Brethren:

This thread is a continuation of the "baptismal regeneration" thread. I have canged the name to reflect what we are really discussing and to remove the deliberate pejoritive implication that we in the restoration movement beleive in baptismal regeneration. For we do not beleive any such thing. We do beleive all that the New Testament teaches on the subject of our salvation. We have never taught that baptism alone without faith in Christ and his shed blood could save any one but rather that baptism is essential to a faithful obedience to Christ which is essential along with faith, repentance and confession of Christ to our obedience to our Lord and His gospel which is essential to our salvation. (Heb. 5:8,9; 1 COr. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8-9; ROmans 6:3-6,17; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Gal. 3:26,27).

Therefore I have titled this thread "Calvinism VS teh Scriptural design of Baptism" by which I mean that Calvinism is a doctine that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Lord's design or purpose for Commanding baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts:38).

This was also done becaause the former thread was getting too long and the downloads were taking too much time for many to read and respond promptly.

I now continue by responding to DBVZ's last post in that previous thread.

DBVZ:

You have said:

“Saffold, Your long post makes it clear again it is pointless to continue a discussion with you.”

Now, there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that I care very little about the length of my post and your whining about its length does nothing to cause me to be in the least concerned about it. And your response continues to show that it is very much “pointed” to discuss these matters with me inasmuch as you have now for the forth time completely refused to answer my very pointed and reasonable question that was put to you.

Then you say:

“ Is I wrote some time ago, I did not quote the post of John Wilson from Feb. 17 to make any point concerning the interpretation of "eis", but as an example of one who indicated by his comments that he relies on the finished work of Christ for salvation. I may be wrong, but that is what his post indicated to me. As for "eis", I don't read Greek and my opinion on that issue would be entirely based on the opinions of those who do.”

Again you have deliberately avoided discussing the meaning of this Greek term “eis” and its bearing on the subject at hand. I know that you were quoting John but my question was do you agree with his argument that was based upon an egregious error concerning the meaning of the Greek term “eis”. You have not answered and will not answer that question, now will you? And, if you do not “read Greek” how can you agree with an argument based upon the meaning of a word in the Greek language when you have absolutely no idea what the word means or that the assertion in the words you quoted from John were factual and true?

Then you say:

“In any event, even using the interpretation of "eis" you want does not change the meaning I get from the passage. As I have commented before, "repent and be baptized" assumes that some other things have already occured - like recognition of sin, belief that God exists and will forgive, and faith in Jesus Christ. No one truely repents who does not believe, and baptism follows as a symbol of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ.”

Well, the meaning of the Greek term “eis” is not merely an “interpretation that I want”. It is the meaning that all reputable and able scholars in all of the recognized scholarly Lexicons give to it. I have quoted many of them to establish that such is the meaning. And you admit that you have not the slightest idea what the word means. Therefore it is quite presumptions on your part to attempt to make it appear that I am simply giving it a meaning that I want it to have. When the truth of the matter is that I have established its meaning from reputable and recognized Scholars of the Greek language, including the very one that John himself deliberately misquoted.

