So Where Was Baptism For Salvation In The Ot?

[DaveW]

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Which Scriptures testify of Him?

Not that I expect you to understand.

[282Mikado]

Consider Romans 4. Paul stating what the scripture says about Old Testament Salvation.

 

Romans 4:1-5

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

 

What saith the scripture concerning Abraham's salvation? His faith is counted for righteousness. No works.

 

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

 

Romans 4:13-16

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

 

Verse 14 states that if man ever (even in the OT as is being discussed here) relied at all on the law (works), then the very essence of faith is made void. You can not have salvation through faith and works, for any reliance on works cancels out true faith.

 

And you still haven't responded to the 7 examples I have given of those people saved during the time of Jesus' ministry without baptism even though you asked for those examples:

 

AVBibleBeliever, on 16 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said: why don't you show where it was not a requirement.

 

Also, there is no example of John the Baptist being baptized. Was he saved? Was he ever baptized? If so, by whom?

[AVBibleBeliever]

Consider Romans 4. Paul stating what the scripture says about Old Testament Salvation.

 

Romans 4:1-5

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

 

What saith the scripture concerning Abraham's salvation? His faith is counted for righteousness. No works.

 

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

 

Romans 4:13-16

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

 

Verse 14 states that if man ever (even in the OT as is being discussed here) relied at all on the law (works), then the very essence of faith is made void. You can not have salvation through faith and works, for any reliance on works cancels out true faith.

 

And you still haven't responded to the 7 examples I have given of those people saved during the time of Jesus' ministry without baptism even though you asked for those examples:

 

 

Also, there is no example of John the Baptist being baptized. Was he saved? Was he ever baptized? If so, by whom?

there is no scripture on Johns life in the wilderness.

[282Mikado]

there is no scripture on Johns life in the wilderness.

 

I knew I shouldn't have put those rhetorical questions in there. How about answering to the scripture given and the seven examples of people living under the "gospel of the kingdom" that were saved without works or baptism (which YOU asked for). Why do you keep avoiding that?

[AVBibleBeliever]

I knew I shouldn't have put those rhetorical questions in there. How about answering to the scripture given and the seven examples of people living under the "gospel of the kingdom" that were saved without works or baptism (which YOU asked for). Why do you keep avoiding that?

I did and in them we see after belief they were baptized.  The work followed their belief int he words John preached, but none of them received the grace of God or the Holy Ghost at that moment it would be latter at the GWT Judgement or when they entered the kingdom after the Tribulation.  Under the gospel of the kingdom it is faith/belief in the words of John plus works, and they could get the setting aside of their sins if they got the baptism of the repentance for the remission of sins which was water baptism.  They did this as proof that they repented of their sins.  If they believed John's words but did not get baptized they did not get the remission of sins because they were not outwardly showing their repentance.  He rebuked the Pharisees because they wanted the outward show of repentance but he knew they needed to produce the works of repentance which proved there was indeed an inward change not just outward OBedience to being baptized.   

 

we know that John preached the kingdom gospel because Mt 3:1,2 ¶  In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,   And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

It seems the two went hand in hand believe the gospel of the Kingdom that it was at hand and repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.  Faith and works

 

Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
 Lu 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
 Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

Peter too kept preaching the gospel of the kingdom in Act because he never mentions the forgiveness of sins only remission which was the original message he and the others were sent with in Matthew 10 which included that the kingdom was at hand.  The teachings of Christ in Matthew 5-7 were preparing ISRAEL for the Kingdom. But they never got it but will in the future.  Look closely at Acts 2 in context Peter Preaches Jesus as the killed, buried and resurrected son of David as fulfilled scriptures and proof or his Kingship and that he was the Christ of God (the Messiah) but not once does he preach the death burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins as Paul will teach later.  And later Philip teaches this to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. This as you identified correctly is the Gospel of the Kingdom/Kingdom Gospel and it required works to accompany faith or they would not get the grace.  In this case the setting aside of their sins until the day of Judgement when the book of life will reveal that they were written therein.

 Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
 Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Thanks Linda & Russ. I'm not sure history is on the side of Bible truth.

 

I understand the anabaptists employed affusion - pouring or sprinkling.

 

Believers' Baptism—The anabaptists were the among the first to point out the lack of explicit biblical support for infant baptism. Most of them made no issue of the mode of baptism, and practiced affusion (sprinkling), however, so they were not true baptists in the modern sense of the word. 

 

But it's bed time.

There was a period in time where anyone who opposed the state churches were wrongly called Anabaptist.

[AVBibleBeliever]

There was a period in time where anyone who opposed the state churches were wrongly called Anabaptist.

I did at one time find an old RC document dated 1200AD that called them Baptist. I lost it in a HD crash and can't remember where I got it but I remember it.

