Re: Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

In article <348C7908-D8A1-85D8-F9D9-A90BC5B36B27@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, High
Plains Thumper says...

>Bart Goddard wrote:
>> checker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>>> Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he
>>> who does not believe will be condemned. NKJV

>>> It says NOTHING about he who believes and is NOT baptized.

>> And yet, the verse includes "is baptized" in the first clause.  If
>> the "real" rule was just "He who believes will be saved", one would
>> think Jesus would have said that.  But He didn't.

>> Evidently, there is no such thing as a person who believes and
>> isn't baptized.

>Obviously, it is a different baptism:

Often, when someone in this group starts a sentence with 'obviously',
it is not even true. Alas, such is the case here as well. "A different
baptism"? Then what baptism _is_ it? What two baptisms are you
referring to here? Mark 16:16 must be referring to Christian Baptism,
of which there is one. That is why in the Creed, we say "I believe in
ONE baptism for the remission of sins".

>1 Peter 3:21 This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you - not
>the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
>conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
>[WEB]

Oh, but this translation is just plain WRONG. The Greek text does NOT
call baptism a 'symbol'. Rather, it says that the experience of Noah
in the ark is a 'type' of baptism.

Really, the RSV is much closer to the Greek text, saying:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of
dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1Pe 3:21 RSVA)

So you see, it _is_ baptism that saves us. Yet clearly Peter never
intended this to contradict the statements elsewhere that we are saved
through faith, by grace. The challenge in this thread is to see how
all three principles are true.

>>> We are saved by FAITH;

>> No we're not.  We're saved by grace.  I'd cite the verse, but 
>> you already did:

>We are saved by grace through faith.

And this does not conflict with baptism saving us.

>There is the grace of God and our volitional act of the will
>following through.

And what must the will do if it "follows through"? It must bring the
willer to baptism. Otherwise there is no "following through".

>God granted Noah grace.  Noah obeyed by building the ark.  God sealed
>the ark to save those who took refuge therein.

All of which was the 'type' (more precisely, 'antitype') of Christian
baptism, which now saves us.

[snip]

>> "Must" or "Demonstrate complete lack of faith in God's
>> promise". For a guy who preaches "salvation by faith", I'd think
>> that "lack of faith" would be a serious issue.

>> So perhaps you'd better "think so."

>There is the water baptism that even Christ participated in, to
>fulfill all righteousness:

Ah, but that baptism was not Christian baptism, of which He had no
need. Rather, the Baptism of Christ stands at the _head_ of Christian
baptism, being the _culmination_ of the baptism of John, which itself
differed from Christian baptism.

>However, baptism by water is not salvation.

This assertion assumes that there is a separate, saving baptism. There
is not. See above.


-- 
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96) 


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))