Brethren:

Recently Mr. Barry Hanson has returned to the forum and took up a discussion with me in a thread that was in the archives by responding to something that I wrote to Mr. C who who was also writing something to em in that thread. And then he responded again in another thread entitled "Are Catholics Christians" when I was trying to have a conversation whith Mr. C. And in that thread he was making basicly the same points that he was making in the other threads. I have been answering him in the other thread but I cannot just keep looking around all over the forum to answer the same arguemts over and over again for him as if theyhave not been discussed at all. Therefore in the interset of having one place for all of these discussions to be brought togeter so that we can see a coherent exchange concerning these subjects I am starting this thread to collect all of the arguments made by Mr. Hanson all around the forum concerning the subject of baptism and will simply note in those other threads that I have responded to him in this thread for those interested in seeing what I have to say. And if he wants to continue the discussion this is the tread in which we will discuss it. The other reason is that it is becomeing difficult to download some of those threads, especially the old ones in the archives which were already very ful before we began our discussion. Therefore I will begin with placing the post one after the other so that all can see to what i am responding.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Answers

"I think Lee just doesn't want others to read your very excellent posting."

*sigh*....and *gag*

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Brethren:

Mr. Barry Hanson came back after a one year absence in an old thread in the archives to say the following:

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

-- Rev. Barry R. Hanson (obci@yahoo.com), April 28, 2001.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Brethren:

I then responded to Mr. Hanson's post which I have quoted in my previous post in this thread as follows:

"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, May 07, 2001

Brethren:

Then Mr. C came into the discussion with the following:

"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?

-- C (the_council@yahoo.com), April 30, 2001.

I am just bring all of this into one thread so that my repsonses to them will be in one place.

For Christ and truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Brethren my response to Mr. C was as follows:

"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, May 07, 2001

Brethren:

Then Mr. Hanson responded to me as follows:

"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 07, 2001

Brethren:

Then while I was preparing my response to Mr. Hanson's post which I have quoted above he goes to another thread entitled "Are Catholic's Christians" and responds to some remarks that I had made to Mr. C using the same areguments that he had made in the above quoted post. Therefore I quote it along with his previous post so that I can answer them both together since they are making identically the same aregument. His words to me in the that thread were as follows:

"Mr. Saffold, For all your many, many verbose messages it amazes me how one can type so many words and say so little.

You are so intent on forcing your point you misappropriate many verses that speak of the Spirit Baptism into Christ's Body with mans Baptism into water.

Gal. 3:25-27

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Amongst the many misrepresented verses this is one of the most glaring. The text states we have been baptized into Christ. Now, unless you believe Christ IS water could you please explain why you continue to forward this misinterpretation of such a clear statement?

The text specifically states, "baptized into Christ", not, "baptized into water".

NOTE: The obvious exclusion of the term "water baptism"….in fact the word water is never mentioned a single time in the entire book of Galatians. Hmmmm…..

How are sinners baptized "into Christ"? Through faith. Faith in the operation of God, not faith in the operation of a man into water baptism.

Our body of sin is cut off by the operation of God when we believe by faith, as the text states.

We are risen just as we are buried, through the faith of the operation of God.

We are not risen just as we are buried, through water baptism.

The text in no way mentions water baptism and to state that it does is to add to the text In fact the word water is never mentioned in the entire book of Colossians.

Colossians 2:11,12

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

In Truth,

-- Barry R. Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), May 07, 2001.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Now Brethren:

I begin my intial responses to his words. I ahve not completed that response for it will be lengthy since I am being asked to discuss these matters again I will discuss them as thoroughly as I have the time to do so. But this is my initial response that I was writing while Mr. Hanson was simply repeating his same argument in another place.

"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

-- E. Lee Saffold (gdragon007@yahoo.com), May 07, 2001.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Brethren;

This is my second response which will be in seperate post because of their length to each of the points that Mr. Hanson has raised. We shall see if he will take the time to respond in kind and if he will not ignore the questions that are asked of him. After this post I will just continue my responses in this thread to all of his arguments and if we run out of room I will start another thread and continue. My second response was as follows:

"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

-- E. Lee Saffold (gdragon007@yahoo.com), May 07, 2001

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

You state:

"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."

Again, and yet again, and even yet again, I will answer and re-answer and yet again I will answer your questions as I have done over and over and over again. If you have difficulty with those answers go back and read them again….well, those answers that have not been deleted!!!!

Click on the following link to see how only my posts have been deleted and was "promised that they would be re-posted once I provided an email address" (which I had posted from the beginning) The claim I had not provided a valid email address was bogus….only an excuse to keep my original posts from being published.

Seeing that when my answers and questions cannot be responded to they are removed it makes one wonder whether a sincere search for the truth is being made.

However, seeing that some engaging conversation is happening now I will again respond and hopefully my messages will not be deleted again…..

Let us get right to it….

John 3:3-6

"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. 4 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? 5 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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

This is very simple and I will not add to the text as Mr. Saffold has done.

1. Jesus informs Nicodemus, "you must be born again" 2. Nicodemus takes Jesus to mean he must physically be born again, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" 3. Jesus corrects Nicodemus (just as He does those today who misunderstand His statement) - Jesus tells Nicodemus, "first water and then Spirit" - we are born first of water and born again by the Spirit - to remove any doubt as to this obvious meaning Jesus clarifies it by saying, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

If Jesus meant that we were born again by water baptism and the spirit He would have to have said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of water and the Spirit is spirit."

Obviously Jesus did NOT say "that which is born of WATER and the Spirit is spirit" because that is false teaching. Plainly, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit! That which is born of the water (flesh) is flesh.

How simple is that? To say that Jesus is teaching "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of water and the Spirit is spirit." Is to add to the text.

Do I really need to continue with this? Most likely.

Nicodemus thinking that he had to physically be reborn is quite confused. Jesus removes this confusion. No Nick, you were born once of the flesh (water) and now you must be born again by the Spirit! That which is born of the Spirit is spirit!

NOTICE: Jesus does NOT say "that which is born of the Spirit AND WATER is spirit" only, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Do I really need to continue with this? This is so completely "milk of the word" it is amazing that this most basic teaching must be revisited.

Again, that which is born of water (flesh) is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Notice, Jesus does not say that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit and water is spirit."

So, YES, Mr. Saffold, I was born again by the Spirit, just as Jesus said, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". You can get wet in water at baptism but it doesn't save you, and this passage does not say that it does. So, you have not believed the inspired words of Christ but some fabrication of your own denomination as to what they have added to His words.

I am sure I will have to re-answer this passage again….moving on….

As for being a "self styled" reverend, you again show your ignorance as I was not "self" ordained, but approved of by multiple faithful servants of the Lord Jesus Christ over a determined period of time (3 years to be exact).

Now on to some meat… 1 Pt.3:20,21…

Let's address your confusion on this verse concerning water baptism being a figure. The Scripture…

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

1. The text begins with the story of Noah - which is a figure. 2. The text then goes on to talk about water baptism and plainly states that it is a similar figure.

The flood is a figure of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Water baptism is a similar figure of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

You go into such lengthy and complicated convoluted explanations it is no wonder you are confused.

Your illustration of Adam and Christ is also in error. Christ is not a "like figure" of Adam - this teaching is cultic and not even Biblical.

Let me help you, it is very simple.

If I have a figurine of John Wayne, it is a representation of the real, it is not the real person. In order to have a figurine of the Duke, the Duke must exist. No Duke, no figurine of the man. The man is NOT a figure of the figurine - he is the reality of the figure. Someone recently gave me another figure of John, it is a similar figure of the one I have owned for many years. The like figure still is not the reality, it is a similar figure as the first figure. Two figures of the reality.

Very simple.

You may wish the figurine to be the reality, but that is silliness, only the reality is real, the figurine is not the reality.

You may wish water baptism to save you, but it doesn't. Christ's work on the cross and subsequent resurrection is the reality that saves.

The flood is a figure and water baptism is a SIMILAR FIGURE, of the reality of Christ's work. I found it amusing that you spent so much time on attempting to redefine the word figure. In my opinion you wasted more of my time than I wish to spend on such a frivolous point. The term "after a true likeness" holds no significant difference than the term "similar figure". The flood is a "true likeness" and water baptism is "after a true likeness". Does not altar my point in the least. What a waste of time.

Moving on…the explanation I am going to give about the flood is so elementary that to not understand it is because one has determined not to.

The flood is a figure - water baptism is a similar figure - "after a true likeness". In Genesis Noah was righteous BEFORE the flood, today we are righteous BEFORE water baptism. Because Noah was righteous he was obedient, because we are born again we are obedient. In Genesis all who were not righteous were not in the ark, today those who are not born again are not baptized. The unrighteous were not obedient and missed the ark, today the sinner is not obedient and is not water baptized. In Genesis all who were righteous went through the water, today all who are born again go through water baptism. Had Noah died before the flood he would have gone to paradise, today if we die before water baptism we will go to heaven. Noah was in the Ark, born again Christians are in Christ. Noah was in the Ark before the flood, born again Christians are in Christ before water baptism. The ark brought Noah through the flood, Christ brings born again believers through water baptism Noah in the ark went through the flood, born again believers in Christ go through water baptism. The flood did not save Noah, the ark did, water baptism does not save born again believers, Christ does.

Very simple.

The false teaching that needs to be addressed, however, is the six words ripped out of its contextual meaning, "baptism doth also now save us".