[Genevanpreacher]

I did at one time find an old RC document dated 1200AD that called them Baptist. I lost it in a HD crash and can't remember where I got it but I remember it.

 

That was prOBably a quote of Mosheim, a Lutheran Historian, in Carrolls "Trail of Blood".

I remember that. They were quoting Catholic sources stating that if it weren't for them cutting off those Baptists for the past 1200 years, they would've out numbered all their protestants, or something or other?

[AVBibleBeliever]

That was prOBably a quote of Mosheim, a Lutheran Historian, in Carrolls "Trail of Blood".

I remember that. They were quoting Catholic sources stating that if it weren't for them cutting off those Baptists for the past 1200 years, they would've out numbered all their protestants, or something or other?

no it was an actual RC document I had come across from an Vatican declassified documents that go back to 1000AD

[Genevanpreacher]

no it was an actual RC document I had come across from an Vatican declassified documents that go back to 1000AD

 

And you can read it? In English? What do you mean 'declassified'? The Vatican?

I am interested, if you find it please post it some where on the forum.

It would be a great 'tool' to add to our spiritual 'weaponry'.

[Genevanpreacher]

Thanks Linda & Russ. I'm not sure history is on the side of Bible truth.

 

I understand the anabaptists employed affusion - pouring or sprinkling.

 

Believers' Baptism—The anabaptists were the among the first to point out the lack of explicit biblical support for infant baptism. Most of them made no issue of the mode of baptism, and practiced affusion (sprinkling), however, so they were not true baptists in the modern sense of the word. 

 

But it's bed time.

 

I know a lot of Mennonites, and have studied their history pretty well. They claim to be THE Anabaptists. They do pour for baptism. Menno Simons was their 'leader' and they do not carry the pureness of the doctrines about many of the 'ways of old'. They stress works for salvation, and have no foundation of the scriptures, in any strength, for any source of 'real' truth. They use opinions mostly on what the scriptures 'say' and heavily use the NASB and NIV to 'prove' their 'truths'. Their 'teachings' are very 'shallow', no depth. They love the Martyrs Mirror, (their equivalent of Foxes Book of Martyrs), and disagree with most Bible discussions I have had with them. They believe in falling from grace, losing ones salvation, and are drawn heavily to ecumenicalism. I have known and debated their Pastors and met one of their Bishops. Very friendly people and desirous of right living, but always fail to fulfill their desire, for sin overtakes them publicly all too often. Sounds like a lot of Baptists? But really, the ones I have known in IN, do not really follow the ways of the true line (doctrine wise) of anabaptists. The Munster Anabaptists were the most 'gross' form of anabaptist to them also, so you see, there maybe multiple 'types' of anabaptists, all claiming to be yet are not truly.

Just a little 'light' from my perspective, and experience.

[Covenanter]

Yes, Geneva,

There is no reason to suppose that baptism, Anabaptism or baptism of converts makes true Christians, nor that the method is important. Faith in Christ is of first importance. 

[DaveW]

Infant baptism is false, false, false.

Primarily because of why it is done.

Secondarily because of when it is done.

Thirdly because of how it is most often done.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Infant baptism is false, false, false.

Primarily because of why it is done.

Secondarily because of when it is done.

Thirdly because of how it is most often done.

but no Bible verse to show it should not be done?

 

Shame on you.  How can you claim it is not Christian or the RC, Lutherans, Episcopalians and the Methodist are wrong if you don't show it by God's Final Authority for not having Infant Baptism?

[Salyan]

but no Bible verse to show it should not be done?

 

Shame on you.  How can you claim it is not Christian or the RC, Lutherans, Episcopalians and the Methodist are wrong if you don't show it by God's Final Authority for not having Infant Baptism?

 

I'm sorry - did you have a Bible verse to show that it's right? Fair's fair.  Covenanter has already given some excellent references, should you choose to OBserve them.

 

This is an Independent, Fundamental Baptist site. Baptists have been identified as such throughout history, through all sorts of various incarnations, by their rejection of infant baptism and doctrine of believer's baptism by immersion. We do not need to justify ourselves to paedOBaptists. AVBibleBeliever, your input on this topic has left the point of honest discussion. You are to stop ridiculing us for our Biblical beliefs and flouting our Statement of Faith. You are not required to accept it, but you must respect it. 

Your idea of a baptism/works-based salvation, based on an apparent distortion of dispensationalism, is flat out wrong. It is a false gospel. Your promotion of this heresy must also stop. Enough is enough.

This thread has completely left the OP - which is a shame, as it asked some excellent questions. Covenanter, perhaps you would consider bringing the question up again in a little while? It definitely needs to be asked.