A number of posts on this bulletin board refer to Christ's command for people to be immersed. Can anyone give a reference to His commanding people to be immersed?

Of course, we all understand that Christ commanded His disciple to immerse people (great commission, etc.). Maybe I am remiss in my studies, but as yet I can't find any reference to His commanding the lost or unimmersed to be immersed.

Now, I might be grasping at straws here. Some have stated that since Christ commanded His disciples to baptize, he therefore was commanding people to be baptized. But I want to be very careful with any distinction that might arise. Many denom's will tell you that once you become a Christian, you must be immersed out of obedience to Christ. Any thoughts or pointers on this matter?

-- Anonymous, September 14, 1999

Answers

Mr. Hanson.....

First, I will point out that Scott Sheridan's discussion of the book of Romans and specifically Romans 10 is quite sound. Paul's purpose in writing the book of Romans was to restore disrupted fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians at the church in Rome. The Jews felt they were still God's chosen people....the Gentiles felt that God had rejected the Jews and, therefore, they were now God's chosen people. At issue was the question....."who are the sons of God?"....(see Romans 8 for an extended discussion of this central question).

So....since that is the key question.....then 10:12-13 are quite logical. "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek......for WHOEVER CALLS UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED."

So, Scott was right. The purpose here was not to show HOW....but WHO.

Now.....if we want to see the HOW of "calling upon the name of the Lord".....we would be wise to take in the "whole counsel of Scripture"......rather than use a few verses to give an apologetic for preconceived soteriology.

And in that wisdom, we would take note of Acts 22 (the book that more than any other in the N.T......shows how people became Christians...since it is a book of history).

Acts 22 contains Paul sharing his conversion account. I want you to take note especially of verse 16 and how Paul was instructed to "call upon the name of the Lord."

Ananias says to Paul...."And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, CALLING ON HIS NAME."

That is the HOW of calling upon the name of the Lord.

There is no such thing as "calling on the Lord" without the benefit of baptism.

Mr. Hanson....your belief in Holy Spirit illumination does not give your interpretations hermeneutical soundness. If your interpretations come from the Holy Spirit (as you indicate)....than I suggest you write them in red into your Bible because they are thus....the inspired Word of God.

However, I would advise against that......and I would advise you to rethink your position on illumination.....because from a purely hermeneutical standpoint....I think the Holy Spirit is getting blamed for something He is not responsible for in your interpretation.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

Mr. Branson.....

I too am in a hurry....but quicky respond with two points...

1) There is no need for Paul to at all discuss the necessity and/or purpose of water baptism....nearly all of chapter 6 of Romans is dedicated to that purpose....and would not fit here into a discussion of WHO can be saved.

2) If the Holy Spirit revealed these things to you....then you must by the very nature of this statement insert your findings as Holy Scripture. For you see....you are claiming the same priviledge as the Apostles who had things revealed directly to them by the Lord....and thus wrote them down as Scripture.

I have one question for you.....have you ever been wrong in your understanding of Scripture....and later on changed your mind about something you thought you knew correctly in the past??

Danny

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

Mr. Hanson.....

You failed to answer my question....so I will state it again....

"Have you ever been wrong in your interpretation of a particular passage??"...i.e., did you change your mind later on about the meaning of a particular text??

I now have another question...."Why does the Holy Spirit have to reveal to me again....what he has already revealed through the Apostles and then recorded in the word??" Does that not seem redundant to you??

Also....if the Holy Spirit illumines me and gives me the meaning....why does Paul instruct the young preacher Timothy to "Study to show himself approved unto God??"

Does God need my knowledge before He can reveal His truth to me?? Or better yet.....how can I have knowledge if it has not been revealed to me??

As per Romans 6....please explain to all of us "water salvationist" what the word "baptized" is refering to. At what point do we share with Him in the likeness of His death??

And....as long as we are answering questions......please exegete Acts 2:37-38??

Thanks! Danny

-- Anonymous, October 06, 1999

This reminds me of the thief on the cross questions. Jesus lived under the old covenant. Baptism was a requirement of the new covenant. So, while he walked the earth in a human body, speaking to contemporaries, before the atonement, it is natural that he would continue to live within God's "timing". He even objected to performing a miracle because his "time" was not yet.

But actually, He DID command baptism. On the day of Pentecost. Jesus' Spirit came upon them and guided Peter to proclaim the terms of the new covenant. Jesus' Spirit guided the apostles into all truth.

God commanded me to be baptized. Well, actually it was a preacher at camp. Well, actually it was the Bible which the preacher expounded. Well, actually it was the Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible that the preacher expounded. Well, if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, then Jesus commanded me to be baptized. In fact, if Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are one, then whatever either of them do may be considered done by the others.

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

But again, when the denom's use the "out of obedience" phrase, they are taking passages out of context. Certainly we understand the "three-in-one" and I would never hold that the commands of Scripture as recorded from the Apostles holds any less "sway" than what Jesus actually said. But many folks do -- that's one reason why we have the "words of Jesus in red" versions of the Bible.

Certainly immersion is tied to salvation, as stated by a number of NT authors (and yes, therefore stated by God). I'm just trying to get a handle on the whole "obedience" thing the denom's use.

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

Good question Darrell.

My mom who is faith only used this very argument..."Well anyway, I've been baptized (out of obedience) so thats all that matters, not any other reason". By the way, when shown Acts 22:16; I Peter 3:21, and others...She said that she wouldn't believe what the Apostles said...only what Jesus said. Her Bible ends at the end of gospel of John.

Sad...those demons have many fooled into thinking they are saved.

Comes back to...do the Biblical God given reasons count for anything?

-- Anonymous, September 16, 1999

Just goes to show ... the red letter editions of the Bible have done a lot to hurt the cause.

Hey ... a thought. What would your mother think regarding homosexuality? Is it a sin? Cause, ya know, Jesus never spoke about it. BTW ... I have heard that argument given.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 1999

Brother Combs:

You have asked a question that were it not so connected to the subject of the salvation of the souls of men it would send one into a fit of laughter! I will quote what you have said and try to offer a serious answer to what I consider an absolutely absurd question asked by one whom I assume to be a serious student of the word of God and should know better.

You begin with these words,  A number of posts on this bulletin board refer to Christ's command for people to be immersed. Can anyone give a reference to His commanding people to be immersed?

Now all you need to do is read the great commission again: I will quote it in full so that all can see clearly what the Lord says. If you had read this before writing your question I do not believe you would have ask it. Jesus said,  All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHICH I HAVE COMMANDED YOU and lo I will be with you always even to the end of the world. Matthew 28:19,20.

Notice first that Christ declared that He has ALL authority. This is a fact that is often over looked. Jesus himself had been baptized (Matthew 3:16,17) and he had baptized others (John 3:22 at his command through the disciples), and now in what is called the great commission he commands the apostles to 1.) Make disciples of all nations, 2.) Immerse them, and 3.) Teach them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. Now it should be obvious that the Lord commanded the disciples to immerse. Now in this command to immerse is a clearly implied command for the nations to be immersed. For if no one among the nations were to submit themselves to be immersed it would be impossible for the disciples to obey the command of the Lord to immerse them. The command to baptize the nations necessarily carries with it a command for the nations to be baptized. For one cannot be done without the other. It takes two things to immerse. One a person to administer the immersion and a humble willing subject to submit to immersion. Therefore the command for people to be immersed inheres within the command for the apostles to immerse them. A command given to one person that concerns and requires the actions of yet another person is a command given to them both. I was a military man. If my commander ordered me to disperse a crowd of people it was easily understood that he had, through that order, commanded those people to disperse. The same is true here. The Lord ordered the apostles to baptize all nations and in doing so, because he has all authority in heaven and on earth, he commanded and expects all nations to be immersed. Now, could you please tell us how the people could OBSERVE ALL THINGS THAT CHRIST HAD COMMANDED THE APOSTLES WITHOUT BEING immersed? It would be impossible. This very commission is the very place that Christ commanded all nations to be immersed. It is not hard to understand if one is diligent and honest in his study of Gods word.

Now lets look at Marks account of the same great commission,  Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved; He that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16) Now it is clear that our Lord is offering salvation to those who are immersed and denying it to those who are not. Now a command does not have to always take the imperative for it to be a command. When the King wants something it becomes a command for his subjects to provide it. Christ here could not come closer to an imperative for the people to be immersed. Nothing is said here commanding the apostles to immerse but rather offering salvation to those of the entire world whom is immersed. But it is included in this offer of salvation to those who are immersed. For should they decide to accept the Lords offer to be immersed in order to obtain salvation then it is necessarily implied that someone would have to immerse them. You see one cannot exist without the other. In each of these verses, considered separately you have the command of our Lord for the Lost to be immersed and for the disciples to immerse them. However, when these two verses are put together it is without any doubt that we have both a command from Christ for the disciples to immerse and for the lost of every nation to be immersed and one would need educated help to miss it.

Are you telling us that you cannot see a command in Mark 16:16 for the people to be immersed when our Lord offers salvation to them if they do it and denies it to them if they do not? What if a mother were to tell her child that she would reward him if he cleaned his room but that she would condemn him to his father if he did not clean it? Would he be able to get the impression that she was commanding, ordering, or at least in a forceful way expecting, him to clean his room and that he had better do something about it? If you cannot understand such plain language found in Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19,20, what will you do when you come to the more difficult passages in the word of God?

Of course, we all understand that Christ commanded His disciples to immerse people (great commission, etc.). Maybe I am remiss in my studies, but as yet I can't find any reference to His commanding the lost or unimmersed to be immersed.

Here I will just say to you that it does appear, in your own words, that you have truly been remiss in your studies. For how could the disciples of the Lord immerse anyone if everyone refused because they cannot understand that he meant for them to be immersed? Mark 16:16 is so plain that only those who are prejudiced against immersion in advance of reading the verse could fail to see in it a command for them to be immersed. In fact, there is nothing overtly said in this verse commanding the disciples to immerse but only that salvation is offered to those who are immersed. But if they are immersed, it is the disciples who are commanded to immerse them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19,20) Thus, within the very Great Commission, to which you refer, you will find the command for the lost to be immersed. (Mark16: 16; Matt. 28:19,20). Only one remiss in his studies could miss that point.

Then you inform us cautiously, Now, I might be grasping at straws here. Some have stated that since Christ commanded His disciples to baptize, he therefore was commanding people to be baptized. But I want to be very careful with any distinction that might arise.

Now here you tell us that you might be grasping at straws and show that you have at least heard that a command given to one person that concerns the actions of yet another person is a command given to them both. Mark 16:16 is offering salvation to those who are immersed. It is in the context of Marks record of the great commission. In Matthew 28:19,20 the disciples are told to immerse all nations and in Mark 16:16 Christ is telling the disciples that only those who submit to immersion will be saved. One could not be clearer on the matter. Yet you are worried about any distinction that might arise. Would it not be better to teach the word of God in truth and then deal with the actual distinction when it does, in fact, arise rather that imagining distinctions that would never arise unless and until you bring them up yourself? At least, if you see a real distinction you can deal with it. But imaginary, possible distinctions are just shadows of doubt that cannot be grasped and handled. God forbid that some precious soul for whom our Lord died should reject his command to be immersed in Mark 16:16 because someone had a possible distinction that might arise and was fearful of telling them to obey the Lord in immersion. Brother, not only are you grasping at straws but there are not even any straws to grasp on this issue.

THEN YOU SUDDENLY SUPPRIZE US WITH THESE WORDS: Many denom's will tell you that once you become a Christian, you must be immersed out of obedience to Christ. Any thoughts or pointers on this matter?