If it is Christ that saves us, as is evident throughout Scripture, how is it that Mr. Saffold tells us that water baptism saves us? By quoting six words completely independent of its context! Let us look at the context in which these six words are torn.

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;" (emphasis mine, this time)

We plainly see that the phrase "baptism doth also now save us" within the context of the rest of the reference indicates that baptism "saves" in the same way righteous Noah, "which also" links water baptism with the flood.

How were eight souls saved? THROUGH water, NOT BY WATER! Noah was not saved by the flood but THROUGH the flood. Born again believers "after a true likeness" are not "saved" BY water baptism but pass THROUGH the water or "saved" THROUGH the water.

To not grasp this basic teaching of Scripture is because of bias, denominational indoctrination or refusal to believe the truth.

Furthermore, the text goes on to state, "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;"

The text states emphatically that baptism is "NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh". This is a very pivotal statement in this passage and will separate those who dig deep to understand it's meaning and those who simply rely on the word of others. The Greek word for filth in this verse is, "Rupos" meaning, "moral filth and depravity", it is the same word used in James 1:21 and in Revelations 22:11. In no possible way is this verse talking about physical dirt. What this is saying then, is that the "saving" through Water Baptism in no way counteracts the moral filth and depravity of the human soul, but rather it is "the answer of a good conscience toward God".

I found it amusing that you spent so much time on "Antitupon" and ZERO time on "Rupos" - Why is that Mr. Saffold?

Why completely avoid such an obvious qualification in the text?

Is it because if you examined the truth fully you would have to abandon this false teaching?

Why do you insist on teaching that water baptism removes the "filth of the flesh" or "moral filth and depravity" when the Holy Scriptures declare the exact opposite????

Water Baptism saves us from having a guilty conscience, as the text so simply states.

Do we have a guilty conscience? Is there a need to be saved from a guilty conscience? Apparently. Why would one have a guilty conscience? Who are those who posses a guilty conscience? Just whom is Peter writing to?

Seeing that this letter is written to Christians, Peter must be telling Christians that they need to be saved from a guilty conscience. ( I love this point - seeing you folks love to point out that Romans 10:13 was written to Christians). 1 Peter 3:20,21 was written to Christians Mr. Saffold! And according to Peter under inspiration, writing to CHRISTIANS said, "doeth NOW save you, even baptism" FROM a guilty conscience. When we look at the 1st chapter we find these Christians had heard the gospel - vs. 18,19 and were born again.

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." (no mention of water baptism).

What would cause these Christians to have a guilty conscience? They had not obeyed the command to be water baptized. These born again believers had not been water baptized and therefore needed to be saved from a guilty conscience as a result of not heeding the command to be water baptized.

I now bring to you your own quote:

"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."

You have made the statement and have absolutely no clue as to what you are saying! A wonder to behold!

I am sure I will have to revisit this passage again as it seems to me you must complicate the simplest text. The explanation you give of the text is incomplete and short sighted. You failed to rectify the meaning of the word "rupos" as pertaining to moral depravity and tow the line when attempting to provide answers. All you have said I have studied before and heard 1000 times over and it is still as non-compelling as the second time I heard it.

I have run out of time, I see there are yet more follies ahead to rectify….until then.

In Christ and Truth,

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2001

Mr. Saffold

Moving on, even though you have yet to answer my last post, I will give you the benefit of the doubt - you are probably needing to spend a lot of time back peddling - reconstructing faulty suppositions and yet again adding to the Biblical texts in attempt to derive some hidden meaning.

So far you have taken up a considerable amount of time, made multiple posts and has of yet to answer a single question I have posted. I can surmise a couple of reasons. 1. you have no answers, 2. you are afraid to answer the questions. I am still awaiting the answers to the following.

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 whole of Scripture it is obvious that remission of sins does not come through water baptism but through faith. 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 Scripture that declare the redemption message. Therefore, in harmony with the whole of Scripture we examine those very few verses that would appear to contradict the essential message of redemption and come to an understanding of what those verses are saying.

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 redemption - 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.

Seeing that I am still awaiting answers - I will add to the list of questions with a few more Scriptures I have read during my devotions over the past couple days.

6. John 5:24 - Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." Where does He mention water baptism?

7. John 6:47 - Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." Where does He mention water baptism?

8. John 7:38 - Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Where does He mention water baptism?

9. John 11:25 - "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" Where does He mention water baptism?

10. John 12:46 - Jesus said, "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness." Where does He mention water baptism?

According to Mr. Saffold, Water Baptism is so essential to the message of redemption that the gospels record Jesus as mentioning water baptism 2 to 3 times! I know this evidence is so overwhelming for Mr. Saffold in the light of the many, many references Jesus made to redemption he feels anyone who is not in agreement with denomination is going to hell.

I have listed but a couple of days of devotional readings and have listed five separate occasions in which Jesus had ample opportunity to put the issue to rest.

Perhaps, Mr. Saffold, Jesus was not aware of this issue?

Perhaps, Mr. Saffold, Jesus was confused? When explaining to the hundreds of thousands who listened to Him speak He forgot to mention that He was the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth AND water baptized, though he were dead, yet shall he live?

I know you wish me to believe you over Jesus, but I find it difficult to understand with the three plus years of ministry Jesus Himself felt no need to explain even to His twelve closest disciples that they must be water baptized - for the Scriptures never mention that the disciples were water baptized after the resurrection! Why is that Mr. Saffold?

It is so essential to eternity that one be water baptized that the best examples of Jesus converts (the Apostles) were never water baptized after the resurrection!!!!

Do you wish to add to the Scriptures? Can you point out where the Apostles were water baptized?

Otherwise we must deduce they went to hell, according to your re-interpretation of the Scriptures.

Once again, I have allowed the Scriptures to mean what they say. Repeatedly I provide evidence of what the Scriptures have said. Reference after reference is supplied that explicitly states the message of redemption. Rock solid evidence has been provided that we are born again not by works but by grace through faith. Shaky and questionable interpretations of a few verses, and in most cases PHRASES, pulled out of context is what Mr. Saffold has to base his re-invention of redemption upon.

Perhaps, Mr. Saffold you will be forth coming with maybe a few answers?

Finally, as is typical, you jump to conclusions with complete assumption - I am neither Calvinist nor Baptist.

In Christ and Truth,

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Mr. Saffold, Onto your last post to me concerning Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Once again you have spent quite a bit of time attempting to convince me of a five worded phrase ripped out of context. To reiterate what I have said before, to understand these little phrases you like to place under a microscope, we must look at them not only in the context of the whole verse, but also the statement wherein the verse is contained, the chapter, the book and the entirety of Scripture. Let us spend some time examining this evidence. Is the interpretation consistent first with the whole of Scripture?
Is the interpretation influenced by the context wherein the statement is made?
Influenced by a number of different factors; place, time, who was speaking, who was listening, what was said up to that point, what was said following? Specifically, we see in Acts 2 Peter is speaking to a specific group of people - Jews. Is this significant? Undoubtedly! Would the audience influence the content of a particular message inspired by the Holy Spirit? Most definitely! Mr. Saffold, failing to take these facts into account has greatly diminished your ability to rightly discern the word of God. Does the Holy Spirit's message through Peter in Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" apply to me? NO, I am not the house of Israel and I did not live 2000 years ago to crucify the Lord. So we see Peter is specifically speaking to the "house of Israel" and to those who literally called for Barabbas over Jesus to be crucified. Does this at all influence the way in which we understand the phrase in verse 38? Very much so. Furthermore, we must look at this statement within the context of this chapter. Chapter two of Acts is a favorite of mine, particularly being Pentecostal. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit has occurred and precipitated this whole sermon. In fact the reason for Peter delivering this message is in direct response to those Jews reacting to the Gift\Baptism of the Holy Spirit verses 12-14, "And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:" Too often skeptics completely disregard the context of this chapter. They wish to dismiss this awesome promise poured out upon the church. But Peter is focused, he is not wandering off the point of the hour as many people do when reading this chapter. The context of the chapter is dealing with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, what it is, what it means, how it applies to their lives and how they can experience this for themselves. Peter is building up to the consummation of his message with his point found in verse 39, "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." What promise is this? In context, it is the "gift of the Holy Spirit" - what is the gift of the Holy Spirit? The Baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues vs. 1-4. That is the consummation of this message. The question begs to be asked, what does one need to do to obtain this promise, verse 37, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter now gives them a couple of action steps they need to take in order to receive this promise of the Holy Spirit Baptism, verse 38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." To receive the Gift\Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues you must repent and be baptized. Peter has also added in his response "for the remission of sins" and then, "ye shall receive the gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost." Who is Peter speaking to? The house of Israel, the Jews who crucified Jesus.
Is Peter speaking to me Mr. Saffold? The answer is no.
Who needs to repent? These Jews.
What sins need to be forgiven? Rejecting Christ, Crucifying an innocent man. Can I be water baptized for remission of these sins? NO, these are not my sins. Does this phrase then apply to my life? Not in the context of Peter's message.
Am I Jewish? Did I live 2000 years ago? Did I call for Barabbas and crucify Jesus? NO. In the context of the rest of Scripture we see very clearly that water baptism does not save us from hell. From 1 Peter 3:21 - that it saves us from a guilty conscience - which resulted from disobedience, which is a sin. But this is not how we enter into the Body of Christ. We enter into or are baptized into Christ by faith as is the clear teaching of the whole of the Scriptures. All of that to say, water baptism applies to my life today in the context of Scripture as a whole - not to redeem me, but because I have been redeemed I will walk in obedience to the command of Christ to be water baptized. Water Baptism is a similar figure to the flood of Noah in that I am righteous and indicates that I am already in Christ (the ark). I am already a born again believer walking in obedience, not a sinner living outside the ark failing to pass through the flood (baptism). Only a born again believer will be water baptized that is what causes him to be obedient! A sinner by definition is disobedient, therefore he will not be water baptized. So, Mr. Saffold, you have yet another answer, you may not like or agree with my answer, and yet it is still more of an answer you have yet to provide to a single one of my questions. Still waiting…. In Christ and Truth,

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Brethren I continue my response to Mr. Hanson’s arguments concerning the subject of baptism for the remission of sins.