Why wouldn’t the fact that the Greek term “eis” means “to obtain” cause you to consider the possibility that repentance and baptism is “to obtain” the remission of sins. And if they are for this purpose according to the inspired apostle Peter on what grounds do you contend that repentance and baptism is not done in order “to obtain” the remission of sins? So far all we can tell is that the actual meaning of the inspired words from God have no bearing upon what you will believe. According to you it can mean repentance and baptism is “to obtain” remission of sins but you still insist that repentance and baptism are merely “symbolic” of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ. You insist without offering a single word from God that says that repentance and baptism are merely symbolic. We are just expected to believe that it is so because you say it is. We want evidence from the word of God that makes repentance and baptism nothing more than a symbol. In Acts 2:38 repentance and baptism are connected by a conjunction that connects things of equal rank in a sentence. Thus whatever is said of repentance in that verse is also said of baptism. Now do tell us just how is it that repentance is nothing more than a symbol? And if baptism in this verse is symbolic then so is repentance for they are equally related to the remission of sins in exactly the same way in this verse. It is as plain as the nose on your face that “repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” are both “for” or “unto” or “to obtain” the remission of sins. Nothing in this verse or its entire immediate context says a single thing about “repentance and baptism being nothing more than “symbolic” of the washing away of our sins. The truth is that when we repent and are baptized God actually, by his grace and because of the blood of Christ, removes our sins from us. (Col. 2:11,12). And both repentance and baptism are acts of obedience to the commands of Christ our Lord prompted by faith in him upon hearing the gospel of Christ. For faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17). SO there is nothing in the entire second chapter of Acts that says that “repentance and baptism” are symbolic. The question is not and has never been “what saves us” for we know that it is Christ who saves us through the benefits of his shed blood. The issue is not “how does Christ save us for we know that it is through the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. Rather the issue is when does he grant us the remission of our sins. And Peter made the answer to that question simple and abundantly clear when he said, “Repent and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” (Acts 2:38). Thus when our faith leads us to obey Christ by repenting and being immersed in His name we receive the forgiveness or remission of our sins. This is when Christ removes our sins. He is the savior of those who are obedient to his commands in these matters. For he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9). He is not the author of eternal salvation to any others. It is His sovereign right to decide when and upon what conditions his blood will be applied to our souls and our sins will be removed. And Paul by inspiration made it abundantly clear when we receive the benefits of the blood of Christ. For he said, “In whom also ye were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in the putting off of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: BURIED (not sprinkled or poured) with him in baptism (immersion) wherein also ye are risen with him THROUGH FAITH IN THE OPERATION OF GOD, who hath raised him from the dead. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with Him, having FORGIVEN ALL YOUR TRESPASSES;” (Col. 2:11-13). Thus it is clear that the removal of our sins takes place when we are “buried with him in baptism”. For it is evident that we are in our sins before we are “buried with Him in baptism and that they are forgiven when we are immersed with him and that afterward we are raised to walk a new life. And Paul again reinforces this same idea when he said, “know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore (for this reason) we are BURIED WITH HIM (not sprinkled or poured with Him) by baptism (immersion for that is what the word means) into death: that LIKE AS CHRIST was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father we also should walk in newness of life. For IF we have been planted in the likeness of his death we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: KNOWING THIS, that our OLD MAN is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth (after this dying to sin and burial and resurrection with Christ) we should not serve sin. (Romans 6:3-6). And Paul harkens back to these very words in the seventeenth verse of this same chapter of Romans with these words, “ know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked; that ye were once the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. BEING THEN MADE FREE FROM SIN, ye became the servants of righteousness”. (Romans 6:16-18). When were they made free from sin? When they OBEYED FORM THE HEART THAT FORM OF DOCTRINE. It is clear that they were made free from sin WHEN they obeyed that form of doctrine which he described with his words concerning the “burial” with Christ in baptism in Romans 6:3-6. So, when were they forgiven according to all of these verses from Colossians and Romans? It was when they OBEYED the gospel. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 defines the gospel. “Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel, which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; BY WHICH ALSO YE ARE SAVED, IF YE KEEP IN MEMEORY what I preached unto you unless ye have BELIEVED IN VAIN. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scripture;” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Yet Paul also told us that those who do not obey the gospel would be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thessalonians 1:8,9). The gospel according to Paul is a set of facts to be believed (1 Cor. 15:1-4) that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried and raised from the dead. These are facts to be believed. How then can anyone obey facts to be believed? How can one obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? The answer is clear. For the gospel also has commands to be obeyed that allows us to obey the death burial and resurrection of Christ by being “buried with him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life. Thus, the only way we are given in the scriptures to obey the gospel is by imitating the death burial and resurrection of Christ as Paul explained in two places by being buried with Him by baptism. (Romans 6:3-6). There is no other way given in the scriptures that anyone can “obey” the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And this is the reason that immersion is commanded for we are expected by God to obey the gospel of Christ or be eternally lost. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And the only way that we can obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is to obey His command to be “buried with him by immersion” so that we can be raised with Him to a new life. (Romans 6:3-6, 17). Thus we can understand what Paul meant when he said, “for ye are all children of God in Christ Jesus FOR (gar meaning because) as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ. (Gal. 3:26, 27). And if any man be in Christ he is a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). Thus Christ words are even more understandable when were hear him say, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

