice. No passages shown here because this is common sense. 8) ===========================
>In light of the fact that any review of the central passages >of the New Testament that directly deal with how a man is >made right with God will lead us to recognize our own >inability and the great ability of our God to save, what is >to be said concerning those passages, drawn from one context >or another, that seem to indicate that we are saved or >forgiven by baptism? First, we must point out that it is >common for some to confuse the *importance* of baptism with >the idea of the *necessity* of baptism. Indeed, often the >fact that the New Testament takes for granted that all >believers will be baptized as a profession of their faith is >taken to mean that baptism is *how* they became believers in >the first place! We confess baptism to be vitally important-- >the Scriptures are clear in this. That Paul can use baptism >is a sign and symbol of our spiritual union with Christ
>(Romans 6:1-4) shows that it is his assumption that all >believers will be obedient in baptism. We do not, by >asserting the proper understanding of baptism, in any way >denigrate it as an ordinance given by Christ to His Church.
>But just as the holy Law of God was misused by the Pharisees >in Jerusalem, and the Judaizers in Galatia, so baptism has >been misused by modern proponents of the works-oriented >system of baptismal regeneration. Therefore, just as Paul >often asserted his great respect for and love of the law of >God while asserting its true nature and purpose, so we, too, >assert our great respect for Christian baptism while >asserting its proper place in God's work of salvation and >sanctification. The writer still did not give the reason why although he thinks that baptism is not essential for salvation, God still wants us to do it, except that it is important just because it is a commandment. So we follow blindly? Doing something for nothing? I think not. This does not make sense at all. Can the great commandment in Matthew 28:19-20 means nothing except just to immerse people not for salvation? The writer has grossly overlooked this area. ====================
>We shall center our attention on three >passages of Scripture that are often placed before us >as "clear testimony" to the concept of baptismal >regeneration. These passages are Acts 2:38, 22:16, and 1 >Peter 3:21.
>Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in >the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. And >you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is >for you and your children and for all who are far off--for >all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38-39, NIV).
>This is probably the most oft-quoted passage in the great >baptism debate. Yet, when we read verse 39, we hear again >the same concept that we saw above, which Peter himself will >assert at a later date (1 Peter 1:2), and that will reappear >in the Acts narrative, too (Acts 13:48)--salvation comes >through the work of God's elective choice, not the actions >or plans of men. Baptism does nothing for those who are not Grace is about God saving us though we do not deserve it. A person can still reject this grace by not choosing to abate by it. This is common sense again.
>called of God. But, one might say, what if one is called of >God? Does this passage then not say that baptism is for the >remission of sins?
>A tremendously large number of interpretations have been set >forth on this passage over the years. We believe the >simplest and most consistent manner of approach is to ask a >question that is frequently not asked at all: we here have a >short snippet of what was obviously a longer sermon by >Peter. Does Peter elsewhere tell us, in plain language, how >our sins are remitted, how we are cleansed from our burden >of guilt? Certainly! We began our article with the quotation >of 1 Peter 1:18-19, where Peter directly teaches that we are >cleansed by the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, Jesus >Christ. Do we then have sufficient basis to identify the >waters of baptism with the blood of Christ? Surely not. Just because it is not stated here, doesn't mean that baptism is not important for salvation. There are plenty of verses, not just this one that talks about salvation without mentioning baptism. (eg. John 3:16) Should we say then that baptism is not essential for salvation? Nope. Like I said, we should read the bible as a whole. Also, passages like Luke 13:3 that says that we must repent or else we'll perish, has a direct link to salvation. Just because it did not mention believe or baptism, should we say it is not essential? Nope. Repentance is equaly important with believe and baptism for salvation. Think on this, can a unrepentant person goes to heaven? Nope. As stated in Galatians 5:19-21. Please read: "When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other kinds of sin. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. " (New Living Translation, emphasis added)
>Sins are remitted through our participation in the death of >Jesus Christ--it is by the "one time offering" of Jesus We participlate in Christ's death in baptism -> Romans 6:1-4. Please see verses above.
>Christ that we are made whole (Hebrews 10:10-14). What of >baptism then? It is the symbol, the outward representation >before men of what the Spirit of God has done in our hearts >(Titus 3:5-7). Unless we have first had our sins remitted in >the blood of Christ, the symbol of baptism is meaningless. Again, how do you do that, if not by baptism as stated in Romans 6:1-5? The symbol actually saves for it connect us with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as stated.
> But doesn't this passage say that baptism is for the >remission of sins? Yes, but what does "for" mean? We feel An argument of words? 2 Timothy forbid this.