His next point concerns the great commission as recorded by Mark in Mark 16:16. His words concerning it were as follows:

“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!”

Well, Mr. Hanson, you should have been able to notice that I simply quoted the verse and placed it in direct opposition to your words. And you drew the correct conclusion that your words are the direct opposite of the words of Christ in this verse.

Jesus said:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

You say:

“He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved”.

I will believe Jesus instead of Mr. Hanson.

So, I have not “pulled” 3-4 words out of a verse. Instead I have quoted the verse in it’s entirety. And I have not “made” them say anything much less what I want them to say. In fact, I would love for us to be able to say that men are saved by faith alone. It would be easier than having to argue all the time about baptism. So, if I were to be trying to make this verse read the way I sincerely would want it to read I would do as Mr. Hanson has done. I would seek to make the Lord say that he that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved. But the fact is that such is not what the Lord said, now is it? But I would not go so far as Mr. Hanson has done in making the Lord appear to be self-contradictory. For if he intended by saying “He that believeth not shall be condemned” that he that believeth and is NOT baptized shall be saved. He would have thereby contradicted what he had said previously when he said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"!

Look at what Christ actually said along side of what Mr. Hanson would like for you to believe the he meant:

Jesus said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

Now read this, as it would read if you accept it in the way that Mr. Hanson would like for you to believe that Christ meant by what he said.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (not really): He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved for since we are saved by faith alone nothing but unbelief will cause one to be damned.”

Now anyone that cannot see the glaring contradiction that our Lord would have made if he meant what Mr. Hanson tells us that he meant by what he said is just blind or has closed his eyes to the facts. For Mr. Hanson would have the Lord saying in one breath “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” and in the very next breath saying he that “believeth and is not baptized shall be saved”. It would make one wonder why he even mentioned baptism at all since his second statement would according to Mr. Hanson’s theory completely cancel out his first one concerning baptism. Wouldn’t it?

In fact, Mr. Hanson’s theory makes the Lord’s mention of baptism in this verse absolutely needless. For why would he even bother to mention baptism in connection with salvation as he has clearly done if baptism had no connection with it whatsoever? Mr. Hanson’s theory does not explain why the Lord even said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” If he did not mean to teach us that both belief and baptism play a part in the obtaining of our salvation.

The coordinating Conjunction “and” in English and the corresponding conjunction in Greek “kai” connect things of equal rank and importance in a sentence. And in this case Jesus uses that word to connect “belief and baptism”. Thus they are of equal importance according to Christ in regard to our salvation.

Then Mr., Hanson says:

“ My suggestion for you would be to leave these phrases within the context of the verse so that you may get the meaning.”

I have indeed left them in the context of the verse and Mr. Hanson has not given any evidence whatsoever that proves that I have ignored the context of this verse in the least. And I have gotten the meaning exactly from the context. And I will now quote that context yet again for all to read for themselves.

“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:14-16)

In fact this is in the context of Christ giving the command to preach the gospel to the entire world and his words indicate what will happen to people depending upon their response to the preaching of the gospel. And he makes it clear that there are two possible responses with two different consequences. Those who respond to the preaching of the gospel by believing and being baptized shall have the good consequence of being saved from their sins. And those who respond to that by believing it not shall be condemned. This is all in complete harmony with the context of that verse.

Then Mr. Hanson says:

“ 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.”

The subject of the New Birth is discussed in the context of his conversation with Nicodemus and forms no part whatsoever of this context. It is indeed related to it for being born again as Jesus said saves us. “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 3:5) So even when Christ talks of the new birth or being born again he mentions water as he did when he spoke of the relation of faith and baptism to salvation in Mark 16:16.

Now just put these two verses side by side and see how they read:

“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 3:5)

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16).

It is indeed interesting isn’t it that we find water in both of these discussions? But Mr. Hanson just cannot let the Lord “mean what he says” for that does not fit his theology, now does it. And I know that Mr. Hanson cannot say that this baptism in Mark 16:16 is not a baptism in water. For it is the baptism of the great commission that Christ commanded the apostles to perform upon those whom they taught, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19,20). And this was water baptism as is demonstrated by the conversion of the eunuch who was baptized in response to the preaching of the gospel of Christ (Acts 8:35-40).

But the facts are that the New Birth is not even mentioned nor is it actually being discussed in Mark 16:16 yet Mr. Hanson is talking about how we should discuss this subject in its context. Well why does he not discuss all of the words in this context instead of discussing matters not mentioned in this context? He asked, “ if one is born again by faith and works (baptism) then the converse is true that one is condemned by failing in both”. Well, first of all we are not told that one is “born again by faith and works” Jesus said we are born again by being “born of water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit”. Meaning that we are born again of water by means of the Spirit. It is the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the gospel that we are to be baptized in obedience to Christ command. And therefore we are born of water by means of the spirit and by doing so we enter the Kingdom of God and those who do not do so cannot be born again or enter the kingdom of God.

And works are not even mentioned in this context and Mr. Hanson cannot find a single passage in the word of God that calls baptism a “work of man”. Thus baptism is not a “work of man” as he falsely claims any more or less than faith is a work of man. So works are not in the context of Mark 16:16 yet Mr. Hanson calls himself discussing the context. He should follow his own advice and discuss the meaning of the words, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” in their context rather than discussing matters that are not even found in the context of the verse he pretends to explain. He has not told us why Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved if he did not mean that persons who wish to be save are expected to do both, now does he? In fact he did not bother to discuss the meaning of this verse in its context at all. He only complained that I was pulling 3-4 words out of the verse, without proving that I had done so. And then went about discussing the New Birth which is not mention in the context and works which is not mentioned in the context and argued against those who say we are saved by faith and works which is not an argument made in the context of this verse.

But If one thinks about these verses in the context of Christ command to preach the gospel to every creature. And the two different results of two different responses to that Gospel were those who believed it and obeyed it by being baptized would be saved and those who rejected it or did not believe it at all would be condemned. Thus if you’ve heard the gospel and you desire to be saved you must obey that gospel by being baptized. (Mark 16:16) and if you reject that gospel by refusing to believe it you will be lost. (Mark 16:16; Rom. 10:13-17; 2 Thess. 1:8,9). This is what the verse means in it’s context. And let me make it abundantly clear just at this point that this verse includes two things in order to our salvation. Belief and baptism are both enjoined upon us. This means that one who does not believe the gospel of Christ even if he were baptized he would not be saved! I have not now nor have I ever taught that baptism alone by itself will save any one. And neither do I believe that faith alone by itself will save any one for we are told by James, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:14-24). Now further, in Mr. Hanson’s post, he misrepresents me as one who believes that baptism only saves us. And I want to make it clear that I believe no such thing. Baptism without faith in Christ and his shed blood is useless. Baptism without repentance is useless and baptism without confessing Christ before men is useless. But baptism is an act of faith in Christ. And it is through faith in his shed blood in obedience to his commands that a penitent sinner who has confessed that he believes that Christ is the Son of God that one is baptized. And thus baptism is God’s appointed place where he removes sins from such souls by the blood of Christ during the operation of God which takes place in baptism (Col. 2:11,12; Romans 6:3-6,17;John 3:16; Acts 3:19; Romans 10:9,10; Acts 2:38; I Peter 3:21). For then is the time, when faithful penitent confessors of Christ obtain remission of their sins. (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16).

Then we are told by Mr. Hanson:

“ 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.”

In deed one is condemned simply for failing to believe the gospel. But what Mr. Hanson has not proven is that this is in fact the “converse” of the statement; “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. There is nothing in the context to give us this idea. It is Mr. Hanson’s theology that needs for our Lord’s second statement “He that believeth not shall be condemned to be the “converse” of his first statement “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. There is nothing in the context or the words themselves that make either of these two statements the converse of the other. The first statement, “He that believeth and is baptized was telling the results of those who believed the gospel and obeyed it by being baptized was that they would be saved. And the second statement was telling us the results of those who did not believe the gospel would be that they would be condemned. So you can decide my friends which result you want and follow these instructions of our Lord to obtain them. If you want to be saved Jesus says, “He that believes (the gospel) and is baptized (obeys that gospel) shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16) and if you want to be condemned all you have to do is reject (or not believe that gospel) when you hear it. But the two options are not the “converse” of one another in the least. And there is nothing in the language of these verses or their immediate context that would justify any thinking person who does not have a previously decided theology of men that he must maintain to draw the conclusion that they are converse statements. If we believe Mr. Hanson they would indeed be inescapably contradictory statements! But we do not believe him. We believe Christ.

Then he says the following:

“ If one is condemned for not believing, then one is saved by believing.”