Now, DBVZ, why do you not give some scriptural evidence to support your assertion that repentance and baptism are nothing more than symbolic of the “washing away of our sins”? For if you could produce a scripture to support such a notion it would be contradictory to the many that I have listed above. However, we have no expectation that you will find a scripture that actually says that “repentance an baptism” are merely symbolic of washing our sins away, for there is no such scripture in the entire word of God. And it is certain that Acts 2:38 says no such thing.

Then you say: “You truely state that baptism is a command of God, given through Christ and his apostles. I have never disputed that or that baptism is required.”

It is interesting just here that you cannot complete the thought. Of course it is true that repentance and BAPTISM ARE REQUIRED. I am glad that you can see that they are therefore essential for some reason. Both of these in the scriptures are just as essential and REQUIRED, as is faith. But you are afraid to admit just why they are “required”. They are commands of God and we are required to obey them because Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEYS HIM. (Heb. 5:8,9) and they are RQUIRED for us to obey the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6,17) and if we do not obey the gospel we shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power. (2 Thess. 1:8,9) therefore they are REQUIRED commandments of God for our salvation.

Then in your further absurd efforts to twist the truth you say:

“The issue that is critical is whether salvation results from this human action of baptism, putting it in the control of men; or whether salvation results from the sovereign act of God of which baptism is the symbol.”

Salvation in Christ is for those who OBEY the commandments of our sovereign Lord. “Though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:8,9). And there is no way for any human being to obey God without taking human action to do so. It is indeed ridiculous that one could contemplate human beings obeying God without taking human action. Even faith is a human response to the hearing of the word of God, Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17). Repentance is also a human action and no one will have their sins blotted out without taking the action of repenting of their sins. For we are told by Peter again, “Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. (Acts 3:19). And Ananias had no problem with telling Saul, who was later, the great Apostle Paul, “And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). Now notice he did not say “arise and be baptized and symbolically wash away they sins calling on the name of the Lord”. No would DBVZ ever bring himself to say these same words that Ananias said to Saul to anyone? Ananias said them but DBVZ cannot say them for they are opposed to his Calvinistic presuppositions. He would choke on such words. And when Peter said, Repent and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins” (Acts 2:38) He urged the people, “and with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, save yourselves from this untoward generation”. (Acts 2:40). Now those are more words that DBVZ would choke to death on before he would say them. Then the very next verse following Peter’s admonition for them to “save themselves from this untoward generation” says, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41). Three thousand souls were baptized because they gladly received Peter’s words and in doing so they were added to their number. And verse 47 say says, and “the Lord added to them daily those that were being saved.” Yes, those that gladly received the word of God were baptized and thus were added and those being added were those who were being saved. Interesting, isn’t it. All of the things we read in this passage are repugnant to Calvinist. They just cannot “gladly receive” Peter’s inspired words. And they most certainly would never be found repeating them to an audience that cried out, “Men and brethren what shall we do?” For their words would be, “you cannot do anything but hope that God has chosen you from the foundation of the world for if he did not you are eternally lost and there is nothing you can do about it, period for our God is sovereign! That is their gospel. But it is not the gospel of Christ.

Then you say:

“ If it results from baptism, it is works-dependent just as the command not to eat of the tree in eden was.”

