So Where Was Baptism For Salvation In The Ot?

[swathdiver]

Faith, Works and God Grace have always been and always will be part of man's Salvation in every dispensation.  But how those three applied or worked out during those Economies, Time Periods or Ages were and are different...

 

...Faith, Works and Grace are God formula for salvation only during the Church Age can a man get God's grace by faith alone without the works of the Law, or of Baptism or Repentance.

 

This is a theological trainwreck.  An individual is not the Body of Christ, the local church is part of the Body of Christ.  Seems you're a universal, invisible, church kinda guy like the catholics and her harlots.

 

Then you ignore the existence of the New Testament Church in the four gospels.  Christ did build his church and it was fully functioning before even Calvary.  

 

I really wish you wouldn't post such heresies here.

[Genevanpreacher]

I simply OBserve the text and believe what I read literally unless it can't be.

 

I make OBservation on what takes place with men and God, in each instance from Genesis to Revelation when God dispenses his grace and how he did it and why and to whom and when and where.

 

Look and Jonah 3 the OBservation of the text shows it clearly..  God's word spoken, men believed or had faith, did the works, god saw their works and repented of his desire to destroy them.  Faith+Works=God's Grace

 

Today Belief or Faith in Christ work on the cross, get's a man God's Grace (Eph 2:8and 9), you are given the Holy Ghost as part of that Grace and made part of the Body of Christ, you study God's word (a work required of you but not necessary for salvation) god's word convicts you of sin, you repent of that and correct your life (works).  Faith+God's Grace=Works

 

Am I wrong in the above OBservation?

 

Yes I have Larkin's book and have read it through on a few occasions

 

Yes, I believe the text of the scriptures flows evenly all the way through.

And since I have spent 27 years studying the text and reading it over a multitude

of times all the way through, I do think you are wrong in the above OBservation.

 

But that is my belief, and OBviously not yours.

[candlelight]

This is a theological trainwreck.  An individual is not the Body of Christ, the local church is part of the Body of Christ.  Seems you're a universal, invisible, church kinda guy like the catholics and her harlots.

 

Then you ignore the existence of the New Testament Church in the four gospels.  Christ did build his church and it was fully functioning before even Calvary.  

 

I really wish you wouldn't post such heresies here.

 

swath, as a former RC I had never heard such a thing. 

[swathdiver]

Well, technically I'm wrong.  The catholics (the word catholic means universal) believe there is but one universal church.  Her offspring, in order to have some claim of authority, invented the idea of a universal, invisible, church.  

[MountainChristian]

I've never heard this before, is it your own beliefs or part of denomination?

[Genevanpreacher]

I simply OBserve the text and believe what I read literally unless it can't be.

 

I make OBservation on what takes place with men and God, in each instance from Genesis to Revelation when God dispenses his grace and how he did it and why and to whom and when and where.

 

Look and Jonah 3 the OBservation of the text shows it clearly..  God's word spoken, men believed or had faith, did the works, god saw their works and repented of his desire to destroy them.  Faith+Works=God's Grace

 

Today Belief or Faith in Christ work on the cross, get's a man God's Grace (Eph 2:8and 9), you are given the Holy Ghost as part of that Grace and made part of the Body of Christ, you study God's word (a work required of you but not necessary for salvation) god's word convicts you of sin, you repent of that and correct your life (works).  Faith+God's Grace=Works

 

Am I wrong in the above OBservation?

 

Yes I have Larkin's book and have read it through on a few occasions

 

The highlighted section here doesn't match your post above. (post #43)

Just an error on your part? Or does this mean something else?

[AVBibleBeliever]

This is a theological trainwreck.  An individual is not the Body of Christ, the local church is part of the Body of Christ.  Seems you're a universal, invisible, church kinda guy like the catholics and her harlots.

 

Then you ignore the existence of the New Testament Church in the four gospels.  Christ did build his church and it was fully functioning before even Calvary.  

 

I really wish you wouldn't post such heresies here.

what?!