This would only be true if we concede Mr. Hanson’s contention that there is only one thing essential to salvation. For if two things are required for salvation and one for condemnation then the absence of the one condition of Condemnation would not guarantee the presence of both conditions of salvation, now would it? And this is just the case in the verse under our consideration. For the condition of condemnation is unbelief while the condition of salvation if belief and baptism. Thus the absence of the condition of unbelief required to obtain condemnation (i.e. the presence of belief) does not guarantee the presence of the second condition of salvation now does it. But naturally if we were to concede that Mr. Hanson is right in saying that there is only ONE condition of salvation in the scriptures and that one condition if faith and faith alone we would not be having this discussion, now would we? But the facts are that Christ places two conditions in this verse in order to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” and he placed one state or condition that would result in damnation and that was unbelief. And the absence of the one condition of damnation does not necessarily ensure the presence of the two that are required of salvation. No I say this in this way to deal with the logic of the matter. The facts in this verse are, however, that belief of the gospel is contained and inseparably connected with obeying it. If one does not obey this gospel that Christ told the apostles to preach in Mark 16:16 he thereby demonstrates that he does not believe that gospel. And thus by failing to be baptized in obedience to the commands of Christ through the gospel he becomes an unbeliever in the gospel which places him in the condition of one who does not believe and therefore condemned. And this is Christ meaning here in this verse. If one refuses to be baptized according to the commands of Christ in that gospel he does so because he does not believe that gospel and if he does not believe it he will be condemned.

Regardless of the above facts Mr. Hanson says, ““ If one is condemned for not believing, then one is saved by believing.”

But we have seen that this is what Mr. Hanson says but again it is not what the Lord said. The Lord did not say that one is saved by believing alone, now did he? The Lord said concerning those would be saved upon hearing the gospel of Christ would be those who “believed” AND were baptized” now didn’t he? Jesus said that two things would bring salvation, Belief and baptism”. Believe of and obedience to the gospel in baptism, which is an act of faith in and submission to him are the Lord’s requirements for salvation. But Mr. Hanson does not like that and he comes here to tell you that because unbelief is the only thing required to cause one to be lost then it necessarily follows that belief is all that is required to be saved. But the Lord did not say that. The Lord said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. So again we see Jesus saying one thing and Mr. Hanson saying the direct opposite.

In fact, one cannot really say that he believes the gospel of Christ unless he has enough faith to obey it. Read the verse from James again. (James 2:14-24) and notice that faith is made perfect by obedience as it was in the case of Abraham. And if one does not obey Christ he cannot claim to believe in Him. (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46). In fact, if one reject baptism he does not believe in Christ for it is Christ who commanded it and it is Christ who connected it with our salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. If you want to be saved follow it. And “he that believeth not shall be condemned.” All you have to do to be condemned is not believe the gospel and the surest evidence that one does not believe the gospel is, according to the teaching of Christ in this verse, by not obeying it in baptism. For it is certain that Jesus expected those who believed the gospel to obey it by being baptized in their response to it. And if that were his expectation of believers it would logically follow that those who refused to obey it would be the definition of an unbeliever. For those who do not obey the gospel are those who do not believe it in the first place. How could anyone claim to believe the gospel of Christ and deliberately refuse to obey His command to be baptized, which is a part of the gospel they are to believe? Now that the command to be baptized is a part of the Gospel is proven by the Preaching of that Gospel by Phillip by the Ethiopian Eunuch. There we are told that all the Phillip preached to the eunuch was JESUS. And as a result of hearing the inspired preacher Phillip preach Jesus when they came to a certain water he said, “see here is water what doeth hinder me from being baptized”. Now how did the eunuch learn about baptism? All we are told is that Phillip preached Jesus. He learned it because the preaching about Jesus, the preaching of the gospel includes the Lord’s statements about that matter in Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). For it is a part of the Lord’s commission to preach the gospel to every creature. Which proves that those who preach the gospel, or preach Jesus, do so correctly when they tell their hearers of the Lord’s commands to be baptized (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16). And thus those who hear that gospel preached and refuse to be baptized are by that refusal demonstrating the unbelief in Christ that exist in their hearts. Thus, those who are baptized are doing so because they believe the gospel of Christ, which includes the command to be baptized and those who refuse to be baptized are those whom the Lord was saying are unbelievers. Thus, the refusal to obey the gospel by being baptized in submission to Christ are the unbelieving that will be condemned. For Christ is not talking here of unbelief or belief in general. Rather he is talking in this context of belief of the gospel in [particular that he sent the apostles out to preach and the unbelief of it and the results of those two reactions to it. And we see from Phillip’s preaching of Jesus that baptism was a part of that preaching and the eunuch was an example of one who believed and was baptized and was thus saved from his sins and went on his way rejoicing. And one who refuses to be baptized is one who does not believe the preaching of the gospel that includes the baptism commanded by Christ. Thus we can see that because Christ is talking of belief and unbelief of the gospel in particular he is therefore classifying the difference between those who demonstrate their belief of it by being baptized and those who demonstrate their unbelief by not being baptized. For if the eunuch had not believed the gospel he would not have been baptized but because he did believe it as soon as he saw water he said to Phillip, see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized. (Acts 8:35-40).

Then we are told by Mr. Hanson:

“I have no problem with Mark 16:16 saying that a believing person will be baptized”

Well, Mr. Hanson, it would not mater if you had a “problem” with what Jesus said or not. Your having a problem with his words does not give you the right to change them, now does it? You say that you have NO PROBLEM with Mark 16:16, but you verily do have a problem with it as does everyone else that teaches that baptism is not essential to our salvation. Jesus said “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: You have a big problem with those words and it is obvious that you do not like what they say for you are continually saying the direct opposite of them. For Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and you say he that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved. Those two statements are the direct opposite of each other. Both of them cannot be true. I will believe the Lord instead of you.

Then you say:

“ - I have been baptized - but it didn't save me.”

But Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” So if what Jesus said is true baptism played as much a role in your salvation as did your believing! So again I will believe what Christ said over your words which are opposed to his.

And I would like for everyone to notice just here that most of those who teach that baptism has nothing to do with salvation all hasten to tell us that they have been baptized! Is this not an example of someone preaching one thing and living another? They are not really so confident in their doctrine are they. They are not willing to take the same chances that they are asking those who have never been obedient to the Lord’s commands to be baptized are they. I do highly recommend to those of you that have not been baptized to take good notice of this. And be baptized in the name of Christ even if you never quite make up your mind about this issue for if you refuse to be baptized because of something said by these false teachers that tell you that it is not important. You will be walking on ground so dangerous that these preachers themselves are afraid to walk on! They want you to believe that baptism is not important but they have not the courage to neglect to do it. In fact, I have never seen one who taught that baptism was not essential to our salvation that has not been baptized. SO, my friends notice that they do not really PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH. For if they really believed that baptism was not important to their salvation and wanted to show that they believe it they would not be baptized themselves and they would teach others not to be. And if they are honestly believe that our teaching that baptism is essential to our salvation is as damnable as they claim they should want to not leave the impression that they support such by practicing baptism themselves. So, follow their practice and not their teaching about this matter and you will be safe. But if you follow their teaching you will not!

Then we are confidently told that Mr. Hanson boldly claims that he has drained the water out of this passage as follows:

“This verse you are using as evidence for being saved by water just doesn't hold water.”

As to whether our arguments from the word of God concerning the connection between water and our salvation we will leave it to our readers as to whether those scriptures which talk about water and our Lord’s commands concerning it “hold water” or not. But it cannot be denied that the scriptures of which we are speaking (Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5) definitely have water in them and nothing that Mr. Hanson has said has even started a slight leak much less a complete removal of water from them. As Old Brother Keeble (an African American preacher who baptized thousands in the 30’s to the 70’s in Alabama, Texas and numerous other states) used to say, “Der is wadder in de plan”! And nothing that Mr. Hanson can do will remove it. And it is nothing short of unbelief that causes him to attempt to avoid these truths. He just cannot believe the words of Christ because they do not fit with his current beliefs.

But I would like to correct the deliberate misrepresentation that Mr. Hanson makes with his above statement. Now, let me make it clear again that this statement is a deliberate misrepresentation of our position. We have never taught that one is saved by water alone but we have taught what Jesus taught when he said, ““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 3:5). We have not taught in any place that baptism or water alone saves us but we have shown from several places that baptism or water is connected with our salvation. (1 Peter 3:20,21; Mark 16:14-16; Heb. 10:22). We do not teach that there is any power in the water. But that it is God who saves us trough Christ and his shed blood WHEN we hear and obey the gospel of Christ by being baptized in response to our faith in that gospel which was preached by the inspired apostles of Christ. And this is what the Lord said when he was giving the great commission in Mark 16:15,16. Those who responded to the gospel by believing and obeying it would be saved and those who demonstrated that they did not believe it by not obeying it in baptism would be condemned. (Mark 16:16). That God washes our sins away when we are baptized is taught by the following verses. (Acts 22:16; Acts 2:38) and that the operation of God that removes sins from our souls takes place when we believe the gospel enough to be baptized is taught in the following verses. (Romans 6:3-6,17; Col. 2:11-13). Thus baptism is not WHAT saves us but it is WHEN God saves us by the blood of Christ. (Col2: 11-13). For that is WHEN our faith or belief in the gospel becomes perfect (James 2:14-24; Mark 16:16). And if our repose to the hearing of the gospel is to refuse to be baptized we will have show a complete lack of faith in Christ who commanded it. And thus, “he that believeth not shall be condemned’ as Jesus plainly stated. One cannot believe in Christ and reject his commands to be baptized according to the gospel of Christ. For this reason we are told that those who do not OBEY the gospel which Christ commanded to be preached (Mark 16:14-16). And which included his commands to be baptized (Acts 8:35-40) will be “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power” (2 Thess. 1:7-11).