Now this statement is nothing more than an assertion of your opinion. Where does the word of God say such a thing? If repentance and baptism is the point in time when our sovereign God has determined to grant us the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38) where does God’s work teach that we must then conclude that our salvation is “works dependent” and not a matter of God’s sovereignty and Grace? God’s work does not speak with such theological nonsense. Peter had not the slightest fear that anyone would conclude that His answer to those poor souls on Pentecost who had crucified Jesus Christ and had Cried out, “men and brethren what shall we do?” Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” would cause anyone to say that their salvation was “works-dependent”. It is certain that he had never contemplated such an absurd notion. But, DBVZ, could never tell anyone to do those things because he has this fear that telling someone what Peter said would case them to believe that their salvation was “works-dependent” instead of by God’s grace. But we have no indication that the three thousand souls who were immersed on that day in response to Peter’s answer to their question ever thought that their salvation was “works-dependent” and not by God’s grace. Is it not interesting brethren that none of this theological nonsense can be found in the word of God. WE never read of any words like “works-dependent” in the scriptures. Those words are not there even though we are told to “repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. He was using the exact same words that our Lord used when he said, “this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28). And there is not the slightest idea in the scriptures that this would ever cause anyone to think that should we accept the Lord’s commands to repent and be baptized that we would be in danger of concluding that our salvation was “works-depended”. Our salvation is without doubt dependent upon obedience. For Christ our Lord is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him. (Heb. 5:8,9). I can just hear DBVZ arguing with the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews saying don’t you know that if you tell people that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him that you will thereby be guilty of teaching a “works-dependent” salvation. Christ will not save anyone that does not believe. But if they believe, which is a human mental activity that comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:13-17), are they seeking a “works-dependent” salvation? Repentance is an change of hear and mind and takes place in the heart of man and is a mental activity caused by Godly sorrow as Paul explained to the Corinthians. “Though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it, though I did regret; for I see that the epistle made you sorry after a godly sort; for godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be regretted.” Now, this mental activity of repentance that leads to salvation did not cause Paul to fear that anyone would ever conclude that their salvation was “works-dependent”. Thus if one repents of his sins, which is a human mental activity based upon a godly sorrow for sin, and that repentance leads to salvation then is one’s salvation “works-dependent? It would be according to DBVZ but not according to the inspired word of God. Then we come to baptism, which is not a mere human act that man does but rather an action that he allows to be done to him. In baptism the one being baptized is entirely passive except in the sense that he willingly and humbly in his hear submits to it. For Peter said, “repent and BE baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” In order for one to BE baptized he must submit to it but in the action of baptism he is totally passive. And Christ said he that believeth and IS baptized shall be saved. Thus if one humbly and passively submits to our Lords command to be baptized he will be saved and thousands in the New Testament did just that without even once thinking that their salvation was “works-dependent’ and not bay God’s grace. Yet DBVZ gathers from this passive, inactive submission to the command of Christ that one is working to earn his salvation if he submits to it. But he cannot show from the word of God that his theory is true. If God’s word does not teach that salvation that is dependent or conditioned upon faithful obedience to God’s Commands is “works-dependent” then just why would DBVZ draw such a conclusion? He does not draw it from anything that God says on the matter for all that God has to say about it is contrary to his theological theories and suppositions.

Then he says:

“If it results from the sovereign act of Gos it is provided freely, by grace, to all who believe as Romans 3:21-24 clearly states.”

Now, anyone who reads Romans must keep their mind continually on what Paul is talking about.

The scripture teaches that remission of sins happens in baptism after we through faith have repented of our sins (Acts 2:38). Now the fact that it happens when we are baptized does not in the least mean that it results from baptism. Remission of sins results from the shed blood of Christ WHEN we obey His commands to repent and be baptized. For this reason the exact same phraseology is found in Matthew 26:28 as id found in Acts 2:38. For Christ tells us that, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. (Matt. 26:28) and then we are told by Peter, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Acts 2:38). Now this is the exact same phrase in Greek as it is in English. Both the Blood of Christ and Repentance and baptism are for the exact same purpose. They are all FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And the only reasonable explanation that can be given for this fact is that the blood of Christ remits our sins WHEN we repent of those sins and submit in humble obedience to the command of Christ to be baptized. Thus, remission of sins is the result of Christ blood and is granted to us by our sovereign God when we “repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. And our Calvinist friend has failed to inform you that according to his theory, not the word of God, God decided before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would be lost and that nothing that you do can change God’s mind about that decision. If you were arbitrarily selected to be eternally Lost before the foundation of the world you will be lost and there is nothing you can do to be saved. And if God selected you arbitrarily to be saved before the foundation of the world you will be saved and there is nothing that you can do to save yourself nor is there anything you can do to be lost. This is what they mean when they say it is all by God’s Grace. The grace of God described in the gospel of Christ is not the same as the imaginary grace of God found in the twisted Calvinistic theories about God’s Grace.