Now if they have been arguing, as you say, that they cannot find a reference where our Lord commanded the LOST to be immersed then, PRAY TELL US, where would they find a command from Christ for the SAVED to be immersed? Just where would it be? Oh, where on earth could it be? If we find a reference anywhere that the Lord has commanded anyone to be baptized it would be for the Lost. But where is a single verse written to the saved where Christ himself commands them to be immersed. Brother, if you can find that verse I will apologize for agreeing with you that you have been remiss in your studies. I will repent of being negligent in my studies. But I can tell you that you and the denominationalist will search until Christ returns and you will not find any place where the Christ told any SAVED person to be immersed. Never! How does that idea fit what our Lord said in Mark 16:16? There Christ said, He that believeth and is immersed SHALL be saved; It does not say he that believeth and is saved shall be immersed. Obviously, Christ is offering belief and immersion to one that is lost and is there by telling them to believe and be immersed or remain lost. Now, have you found a reference where Christ tells a saved person to be immersed? I believe it would be significant if we were to challenge our sectarian friends, who have not been immersed, and are therefore yet in their sins to find one single place where our Lord commanded a saved person to be immersed. Just one verse will do, just one. Brother you will find them searching, searching, and searching and at some point you will be able to ask them to surrender to the truth of God and admit that immersion is commanded by Christ to the lost so that they might be saved.

Now it is also important to recognize that any command from the apostles and the inspired writers of the New Testament originated with Christ. Notice what our inspired brother Luke said,  The former treatise I made, O Theophilous, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given COMMANDMENT THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT UNTO THE APOSTLES WHOM HE HAD CHOSEN: (Acts 1:1,2) This is what Jesus had promised in John 16:13, 14  Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: FOR HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; but whatsoever things he shall hear these shall he speak and he will declare unto you things that are to come. He shall glorify me for he shall TAKE OF MINE AND DECLARE IT UNTO YOU. All things that the father hath are mine: therefore said I, that that he TAKETH OF MINE, AND SHALL DECLARE IT UNTO YOU: Then on the same subject Christ again told the apostles,  but when the comforter is come, WHOM I WILL SEND UNTO YOU FROM THE FATHER, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the father, HE SHALL BEAR WITNESS OF ME: and ye also bear witness BECAUSE YE HAVE BEEN WITH ME FROM THE BEGINNING. From these above verses one can see that Christ would send the Holy Spirit to the apostles and that whatever the Holy Spirit told the apostles to say came from Christ. Therefore, any place where the apostles speak of immersion is where Christ commands the lost to be immersed. I will list a few places: Acts 2:38,39; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:9-25; Acts 8:35-40; Acts 10:43-48. In Acts 10:48 we are told that Peter COMMANDED THEM TO BE IMMERSED in the name of Jesus Christ. This is therefore a place where Christ commanded someone to be immersed and so is every place where an apostle commanded anyone to be immersed. Acts the 19:1-7 is another example. Please notice the phrase,  in the name of Jesus Christ. The fact that the apostles immersed in the name of Jesus Christ is conclusive proof that they considered it to have been commanded by him.

Now let me explain something about my demeanor in answering this question with such force. I am doing that because I have read in other places in this forum of your good work among the denominations. I am thankful to God for you and your strong desire to reach them. For that reason I want to encourage you to approach them with confidence and be assured of what you speak. This will require a great measure of diligent study of the word of God. Your heart appears to be in the right place brother, now,  give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15). I admire your work and respect you but I am writing these forceful things to exhort you to be strong and confident in the presentation of the truth of the gospel. Do not listen to those who tell you that you need something more that the commands of the Lord in the great commission to justify immersing sinners into Christ for their salvation. .

This is enough for now though there is much more that needs to be said about this false idea that unless something is found in the four gospels that it is not from Christ. I will have to say something about that Later. I am using my lunch hour at work to respond.

I pray for you, Brother, that you will preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ with great confidence and no hesitation. I pray that our Lord will abide with you and give you strength, wisdom, and peace in the mist of the adversity that comes to all that will teach the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 17, 1999

Brother Safford -- of course there is no place in the Scriptures requireing a Christian to be baptized! That is my point (though I guess I was remiss in getting it across).

I understand the connection between the commission passages and the obvious need for the unsaved to be immersed. I am trying to raise the point that many in the denom's don't, and use these passages out of context, stating that once a person is saved, they must then be baptized.

It is something we run into around here a lot, and would be something anyone would run into when working with believers who have come from denominaitonal backgrounds.

I thank you for your answer to my post. Again, the problem I believe is with those folks who mis-use and mis-apply God's Word.

As for the red-letter problem ... we can see that many times as well. That is where I try to share that the Word of God is just that, no matter if it is quoting the words of Jesus, or coming from a letter from Paul. Same God, same importance.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 1999

Brother Combs:

I am happy to read your response to see that you do in fact agree with the teaching of the word of God that there Matthew 28:19,20 and Mark 16:15,16 are a command from Christ for the lost to be immersed. I apologise to you for mistakenly thinking that you had not been able to find a passage where Christ commanded the lost to be immersed. Please forgive the error and take what I have written to those who have not found the command of our Lord to the lost that have not been immersed.

I appreciate your work and thank God for it. I will keep you in my prayers.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 1999

I think that Brother Darrell had no problem finding the command to be be baptized - but there are many who do have trouble finding the command.

Having been there, I can tell you there are many reasons for this... the number one reason is that people listen to their preachers, pastors, Sunday school teachers, parents, & others and do not take the responsibility seriously themselves to study or read the Bible.

The problem that arises after being shown these scriptures is... if I believe baptism is a part of salvation, most everyone is wrong. My grandparents, parents, preacher and on and on. Not only that, but the majority of the world is also wrong. If belief is the only standard we hold on to then most of the world is saved. But once you realize that belief is not all there is, the Christian population shrinks dramatically. For me personally it shrank to no one that I knew. Scary place to be!!

Darrell as to any distinctions that might arise...ask them to show you in the Bible where "Once you become a Christian, you must be immersed out of obedience to Christ" is. Ask them to show you where "an outward sign of an inward Grace" is. Ask them to show you were "I did it to show the church I was saved at a prayer" is.

SHOW THEM SCRIPTURE. I've found that one of the best ways to share scripture with them is to have them read the verse(s) themselves. When they have finished ask them what it means. I accused many of twisting the scripture and propaganda when they tried to explain to me what certain verses meant. Reading the book of Acts on my own and writing down every time baptism and salvation were linked and also writing down why people were told to be baptized - woke me up to a whole new world. It is most important to get people to see the God given reasons. These scriptures connecting baptism and salvation are very clear...most will see it. Now, if they will hold to it, or for how long they will hold to it is another story. In showing my step- mother scripture last year, there was instant recognition of the truth...immediately (maybe 2 seconds) it was gone. The old argument of the majority of people do not believe this way took over. This "majority" argument is I believe one of satan's best weapons.

As to those with the argument of "Jesus did not say it" there is much more to overcome than the batism issue. First issue here must be the inspiration of ALL SCRIPTURE.

Darrell, keep up the good work!

Your Sis in Christ.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 1999

I have tried those questions. I have a standing $100 challange to anyone who can show from Scripture the "ask Jesus into your heart" or "sinners prayer." I challenge them to show it IN CONTEXT of salvation, or someone being brought into the church. Of course, I've never lost the $100, 'cause it just ain't there.

It's like when someone wants to take you down the "Roman Road Of Salvation" by working through the book of Romans. Only problem ... Romans is written to the church ... people were were already saved, and we have to be careful not to take those passages out of context.

I guess I was asking the original question sort of "tongue in cheek" since I am fairly sure it could never be answered biblically. But, I'll keep working with denominational beleivers, and will continue to do my best to show them the Lord's way through His Word ... the only way it can be done.

-- Anonymous, September 20, 1999

Yes Mr. Hanson, you would have to be quite deceived to twist these verses the way you want to.

I too have a long-standing challenge. If anyone can point that phrase out in the Bible (excluding the back page of Gideon Bibles) I will give him or her a dollar (I don't make the big bucks like Darrell does). Ive looked over and over again and have yet to find it. I also have never given anyone a dollar for that reason.

When asked how someone can support such a belief, Romans 10:13 will invariably be brought up. It reads, for WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED. Calling on the Lord is understood as the same as praying Jesus into your heart. This would be a good point in time to look at the book of Romans. First, notice that it was written to Christians as Darrell said. Paul addresses this letter to those who have already given their lives over to Christ. Chapter 1 verse 7 reads to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: The word as is supplied by the translators. This letter is literally addressed to those called saints. Saints are Christians. He does not proceed to tell the Roman Church how to become a Christian when they already are Christians. This will help us to understand the situation at Rome.

Pauls theme in this letter is found in 2:11, For there is no partiality with God. Evidently there was a problem between the Hebrew Christians and the Gentile Christians. This can be seen from Pauls emphasis on every man or all men. Notice this theme in the following verses:

1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 2:6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 2:9-11 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. 3:9-12 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 14:11 For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."

It does not matter whether the person was of Jewish descent or Gentile, all men were lost before Christ and they had no reason to think that Jew was better than Gentile or vice versa. In other words, lose your swelled head, we were all lost and without hope before we came to Christ.

Romans 10:13 fits right into this theme: for WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED. Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord, whether Jew or Gentile will be saved. Remember, Paul is writing to the Church. He is not telling them HOW to call upon the Lord. He is making sure they understand that they are all the same in the eyes of God. They ALL had to come to Christ. They ALL had to call upon Him.

The question then, is HOW do we call upon the name of the Lord? Paul was perfectly aware how to do such. When his name was still Saul, he was met on the road to Damascus by Jesus Himself, and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? And he said, Who are You, Lord? And He said, I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do (Acts 9:4-6). Paul was led to Damascus and a certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, Brother Saul, receive your sight! And at that very time I looked up at him. And he said, The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name (Acts 22:12-16).

In this passage of Scripture, Paul is told HOW to call upon the name of the Lord. He was told to Get up and be baptized. Notice that not once did Ananias tell him to pray and ask Jesus into his heart. Neither did Paul say to pray and ask Jesus into your heart in Romans 10:13. Paul knew, that to call upon the name of the Lord meant to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

Peter knew the same thing. Listen to what he said: Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Peter 3:21). Baptism is an APPEAL to God for a good conscience. He does not mean to be baptized so that we FEEL better. Instead we APPEAL, that is, we call out to God by baptism so that we may stand innocent before Him.

In Romans 6:3-4 it states that we are buried into Christs death. He died so that the sins of mankind could be atoned for and forgiven. When we are baptized, we are buried into the forgiveness of Jesus. When our sins are forgiven, we can stand before God justified (just as if Id never sinned). It should not surprise us that sin is forgiven at baptism. Peter stated that on the Day of Pentecost, the day the Church began, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Knowledge that you stand innocent before God will give anyone a good conscience.

Jesus said that a person needed to be born again (John 3:1-7). The way to be born again is to be born of water and spirit. Peter said for his listeners to "repent, and each of you be baptized (water) . for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (spirit). This is calling upon the Lord. Who can call upon the Lord? The Scriptures say that "WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

Darrell gets to keep his $100. Let's say what the Scriptures say and not uphold the traditions of men (Mt 15). The "ask Jesus into your heart" method of salvation didn't come around until "frontier religion" in the late 18th century.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 1999

Thanks Scott for your defense ... you got to it before I could. And btw ... I don't make the big bucks ... just know that I will never lose that challenge. :)

Brother Hanson ... your reference from Romans doesn't mention anything about asking Jesus to come into your heart,. nor does it mention praying through ones salvation. And as Scott so aptly noted, we can't take passages from letters written to Christians "out of context" our without using the context of the entire N.T. Romans is indeed written to those who are already Christians. In order to do a complete study on conversions in the N.T., we must look to the Book of Acts, where we find no less than seven examples of conversion recorded.