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Just a couple of thoughts here...I think E Lee and Barry are both missing something. I will address Barry first.

(1 Pet 3:21 NRSV) And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-- not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

With regard to this verse, Barry has suggested that the recipients of the letter had not a good conscience because of a lack of water baptism--and they felt guilty. Not so.

(1 Pet 1:23 NIV) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

They were born again, they were new creatures in Christ. (If they h ad not been immersed in water, then, according to Bro Saffold, this statement could not be made of them.) Just before this Peter writes;

(1 Pet 1:22 NRSV) Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart.

They were pure--their consciences were not bothering them.

Now as to what 1 Peter 3:21 means:

And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you

Baptism is what saves us--no doubt about it. It is impossible to be saved w/o baptism. But water baptism is not what he means. Water is not the reality, it is the "figure". There is no requirement to have the figure, but there is a requirement that in our loves there be the reality which the figure represents.

--not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

But baptism has nothing to do with water. Peter here does not have water baptism in mind. Remember that he recalled in Acts 11:

(Acts 11:16 NIV) Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

(Parenthetical: Lee, you asked what I meant when I wrote "IF there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism... I meant really SINCE there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism... since there is one baptism, and water baptism is of John but Spirit baptism is of Jesus, it is impossible in Ephesians 4 that the "one baptism" is in water. Itm ust be "in the Spirit."

He realized that the baptism which saves has nothing to do with water, but with the Spirit. There is no evidence that Peter preached water baptism after this. Just as his understanding grew from Acts 2 to Acts 10 with regard to the plan of salvation including the Gentiles, his understanding grew from Acts 2 to Acts 11 that the plan of salvation did NOT include requiring water baptism. So again he writes:

--not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

We cannot appeal to God for a good conscience apart from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, and this inward work IS THE SUM AND TOTAL OF WHAT BAPTISM IS.

Now, Brother Lee,

in John 3:5 we find:

(John 3:5 NRSV) Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

The reference to being born of water is not water baptism, but to natural birth. If I may paraphrase, what Jesus is telling Nicodemus is, "No, you do not have to go back into your mothers womb. There you were born (borne) in water. But Just like you need to be born by the sac of water from your mother's womb to be alive physically, now you have to be born of the Spirit to be alive spiritually.

He goes on to say to Nicodemus:

(John 3:6 NRSV) What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In other words, "all of us who are alive physically have had a physical birth (water/flesh--in essence he is here equating the two), but all who are also alive spiritually are so because of the birth of the Spirit."

Also--I think too much weight is put on Mark 16:16--since we really do not know for sure which ending of Mark is correct.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Brethren:

I now continue to respond to Mr. Hanson’s comments on the subject of Baptism for the remission of sins. His next topic of discussion in his original post was the passage of scripture that tells of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. And he quotes my reference to the verse where Ananias told Saul, “And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Then he says concerning this verse:

“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.”

Well it seems just here that Mr. Hanson is hoping to insult me by implying that I am not in the habit of taking baths when he suggest that “perhaps” I was not aware that “water cleanses the outside of a man”. Now I do not know just how I would go about proving to Mr. Hanson that since I do take baths regularly that I am very much aware that water does indeed “clean the outside of a man”. But even if I did not know it, such would have no bearing whatsoever on our discussion or the meaning of this verse. And again he makes the deliberate misrepresentation that we are contending that “water” washes our sins away. When we have said numerous times now that it is the blood of Christ that washes our sins away WHEN we by faith and after repentance obey His command to be immersed in water. And I am happy to note that he has found water in this verse even though the only indication of it is the use of the word baptism and its connection with the idea of washing our sins away. And anyone who is able to understand metaphors and their use in the scriptures can see that Ananias uses the metaphorical sense of washing away of sins in connection with baptism. Not because he is saying that the water is able to clean the inside of a man but rather because God has determined that HE will clean the inside of a man When a man has enough faith to obey His command to be immersed in water.

There is an example in the Old Testament that conveys the principles that I am talking about in relation to baptism. We are told, “And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand [pieces] of gold, and ten changes of raiment. And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, Now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have [therewith] sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy. And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, [Am] I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy? wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me. And it was [so], when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel. So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean. But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. [Are] not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage. And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, [if] the prophet had bid thee [do some] great thing, wouldest thou not have done [it]? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that [there is] no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. But he said, [As] the LORD liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take [it]; but he refused.” (2 Kings 5:7-16).

Now there are numerous things to be learned from this Old Testament passage but I only want to make some observations about this idea of the efficacy of water and by it illustrate the concept of the connection between faith and obedience in relation to the discussion at hand. However, I have quoted the passage in its entirety so that all can see the details for themselves. It is an interesting study within itself. And I invite you all to study this event from the Old Testament. It not only will help you understand what faith really is but it will also strengthen your faith as God’s word always does. (Romans 10:17).

In this Old Testament narrative we have an example of Naaman being saved from the dreaded disease of leprosy When he obeyed the Prophet’s command to dip seven times in the river Jordan. And Naaman was not one who believed very much in the efficacy of “water baptism” any more than Mr. Hanson appears to be. But when he mustered enough faith to obey God’s command and not one second before he was cleansed of his leprosy. But no one concluded then and none would conclude now that it was the “water” that cleansed him of this disease. It was indeed God that cured him but the issue is WHEN did God do it. He did not do it the moment that the leper believed. He did not do it when the leper dipped once, twice, thrice…but he did do it after the leper’s faith lead him to complete his obedience to God’s command WHEN he had completed his seventh dip. For as he came up from that last dip that God had commanded through the prophet for him to perform his skin was a clean as a child’s skin. It should be obvious to the discerning that though he was required to dip seven times in the river Jordan that the efficacy was not in the water. Rather it was in God who responded in power after Naaman’s faith lead him to complete his obedience to God’s commands concerning that matter.

The same is true concerning Saul. He had seen Christ on the road to Damascus and he had been told by Christ to go into Damascus and there it would be told him what he MUST do. “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” (Acts 9:6) Now it is good to notice just here that Christ told Saul to go to Damascus and there it would be told him what he MUST DO. Not what he could do if he wanted to nor what he might do if it was convenient but what he MUST do. Then we are told by the inspired writer Luke that Ananias told Saul that he would be a witness to all men of what he had seen and heard and that he must arize and be baptized and wash away his sins. “And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:14-16). So baptism was not an option for Saul, if he was to be faithful to Christ. And it is not an option for anyone else who would like to have faith in Christ and obtain through that faith the remission of their sins and salvation of their souls.

And one of the things that Ananias told him to do, which Christ said that he MUST do is to “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) Thus, when Saul’s faith led him to obey what Christ said he would be told that he MUST do, which was to be baptized, then, and not one moment before then, his sins were WASHED AWAY by the blood of Christ. Thus we can see how it is that the blood of Christ washes our sins away WHEN our faith leads us to OBEY THE GOSPEL by being baptized in water. And of the two things that Saul was told that he must do only one of them is said to have any connection to the “washing away of his sins” and that was baptism. After being baptized we see Saul immediately carrying out God’s command for him to be a witness to all men of the things that he had seen of Christ! Saul was not one to hesitate and delay his obedience to God, now was he? He certainly was not like Mr. Hanson who would rather quibble with God’s word than to obey it.

And we have never implied nor have we ever said that baptism is a “work of man” intended to “invoke” or “manipulate God” in any way whatsoever, as Mr. Hanson would have you to believe. This is just another misrepresentation of our position and misunderstanding of the teaching of God’s word.

When God through the prophet told Namaan to “dip seven times in the river Jordan”. And Naaman complied with God’s command. God at the point of Naaman’s obedience and, in harmony with His command and Promise to Naaman, God at that time granted the cleansing of his leprosy and not one moment before! This was God “manipulating” Naaman instead of Naaman “invoking or manipulating” God. In like manner when we by faith in the Christ revealed in the gospel of Christ obey God’s commands issued in that gospel to be baptized in obedience to the gospel we are being manipulated by God’s commands found in His inspired word. And we are therefore being moved by our faith and God’s commands and through that faith to obey Him. We are not invoking him in any way other than simply obeying him. Which is what he expects of us to do. And when we have by faith completed that obedience to his commands to be baptized our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ as surely as Naaman's leprosy was cleansed by his faithful obedience to dip in the river Jordan seven times.

I must say that I am pleased to see that Mr. Hanson has found water in this verse where Saul was commanded to be baptized. And I am also happy to notice that he has found an apostle who was commanded to be and was baptized for this Saul became the great apostle Paul who by inspiration penned 14 books of the New Testament.

Therefore friends and brethren please note that Ananias speaks of baptism in water metaphorically as “washing Saul’s sins away”. Because that is the time when Saul completed his obedience to God’s commands related to the gospel and it is the time and place where God remitted Saul’s sins. But not because there was any efficacy in the WATER that washed Saul’s sins away. But rather because it was the time and place WHEN God determined that He would and we read of how it was the time when he in fact did wash those sins away and Saul benefited from the efficacy of the blood of Christ which was shed for that purpose. Read these two verses together and you should be able to see this more clearly.

“This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28)

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

And notice that baptism and the blood of Christ appear to be for the same purpose, which is the remission of sins. Thus again we can see that it is actually the blood of Christ that washes our sins away WHEN our faith in his gospel leads us to obey that gospel by being baptized for the remission of sins. Thus the efficacy of the water is not what saves us. Instead it is the efficacy of the blood of Christ that saves us WHEN the efficacy of our faith leads us to obey His command to be baptized and not one single moment before.