Then you say:

“One step follows another. When you recognize that baptism is a symbolic washing, the mode is less important even though I agreed with you that the word originally included the meaning "to dip" or "to immerse".”

Now, DBVZ, we are not going to “recognize that baptism is a symbolic washing” until it is proven from the scriptures that it is a symbolic washing. There is not one passage that tells us that our sins are “symbolically” washed away when we are baptized. In fact, Paul tells us in Colossians 2:11-13 that Christ actually removes our sins from us when we are buried with Him in baptism. And Peter tells us to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” He does not say repent and be baptized for the symbolic remission of sins. And Annanias told Saul, “and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins having called upon the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). He does not say to Saul, “arise and be baptized and symbolically wash away your sins having called upon the name of the Lord.” In fact there is not a place in the New Testament where we find the words symbolic and baptism together. DBVZ that notion is not in the scriptures and therefore until it is proven that baptism is symbolic we will not recognize it as such.

I am happy however that you finally admit that originally, meaning how the men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to use it used it, the word baptism included “to dip” or “to immerse”. But you still have not understood the truth of the meaning of the Greek word “baptizo”. For in did not merely include “to dip” or “to immerse”. It meant “to dip” or “to immerse” and that was its entire meaning. It never included anything else. It most certainly NEVER included sprinkling. And it did not include “pouring” unless enough water was poured out to immerse the person or object being baptized. There is no justification in the entire New Testament for anything other than immerse as the meaning of the Greek term “baptizo”.

But this fact does not stop our Calvinistic friend form claiming that since baptism is nothing more than a symbolic jester it does not matter in the least what mode we use to symbolize whatever it is that God had intended that it should symbolize. In other words he is telling us that God designed immersion as nothing but a symbol but he does not prove that this is true. Then he says that though our sovereign God chose to immerse, as a symbol of something that it does not matter if we human beings change it to suit our particular taste for it is not essential to our salvation. He is saying that we can just change God’s symbols any time we want to. Now, I do not agree and DBVZ has not proven that baptism is a symbol in the least. But if I did believe that God intended for it to be symbolic I would not tamper with the symbolism that He in his sovereignty and wisdom selected. Just who does DBVZ think he is to treat what he believes is God’s symbol with such indifference as if it does not matter in the least what God wanted if he chose immersion and not sprinkling to symbolize something. The pathetic idea here is that if we decide that something is not important that we can just change it to suit ourselves for God does not care about it. This is not the attitude of one who has respect for the power, authority, and sovereignty of God. But rather it is the attitude of a rebellious heart that cares nothing for the things of God.

Nevertheless, It remains to be proven that baptism is nothing more than a mere symbol. And this will be difficult since it is never called a symbol in the word of God.

Then BVZ says:

“When a word has several possible intended meanings, it is not always clear which one is specifically intended in each case. Where you read a full body immersion I read we are to get the one baptized wet as a symbolic washing.”

The Greek term “baptizo” does not have “getting the one baptized wet” as one of its meanings. Nor does it have “a symbolic washing” as one of its meanings. In fact the Greek term “baptizo’ does not, in the New Testament have “several intended meanings” and for one who has admitted that he does not read Greek you are suddenly speaking as if you consider yourself an authority on the language. But in the New Testament “baptizo” means immerse. It has never meant to “get one wet”. Can you show from any reputable Lexicons that the term has such a meaning or are you going to just avoid that question as you have avoided the questions that I have asked you about the Greek term “eis”?

Then you say:

“ The point is, baptism itself does nothing.”