Acts 2:12-41; 8:5-13; 8:35-39; 9:17,18; 10:34-48; 16:13; and 16:32.

In only one case (Pentecost) do we find any reference to those becoming Christians repenting. Yet I'm sure that no serious student of the Scriptures would negate the need for repentance in the process of joining with Christ. It's only mentioned in one example (though of course mentioned in other books), yet we certainly understand how important it is.

Only one example (the Eunuch) do we find confession. Yet again, we certainly understand that confessing our belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is part and parcel of conversion.

Two of the examples (Pentecost and Saul) never mention specifically that the people believed in the message that was given to them. But of course it would be absolutly illogical for anyone to think that a person could join with Christ without believing in Him.

But what about immersion? Amazing, isn't it, that every single example of conversion we find recorded in God's Word (and again, that means in the Book of Acts) mentions baptisim. Each case. And three of those (Pentecost, Saul, and Cornelius) state catagorically that one of the results of the conversion (which always included immersion) was that sins were washed away.

Now, understand me, I don't believe that it is immersion (ONLY) that saves anyone. I see that God's Word makes it clear that baptism is only one of the steps in a persons conversion process. Contrary to what many folks might say about me, I am not a baptismal regenerationist. Immersion is no more, and no less important than believing, repenting confessiing, and staying the course following conversion.

Yes, I will keep the $100. Your reference from Romans (1) does not deal with direction to an unbeliever on how to become a Christian, (2) nor does it serve as an example. Yet, the seven passages listed above from Acts certainly do, and (3) still don't answer the original challenge to find a passage that states "asking Jesus into ones heart" or "praying the sinners prayer" for the purpose of salvation. I thank you for your time, and your effort.

Darrell Combs

-- Anonymous, October 04, 1999

Dear Sirs,

I have noticed that my postings have been deleted.

Dear "Barry" (If that is your real name)

You are very observant. If you email me with a REAL name and email address, you will be able to post freely... Surely if your observations are the pearls of Biblical wisdom you seem to feel(by your cross-posting them into several threads) then you would be proud to label them in truth. I will even repost your "deleted" posts. As evidenced by the many threads in this forum, we do allow freedom in what is posted.... even thoughts that are in error.

Sincerely

Duane Schwingel
14091 NW 66th Ave
Chiefland, FL 32626
(352) 490-5807
duane@mytalk.com

-- Anonymous, October 07, 1999

Wow!

Well spoken, one and all! Although I AM saddened by the removal of Mr. Hanson's postings. (yes Duane, I understand the WHY of it and agree)I am sure that I would have learned so much more from you learned men (and lady) if his posts had stood.

Tu Hermano en Cristo,

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

To Nate:

I think you would have. It seems to me that your "saved by water" views go unchallenged or at least challenged by people who haven't studied the Word well enough to understand that, it is by grace we are saved through faith, and not of WORKS lest any man should boast.

And, yes, my name is Barry, I am a male, I have always labeled my posts "in truth" - and for your convenience have opened ANOTHER email account. I anticipate seeing my messages re-posted as you said you would do.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, November 10, 1999

well if we are going to toss around faith and works scriptures my submission would and naturally be faith without works is death

so i reckon that the two must be of equal importance not that i admit that faith is a blind work but i would assert that it is simply one more thing that is required for salvation

-- Anonymous, November 10, 1999

sometimes i get my mix all speeched up

i meant to say that ....baptism is not a blind work.....

sorry bout that

-- Anonymous, November 10, 1999

To Dan:

I agree faith without works is dead. Romans informs me everyone is given the measure of faith. It did not take any work for me to gain it - it was given to me. With the faith I have been given I believe Jesus is Lord and I confess it with my mouth and am born again. What follows my conversion is Water Baptism, a work to prove I had the faith in the first place, given to me by God to believe the message of salvation. So by my works I prove I had the faith to place in Jesus Christ, without those works I have proven my faith is dead and have not received salvation given by grace.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, November 10, 1999

Barry, Someone once gave me a great illustration on this point...

If Jesus were to hand you a check for ONE MILLION DOLLARS drawn on his personal account written in your name, would you have a Million Dollars?

No, of course not. What you WOULD have is a piece of paper representing a Million Dollars. So how do you get the Million Dollars with a piece of paper representing a Million Dollars? You have to take it to the bank and ENDORSE it. Did you have to WORK for the Million Dollars? No, it was free... Did you have to DO something to recieve the Million Dollars? Yes, you had to sign your name.

Baptism by immersion is not a work, that's where you are confused. It is simply the acceptance of the free gift of salvation from Christ...the signing of YOUR name to the covenant that Christ has offered.

I really do not want to quibble over "at exactly what point does salvation occur?" If we are to HEAR the Word, BELIEVE that it is from God and that He has the Power to save us, REPENT of our sins, CONFESS our sins, AND be BAPTISED all because GOD's WORD tells us to, then who are we to argue?

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1999

To Nate:

Excellent point, I am not here to quibble :o] - I agree 100% If anyone believes the Gospel and acts accordingly I am most happy that another person has been born again! What concerns me is, reading post after post how I am not born again because I am a "faith only" believer. If what you have posted is what you truly believe then I have no argument :o] I have been baptized in water as a result of my salvation, have repented of sin, confessed Christ as Lord and have been Baptized in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of Tongues.

To clarify, I am not confused: To be honest I like illustrations, but illustrations are just that - pictures of the truth, and not the actual truth. Illustrations fall short, you can make the symbolism say anything you want it to say. For example: You believe Jesus gave you a check you had to sign, I believe he gave me a deposit slip with an account already in my name, all I have to do is accept it, receive the deposit slip, it's mine and it belongs to me. Now if I want to benefit from the "Work" Jesus has already done on my behalf to provide that salvation I simply go to the bank and make a withdrawal. I think this is a much clearer illustration of salvation, but then again, I can make symbols say anything I want them to.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1999

I guess the question might be ... are you immersed BECAUSE of your salvation, or our you immersed as a part of the process of receiving that salvation. There is an important difference in the two.

A question Mr. Hanson: Would you hold to the belief of unconditional election ? I ask that because of your wording of the illustration of the bank and Jesus. I don't wish to read any more into your post that you wish.

A second question: Do you personally believe that a person must speak in tongues to have received the Holy Spirit, or to show proof of their having received the Holy Spirit? Again, I don't wish to mis- represent you. If you do hold to that belief, can you point to Scripture where that is supported? I have heard many people who do hold to that belief, but have yet to be shown any passage where it states that all Christians must speak in tongues in order to show proof of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

Just some clairification, please! Thanks so much.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1999

Barry, Colossians 2 says that Baptism is a work, but a work of GOD not man.

"...and in HIm you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the WORKING OF GOD, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, HE MADE you alive together with Him having forgiven us all our transgressions.

Could you please show me in the scriptures where it says that Water Baptism is a work to prove someone had the faith in the first place?

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1999

To D.Lee:

For your benefit I have done a quick exegesis of Colossians 1 and 2, not much time and I don't want to go on so long the point is missed. Theme of Colossians "Faith in Christ's Works" Chapter 1 Vs 4 - Paul had heard of their FAITH not their WATER BAPTISM ( in fact the word WATER does not even appear in the entire book of Colossians!) Vs 5 - because of their faith in Christ that came from the truth of the Gospel they have hope Vs 6 - this faith in Christ producing hope, "bringeth forth fruit". Obviously fruit (WORKS\Water Baptism) does not "bring forth" faith Vs 7,8 - the fruit that has resulted is Love! Vs 12,13 - GOD has translated us into His kingdom. Vs 14 - we have redemption through His blood - not Water Baptism Vs 18 - Talks about the body of Christ Vs 20-22 - Christ has reconciled us to Himself through his BLOOD and DEATH (not WATER Baptism) Vs 23 - continue in faith Vs 27 - the hope of glory is Christ in us - the hope of glory is not in Water Baptism Chapter 2 Vs 5 - commended for their steadfast faith in Christ - not their steadfastness to works - or faith in works Vs 6 - They had "received Christ Jesus the Lord" - so far throughout this entire book the Holy Spirit has been talking about FAITH and has not mentioned WATER Baptism. Vs 7 - Be established in the Faith - again no mention of WATER Baptism Vs 8 - Warning against traditions of men who draw you away from FAITH in Christ Vs 10 - We are complete IN Him - not in WATER Baptism Vs 11,12 - "In whom" IN WHO? In CHRIST, not in WATER! In Christ we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. This circumcision is the cutting away of sin when we are put into Christ's Body - this is done "..through the faith of the operation of God" not with human hands (WATER Baptism).

What has confused the "saved by Water" people is this phrase, "Buried with him in baptism" unfortunately you have read this verse with your denominational bias - Please D.Lee explain to me in the entire book of Colossians where it mentions WATER Baptism? In your bias you have assumed upon the Holy Scriptures to make it say something that it doesn't say! At any moment you can provide me with proof that Colossians 2:11 is talking about WATER Baptism I will gladly correct my doctrine. But if you cannot show me that within the CONTEXT of this passage, chapter or book this is talking about WATER Baptism I will suggest that you re-think your doctrine of "saved by Water" and consider that this verse is talking about being Baptized into Christ Himself! As clearly outlined throughout this entire book, we are IN Christ. This Baptism into Christ is better understood when we look at the Holy Scriptures as a whole - read the following verses (if you are honestly seeking truth): Rom.6:1-10, 1 Cor.12:13, Gal.3:27, Eph.4:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 is a great verse that tells us that Water Baptism is a symbol of this baptism into Christ, His death and resurrection.

Lastly, to answer your original comment, you are a 100% correct, this baptism into Christ IS a WORK of God and not man as opposed to WATER Baptism which IS a WORK of MAN! To answer your question about baptism showing you have faith you can check out the other thread 1 Peter 3 and Baptism, obviously its not exhaustive, but provides a bit of an answer to your question.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, November 12, 1999

To Darrell:

So sorry, I missed your post with very important questions - all I saw was the one under it and responded only to it - again sorry.

As far as Water Baptism goes, I believe a person is Water Baptized because of their salvation. Is Water Baptism essential to Salvation, I do not believe so, I believe it is essential to showing that indeed you have been born again. Anyone who would refuse to be Water Baptized indicates to me that Jesus is not Lord of their life. I do believe that there are exceptions, I know a paraplegic who would like to be Water Baptized more than anything, we have put him in water as far as is allowable despite his great fear of water (as you could well imagine). But was he submerged, no, technically he has not been Water Baptized - does God withhold salvation? Does the question even need to be asked? God is concerned with your heart, rend your hearts and not your garments!

Obedience to God's command to be Water Baptized is of great importance. It is of great importance that a believer shows his faith by his works that first work is Water Baptism.

To further answer your first statement, I do not believe salvation is a process, there is a process that leads up to salvation to be sure, but salvation in itself is an instantaneous work of God.

Secondly, no I do not believe in unconditional election, I thank you for not reading into my illustration.