So, Mr. Hanson’s deliberate misrepresentation that I might be teaching that it is the water that actually cleanses the inside of a man is just plain false now isn’t it? It is the blood of Christ that cleanses man of sin when man hears the gospel and believes it with sufficient strength to submit to the Lordship of Christ in obedience to that gospel. Which can only be done by repenting of our sins and being baptized in the name of (or by the authority of) Christ. (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). For we are told that we are “buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-6). The Romans did not walk in newness of life until they were raised from the waters of baptism with Christ having undergone the “operation of God” which removed their sins from them. (Romans 6:3-6,17; Col. 2:11-13).

Then Mr. Hanson ends his words about this verse with the following statement, unsupported by scripture:

“ Only Jesus' work is sufficient to save, water cannot cleanse the heart. Believe on the Lord and you'll be saved!”

It is not true that only Jesus’ work is sufficient to save. Man must have faith or even Jesus’ work will not save him. And he must have sufficient faith to “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord”. (Acts 22:16). While it is true that “water cannot cleanse the heart” and we have NEVER said that it could, it is equally true that God WILL NOT cleanse an evil heart of unbelief that refused to have enough faith to obey his command to be baptized. It takes a combination of the “work of Christ” and the “faith of man” for any soul to be saved. For without faith it is impossible to please him (Heb. 11:6). And no one can be saved by a faith that does not obey Gods command to “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord”. (Acts 22:16). Just imagine if Saul had been like Mr. Hanson. He would have said “don’t you know Ananias that water cleanses the outside of a man and cannot cleanse the inside and therefore I see no reason that it is such an urgent matter that I be baptized right away without “tarrying”. He would have said, if he thought like Mr. Hanson, “I believe I will just wait a while. In fact I really do not see any reason that I should do it at all that would make it so urgent and important. It certainly cannot have any connection whatsoever to “washing away my sins”!” Remember that Christ told Saul that the things, which he would be told in Damascus, would be things that HE MUST DO. And one of the things that Christ demanded through Ananias that Saul MUST do was " to be baptized" to have his sins washed away. (Acts 22:16).

Now, this is the truth of the matter and Mr. Hanson’s misrepresentations and complete unwillingness to even discuss the meaning of this verse in it’s context is exposed for what it is. It is nothing more than pure misrepresentation of our position and a complete misunderstanding of the teaching of God’s word on this subject.

And the phrase “believe on the Lord” in the scriptures includes obedience to the Lord. For no one can justly claim to have saving faith in the Lord that refuses to obey Him (Luke 6:46; Matt. 7:21- 23). A casual reading of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews will show that this is the nature of faith that “pleases God”. (Heb. 11:6). By faith Noah built the ark. “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” By faith Abraham “obeyed” God. “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.” (Heb. 11:8). By faith the walls of Jericho fell AFTER the Israelites obeyed God’s command to walk around the city seven days. “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.” By faith Rahab was spared after she received the Israeli spies. “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” (Heb. 11:31). And the list could go on of examples of this principle that inseparably connects faith with obedience to God’s commands. SO, yes my friends and Brethren, if you believe on the Lord you will be saved (Romans 10:9) but understand that believing involves obeying and cannot be considered faith until it is express in acts of faith demonstrated by obedience to God. If you refuse to obey Christ command to be baptized you will be proving to God and yourself that you do not “believe on him”!

Notice how the inspired James illustrates this same principle:

“What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:14-26).

So it is certain that the principle of faith demands obedience and acts of faith for faith to even exist in any living or useful way. So it is clear that faith alone will not save anyone as Mr. Hanson would have you to believe. Thus the principle of faith is that of believing God and obeying him. Therefore no one can claim to believe in Christ without being obedient to him. (Luke 6:46;Matt. 7:21-23). And for this reason the writer of the book of Hebrews informs us. “Though he were a son yet learned he obedience through the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that that OBEY HIM”. (Heb. 5:8,9). So, if one truly believes on the Lord he will be saved. But those who do not obey the Lord (which includes obeying the gospel by obeying His command to be baptized for the remission of Sins (Mark 16:16;Acts 2:38) do not truly believe on him. And for that reason those who refuse to obey God’s command to be baptized will not be saved. Now that is the truth of the word of God on this matter.

The command of Christ through Peter applies to all of us as it did to the Jews on Pentecost, the Samaritans and the Ethiopian Eunuch after Pentecost. “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins”. (Acts 2:38; Act 8:14- 24; 8:25-40). This is the reason indeed that all that became Christians from the day of Pentecost forward after the resurrection of Christ were baptized and there is not one single exception to this rule in the New Testament. My friends if you have not humbly submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ who died for you and was raised for our salvation from sin and death by repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins. Let me urge you to follow the examples of all who were converted to Christ during the time when the preachers of the gospel were being led directly and miraculously by the Holy Spirit to preach baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38; 2:16) and yield to the Christ and be buried with him and raised with him to walk a new life of faith, obedience, submission to the Lordship of Christ and hope.

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

I will do my best to help you to the truth. One of the most glaring points to start with, you state, "And works are not even mentioned in this context and Mr. Hanson cannot find a single passage in the word of God that calls baptism a "work of man"."

So, in your opinion, if the Scriptures don't emphatically state that water baptism is a "work of man" then ….. what? It is not a work of man? Mr. Saffold, please, could you explain the logic (?) behind this comment?

Do the Scriptures declare that squirrels are animals, that apples are red, or that water baptism is not a work of man?

Let us try to at least use our God given common sense for a moment. Did God pick you up out of a bar? Against your will? Carry you to the lake? Throw you in the water? Dunk you under? Carry you out of the water?

It went something like this. You heard the gospel, believed it in your heart, decided to be obedient to the commandments of God, went with another person to some water and he put you under. Unless someone wants to push the issue into the ridiculous this is effort, work - people do not passively sit by in water baptism - furthermore, it takes the action of another person to accomplish this work.

Seriously, Mr. Saffold, please stop wasting my time with these silly points.

Moving on….

Let me go back to Mark 16:16 again for your benefit Mr. Saffold,

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This particular text states "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Unfortunately for you Mr. Saffold you are unable to examine this verse in light of the whole of Scripture. For just as this statement is made so is the statement, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life", John 6:47.

He that believeth shall be saved is a true statement.

A multitude of overwhelming evidence has been provided that states unequivocally that a sinner is born again upon believing, and this declaration is made completely independent of water baptism.

Therefore, any assertion above and beyond the initial statement would also be true.

Believe + Christ's finished work = redemption. (John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46, John 12:46, Matt.26:28, Acts 10:43, Rom.3:21-28, Eph. 2:8,9)

Believe + Christ's finished work + water baptism = redemption.

Believe + Christ's finished work + repentance = redemption.

Believe + Christ's finished work + forgiving those who have sinned against you = redemption.

Believe + Christ's finished work + obedience = redemption.

Believe + Christ's finished work + jumping up and down = redemption.

Believe + Christ's finished work + holding your nose = redemption.

Believe + Christ's finished work = redemption.

Mr. Saffold you can add anything you want to the initial plan as long as it doesn't detract from the simple plan of redemption, Christ's finished work + Believe = redemption, and you will be born again.

What would make this cultic is that if it were said that anyone who is not water baptized for salvation is going to hell.

Christ expects every born again believer to be water baptized, as you amply pointed out, however, this does not mean that one will go to hell for not being baptized as Christ so clearly and specifically said, but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Is it a true statement that a person who believes and is baptized shall be saved? Yes because the initial premise is intact, equally true is that those who believe shall be saved with absolutely no mention whatsoever of water baptism as Jesus has stated so frequently.

Therefore, one may be born again whether they are water baptized or not.

Mr. Saffold you may point out references you think mandate water baptism as a requirement for redemption, the truth is water baptism is not a requirement.

Moving on…. Next you state,

"Thus if you've heard the gospel and you desire to be saved you must obey that gospel by being baptized."

In Acts 3:11 - 4:4 we find another message preached by Peter to a very large audience. In this presentation of the gospel he never once mentions water baptism. Yet in verse 4 of chapter four, five thousand people were born again.

"Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand."

Yet, Mr. Saffold, you said, "Thus if you've heard the gospel and you desire to be saved you must obey that gospel by being baptized." Over five thousand heard the gospel, Mr. Saffold, and they were never told to be water baptized.

Therefore, your logic is flawed.

If someone hears the gospel and they desire to be saved they must believe according to Acts 3:11 - 4:4 - water baptism not necessary.

Moving on….next you finally admit that baptism is an act!

"But baptism is an act of faith in Christ."

Action in response to a command is effort and obedience, it is a work! I am amazed that after all your fuss you completely undermine your entire position by making this statement! Are you confused? Did you not mean to claim water baptism as a work?

We both know Eph. 2:8,9 by heart - not of works lest any man should boast - salvation is a gift!

Moving on…you state…

"The Lord did not say that one is saved by believing alone, now did he?"

Well, yes, Mr. Saffold, Jesus has mentioned on numerous occasions one is saved by believing alone. John 5:24, John 6:47, John 7:38, John 11:25, John 12:46, John 12:46, Matt.26:28.

Moving on…you state,

" And I would like for everyone to notice just here that most of those who teach that baptism has nothing to do with salvation all hasten to tell us that they have been baptized! Is this not an example of someone preaching one thing and living another?"