 

Not at all

[Covenanter]

Also, It was not right for covenanter to cut off the list of scriptures about baptism under the Gospel of the Kingdom and just leave the one about the son of Zacharia where it referred to the OT ordinance of the Nazarite.  In doing so he makes it seem that I suggested that there was required baptism in the OT something I never alluded to or said.

I indicated other Scriptures, but omitted them for brevity.

the additional scriptures did in fact follow a rhyme and reason of thought that was quite clear.  so leaving them out makes it as thought"It's not easy to follow AVBB's thinking".  At the least he should have put a link to the original post so you could be sure he point on my thinking was not easy to follow was true, of which it wasn't true.

 

My thinking was clear and to the point in the partially quoted quote and it could have been seen if Covenanter was being truthful concerning the original post and he wasn't.

 

If you make baptisms and washings the same you will run into huge prOBlems and that is where the landmark brider baptist have gone into their teaching that baptism is not for the Body of Christ during the church Age.

 

Covenanter please list each answer for your questions you asked.  You already have your own answers for them.  List them out and let others see what you are talking about because it is hard to follow your thinking unless you put in your answers.

Is baptism commanded or practised or prophesied in the OT?

 

Why did the Pharisees expect Christ, Elias, & that prophet to baptise?

 

Why did the Hebrews writer propose to write about baptisms? And did he?

 

What is baptism? What does it signify, & does how is is administered show every aspect of its significance?

 

How should we regard notable paedOBaptists - including the KJV translators, the hymn-writer Isaac Watts, & the leaders of the Methodist & other revivals?

 

When a godly paedOBaptist leader comes to us, should we demand he be baptised (against his own understanding) or should he be treated as an unbaptised non-member?

 

What is baptism with/of/by the Holy Spirit?

==========

Guided by Hebrews 9:10 & the examples - the red heifer routine for of Num. 19 & the blood of the covenant of Ex. 24, the divers washings/baptisms were sprinkling for symbolic flesh purifying, contrasted with the blood of Christ providing conscience cleansing. It is not wrong to consider that the water of Christian baptism represents the sprinkled blood of Christ, so that baptism by sprinkling is not an easy option but the equivalent of the OT sprinkling of the sacrficial blood. It is possible that Peter has that in mind when he writes that we are Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto OBedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: He further writes The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

 

Ezekiel prophesies: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.  Eze. 36:24-29 If John's baptism was according to that prophecy, & if baptism with water represents the applied sacrificial blood, so providing spiritual cleansing, then the Jews had Scriptural reason for accepting John's baptism, John 1:25  connecting it with sprinkled blood baptisms & with the ultimate water baptism representing the blood of the Saviour. Isaiah prophesies: So shall he sprinkle many nations.  Isa. 52:15 which immediate preceeds Isa. 53.

 

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is from above, again allowing water baptism to be by sprinkling. It all depends on the emphasis we place on such texts as Rom. 6:4 which indicates that immersion was the preferred mode. I'm happy with either mode - for believers only.

 

Baptism doesn't save, but represents our new life in Christ, cleansed by his precious blood. The mode of baptism has significance and a baptismal sermon will make the significance clear. Godly paedOBaptists knew & preached the Gospel, they demanded repentance & faith of their hearers, most of whom would have been baptised in infancy. They knew baptism without a living faith was worthless - so they preached. But they accepted infant (covenant) baptism on the analogy with circumcision, an acceptance of the baby into the Christian community, but that baptism had to be confirmed. I don't agree, but I welcome them as brothers & sisters in the faith. (And as my wife!)

[Invicta]

no, but you are messing with grammatical structure.  It may continue but is was not about them doing it before he baptized them.  It was something in addition to their being baptized because the gospel of the Kingdom was a work based salvation process as was all salvatin under the economy of Law.

 

 

There never was a works based salvation.

[Genevanpreacher]

Just a quick thought.

As Baptists, did we not carry our doctrines down through the centuries of history, from the very beginning?

I think we did. I think the right 'church' carried the right ideology of what doctrines, and what baptisms were the correct one's.

All the way down to now.

There are two baptisms, physical, and spiritual (in the proper meaning of the word, not 'charismatic-wise')

Hence, plurality of 'baptisms' in Hebrews.