Lastly, every believer has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, He is given this at salvation. One of my favorite Scriptures to turn to is John 20:22, without a doubt we know the Apostles were given the Holy Spirit - the Church is born! Now we turn to Acts 1 approximately 40 days after this event in John 20 to see and hear Jesus for the last time physically on earth. Here he tells them to go back to Jerusalem to wait for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. At this point they are born again believers with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - Isaiah gives us one of my most favorite pictures of salvation Is.12:3 "Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the WELLS of salvation." Isaiah has given me a picture of a well for salvation. In John 7:37-39 Jesus gives me another picture that I love so well, "out of his belly shall flow RIVERS of living water." Jesus has given me a picture of a river for the Holy Spirit Baptism. To me these Scriptures explain in simplest terms (for my simple mind :o]) what the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is all about! At salvation God creates within us a "well" the Holy Spirit comes to abide! At our Fire Baptism the Holy Ghost flows out of our "bellies"/spirits as a rushing mighty river! (our wells run over :o]) I've always said you can give a lot of water to thirsty people from a well, but think of the hundreds/thousands more you can reach with a river, ie. The Day of Pentecost!

I could go on and on, but its getting late. I will say, lastly, that at the Holy Spirit Baptism in every instance whether mentioned explicitly or implicitly they spoke in Tongues. Is this a sign of salvation? That question is one of ignorance. The Holy Spirit Baptism happens after salvation as demonstrated throughout the entire book of Acts. One of my favorite stories is in Acts 10:44-48, Peter is preaching to a bunch of Gentiles and in the middle of his message they are Baptized in the Holy Spirit! It's only after they are born again and speaking in Tongues that they are Water Baptized - if Water Baptism is a requirement for salvation they never would have been able to speak in Tongues first. (I halfway expect one of you to raise the argument that they spoke in Tongues BEFORE they were born again - I really hope that doesn't happen).

I hope this brings some clarification :o]

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Barry

I was just drifting around when I saw your comment that "I believe a person is Water Baptized because of their salvation." I noticed that you assert this without a scripture reference. What we believe is worthless, but what the bible says concerning conversion is what really metters. It was scary how you said repeatedly " I believe" or "I do not believe", yet again " I do believe" or even "indicates to me" these are really not worth one cent, neither would they be if I said them! All that really matters is " This is what the bible says and then quote Book, chapter, verse properly understood in context,consistent with other texts utilizing all the proper hermeneutical standards for propoer biblical interpretation. Not just forcing a text to say something it does not, or only quote when the bible seems to compliment my argument.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Darrell:

Do you really mean these words?:

Just goes to show ... the red letter editions of the Bible have done a lot to hurt the cause.

-- Darrell Combs (darrell@csfpa.com), September 16, 1999.

How could Jesus' own words hurt His own Cause?

Do you not approve of the Scriptures' being divided into chapters and verses? Is that not human intervention?

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Wow, a year later! It has been quite a while since I have been here! I am amazed these posts are still standing….

Mike,

I was quite amused by your post when you pointed out that I hadn't provided any references in my previous post - yet you transgress the very point you make by only stating your own opinion with no reference to the Holy Scriptures. LOL.

As for making the Holy Scriptures say something they do not I leave that up to you folks - I just let it mean what it says.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2001

Mr. Hanson:

Yes it has been at least a year now since we have heard from you. Before leaving the forum you refused to answer numerous questions that were ask of you and now many of those who were posting may not notice that you have returned. Thus they will not have the opportunity to insist again that you answer their questions. So it seems that we will end up starting this discussion again from scratch. And though you have managed to escape dealing with many of the difficult questions that you ignored a year ago we will simply have to ask them again and hope that you will make some effort this time to answer them. I sincerely hope that you will not run away again when confronted again by these same questions and arguments that you failed to answer in all of our previous discussions.

You claim that you allow the scriptures to simply “mean what they say” as follows:

“As for making the Holy Scriptures say something they do not I leave that up to you folks - I just let it mean what it says.”

Well lets us just see if that is true.

WE are told by Peter, “ The like figure whereunto BAPTISM DOETH ALSO NOW SAVE US, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21). Let us just let this passage mean what it says when it says clearly that “baptism doeth also now save us”. OK?

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). Now let us just let this verse also “mean what it says” when it says he that believeth and is baptized SHALL BE SAVED. OK?

And when Saul was told, “and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY THY SINS calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16. Let us just let it mean what it says. Ananias commanded Saul to be baptized to WASH AWAY HIS SINS. OK?

Then Paul said, “For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For (Greek GAR meaning because) as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ”. (Gal. 3:26,27) Let us just allow this verse which says that the Galatians were children of God by faith in Christ because they had been baptized into Christ and thereby put him on “mean exactly what it says”. OK?

And then the Eunuch was baptized in water. Upon hearing Phillip preach Jesus, and that is all the scriptures says he preached to the Eunuch, when they came to a certain water he said, “see here is water what doeth hinder me from being baptized". Now, as a result of hearing Phillip preach Jesus the Eunuch drew the conclusion that he needed to be baptized in water. And Phillip baptized him in water, not in the Holy Spirit. And as far as the record is concerned this Eunuch was never baptized in the Holy Spirit. SO let us allow this verse to mean what it says when it says that upon hearing Phillip preach Jesus as soon as the Eunuch saw water he wanted to be baptized. And let us therefore preach Jesus in the same way so that when others hear us the first thing they think of when they come upon water is “what hinders me from being baptized”? And then let us take them, as did phillip down into the water and baptism them in the name of Christ.Ok?

And we are told, “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) This verse plainly says that repentance and baptism are for (Eis meaning in order to) the remission of sins. Let us jus let this verse mean what it says when it tells us that baptism is for the remission of sins. OK?

And do tell us Mr. Hanson just what scripture you have found that justifies your being called "Reverend"? We would like to see if that is a verse that you "allow to mean what it says". In fact, there is not such verse in the scriptures. THe word reverend is found only once in the scriptures and it is applied to God and not man. "He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend [is] his name." (Psalms 111:9. Are you willing to let that veres "mean what it says" and yet continue to appropriate a title of religious honor to yourself even though you have chosen a title ap[plied to God alone and contrary to the teaching of Christ in Matthew 23:5-12 condemening such religious titles of honor? " But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matt. 23:5-12). Will you agree to let this passage from God's word mean what it says and stop refering to yourself with a religious title of honor. Or will you come back and say that since even though Jesus said call no man "rabbi, rabbi" that it is perfectly alright to call men "reverend, reverend"? THe only person in all of the Bible that is called "reverend" is God. ANd I stand amazed at men who pretend that the Bible is the source of their religion who call themselves Reverend and have not one single verse of Scripture that they can give to support the idea of doing such a thing. Especially when no one among Christians found in God's word was ever called by such titles. And in the very face of the condemnation of our Lord Jesus Christ of such practices. Well we shall see if you will let this verse "mean what it says" or will you justify yourself by saying that it does not matter what it says you see nothing wrong with such a practice? We shall see.

Now just watch this brethren and friends. Let us see if he will accept what these verses actually SAY or will he seek to explain to us why they cannot mean what they clearly say? We will just have to wait and see, now will we not?

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2001

I apologize for butting in at the middle. I haven’t thoroughly read each post, however this question is to, I believe to Stafford’s comment, about baptism and it being required “to be saved” and “being condemned” if your not baptized.

If water baptizism "washes away sin" is true, then, what happens to those who never knew the Christ, about him (maybe lived in the America’s) or died before he came?

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2001

Mr. C.:

You have said:

“I apologize for butting in at the middle.”

There is no apology necessary though you have somewhat asked a question that would lead us away from the subject of this thread. And I do ask that if you wish to consider it seriously that we start a new thread to discuss what God will do with those who have never known Christ. For in this thread we are talking about those who have heard the gospel of Christ and have faith in him.

Then you say:

“I haven’t thoroughly read each post, however this question is to, I believe to Stafford’s comment, about baptism and it being required “to be saved” and “being condemned” if your not baptized.”

It is clear from your question that you have not read each post. And that is fine. I will answer the parts of it that are related and will speak briefly to the points that are not related with a suggestion that we take the unrelated portion of your question to a new thread. I would hope that such is amendable to you. And just a simple “administrative” matter, my name is SAFFOLD not “STAFFORD”. It is ok to call me anything you wish but I do not want anyone by another name to get the blame for my feeble comments in this forum. I hope you understand.

Now concerning your question:

You have asked:

“If water baptizism "washes away sin" is true, then, what happens to those who never knew the Christ, about him (maybe lived in the America’s) or died before he came?”

Your question has two parts. The first part is “if water baptism washes away sins” and the second part is “then what happens to those who never knew about Christ.”

First let me clarify something which I have stated many times in this forum. Water baptism alone without faith in Christ, repentance of our sins, and confession of Christ as the Son of God cannot take away any sins. And it is the Blood of Christ that actually washes our sins away (Rev. 1:5). But the scriptures teach that this blood cleanses us when we are baptized in response to the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3;26, 27; Romans 6:3-6; Titus 3:3-5; Heb. 10:22; Eph. 5:26; Col. 2:11,12). Thus it is all accomplished by obedience in response to faith in Christ (Heb. 5:8,9). Thus we are cleansed by the blood of Christ through faith in the operation of God which takes place when our faith leads us to repent of our sins (Acts 3; 19; confess Christ (Rom. 10; 10; and submit to immersion in the name of Christ (Col. 2:11,12). It is therefore when we are baptized that God’s operation of removing our sins from us takes place (Col. 2:11,12) and it is after our baptism into Christ (Gal 3:26,27) that we rise to “walk a new life” (Romans 6:3-6, 17).

In response to the first part of your question please allow me to remind you that we are talking about what the inspired word of God says about this matter. It is God’s word that says, “arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY THY SINS calling upon the name of the Lord”. (Acts 22:16). E. Lee Saffold is not the one who said this but the inspired Ananias who was sent to Saul to tell him what he MUST do. This command to be immersed in water to have his sins washed away was a command that came from Christ through Ananias to Saul of Tarsus. Thus there is no “IF” about the matter. At the point of baptism is when our sins are removed from our souls and for that reasons Ananias using the metaphor of the cleansing received when one baths said “arise and be baptized and was away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). He is making it quite clear to Saul that his sins will be removed by the blood of Christ WHEN HE IS BAPTISED. And therefore there is not doubt about the matter unless on wants to deny what is plainly stated by the very word of God.

Then to the second part of your question, Let me state that this part of your question is quite off of the subject that we are discussing. You are asking what “happens to those who never knew about Christ”. Now in this question you are asking what happens to those who never knew the gospel of Christ and never “hear” of him and therefore never had any faith in him at all. And I am fairly certain that have some idea of where you would like to go with this matter. And if you would like to discuss that subject with me be bold enough to state your position and debate it with me openly.

Nevertheless, I will answer this question for now in connection with the subject of this thread concerning the present discussion concerning baptism. As I have stated above baptism without faith n Christ will not save anyone. And according to the Scriptures no one will be saved outside of Christ and we are baptized INTO CHRIST (Gal. 3:26,27) therefore faith in Christ saves us when that faith leads us to obey him in baptism. (Acts 2:38; Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46) and here are some Scriptures that teach it.

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12). There is no salvation IN ANY OTHER than Christ. And there is not any other name under heaven given among men whether in America, Africa, or any other part of the world that is under heaven. No man will be saved without Jesus Christ.

Then we are told “I am the way, the truth, and the life NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME” (John 14:6).

Therefore one must hear and obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:8,9). The first part of your question involves the matter of obeying the gospel of Christ for it is in our baptism into Christ Gal. 3:26, 27) that we obey the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Peter 4:16-18; Romans 6:3-6,17). And the second part of your question involves the matter of hearing the gospel of Christ so that one might be able to obey it. And this is what the scriptures have to say about that matter.