Having to go through your lengthy posts in order to have to answer questions like this is in fact a waste of my time.

Mr. Saffold, the fact that one is water baptized is evidence they have been born again. Show me a single instance I have suggested we should not be obedient to Christ's command to be water baptized? To help you out, I have not!

I have said that water baptism is not a requirement for redemption - it is a requirement to walk in obedience - big difference.

Not only do you twist the Scriptures - you twist my words…should I be surprised? I am not.

As I am out of time I will have to revisit the last paragraph of this message and go on to the next, until then may you all experience the joy and wonder that comes from our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Brother White:

I am very busy at the moment with my work at AT&T and do not have sufficient time to respond to your post. But I will respond and hope that you can understand that I must work daily to support my family and can only respond to these posts as I have spare time to do so. Nevertheless, I do make the effort to arrange time to respond. And will do so any time that you write a post addressed to me.

With my limited time at the moment I want to say one thing concerning your final words, which were:

“Also--I think too much weight is put on Mark 16:16--since we really do not know for sure which ending of Mark is correct.”

I understand why you say this but I do not agree that there is sufficient reason for us to doubt the text as we now have it the majority of our current translations into English. And there certainly is not sufficient evidence to support the view that the text should end at verse 8 of Mark the 16th chapter. I am strongly convinced that the evidence in support of the last twelve verses of the book of Mark is overwhelming. Thus I believe that we can be, as I am, quite sure and confident concerning the correct ending of the book of Mark.

Yet, as I am sure that you are keenly aware, the discussion of that matter would take volumes and a great deal of detailed discussion. Nevertheless, if you desire to engage in a discussion of that issue I would only be too happy to do so. But I would ask you to allow that we first arrange to wait until the current round of the discussion of numerous other passages related to baptism is complete? Then, if you so desire, we can pursue this matter if you are convinced that it will truly affect the debate on baptism one way or the other.

I do not believe that you can be numbered among those who reach for help from infidelity because they just cannot accept the strong argument from Mark 16:16 showing that belief and baptism are coequal in relation to our salvation. Far too many just cannot wait to get rid of these verses. For they have indeed been a thorn in the side of those who are opposed to the teaching of Acts 2:38 which says, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), haven’t they?

But, I am convinced that you are not among these but have genuine concerns and questions about the text. And because I believe that you have such genuine concern and that you have the knowledge and the candor consider the matter intelligently and with respect for the word of God I will enter such with a more amiable spirit than I would with an infidel that has little knowledge, no candor, and nothing but contempt for fact that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Nor would it be useful to discuss such with a bigot who is determined to use the slightest peice of information to cast doubt upon the integrity of the text. Not because he has done sufficient research and study to draw such a conclusion but rather because he has come upon a fragment of information that he hopes might help him slip away from the strong grip of the truth as it is so plainly stated by Christ in that verse which without question says:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:" (Mark 16:16).

For Christ and those who love the truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Bro Saffold,

I thank you for your kind response to my post. As far as Mark 16:16 goes, you are right when you say:

But, I am convinced that you are not among these but have genuine concerns and questions about the text.

That is quite true, and is also why I hold to the view of Genesis 1 and 2 that I do. As one who works in hermeneutics, I look for internal evidence before anything extraneous to the text. There are for examples, ways to do a fairly good job of harmonizing Gen 1 and 2, but they require appealing to "it could be..." or "perhaps..." followed by something extraneous to the text. If that works for someone, OK. It just does not intellectually satisfy me.

I am not anti-Mark 16:16. Where I am coming from is that due to the textual questions, it is not, IMO, the best card for an immersionist to lead with. Acts 2:38 definitely is...as I said in my other post, I think Peter's understanding changed between Acts 2 and Acts 11. If anyone ever successfully persuaded me otherwise, I would go to a RM church, because that is how much I want to walk in the truth.

As far as Acts 2:38 goes, I believe you and Danny have the corrrect exegesis. So does the NRSV:

(Acts 2:38 NRSV) Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

To restate however, I think the NT does not hide from us the unfolding understanding of the apostles and the early church. Peter's understanding of the role of the Gentiles in the plan of God for the church definitely evolved from Acts 2 to Acts 10, and I believe his understanding of baptism evolved from Acts 2 to Acts 11.

As a matter of hermeneutic methodology, as I stated in the thread entitled "Hermeneutics" the next step, for me, then, is to look at whether the passage states a normative principle in the church for all times or a temporal application. At this point, sufficient scholarly questions exist about the baptism texts as a whole for me not to share the CoC position. However I disagree with profound respect and love.

Which leads me to another comment. The mention of "the apostles teaching" in Acts 2:42, IMO, is not a reference to a settled body of doctrinal content by then but a way of saying they continued to sit and hear the apostles teaching ministry. The understanding of doctrine definitely grew as time went on, as we see in the institution of deacons (Acts 6), Gentiles coming into the church (Acts 10), and the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15).

I would add that I am also not anti-immersion. I just think legitimate hermeneutic questions abound to admit in honesty that we cannot be sure that was meant to be a requirement for salvation. That does not seem to me to lead down some slippery, dangersous slope of infidelism.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Mr. White,

Thank you for your insight. I am hoping that our discussion will not take on such a confrontational approach as it has with Mr. Saffold. I have found that when people are so dogmatic in their denominational teaching and tradition it leads to disputes and arguments - particularly when you confront "sacred cows".

I was aware of the verses you have pointed out in 1 Peter. Particular vs. 23,

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."

Again we see emphatically, as throughout the whole N.T., they were not born again through water baptism.

However, a perspective I would like to share with you concerning your point with regard to vs. 22,

"Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart."

We discover an important truth, they have been purified by obedience to the truth.

As we all know salvation is a gift. Gifts are not contingent upon obedience - particularly when the gift is given with the specific disclaimer that it is a FREE gift. (John 8:32,36; Rom.3:24,5:15,8:32;1 Cor.2:12)

Romans 5:18, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

For, anyone to claim redemption must be gained through obedience is to make God out to be a liar.

Either it is free, based upon Jesus' work alone, or it is not free, needing the additional work of one's own obedience to complete Jesus' work at Calvary.

Obviously, no one, not even Mr. Saffold would suggest that Jesus did not finish the work of redemption at Calvary, hence his impossible situation of explaining how a work (water baptism) is not a work. The simplest child understands the concept of action based upon duty constitutes a work.

However, if we look at the first two verses of this book we find valuable insight.

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

The book was addressed to multiple "congregations" "scattered throughout" the world. The point you raise concerning the readers already possessing a clear conscience is valid to the point that those "congregations" that had participated in obedience to the command of water baptism possessed a good conscience. It is not only possible, but also likely, that there were other "congregations" that Peter had in mind in chapter three whom had not been obedient to the command of water baptism.

The follow scenario is most likely. Chapter one opens as a formal introduction. As chapter two begins Peter begins to address different issues (just as Paul does in many of his letters) that have been reported to him to have existed throughout all of these different "congregations". Therefore, by chapter three he would be addressing a report he would have received concerning one of these "congregations" to whom this letter is sent. At this point he admonishes these Christians to walk in obedience to the command of water baptism, just as righteous Noah walked in obedience to the Lord to build the Ark.

Next, Brother White, I do not feel that 1 Peter 3:21 is speaking of our baptism into Christ as it is being linked to the flood as a similar figure. The text specifically states that the baptism Peter is speaking of is a figure, and not the reality. As you have pointed out our baptism into Christ is the reality - I whole heartily agree. Water baptism is the figure of our baptism into Christ which is the reality.

As far as your response to Mr. Saffold you are right on.

In Christ and Truth,

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Brethren:

I now continue my response to Mr. Hanson’s remarks concerning the scriptures, which teach that baptism is for the remission of sins and is therefore essential to our salvation from them. (Acts 2:38). Mr. Hanson’s remarks, to which I am responding, are found in his original post concerning this issue. When I finish with these I will proceed to consider his comments and remarks in his other posts in which he continues to misrepresent what we have been saying as well as misunderstand what the word of God actually teaches.

His fourth point in his original post was concerning the words of the inspired apostle Paul to the Galatians (Gal. 3:26,27) which we quoted to show that baptism places us into Christ in whom alone resides salvation (Acts 4:12).

His words in response were as follows:

“4. Gal. 3:26,27 - I am not sure why you bring up this verse????”

Well, since he did not seem to understand why we “brought this verse up” we will explain it yet one more time. The passage reads:

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:26,27).

Now the point that we were making was that salvation is IN CHRIST JESUS (Acts 4:12) and that we are, according to this verse, “baptized into Christ” therefore one must be baptized in order to be “in Christ” wherein they are saved. And the second reason that we mentioned this verse was to show that the word “for” in verse 27 is a translation of the Greek word “gar”, which means “because”. And therefore the passage is saying that we are children of God by faith in Christ Jesus “BECAUSE” we have been baptized into Christ. Thus making baptism an intregal part of the “faith in Christ” that saves us. Showing that without baptism one cannot say that he or she is a child of God by faith. And since this “baptism” involves the use of “water” we have proven that immersion in WATER as Christ commanded (Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5) is essential to faith in Christ and therefore essential to our being children of God by faith. This is the reason that we “brought up this passage” and that it was reasonable to do so should be obvious to anyone who is able to read the simple language of this text.

Then Mr. Hanson asked the following question:

“ 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.”