 

Not that people that baptize different ways aren't saved, it's just, in my opinion, they do not have the 'anchor' of the proper doctrinal mode.

I can see what Covenanter is saying though. The mode does not 'make' the Christian.

And representations for expressing the 'thought' of baptism are interesting in themselves. One's that may express a way of testimony

that may affect others emotionally, and 'click' with them. I like looking at the different modes the way he has brought it out.

 

Thanks Covenanter.

[Genevanpreacher]

There never was a works based salvation.

 

You are scripturally correctomundo, dude!  

[Invicta]

Well, technically I'm wrong.  The catholics (the word catholic means universal) believe there is but one universal church.  Her offspring, in order to have some claim of authority, invented the idea of a universal, invisible, church.  

 

I think you are wrong here.  The Catholics teach one VISIBLE church,which is  herself.  Non Catholics believe in one invisible church, of which all true believers belong, of which Jesus said: "I will build my church." Matthew 16:18.  He didn't say "I will build my churches."

[Invicta]

Is baptism commanded or practised or prophesied in the OT?

 

Why did the Pharisees expect Christ, Elias, & that prophet to baptise?

 

Why did the Hebrews writer propose to write about baptisms? And did he?

 

What is baptism? What does it signify, & does how is is administered show every aspect of its significance?

 

How should we regard notable paedOBaptists - including the KJV translators, the hymn-writer Isaac Watts, & the leaders of the Methodist & other revivals?

 

When a godly paedOBaptist leader comes to us, should we demand he be baptised (against his own understanding) or should he be treated as an unbaptised non-member?

 

What is baptism with/of/by the Holy Spirit?

==========

Guided by Hebrews 9:10 & the examples - the red heifer routine for of Num. 19 & the blood of the covenant of Ex. 24, the divers washings/baptisms were sprinkling for symbolic flesh purifying, contrasted with the blood of Christ providing conscience cleansing. It is not wrong to consider that the water of Christian baptism represents the sprinkled blood of Christ, so that baptism by sprinkling is not an easy option but the equivalent of the OT sprinkling of the sacrficial blood. It is possible that Peter has that in mind when he writes that we are Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto OBedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: He further writes The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

 

Ezekiel prophesies: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.  Eze. 36:24-29 If John's baptism was according to that prophecy, & if baptism with water represents the applied sacrificial blood, so providing spiritual cleansing, then the Jews had Scriptural reason for accepting John's baptism, John 1:25  connecting it with sprinkled blood baptisms & with the ultimate water baptism representing the blood of the Saviour. Isaiah prophesies: So shall he sprinkle many nations.  Isa. 52:15 which immediate preceeds Isa. 53.

 

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is from above, again allowing water baptism to be by sprinkling. It all depends on the emphasis we place on such texts as Rom. 6:4 which indicates that immersion was the preferred mode. I'm happy with either mode - for believers only.

 

Baptism doesn't save, but represents our new life in Christ, cleansed by his precious blood. The mode of baptism has significance and a baptismal sermon will make the significance clear. Godly paedOBaptists knew & preached the Gospel, they demanded repentance & faith of their hearers, most of whom would have been baptised in infancy. They knew baptism without a living faith was worthless - so they preached. But they accepted infant (covenant) baptism on the analogy with circumcision, an acceptance of the baby into the Christian community, but that baptism had to be confirmed. I don't agree, but I welcome them as brothers & sisters in the faith. (And as my wife!)

 I know of two evangelical CofE ministers who do not practise infant baptism, and only baptize believers by immersion.  BUT, they will not re-baptize someone who was baptized as a baby.  They would lose their jOBs if they did.  One will send such candidates to the local Baptist church for baptism.   

[Salyan]

 I know of two evangelical CofE ministers who do not practise infant baptism, and only baptize believers by immersion.  BUT, they will not re-baptize someone who was baptized as a baby.  They would lose their jOBs if they did.  One will send such candidates to the local Baptist church for baptism.   

 

Sounds like they need to start a new church! ;-)

[Gorship]

its not re-baptism if they didn't get baptized with proper authority in the first place.