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:13-17).

Remember that men at any time or place, including America, are not “LOST” because they have not heard the gospel. They are “LOST” because we have sinned against God. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23). And, “For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23). Thus it is through the “foolishness of preaching” the gospel of Christ that men are saved from sin (1 Cor. 1:18-25; Romans 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). But it is sin, and not the lack of hearing the gospel that is the reason man is lost. TO illustrate, if one falls in the water and there is no one around to through him a life ring and rescue him and his life is lost one would not say that his life was lost because he did not have a life ring to save him. We would easily see that he was lost because he fell into violent water and could not swim. You can rest assured that no one will be “saved” because they DID NOT receive the life ring designed to save them. If they do not have the “Life Ring” of the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 1:16; Romans 10:13-17) they will not be saved. But if they are lost it is because they have fallen into SIN AGAINST GOD. For that reason the gospel must be preached to everyone in the world to save them from sin. But some will not hear the gospel because they have had no chance to hear it or because they have heard it and refused to believe it and obey it. But the scriptures tell us that those who do not obey the gospel will be lost or punished for their sins. For it is the gospel that is designed to save them (2 Thess. 1:8,9). Now, you may not like that and you may think it is unfair in some way but that is the truth whether you like it or not. But you will not judge God my friend. He will judge you and every man living. It is wise that you prepare for that Judgement instead of trying to determine what God is going to do with people who you cannot do anything about regardless of what God has chosen to “do with them” as you say.

I am sure, from your question that you would like to get into a discussion about “what has happened to those who never knew Christ. And I will be happy to join you in such a discussion in another thread dedicated solely to that issue. And if you wish to discuss it with me all you need do is clearly state the position that you take on that matter and we will discuss it. But if you are unwilling to make any affirmations that you are willing to defend then it will be obvious to all that you do not have the courage to engage in the defense of your position on this matter. If you have no position on it then fine but I do not think that is the case. We shall see, in your response if you are a truthful man or if you will try to hide behind deception. I am asking you to come out into the open. We will see if you are willing to do so.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

This is precisely the reason I left this forum, you make the statement that before leaving the forum I refused to answer numerous questions asked of me. ???? This is a very perplexing statement - if you took the time to read any of my previous messages you will find I spent large amounts of time answering many, many questions. Also, go to the thread 1 Peter 3 and Baptism and you will find there answers to the same old questions you still raise after a year of my absence.

The answers are there if you take the time to read them. However, not to let this opportunity to pass me by, I am always ready to give a simple answer for the hope that I have. Let us look at your questions one by one.

1. 1 Peter 3:21 - The verse says that baptism is a figure just like the flood. Therefore, without twisting it as you do, water does not remove sin (the filth of the flesh) it is a FIGURE. Just like the verse plainly states.

2. Mark 16:16 - You have quite a way of pulling 3 - 4 words out of a verse to make them say what you want! My suggestion for you would be to leave these phrases within the context of the verse so that you may get the meaning. If one is born again by both faith and works (baptism) then the converse of this statement should indicate that one is condemned by failing in both faith and works. However, the verse clearly states that one is condemned simply for failing in faith thereby providing us with the converse of the truth of that statement. If one is condemned for not believing, then one is saved by believing. I have no problem with Mark 16:16 saying that a believing person will be baptized - I have been baptized - but it didn't save me. This verse you are using as evidence for being saved by water just doesn't hold water.

3. Acts 22:16 - Ananias told Paul that his sins would be washed away by calling on the name of the Lord. Perhaps you are not aware of this, water cleans the outside of a man, Jesus had to straighten out the religious hypocrites of his day as well when they thought some outward work either invoked or manipulated God in some fashion. Only Jesus' work is sufficient to save, water cannot cleanse the heart. Believe on the Lord and you'll be saved!

4. Gal. 3:26,27 - I am not sure why you bring up this verse???? Where does it mention water baptism? You have emboldened BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST? Apparently you believe Christ IS water? Perhaps you could read this verse again, this time without making it say something it does not - explain to me where you see the word WATER baptism? When I allow the verse to mean what it says, I am baptized into CHRIST not WATER.

5. Acts 2:38 - The verse plainly states that we should be baptized because our sins have been forgiven, I couldn't agree more.

6. Finally, your whole diatribe on "Reverend" to me is only amusing. People have called me Reverend, Pastor, Evangelist, Apostle, Prophet, Teacher, their "under shepherd", friend, brother and Barry - all of which is fine with me, anyone can call me what they want. As far as how I see myself? I have no problem with seeing myself as God sees me. His anointing is upon me - and as you have pointed out He is called Reverend, I have no issue with being called Reverend. To be honest, I am not going to spend any more time here straining at a gnat, but only to say that titles were used in the N.T. which I will leave up to you to go spend your time with.

Now, "friends and brethren" you have heard these verses stated as simply as they are written. I am now wondering how Mr. Saffold is going to explain Gal. 3:26,27 when the word water is nowhere mentioned? Or how 1 Peter 3:21 specifically states that water baptism is a figure, without going into some convoluted explanation of what a figure is!

Now, seeing that I again spent time answering your verses, let's see "friends and brethren" if Mr. Saffold can explain several simple questions?

1. Where in Matt.26:28 does Jesus say that water baptism is needed for the remission of sins? "this is my blood of the new testament shed for many for the remission of sins".

2. Acts 10:43 - specifically says "that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins", where does it mention water baptism?

3. Rom.3:21-28 - verse 24,25 specifically say "being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past", where does it mention water baptism?

4. Eph. 2:8,9 - the fact is the Scriptures explicitly state that we are saved by grace through faith not saved by means of works, such as water baptism. How do you explain away this obvious contradiction in your statement of faith? By reinventing definitions to such words as "work" and "figure" and conjuring up words such as "water" where the text omits. I face this very same problem (of re-definitions) with those who claim to be "Jehovah's" Witnesses.

5. Heb.10:10-23 - verse 19 specifically says we "enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" where does it mention water baptism?

In the context of the rest of Scripture it is obvious that remission of sins does not come through water baptism but through faith in the Blood. Mr. Saffold I clearly see a common thread through out these verses - Faith. I fail to see water baptism mentioned in any significant amount of the Scriptures that declare the redemption message.

Why Mr. Saffold when the Holy Spirit was inspiring the N.T. writers did He not make it abundantly clear throughout the entirety of the N.T. that salvation is only obtainable through water baptism?

If salvation is only achieved through water baptism as you teach why is it not explicitly mentioned each and every time the gospel message is preached in the N.T.?

Of necessity, water baptism would have to be mentioned every time the gospel was preached in order for the hearers to be saved. In fact, water baptism would have to be a part of the vast majority of the verses in Scripture that directly influence the doctrine of salvation - IF what you say is true.

Obviously, this is not the case. Water baptism commands very little reference, comparatively with the vast amounts of Scripture, dealing with redemption. Water baptism is a peripheral issue when it comes to the message of redemption.

Once we are born again we pass through the water, just as Noah. Water baptism is a figure of the resurrection - 1 Pt. 3:21

In Christ and Truth,

Evangelist Barry R. Hanson

-- Anonymous, May 06, 2001

Mr. Hanson:

You have said:

“Mr. Saffold, This is precisely the reason I left this forum, you make the statement that before leaving the forum I refused to answer numerous questions asked of me. ???? This is a very perplexing statement - if you took the time to read any of my previous messages you will find I spent large amounts of time answering many, many questions. Also, go to the thread 1 Peter 3 and Baptism and you will find there answers to the same old questions you still raise after a year of my absence.”

It seems that you are telling us that you left this forum because we pointed out the simple fact that you refused to answer our questions. You did not have to leave the forum for this reason. That was your choice entirely. All you had to do was to face your responsibility to at least attempt to answer the questions that were asked of you. And if a person wants evidence that you refused to answer such questions all he need do is scroll up in this thread to find questions that you were asked by Brother Danny Gabbard and others that you completely ignored. In fact, all one really needs to do is read my previous post to you, the one to which you were responding in your last post to see that you conveniently ignored several things that were in it. I will only give one example. It is as follows:

“Mr. Hanson:

You have said:

“I was born again without the assistance of water or man.”

Jesus said concerning being born again:

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3-5).

Mr. Hanson obviously is saying the direct opposite to what Christ taught Nicodemus when he asked how a man can be born again when he is old. If we were to ask Mr. Hanson to tell us how a man can be born again when he is old can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born Mr. Hanson would tell us the exact opposite of what Christ told Nicodemous. For Mr. Hanson would leave the comments about water completely out of his answer.

Mr. Hanson says a man can be born again when he is old and thereby enter the kingdom of God by this New Birth without water.

Jesus said concerning being born again when one is old that, “except a man be born of WATER and the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

Jesus said it cannot be done without water and Mr. Hanson says it “happened to him” without water. Now all of you can chose, which of these two you will believe. As for “me and my house” we will believe the inspired words of Jesus Christ the son of God over the self styled “Reverend” Barry Hanson.”

You ignored this completely now didn’t you? Thus we have spoken the truth when we say that you refuse to even attempt to respond to certain arguments that are made to you in this forum. But instead of answering you chose to just “leave the forum” for that very reason according to your own words.

Mr. Hanson, you are correct when you say that all one has to do is read your previous post from a year ago to see whether you answered the questions asked of you. In doing so they will find several arguments and questions that you completely ignored and they will easily notice that you ignored them in this post as well.

Then you say:

“The answers are there if you take the time to read them.”

Well, Mr., Hanson, not only have I taken the time to read them but I was there when you were asked them a year ago. And you refused to answer and continue to do so. So the answers to those questions are not there and we are still waiting for your respond to them. Now, nothing obligates you to respond to them if you do not wish to do so. But you cannot just claim that you have responded when in fact you have not done so. That, Mr. Hanson, would be telling a lie, now wouldn’t it?

Then you pretend to answer the questions that were asked of you a year ago by attempting to answer the arguments that I have made in my previous post to you in this thread. But while the things that I said to you in this thread do concern the same verses that we discussed a year ago, they do not contain the same questions that you were asked to answer a year ago. Those are the ones that you continue to ignore and I predict that you will ignore much of what I will say in my present response to you as well. Our readers can watch and see for themselves whether you respond to them or not. In fact there are several arguments and verses that I mention in my last post that you have ignored. And I have mentioned them above and we still wait for some response from you concerning them.

Then you proceed to attempt something that you never even tried to do a year ago as follows:

“However, not to let this opportunity to pass me by, I am always ready to give a simple answer for the hope that I have. Let us look at your questions one by one.”

Now, if you, were “ready to give a simple answer” a year ago and had even attempted to do this I would not have accused you of ignoring our arguments. But this is not what you did then and now we will consider your feeble response in this thread.

Then you say:

“1. 1 Peter 3:21 - The verse says that baptism is a figure just like the flood. Therefore, without twisting it as you do, water does not remove sin (the filth of the flesh) it is a FIGURE. Just like the verse plainly states.”