Now notice folks that DBVZ says, “baptism itself is nothing”. Now contrast this with the inspired apostle Peter who said that baptism was FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. (Acts 2:38) and compare this to Peter’s words who said that “baptism doeth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21) And compare it to Paul’s inspired words when he said, “for ye are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For (Greek word gar meaning because) as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:26,27). And compare this statement of DBVZ with the words of Christ our Lord who said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Jesus uses a coordinating conjunction that connects things of equal rank in a sentence and he thereby put baptism on the same level as believing. So according to Christ baptism is as important as believing. Then Peter put baptism, using the exact same coordinating conjunction together with repentance. And according to him baptism was as important as repentance. But according to our Calvinistic friend, DBVZ, baptism is nothing. I suppose Peter and Jesus should have waited until DBVZ was born so that he would have been around to set them straight on this matter for they did not seem to have the impression that “baptism itself is nothing” as does DBVZ.

Then he says:

“It is symbolic, and after salvation by grace through the work of the Holy Spirit which has brought about faith

Now notice brethren. First DBVZ says baptism is nothing and then he says it is symbolic. Well, DBVZ, make up your mind. Is it nothing or is it symbolic? Or are you telling us that it is symbolic of nothing? Or is it symbolic of something important which would mean that it is at least something important after all.

No, DBVZ, the truth is that you cannot prove the above statement from the scriptures. For we are nowhere told that “baptism is symbolic, and after salvation by grace through the work of the Holy Spirit which was brought about by faith.” And we do notice that you gave absolutely no scripture references to support that nonsense. This is all something that you have read in your Calvinistic creeds. But you cannot read such nonsense in the word of God because it is just not there.

Then you say:

“We are called to obedience in baptism, but those who are baptized in another mode are being obedient.”

That is interesting that you say we are “called to obedience in baptism” but you ignore that we must obey Christ or we will not be saved. For he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. Therefore if we must be baptized in order to be obedient and Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him then one cannot be saved without being obedient to him in baptism. Sounds like you have made a good argument for the necessity of baptism to me.

But your assertion which you do not and cannot prove is that those who are “baptized by another mode are being obedient’. To put it bluntly, no they are not. And again I must inform you that there is no way anyone can be immerse by another mode. For either one is immerse or he is not. The word baptized means immerse in the New Testament. It does not mean anything else and there is simply no such thing as modes of immersion. If one is immerse he is immerse. If one is sprinkled he is not immersed. If he has water poured on him he is not immersed until enough water has been poured out to completely immerse him. Now, the Greek term “Baptizo” cannot be translated “sprinkle” or “pour” and therefore there is no such thing in the New Testament as “modes of baptism” for it is impossible to have “modes of immersion” and immerse is the meaning of the Greek term “baptizo”. Therefore one cannot talk in New Testament terminology about “modes of immersion or baptism” for they just did not exist.

Then you quote my words as follows: “In a prior post, you wrote, " Well, DBVZ this is the issue we are debating now isn’t it? It seems that you think that the matter has been settled when everyone reading this discussion can see that it hasn’t. The conclusion that many faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died without being baptized (which means immersed) by immersion (a clear tautology in usage) is false to its very core and you have not even attempted to prove that it is the truth. The fact is that no one who has not been obedient to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which can only be done through faith by “repenting and being immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) is not a Christian at all. (2 Thess. 1:7-9). And your notion that it is a “given” that faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died” without being immersed has not been proven to be the truth. It is not a “given”. Who has “given” that this is true? It is not a “given” in the word of God. I have not conceded or “given” this point to you nor has any other Christian who knows the word of God. And your notion that it is a “given” truth is contrary to the teaching of the word of God in these verses. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Ephesians 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; Acts 16: 9-11; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:20,21)."”

And after quoting my words you say:

“So it is clear that your understanding of God is that it is not faith in Jesus Christ that saves, contrary to scripture.”