>that Dr. A. T. Robertson's comments from earlier this >century are very meaningful: >This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men >look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of >evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express >aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. >2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good >Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in >Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, >diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but >rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of >prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is >seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of >Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of >Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the >N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). >One will decide the use here according as he believes that >baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My >view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any >one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the >remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. >So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them >who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in >the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of >sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word >Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36). If they had already received it, then why do it again?? We can see that the writer is confused. On one hand he says that baptism not necessary for salvation by his explanation that man is incapable of saving himself, but he asserts that the passages in Act 2:38 also talks about forgiveness of sins. Obviously, this is a comical account where we can see someone trying very hard to explain away something simple for us to see. That is: when someone get baptised, he receives the Holy Spirit and is washed of all his sins. Simple as that. Needless to say, he is saved. =======================================
>The point being that one can (and we believe should, if one >believes in the consistency of Scripture as a whole) >understand Peter to be speaking of baptism on the grounds of >the remission of sins that comes through belief in the name >of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43). But, someone will surely >object, Peter himself said that "baptism saves us" in 1 >Peter 3:21. Let's look at the passage in context:
>For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the >unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the >body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went >and preached to the spirits in prison who were 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, who >has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with > angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
>This is one of the more difficult passages in Scripture, due >to the reference to Christ's preaching to the "spirits in >prison." It is not our purpose to enter into the controversy >over this particular aspect of this passage at this time >(one might find Dr. Kenneth Wuest's comments enlightening;
>see Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament II:92 >-109). Instead, we point out that foremost in Peter's mind, >again, is the death of Christ as the sacrifice for sin. Men >are brought to God, not by what they do, but what God has >done in Christ Jesus (v. 18). Upon the heels of this he > mentions God's act of judgment in the days of Noah. At that >time eight souls were saved through water. Peter then says >that this water "symbolizes" baptism (as the NIV translates >the Greek term antitupon, literally, "antitype"). Baptism >now saves us, Peter says--just as the water "saved" Noah and >his family. But, of course, we know that Peter was not >asserting that there was some salvific aspect to the flood >waters themselves--God shut up the ark, and God saved Noah >and his family. But the water is a symbol, Peter says, a >symbol seen now in baptism. But is Peter dropping the >symbolization so as to make baptism the means of salvation? >Certainly not. Dr. Wuest has commented so well that we give >his words at length: Of course the water is a symbol. I do not object that. What is obvious is that the writer cannot accept the possibility that a symbol can save. Is God not almighty enough to do this? Nope.
>Water baptism is clearly in the apostle's mind, not the >baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of >the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this >verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it >saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is >the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save >as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices >were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did >not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not >argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian >water baptism. The author is merely using them as an >illustration of the use of the word "counterpart." So water >baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament >Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering >was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in >the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a >type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the >believer's inward faith. >The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the >Lord Jesus. This statement also disregarded Romans 6:1-4, Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. Does this surprises you? Like I've said if one part of the bible says something, we combine it. God is not trying to confuse us, nor he will.
>Water baptism is the >visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was >given in answer to that faith. Why need that? Our relatinship with God is between God and us. We do not need a visible testimony. This is invented by men.
>Peter is careful to inform >his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, >namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby >regenerated, for he says, "not the putting away of the filth >of the flesh." Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away >the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath >for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for >the soul. "Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" means that it is not a physical washing or cleansing, but the bible did not say that it is not a cleansing of the soul, of washing away our sins. The writer cannot conclude things in this way without any explainations.
>No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he >defines what he means by salvation, in the words "the answer >of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this >is accomplished, namely, "by the resurrection of Jesus >Christ," in that he believing sinner is identified with Him >in that resurrection. The sinner is identified with him in that resurrection as occurred in baptism as stated in Romans 6:1-4. The writer has again grossly overlooked this area or chose to ignore this. =========================
>What, then, of Acts 22:16? Here, Ananias, having confronted >the blinded Saul, says, in context:
>Then he said: "The God of our fathers has chosen you to know >his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from >his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you >have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get >up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his >name."
>We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty
>of God in the context of this passage as well ("God...has
>chosen you"). Verse 16 presents us with a significant
>construction in the original language. The terms "arise"
>and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist
>participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and
>apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets-
>-the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away
>your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more
>literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name
>of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling
>upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is
>represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for
>certain: given what we have seen previously of Paul's own
>theology of justification, he certainly did not interpret
>Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!
Well, Paul did said that baptism for salvation as I've stated above. Since the writer couldn't interpret properly the previous passages, of course he'll cannot do it there.
>In conclusion, we must again insist that the Scriptures must >be taken as a whole--when we find in the direct, clear >statements of Scripture truths that are contradictory to >assumptions based upon passing comments, we must take the >clear statements over the assumptions. The writer obvously did not take the bible as a whole as he ignored parts which is obviously contradicting to his presumed believe of salvation by faith alone. This is dangerous, for we mustn't read word into the bible, but should let God tell us what He wants to tell us.
>In the issue of >salvation, we must take the clear statements of Scripture >regarding the work of the Spirit of God in regenerating lost >sinners seriously. By teaching baptismal regeneration, >people do despite not only to the sovereignty of God and the >finished work of Christ, but to the real purpose and meaning >of baptism as well. I do not think the writer knows the 'real purpose and meaning of baptism' as stated above.
>While some like to refer to the >evangelical doctrine of baptism as a "mere symbol," we >respond by pointing out that an ordinance, given by Christ >to His Church, in which the great and marvelous work of God >in salvation is pictured for all to see is not properly >described by the term "mere." Instead, Christian baptism >must be understood as representing a true and inner reality-- >one that is brought about by the grace of God in a person's >life. When we properly present baptism as it is presented in >Scripture, we glorify God's grace and magnify His work of >salvation in Jesus Christ. In conclusion, the writer did not see that baptism is actually not a work, but it is a form of faith, for baptism cannot exist without faith as stated long ago in Colossians 2:12. Baptism will not undermine the grace and glory of God, for he has chosen to save us in the first place. If he didn't no matter what we do, we will not be saved. And if he tells us to do someting to be saved, then we need to humbly comply if we really want to be saved. The writer should not argue about words, but should look at the bible as it is. The bible is not written for highly intelligent people, but for common and for all people, for God wants to save us all, as stated in 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for EVERYONE to repent." (New Living Translation, emphasis added) Thanks for reading so far with me. Please feel free to comment! 8)
|
Back to Antioch's Home Page