What this verse plainly states, Mr. Hanson, is “the like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ”. (1 Peter 3:21). It does not say that baptism is merely a “figure”. The exact words are that it is the “like figure”. The American Standard Version translates it very well. “That aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls, WERE SAVED through WATER: which also AFTER A TRUE LIKENESS, doeth NOW SAVE YOU, EVEN BAPTISM, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;” (1 Peter 3:20,21). The words “like figure” in the King James Version and the words “after a true likeness” in the American Standard Version, are from the Greek term “antitupon”, which could be rendered antitype; thus, the antitype baptism doeth also now save us. But the translators have more accurately translated the concept of an antitype by rendering it “after a true likeness”. The word “figure” would be a proper translation of the Greek term “Tupos” but it is not a correct translation of the term “antitupon” which should be translated “like figure” or more accurately “after a true likeness”. For you see Adam was a type of Christ and Christ was the “like figure” or antitype of Adam. None would conclude that because Christ was a “like figure” of Adam that he was nothing more than a shadow. Thus your contention that baptism is a mere figure with no more purpose than to symbolize something that has already occurred in the past is completely false. For the passage does not say that baptism is a “figure” it says that it is the antitype or “after a true likeness” to the salvation of Noah through water. And Noah’s salvation was not a merely symbolic but rather was an actual salvation. And his salvation did not come the moment that he believed God but it came after his faith had led him to obey God in building the Ark. If Noah had not built the ark according to God’s command the entire human race would have perished. Thus it was Noah’s living and active obedient faith that saved him. And after a true likeness it is our living and active faith in Christ which leads us to obey his command to be baptized (Mark 16:16). And it is during our act of obedience in baptism that the operation of God upon our souls takes place where he removes the “body of sins” in the “circumcision of Christ”. Read this verse. “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of sins of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye also were risen with him through faith in the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. And you being dead in your trespasses and sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickend together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” (Col. 3:11-13). This is the operation of God that takes place WHEN we are by faith obediently baptized into Christ. The power is from God through the blood of Christ that accomplishes this but it is done when we obey God in baptism just as it was the power of God that saved Noah WHEN he built the ark and went into it in obedience to God’s command. Salvation from our sins in baptism is a true likeness to the salvation of Noah through the waters of the flood. This is what Peter was saying.

Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon supports this translation of “after a true likeness” by telling us the actual meaning of the Greek term “antitupon”. This term antitupon means, according to Thayer, “actively repelling a blow, striking back, echoing, reflecting light; resisting, rough, hard. Passively it means, struck back, repelled. Metaphorically it means rough harsh obstinate hostile. In the New Testament language “ antitupon” as a substantive means “a thing formed after some pattern, or like in pattern. A thing resembling another, its counter part; something in the messianic times which answers to the type prefiguring it in the Old Testament as baptism corresponds to the deluge. (1 Peter 3:21). (Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon p. 51) The Revised Version also translates it “after a true likeness”.

Thus baptism is “after a true likeness” of the flood, which cleansed the world of sinful men and carried the faithful obedient Noah and his family to a new world, and a new life cleansed of sin. So, the sinner is translated during or through baptism from a life filled with sin to a life cleansed of sin just as Noah and his family was transferred from a wicked world filled with sin to a new world cleansed of sin. Just as or “after a true likeness” the waters of the flood saved Noah and his family the waters of baptism “also now saves us”. This is the meaning of the apostle Peter who spoke by the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a true likeness of what happened with Noah and the flood and Just as Noah was redeemed from a sinful world even so “after a true likeness” baptism also (in the same way as the waters of the flood redeemed Noah) saves us. It cleanses our conscience from sin in the same way that the flood cleansed the Old World of Noah from sin and mankind began anew. The flood gave the Human race a new life and it was the obedient faith of Noah, which led him to build an ark to the saving of his house. (Heb. 11). Even so it is the faithful obedience to Jesus Christ that leads or causes us to obey Christ’s command to be immersed wherein the operation of God takes place and our sins are removed from our souls. (Col. 2:11,12). So, speaking in a metaphorical sense Peter depicts for us the very fact that baptism saves us “after a true likeness” of the salvation of Noah through the waters of the flood.

Here Peter plainly says that baptism also saves us. It is the antitype of Noah’s salvation by water. Now if baptism does not play a part in saving us from sin as the flood waters saved Noah and his family what does it save us from? For the passage plainly says that it saves us from something. So do tell us Mr. Hanson what does this baptism save us from, either actually or figuratively? From what does it save us? You cannot say that it saves us from nothing because Peter by inspiration of the Holy Spirit says it saves us.

And here are some of the comments of known commentators on this verse.

“Wesley says: “the antitype whereof- the thing typified by the ark, even baptism, now saveth us. That is, through the water of baptism we are saved from the sin which overwhelms the world as a flood; not indeed the outward sign, but the inward grace- a divine conscientiousness that both our persons and our actions are accepted through him who died and rose again for our sins.

Watson says: It is thus that we see how St. Peter preserves the correspondence between the act of Noah in preparing the ark as an act of faith by which he was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also obviously an act of faith, in order to the remission of sins or the obtaining of a good conscience before God. (Institutes, Vol. 3, pp 624,625).

So your contention that baptism is but a figure without even thinking of how it is a figure or just what it might be, in this context, a figure of is ridiculous. You have omitted to explain in the context of this passage just what baptism is a figure of, now haven’t you? And the reason you do not talk about that is because you simply want to stop with the idea of baptism being a mere figure that does not correspond to anything in reality. But this Peter does not do. He says it corresponds to or is a true likeness of the cleansing of the world by water in the days of Noah. Now just how is baptism a true likeness of the flood? It cleanses our souls as the waters of the flood cleansed the antediluvian world and it saves us as surely as that same water saved Noah and his family. We are not told that baptism is merely figurative but that it is a true likeness and corresponds to the same purpose and produced the same results that the waters of the flood produced for Noah and his family. So your attempt to place baptism into a nebulous figurative realm and at the same time deliberately ignore the thing to which that figure corresponds, OR WHAT PETER SAYS IT IS A TRUE LIKENESS OF, is a serious attempt to deliberately deceive and you should repent of it. So just as in the days of Noah wherein few, that is eight souls were “saved by water” even so, after a true likeness. Or in the same manner, baptism doeth also (that is for us in the same manner as the water saved those eight souls in the days of Noah) save us. Water saved them and it also saves us in the same way or after a true likeness. Now this is the teaching of this verse and you cannot escape it. You do not like it for it does not fit your previously worked out theology but it is the truth. You would do better to adjust your theology than to attempt, as you have done, to adjust the word of God to fit you theology. If Noah had simply had faith in God alone but had not been lead by his faith to obey God in the building of the ark he would have been destroyed with the rest of the world. In the same way, if men today simply hold faith in God in their minds but fail to obey God in baptism they will be condemned with the rest of the world whose sins have not been washed away by the blood of Christ. Just as Noah was saved by faith when he finished building the ark even so we are saved by faith WHEN we obey Christ by being buried with him in baptism. (Romans 6:3-6,17). This is not a question of WHAT SAVES US but WHEN it saves us. God saved Noah by faith WHEN Noah built the ark. I can just hear someone crying now in the days of Noah. That is ark salvation. That is salvation by works. God can save us without the ark and I cannot see how or why we should have to build an ark. If God wants to save us without it he will do so. It just makes no sense to build a boat larger than that needed for any local body of water we know anything about. Oh, but the truth was that only eight souls were saved because they built the ark as God commanded them and entered into it at His command. It is just so today. God has commanded baptism and after a true likeness it saves us from our sins. And though many cannot see the sense of it and claim that God can save us without it the result will be the same as in the days of Noah. Those who are by faith obedient to God’s commands will be saved and those who neglect to obey them will be lost. (Heb 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46; 1 Cor. 15:1-4;2 Thess. 1:7-10; Romans 6:3-6,17).

Now, when this verse says, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;” it does not mean to be saying that it does not remove sin as you claimed by saying:

“Therefore, without twisting it as you do, water does not remove sin (the filth of the flesh) it is a FIGURE. Just like the verse plainly states.”

This verse does not state any such thing. Now I will ask you again a simple question. The verse –plainly states that “baptism also now saves us”. What does it save us from, Mr. Hanson if it does not save us from sin? What is it that causes us to be lost? Are we lost for any reason other than sin? How could Peter be telling us that it saves us on one hand and then turns around in the same breath and says that it does not save us from sin on the other hand? This would be a direct and obvious contradiction, now wouldn’t it? Think about it. If our sins are not removed in baptism then in what way does it “also now save us”? For the part of this verse that is giving you so much trouble and that you seek so much to avoid is the fact that Peter says that it (baptism) also now saves us. And not only that but he says it saves us “after a true likeness” to the way that water saved Noah, “wherein few that is eight souls were saved through water”. Now you argue that “water cannot save anyone’s soul”. But Peter said that the waters of the flood saved “eight souls” according to Peter who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to say it. Now it was indeed the obedience to God that caused God to save Noah but he did it “through water” according to Peter. And Peter said that “after a true likeness doeth also now save us, even baptism”. Since it is sin that is causing us to be condemned or lost then how could anything save us without playing some part in the removal of those sins? You answer those questions Mr. Hanson. What does Peter intend when he says that baptism also saves us? What does it save us from if it is not sin. It does not save us from temporal punishment, such as persecution, insult, hunger, sickness or death, for the baptized man is as subject to these things as is the man that has never been baptized. It does not save us from the filth of the flesh for it is not merely the outward washing of the fleshly body, but according to Peter it has to do with the conscience. Is it not in the least bit possible that it washes the conscience clean of sin and through it connection with the resurrection of Christ gives us the hope of eternal life and a good conscience toward God?

Now, baptism is said to save us in this verse. And I want to be clear as I have in the past and you already know it though you pretend otherwise. Baptism alone without faith in Christ does not save us any more than faith alone without obedience to Christ. (James 2:14-24). But baptism in obedience to Christ also saves us according to this verse. And the Bible is clear when it says to us, “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF YOUR SINS.” (Acts 2:38). Now this verse clearly says that “repentance and baptism is “for the remission of sins”. In fact it uses the exact same phraseology in reference to baptism that it uses in reference to the blood of Christ in Matt. 26:28 which reads, “For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.” Peter used the exact same words in the Greek language in reference to the effect of repentance and baptism toward the remission of our sins that Jesus used in reference to the effect of his blood toward the remission of our sins. The words were “eis aphesien harmartion” in both places and it means in order to obtain the remission of sins in both places. But you tell us that baptism has nothing to do with the removal of sins. But the word of God says other wise. When Peter said that baptism was not the “putting away of the filth of the flesh he clearly meant to say that it was not a simple washing of the dirt from the body as some might think but instead it was an answer of a good conscience toward God. Now no one can have a good conscience toward God when their souls are laden with sin, now can they? Therefore how on earth could baptism help these persons to have a good conscience toward God without playing some role in their salvation from sin or without having a part in its removal? I would like for you to not ignore these questions Mr. Hanson as you have done in the past.

Now there are several translations that support this idea that baptism is not a mere cleansing of the body from dirt but rather it has its effect upon the conscience and I will just quote a few of them as follows:

The A. S. V. renders it “the interrogation of a good conscience toward God”.

The King James Version reads “the answer of a good conscience”.

The Douay Version reads “the examination of a good conscience”

The Emphatic Diaglott reads “the seeking of a good conscience”.

The Living Oracles reads “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the seeking of a good conscience toward God”.

The Twenty-Century New Testament reads “Not the mere cleansing of the body, but the search of a clear conscience before God”.

Moffatt reads “Not the mere washing of dirt from the flesh, but the prayer for a clean conscience before God”.

Goodspeed translates the verse, “ Not as a mere removing of physical stain, but as the craving for a conscience right with God”.

Hugh J. Schonfield, a Jewish man, in his “The Authentic New Testament”, p. 371, translates it, “ Not the removal of physical dirt but the request to God for a clear conscience.”

The R. S. V. translates it, “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience”.