Now anyone with halve their wits about them can read my words which you quoted and see that I have not said any such thing. And I have never said any such thing. I have always taught that we are saved by a living obedient faith in Christ and anyone who is no obedient to Christ does not have real genuine or saving faith. And this you have also said. For you once told us that obedience was a requirement and that those who did not obey did not have real faith. I have said it so many times that our readers must be nauseous reading it. I have said that we must believe (John 3:16) and we must repent (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38) and we must confess Christ (Romans 10:9,10) and we must be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). And all of these things are important to having an obedient faith or obedience that it prompted by faith. And any faith that does not lead us to obey is dead. Faith if it is alone is dead and cannot save anyone (James 2:14-24). So, it is obvious that only a completely biased and prejudiced person could conclude form my words that I do not believe in salvation by faith. For it is by faith that we repent of our sins. It is by faith n Christ that we are baptized in obedience to his commands and it is by faith therefore that we receive the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38) WHEN that faith leads us or prompts us to obey him. For Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that have enough faith to obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9)

Then you say:

“ Throughout history many hundreds of thousands (millions!) of faithful Christians have lived and died believing God, trusting in Jesus Christ and his shed blood for their salvation, but were baptized by sprinkling or pouring water over. They died in with their faith in God intact, and in some cases because of thier faith.”

But you do not prove that those who died in this deception were Christians at all. If they did not obey the gospel they were not Christians. (2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Cor. 15: 1-4; Romans 6:3-6,17) and if they did not repent and be immersed for the remission of their sins they did not receive the remission of there sins. If they listened to false teachers like you instead of the word of God that was delivered by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they could not have ever been faithful Christians. And, we are not saved just because we died for what we believe in. Why, even you would see that as “salvation by works”. We are saved when we obey the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and condemned if we do not obey it. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). Now, God will judge these men according to His word but your notion that they were Christians is not according to the truth of the word of God. You have yet to prove that these men were Christians at all. In order for them to have been Christians your Calvinistic doctrine would have to be true. So why not first prove to us that your doctrine is true and then we can see them as Christians. But do not try to assume that your doctrine is true because some men followed it, died believing it and try to prejudice the case before it is settled so that you can deliberately avoid the real issues by claiming that we are condemning these people. I could just as easily argue that Muslim faith is true because many good and faithful men died believing that doctrine. But that would not make their doctrine true, now would it. There are thousands of people who have lived and died for their faith in Mormonism. Is their doctrine true because some have sincerely died in that faith and is anyone who opposes their doctrine guilty of condemning all good faithful Mormons to hell? I know that many good and honest and equally sincere men have died as Buddhist. But does that mean that their doctrine is true simply because the “goofed and did not get it right?” And if you opposed their teaching and someone argued this way so as to prejudice everyone against you by placing you in the imaginary position of condemning all of them to hell what would you say? Would you just say, oh, well God did not mean that one must really believe in Christ in order to be saved. Why, according to your Calvinistic doctrine some of God’s elect could be among the idolatrous peoples of the world and they would be saved even if they never knew Christ for they are among those that God elected to save before the foundation of the world.

Then you say:

“You quoted a list of passages out of context, but I will state again that in every case when you see them in context it is clear that baptism followed faith, and that it is faith that is the measure of who are saved, and that we are brought to faith by the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Now you do not prove that I quoted any passage out of context. In fact, when one quotes a passage and gives the reference where others can go to read it they are more than able to read the entire context surrounding it and determine the truth. But if you think there is something in the context of the passages that I have quoted that mitigates against what they clearly seem to be saying then tell us just what that is and we will examine it. But to simple complain that I have taken them out of context without showing how I have done so or demonstrating just what there is in the context that would controvert the argument that I am making from those passages is nothing more than sheer sophistry. I have not taken any of those passages out of context and there is nothing in their context that would controvert the things I have said about them in the least. If you claim that there is then prove it. I am certain that you will make no attempt at such a thing for you have no idea what is in the context of those passages that would controvert what I have said about them in the least.

And you say that it is faith that is the measure of those that are saved. And no one has ever said otherwise but even you have agreed with us that those who do not obey do not have “real faith” and we all know that that no one can be saved by a false faith or a dead faith.