Now there is a reason that these men translated the verse in this way. The Greek word for sin is “harmartion” and that is not the word used in this verse when it says “not the removal of the filth of the flesh”. In fact, this verse does not say the removal of sin” as Mr. Hanson would like so badly for it to say. It says “ not the removal of the filth of the flesh”. Now Mr. Hanson said that he lets the Bible mean what it says. Then why does he not allow it to do just that? He does not like the words “filth of the flesh” and replaces those words with the word “sin”. He wants the verse to read “not the removal of sin” but instead it reads “not the removal of the filth of the flesh”. A very different idea, is it not. Now he assumes that in every place where we find the words “filth of the flesh” that they are ALWAYS being used metaphorically in reference to sin. But one of the carnal rules of hermeneutics is that we allow words to have their obvious meaning unless it involves an absurdity. No thinking person can claim that there is anything absurd in the idea that these words simply mean that baptism is not merely an outward washing of dirt from the body is absurd. Therefore that is their meaning unless someone can prove that it would involve an absurdity to give them their obvious meaning instead of a metaphorical one.

Now as I have said above the Greek word for “sin” is “harmartion” and that is not the word used here. The word used here is “rupos’. According to Liddell and Scott the word means “rupos-dirt, filth, dirtiness”. The word “rupos” can sometimes metaphorically mean “sin”, but we are bound by the laws of exegesis to give its obvious meaning unless to do so would involve an absurdity. And as I have pointed out above no thinking person would say that there is any absurdity involved in the notion that baptism is not merely a washing of dirt, or filth from the body”. Especially since it is qualified by the word ‘Flesh”-the filth of the flesh. Baptism is not for the removing of dirt from the body but has to do with seeking a clean conscience before God and that is clearly Peter’s meaning in this verse.

Dr. Charles Bigg comments on this verse as follows:

“Peter says here, in this particular figure, that we pass through the water of Baptism into safety, as Noah passed through the flood into the ark. Similar language is used else where of baptism. “our fathers all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, “ 1 Cor. 10:1,2. Here also the figure is substantially the same, that of escape through water.” (Dr. Charles Bigg, International Critical Commentary, in loco).

I believe that the information provided here is sufficient to establish the truth about the meaning of this verse. And Mr. Hanson is deliberately rejecting the truth taught by the inspired apostle Peter. Not because of his allowing the verse to “mean what it says” but rather by his unwillingness to accept what it clearly says when we are told that “after a true likeness doeth now save us, even baptism”. He does not like the connection that the Holy Spirit makes between baptism in water in this verse and our salvation. And since it does not fit his favorite theology he must reject those ideas expressed by the Holy Spirit outright. But we cannot do this and have any respect for God and His word.

I will have more to say about your post, Mr. Hanson but this is all I have time for at the momemt. This is just the first response. I will respond to your other statements as well. It is my intent to cover all that you have said and you can rest assured that I will, if the Lord is willing. But I must go for now.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Brethren and friends:

Notice how Mr. Hanson has so little respect for the word of God that he deliberately changes the words "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38, to "because of the remission of sins",words more acceptable to himself than to God, as follows:

"5. Acts 2:38 - The verse plainly states that we should be baptized because our sins have been forgiven, I couldn't agree more.”

Certianly after changing the verse to read as you prefer it to read you would naturally agree, now wouldn’t you. For Acts 2:38 says “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 Spirit.” (Acts 2;38). But you have deliberately changed it to read “repent and be baptized BECAUSE OF THE REMISSION OF SINS”. (Acts 2:38 according to Mr. Barry Hanson who does not like the inspired words of the apostle Peter and would have preferred that Peter said something more in line with Mr. Hansons current beliefs). This deliberate tampering with the word of God to make it say what you want it to say because you do not like what it truly says is sinful and shameful. Acts 2:38 does not say for us to be baptized because our sins are for given but rather it tells us plainly to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for (Greek eis meaning “unto or in order to”) the remission of our sins. The Greek word corresponding to our English word “because” is the Greek word “Gar” but the Greek word found here is the Greek term “eis”. It is a word that points always forward and not backward. It cannot be translated “because of” but rather must be translated by the word “unto” or “in order to”.

You have said in reference to the word of God as preached by the inspired apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 the following: “I understand that the word "for" (eis) can perhaps better be translated in this passage "because of" ["in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past" - Thayer], which would make the passage read, "Repent and be baptized .... because of the remission of your sins." Meaning that it was their faith and repentance that actually produced the remission, not the physical act of baptism, but that the act of baptism immediately followed as a proof (a "pledge", as Peter puts it in 1 Peter 3:21) of their repentant heart and the remission of their sins.”

Now, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament by Thayer tells us the meaning of this word. I will quote his exact words on this subject and give the exact page reference where all can read what he actually said. Joeseph Henry Thayer, who was the Bussey Professor of the New Testament in the Divinity School of Harvard University says concerning this Phrase, “for the remission of sins”, found in Acts 2:38 and I quote him as follows: “ eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Page 94). There is no doubt that this eminent scholar believed that “eis” in Acts 2:38 means, “ to obtain”. Now, that is actually what Thayer had to say about it with the exact reference from his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament with the exact page number where even those who do not understand Greek can find his words and read them. Now in this quotation it is obvious to any reader that he gives the meaning of the Greek word “eis” a sense completely contrary to what you have claimed. In other words he says that it means “to obtain” while you prefer that read “because of”.

Thus far all we have is your word that the Greek word “EIS” in Acts 2:38 can be “better translated” "because of" instead of “to obtain”. Yet is strange that in our day of modern translations which have “better” translations as their purpose no scholar has been willing to put his reputation on the line and give us this “better” translation that Mr. Hanson would like to have. Does it make you wonder why? As far as I am aware there is not even a Calvinist Scholar that is willing to attempt such a translation. It does make one wonder why, doesn’t it?

The exact same words and grammar and syntax found in Acts 2:38 is also found in Matthew 26:28. In Matthew 26:28 we are told, “For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many unto (eis) the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38 we read, “Repent ye and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (eis) the remission of sins.” Anyone can see that the two phrases “unto (eis) remission of sins” are identical in English. They are also identical in the Greek. In Greek both passages read, “eis apheisen harmartion”. It is exactly the same and the word eis has the same meaning in both passages. In Matthew 26:28 we are told that Christ blood was shed “unto (eis) the remission of sins.” Now who is ready to claim that Christ shed his blood “because” our sins were already remitted? Christ shed his blood clearly “in order to obtain” remission of our sins and this exact same phraseology is used when speaking of repentance and baptism. We are to repent in order to obtain remission of our sins not “because “ our sins have been remitted without repentance. And we are also to be baptized according to this verse for the same reason. We are baptized “to obtain” to use Thayer’s exact words, the remission of sins. And while you claim that the word “eis” can be translated “because of” in Acts 2:38, it is indeed interesting that you cannot find a single reputable translation that so translates it. And you have not given any reputable scholars that define this word so as to justify such a translation.

Yet, we are just supposed to take your word for it. Do tell us how you would translate this Greek word “eis” in Matthew 26:28? And if you would translate it differently than the way you claim it could be translated in Acts 2:38, please explain the reason since both phrases are exactly identical in the Greek and English New Testaments. If you believe that Matthew 26:28 means, “to obtain” and Acts 2:38 means “because of” please explain why. The phrase under consideration is, “eis aphesin hamartion” It is exactly the same words, syntax, tense, mood, and grammar in both places. There is no difference whatsoever but unless you translate it the same way in both passages you will have it as a "causal" sense in one place and a “resultant" sense in the other. And if you translate this word differently in these two verses we will expect you to explain how you arrived at completely different conclusions concerning the exact same phraseology in two different places. I am placing the two passages parallel to each other so that all can see that they are identical. Matthew 26:28, “ for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion) Acts 2:38, “ for (eis) remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion)

Same phrase, same grammar, same syntax, and same words, but different meanings? Many people would translate the word differently for absolutely no better reason than the simple fact that in one place it does not fit their favorite theology and in the other place it does. So do tell us Mr. Hanson, which way is it for you? Do you translate “eis” in Matthew 26:28 the same way that you would like to have it translated in Acts 2:38? In Acts 2:38 we read, “repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (Eis) the remission of sins and ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. The Greek word “kai” is a coordinating conjunction. And functions like our English word “and” which connects items of equal rank in a sentence. Whatever “eis” means in reference to baptism it also means in reference to repentance. Now no one is told anywhere in the New Testament to repent “because” his or her sins have been remitted. But if your view of “eis” in this passage were correct then it would be necessary to conclude that are to repent “because” our sins have been remitted. Which is contrary to the teaching of Acts 3:19 which says, “ repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out.” Thus we repent in order to have our sins blotted out. So which is it? Does “eis” mean “because of” in reference to baptism and in the exact same time and place and grammatical construction does “eis” mean “in order to" in reference to repentance? For this word cannot have two meanings in the same place and grammatical connection.

Do you believe that these Jews on the day of Pentecost were told to “ REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” for (eis) because their sins were remitted or do you believe that they were told to “REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED” “in order to obtain” the remission of sins. Or is it possible that you are asking us to believe that they were told to “repent” in order to the remission of sins AND be baptized “because of the remission of sins?" Pick one. For surely it must be at least one of these three cases. Which one do you believe is the truth using the Greek words, syntax, and grammar of this sentence? It is definitely true that whatever “eis” means in reference to “repentance” it also means in reference to “baptism.” It cannot GRAMMATICALLY have one meaning in reference to “REPENTANCE” and a completely opposite meaning in reference to “BAPTISM” in the same sentence and the same connection using the same rules of grammar.

The great scholars who have translated the word of God for us just did not hold your view of the use of this word in its grammatical connection in Acts 2:38, now did they?

I have only a short time but here are some quotes from various recognized scholars for all to consider when studying Acts 2:38 and the meaning of the Greek term ‘eis’ in relation to repentance and baptism for remission of sins. Joseph Henry Thayer, who was the Bussey Professor of the New Testament in the Divinity School of Harvard University says concerning this Phrase, “for the remission of sins”, found in Acts 2:38 and I quote him as follows: “ eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.”(A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer, Page 94.) There is no doubt that this eminent scholar believed that “eis” in Acts 2:38 means, “ to obtain”. But Mr. Hanson would like for us to believe, without giving us any good reason why we should, that the word means “because of”.

In his “Commentary on Acts” Hackett, who was a highly regarded scholar among the Baptist, has said the following concerning the phrase “for remission of sins” in Acts 2:38: “ Eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28; Luke 3:3), we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object, which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.”

Dr. J. W. Wilmarth, another Baptist scholar of high reputation among the Baptist, says concerning those who interpret the Greek word “eis” as “on account of” which is equivalent to those who translate it as “because of” the following:

“ This interpretation compels us either to do violence to the construction or to throw the argument or course of thought in the context into complete confusion. Indeed, we can hardly escape the latter alternative, even if we chose the former. (a) For those who contend for the interpretation “on account of remission” will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said, “repent” as well as “be baptized on account of remission of sins.” This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet to escape it we must violently dissever “repent” and “be baptized”, and deny that “eis” expresses the relation of “metanoesate” as well as “baptistheto” to “eis aphesin hamartion”. But the natural construction connects the latter with both the preceding verbs. It “enforces the entire exhortation, not one portion of it to the exclusion of the other,” as Hackett says.”

According to D. A. Penwick, Professor of classical languages, University of Texas, says, “ Normally ‘eis’ looks forward, and I know of no case in the New Testament where it looks back” Robinson says, “ with adjuncts marking the object and effect of the rite of baptism; chiefly ‘eis’ c. acc/ to baptize or be baptized into a thing…”

Mr. Winer recognized as being one of the greatest Greek grammarians who ever lived says of this word in Acts 2:38: “ the purpose and end in view” Acts 2:38. Tus the purpose and end in view of repentance and baptism according to this scholar is the remission of sins. But Mr. Hanson wants so badly to believe that we are baptized because our sins have been forgiven that he just cannot accept the truth about the meaning of this word in acts 2:38 and must change it to suit himself.

H. A. W. Meyer, a German scholar, “Eis denotes the object of the baptism which is the remission of guilt contracted in the state before repentance.”

Charles B. Williams, Baptist Translator of the New Testament and student of Edgar J. Goodspeed, had this to say in the Williams translation of the New Testament, “ that your sins may be forgiven” Acts 2:38.

Olshausen says, “ Baptism is accompanied with the remission of sins, ‘eis aphesin hamartion’ as a result. Carl H. Morgan, who was Dean of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary said, “ I do not know of any Greek Lexicon which gives to ‘eis’ the meaning of ‘because of’.” Now can anyone bring a single, recognized Greek – English Lexicon, which gives to ‘eis’, Acts 2:38, the meaning of “because of”? Now, the above quotations are just a few of many scholars that tell us that the Greek word ‘eis’ DOES NOT MEAN “because of”. But Mr. Hanson, with no evidence to support or justify his doing so comes along and tells us that it means “because of”. And he does so with no better reason that the fact that the word in Acts 2:38 does not fit his theories, and his wishes that it could be translated “because of”. He does this to avoid the inescapable conclusion that Peter told us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that baptism had equal standing with repentance in the plan of salvation. This is a fact that Mr. Hanson is unwilling to admit but his attempt to avoid it is feeble and without the slightest support from reputable and objective scholars who do not have his theological bias. There is little doubt among the objective and candid observers that “eis" was and is used in the New Testament to convey the idea of “to obtain” remission of sins rather than Mr. Hanson’s "highly desirable" but extremely doubtful idea of “because our sins were remitted”.

But there is a Greek word that can be and is often translated “because”. And that Greek word is “gar”. WE find it in Galatians 3:26,27 where we are told, “For we are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For (gar) as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3: 26, 27). But Mr. Hanson did not want to talk about the “because” in this verse for that is diametrically opposed to his theory. For here in this verse we have Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, saying that we are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus BECAUSE we have put on or been clothed with Christ in baptism. And if this was the Greek word “eis” instead of (gar) we would probably hear all sorts of excuses about why it should not be translated “because” in this verse. Just as I predict that Mr. Hanson might like do in reference to the use of the word “eis” in Matthew 26:28 where it is likely that he will not give “eis” the same meaning as he wants to give to it in Acts 2:38. Because doing so would put him in the absurd position of claiming that Christ died “because our sins were already forgiven” rather than in order to obtain the remission of our sins for us. If our sins were already forgiven then there would have been no need for the death of Christ.

I predict that we will soon move away, as most knowledgeable Baptist and Calvinist have seen the need to do, from this absurd view that the Greek word “eis” can be translated “because”. No one has ever so translated it and it is never used in this sense in the New Testament as far as any reputable, unbiased scholar is concerned. Mr. Hanson is simply helpless on the meaning of this word, now isn’t he Brethren? But we wait to see just how he might be able to answer our question as to how and why and on what authority he took it upon himself to change the word of God. For he has surely changed it in this verse to read repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because our sins are forgiven”. It most assuredly says no such thing and those who have any respect for the word of God will not accept this deliberate revision by the uninspired Mr. Hanson.

Now, I will have more to say in my next post about the things that Mr. hanson has said but so far we have shown that he most certianly is not willing to let the Bible "mean" what it says.

For Christ and the faithful in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Does the amazement never cease on this forum?

After being away for a year and returning to find that only one individual had actually responded to a message I posted back on November 13, 1999 - I thought "this is amazing", in fact I even stated so in a more recent message dated April 28, 2001.

Therein I posted a message to -- Mike (who apparently had taken very little time and thought to respond to my 11-13-99 message) and had posted his response on May 03, 2000 - six months after the fact!

I thought that I might take a moment to respond seeing that my message had actually garnered a reply (I would not even call it an "answer" to my post as it is self contradictory and fails to even address the point of my message). Therefore, I responded to Mike. Never did I think that after another ELEVEN months of silence following Mike's perfunctory message would I get a reply.

I was pleasantly surprised when a one, Mr. Saffold appeared from the dust - finally someone has come to the rescue of this pathetic forum. Wielding his dull sword with false accusations, unpleasantness, and flat out rudeness he states:

"Yes it has been at least a year now since we have heard from you. Before leaving the forum you refused to answer numerous questions that were ask of you and now many of those who were posting may not notice that you have returned. Thus they will not have the opportunity to insist again that you answer their questions."

Now before we go any further, perhaps the reader may wish to simply scroll up a few messages and note just exactly who posted the last message so many months ago waiting and waiting and waiting for an answer but alas, no one had any answers for me, so I leave! Yet, Mr. Saffold has the flippancy to say I refused to answer messages addressed to me!

The internet, what a great thing. All interested in the truth can simply find out if Mr. Saffold is correctly representing the events or is the victim of a problematic imagination. Now let us see, who posted the last message WITH answers and was awaiting a reply? Hmmmm, I wonder, to help Mr. Saffold out seeing he was not capable of scrolling - it was myself. I posted answers and had a few of my own, which by the way have still gone unanswered.

Imagine that? I post answers, ask a few of my own - wait for a reply……..continue to wait for a reply…….continue to wait for a reply….none are forthcoming - so I leave……SIX MONTHS LATER……Mike throws up a waste of time…..I return ELEVEN MONTHS LATER….read Mike's waste of time and decide that I would rather have the thread ending with one of my reply's for yet another 6 to 11 months (hahaha) and lo and behold Mr. Saffold.

However, does Mr. Saffold now reply to my SEVENTEEN MONTH standing message with supposed answers to my questions? NO, he states that there is no one around now to insist that I answer their questions (?) Does anyone else follow this great intellect?

I answer questions, post my own questions - my posts go unanswered yet it is I that failed to reply?

To add insult to this injury - Mr. Saffold then goes on his own tirade - and completely fails to answer my ELEVEN MONTH old questions!

Is this because he has no answers? Did he overlook my questions? Did he even read the thread? (that is my wonder after reading his last two messages) It is my assumption he did not even read the messages but as a dutiful stooge to his denomination begins to tow the line, throwing up one rehearsed line after another - much like a drone…."blah, blah, blah".

Perhaps Mr. Saffold will actually read this message?

If so, 11 MONTHS ago I posted questions that are to date UNANSWERED, and, IF, he can locate a question I failed to answer - he may insist that I answer them - unfortunately for him he will find that I have a way of posting answers.

It may dawn on him - probably not - but perhaps, that what he has posted is a very poor depiction of who I am. Nevertheless, I again post my ELEVEN MONTH old questions in the hopes that someone, anyone, will come up with a sensible response - well that is a bit much to ask concerning this subject, especially in this forum - perhaps then just a response?

I repost from above…….

"To D.Lee:

For your benefit I have done a quick exegesis of Colossians 1 and 2, not much time and I don't want to go on so long the point is missed. Theme of Colossians "Faith in Christ's Works" Chapter 1 Vs 4 - Paul had heard of their FAITH not their WATER BAPTISM ( in fact the word WATER does not even appear in the entire book of Colossians!) Vs 5 - because of their faith in Christ that came from the truth of the Gospel they have hope Vs 6 - this faith in Christ producing hope, "bringeth forth fruit" . Obviously fruit (WORKS\Water Baptism) does not "bring forth" faith Vs 7,8 - the fruit that has resulted is Love! Vs 12,13 - GOD has translated us into His kingdom. Vs 14 - we have redemption through His blood - not Water Baptism Vs 18 - Talks about the body of Christ Vs 20-22 - Christ has reconciled us to Himself through his BLOOD and DEATH (not WATER Baptism) Vs 23 - continue in faith Vs 27 - the hope of glory is Christ in us - the hope of glory is not in Water Baptism Chapter 2 Vs 5 - commended for their steadfast faith in Christ - not their steadfastness to works - or faith in works Vs 6 - They had "received Christ Jesus the Lord" - so far throughout this entire book the Holy Spirit has been talking about FAITH and has not mentioned WATER Baptism. Vs 7 - Be established in the Faith - again no mention of WATER Baptism Vs 8 - Warning against traditions of men who draw you away from FAITH in Christ Vs 10 - We are complete IN Him - not in WATER Baptism Vs 11,12 - "In whom " IN WHO? In CHRIST, not in WATER! In Christ we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. This circumcision is the cutting away of sin when we are put into Christ's Body - this is done "..through the faith of the operation of God " not with human hands (WATER Baptism).

What has confused the "saved by Water" people is this phrase, "Buried with him in baptism " unfortunately you have read this verse with your denominational bias - Please D.Lee explain to me in the entire book of Colossians where it mentions WATER Baptism? In your bias you have assumed upon the Holy Scriptures to make it say something that it doesn't say! At any moment you can provide me with proof that Colossians 2:11 is talking about WATER Baptism I will gladly correct my doctrine. But if you cannot show me that within the CONTEXT of this passage, chapter or book this is talking about WATER Baptism I will suggest that you re-think your doctrine of "saved by Water" and consider that this verse is talking about being Baptized into Christ Himself! As clearly outlined throughout this entire book, we are IN Christ. This Baptism into Christ is better understood when we look at the Holy Scriptures as a whole - read the following verses (if you are honestly seeking truth): Rom.6:1-10, 1 Cor.12:13, Gal.3:27, Eph.4:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 is a great verse that tells us that Water Baptism is a symbol of this baptism into Christ, His death and resurrection.

Lastly, to answer your original comment, you are a 100% correct, this baptism into Christ IS a WORK of God and not man as opposed to WATER Baptism which IS a WORK of MAN! To answer your question about baptism showing you have faith you can check out the other thread 1 Peter 3 and Baptism, obviously its not exhaustive, but provides a bit of an answer to your question."

And Mr. Saffold, maybe, this YEAR? Hahahahahaha….

Still waiting,

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Oh, and by the way, on the thread "1 Peter 3 and baptism" I have a post dating back to November 19, 1999 - which still has not yet been replied to.

Hmmm, imagine that? Supposedly I am the one who does not answer questions, yet on thread after thread my messages have stood unanswered for SEVENTEEN MONTHS!

Apparently, I am the one who needs to insist that someone, ANYONE begin to answer questions. It is probably a good thing these other people are not here, because then they would need to come up with some excuse as to why they could not come up with a reasonable answer after 17 months.

What a commentary on a forum. A stranger comes along and puts up a few posts and no one on the entire forum can provide an answer.

Only until I come back to check up on any answers - and find none - does anyone care to take notice. Nevertheless, Mr. Saffold is at least making an effort, howbeit a bit uninformed about me and is not really doing much of a job at actually answering my questions. However, on a positive note, he does take up a lot of time and space with 99.9% of his postings.

Still waiting….

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

Oooops…..yet another thread I found (" What is the "perfect" in I Corinthians 13:10?") where I have been the final person to post a message and find that after SEVENTEEN MONTHS there is still no response.

Mr. Saffold, are you getting the picture?

I am looking forward to you answering the questions I have posted so long ago….do you think you have any answers? I hope so, after all the time you have spent putting me down, surely after SEVENTEEN MONTHS even you would see the need to not let these questions continue to go unanswered - that is if you have the time to stop trying to invent new questions for me to answer.

Still waiting….

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001