And you claim, but do not prove that faith comes by the work of the Holy Spirit. You do bother to explain what you mean by this statement. You most certainly do not give us any passages of scripture that prove it to be true. But the word of God tells us that “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17). In fact, read that entire context and you will find how faith comes. It comes by the Word of God.

Then you quote:

“ Eph. 2:8-10 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Every one, including myself, in the Restoration movement believes this verse with as much strength as you claim to believe it. And this verse makes it abundantly clear that we are not saved by “faith alone”. For it says we are saved by grace through faith. And faith is that which prompts obedience to all of Gods commands and by that means it saves us. (James 2:14-24; Heb. 5:8,9; Hebrews 11). And this verse does not contradict the plain teaching of the Holy Spirit speaking in the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost when he said, “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38) for it is our faith that Christ will give us the remission of our sins if we will simply repent and obey His command to be immersed. And therefore it is by faith that we are led to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. We believe God’s word that tells us to repent and be immersed for the remission of our sins and by faith we do what God commanded and we received the remission of our sins. So, your Calvinistic concept of this verse on the other hand is completely contrary to the truth taught within this verse. For according to Calvinism you were saved or lost the day that God, before the foundation of the world arbitrarily chose you to either be saved or lost. And the numbers of those cannot be “diminished or increased” and therefore it is solely by God’s arbitrary goodness and grace that he has chosen you to salvation and others to condemnation and there is nothing, even faith that can change your fate. So, even the Calvinist has no need for faith and all of his talk of faith is pure hypocrisy for he believes that this salvation matter was decided before the world began. So according to him nothing means anything except the sovereign choice of God. The very idea of one choosing to become a Christian of his own free will and that salvation is for all men is foreign to a Calvinist. Therefore you are either not a real Calvinist or you do not believe that even faith is a factor in our salvation.

And more Calvinism surfaces with these words from you:

“Certainly those who were baptized as a result of their faith were saved, but it is the faith that saved them and that was the gift of God.”

Now this goes back to your notion that all men are totally hereditarily depraved and cannot have faith on their own but God must come and overpower this total depravity and give us faith whether we want to have faith or not. And that he must do this because he has selected them to be saved before the foundation of the world. And he cannot allow his elect to be lost even though they are totally depraved therefore he must come to give them a faith that they cannot even desire to have within themselves. And for this reason you claim that faith is the “gift of God”. But the scriptures teach that faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God (Romans 10:13-17) and that we can chose to believe or to refuse believe and we do not need any overpowering work of the Holy Spirit to force us to have faith.

Faith does lead us to obey Christ and Christ saves those who obey him (Heb 5:8,9).

It is indeed God’s gift that he sent his son to die for us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8). That is God’s gift to us. And by faith in Christ we are now privileged to simply repent and be baptized to obtain remission of our sins. (Acts 2:38) Isn’t that wonderful? Al we need do is believe, repent and obey the gospel to be saved. And none that do not do those things will be saved. (John 3:16-18; Acts 3:19; 17:30; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21).

Then you say:

“I contend the RM position as expressed by Saffold is essentially the belief that immersion is the act (of man, not God)through which sins are forgiven. I believe that is what was intended in the original question, and why a calvinist properly identified it as heretical.”

Hogwash! It is easy to make an assertion but not so easy to prove it. And all we have from you are assertions and not proof. Where did I ever say that baptism was a place when only man acted and not God? I have now quoted Colossians 2:11-13 numerous times wherein it is clearly stated that man is passive and God is active in baptism. Now your efforts to deliberately misrepresent position of those of us working to restore New Testament Christianity today by deliberately misrepresenting the things that have been said by E. Lee Saffold is very pathetic indeed. You do this because it is a far easier thing to do than to meet and answer fairly, candidly and objectively the arguments made by “Saffold”, now isn’t it? For you most certainly have made very few and always futile attempts to respond to them. And here is no doubt among sensible and informed readers of the word of God that it is Calvinism that is pathetically heretical.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001