We shall now proceed to show Mr. Hanson that we correctly see WATER in the word “baptized” as the inspired apostle Paul in this passage uses it. And that unless one can show that there is mentioned in the text or its immediate context the direct mention of some element other than water. Or unless there is a clear indication from something mentioned in the context to justify our taking this word in its metaphorical sense. Then the word “baptized” means “immersed in water” and cannot mean anything else. Now, inasmuch as there is no other element mentioned. And there is no evidence whatsoever that the word is being used metaphorically. Then we must take it in it’s primary meaning which is “to be immersed in water” and since that is the meaning of the word there is without question plenty of WATER in this passage which Mr. Hanson cannot see. And when one cannot see that which is clearly present before him it is usually because he is either blind or he has his eyes closed. And I am convinced that Mr. Hanson is not “blind” but rather that his preconceived theology demands that he close his eyes to this truth. I ask that you not close your eyes as we examine the evidence that supports my above assertions.

Now, in order to show you the meaning of this passage it is important that we see the exact Greek word, which is used in this verse for the word “baptized”. The actual word is the First Middle Aroist “ebaptisthate” of the Greek word baptizo, which means “1. Prop. To dip repeatedly, to immerge, to submerge (of vessels sunk) 2. To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, TO MAKE CLEAN WITH WATER.” 3. Metaphor. To overwhelm. (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by J. H. Thayer, p. 94)

And Mr. Thayer further comments upon this particular word and its meaning as follows:

“In the N. T. it is use particularly of the rite of sacred absolution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ’s command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz. An immersion IN WATER, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, IMPELLED BY A DESIRE FOR SALVATION, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom.” (A Greek –English Lexicon of the New Testament by J. H. Thayer, p. 94).

Then he again speaks to this subject:

“With prepositions; aa. To mark the element into which the immersion is made: “eis ton Iordanain” (into the Jordan translation mine); To mark the end: eis metanoian, to bind one to repentance: eis to Ioannou Baptisma, to bind to the duties imposed by John’s baptism, Acts 19:3; eis onoma tinos, to profess the name of whose follower we become, Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13,15; eis apesien harmartion, TO OBTAIN THE REMISSION OF SINS (emphesis mine), Acts 2:38; eis ton mousain, to follow Moses as a leader, 1 Cor. 10:2; to indicate the effect: eis en soma, to unite together into one body by baptism, 1 Cor. 12:13; eis Christon, eis ton thanaton autou, TO BRING BY BAPTISM INTO FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST, INTO FELLOWSHIP IN HIS DEATH, BY WHICH FELLOWSHIP WE HAVE DIED TO SIN, Gal. 3:27; Romans 6:3.)

Thus we see from Thayer that the word means to “make clean with water”. And its metaphorical use signifies to overwhelm.

And now I will quote several other sources of competent scholars concerning the meaning of this word so that everyone can see that this is not by any means a stained interpretation in the least.

Then according to Liddell and Scott: “baptidzo- to dip in or under WATER; of ships to sink or disable them. Baptismos- a dipping in water, ablution”

Parkhurst: “baptizo- to immerse in or wash with water, in toke of purification. Figuratively, to be immersed or plunged into a flood or sea, as it were of grievous afflictions and suffering”.

Bass: “baptizo-to dip, immerse, plunge in water, to bathe one’s self; to be immersed in suffering or affliction.”

Hedericus: “baptizo- I plunge, immerse, overwhelm in water, I cleanse, wash, I baptize, in a sacred sense.”

Ewing: “Baptizo- In its primary and radical sense, I cover with water or some other fluid…” And in the passive voice, I am covered with water or some other fluid.”

Leigh: “Baptidzo- the native and proper signification of baptizo, is to dip in water or plunge under water”.

Richardson: “baptidzo-to dip or plunge in water, to sink, plunge or immerse.”

Minhert: “baptizo- to baptize; properly, indeed, it signifies to immerse, to plunge, to dip in water”

Stokius: Baptisma: 1. Baptism: 1. General, and by force of its origin, it denotes immersion or dipping. 2. Specifically, properly it denotes the immersion or dipping of a thing into water that it may be cleansed or washed; hence, it is transferred to designating the first sacrament of the New Testament, which they call (the sacrament) of initiation-namely baptism, in which those to be baptized were formerly immersed into water; though at this day the water is only sprinkled on them, that they may be cleansed from the polutions of sin, obtain the remission of it, and be received into the covenant of grace as heirs of eternal life. By metaphor, it signifies the miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and other believers…”

Schleusner: “Baptisma- baptism; a verbal noun from the passive participle of bebaptisma, of the verb baptidzo, (1) properly, immersion, dipping into water, a washing. Hence, it is transferred to the sacred right which par excellence, is called baptism, in which formerly those to be baptized were plunged into water that they might be bound to the true divine religion.”

We also have the definition of other profound scholars who have given brief definitions of the word “baptidzo” incidentally while writing on other subjects.

Schaaf: To bathe one’s self, to bathe, to dip, to immerse in water, baptize.”

Schindler: “to baptize, dip, bathe, immerse in water”.

Paschal Auscher: “To baptize, to wash by plunging in water”.

Kitto’s Encyclopedia: “the whole person was immersed in water”.

Wilson: “Baptize, to dip in water, or plunge into water”.

Beza: “Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which it is certain immersion is signified. To be baptized in water signifies no other than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism.”

Gurterus: “To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubtedly to immerse, to dip; and baptism is immersion, dipping. The thing commanded by our Lord is baptism, IMMERSION IN WATER”. (Emphasis mine).

Dr. Bloomfield, commenting on Mark 1:9, says: “the sense of ‘was baptized in’ is ‘was dipped or plunged into’. He underwent the rite of baptism by being plunged into the water”.

Dr. Chalmers: “The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion, and, though we regard it as a point of indifference whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the prevalent style of administration in the apostle’s days was by an ACTUAL SUBMERSING OF THE WHOLE BODY UNDER WATER.”

Zanchius: “The proper signification of baptize is to immerse, plunge under, overwhelm with water”.

Now I end these numerous quotations with one that touches somewhat specifically upon the verse under our consideration as follows:

Bishop Burnett’s Expositions of Thirty-nine articles, pp. 374, 375: “They (the primitive ministers of the gospel) led them into the water, and with no other garments but what might cover nature. They first laid them down in the water, as a man is buried in a grave, and then they said the words ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’. Then they raised them up again, and clean garments were put on them from whence came the phrases of being ‘baptized into Christ’s death’, of our being ‘buried with him by baptism into death’, being ‘baptized into Christ death’, of our being ‘risen with Christ’, and of our ‘putting on Christ’, ‘putting off the old man’ and ‘putting on the new man”.

And thus we can see that when Paul uses the words “as many of you as have been baptized into Christ” he meant by the very use of the word “baptized” that they were immersed in water. And that after having thus been buried with him they rose from the water and just as they would put on new, clean cloths they had, metaphorically speaking, “put on Christ”. And therefore by baptism they were united with him and were thus, by means of being immersed in water at His divine command, placed into union with Christ. This is the meaning of the passage and it also explains not only where WATER is found in the verse but the signification of immersion in water in putting on Christ. And it also shows that no one can be a child of God by faith without a faith that leads him or her through this process into Christ.

Well the obvious answer to this, which is quite easily seen when one knows the meaning of the words that he reads, is verse twenty-seven which says, “for as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ.” This is exactly where it mentions “water”. For the very meaning of the word baptism is immersion in water” Thus we are told that as many of you as have been “immersed in water” into Christ have put on Christ. Now we proceed to show that this is true we will quote a few verses, which show this word clearly has a connection with water. And that water baptism is to be understood every time we find this word except in cases where the context requires that we read it in it’s metaphorical sense of “overwhelm” and not it primary meaning of “dip. Plunge or immerse in water”. Notice that after the House of Cornelius had received the baptism (overwhelming) of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of confirming to Peter and all others that God had granted “repentance unto life” to the gentiles as well as the Jews (Acts 11:15) upon hearing Peter preach the gospel. We are told that Peter said, “can any man forbid WATER that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? Then he COMMANDED then to be baptized in the name of Christ.” (Acts 2:48). In this one instance we see that the word baptism has a primary meaning and a metaphorical one. In reference to its primary meaning Peter said, “can any man forbid WATER that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we”? By which he clearly shows that the action of baptism, in its primary usage is to immerse in WATER. And when he said that their reception of the Holy Spirit reminded him of the words of Christ, “ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence”. That his reference is to using the word in a metaphorical sense based upon its primary usage. Meaning that those who were “baptized in the Holy Spirit” were “overwhelmed” by the spirit as one is completely sounded, covered and overwhelmed by water when one is immersed into it in the name of Christ. Thus we see that the very idea of “baptism in the Holy Spirit” comes from a metaphor taken from the primary meaning of the word “baptize” in the New Testament which means to immerse in water”. Therefore, when we see the word baptize in the New Testament it should bring up the picture of one being immersed in water unless one can show from the context that the word is being used metaphorically to indicate the idea of being overwhelmed by something. For this reason the word is used to describe the suffering of our Lord by calling it a “baptism of suffering” meaning that the Lord would be overwhelmed with pain, sorrow, grief and suffering as one is overwhelmed with water when he is baptized.

Then another example of the primary meaning and use of this word is the baptism of the Eunuch. (Acts 8:35-40). He said to Phillip, after hearing him preach nothing but Jesus and when they came upon a certain WATER, “see HERE IS WATER, what doeth hinder me to be BAPTIZED?” And they went down, both Phillip and the Eunuch into the WATER and he BAPTIZED him.”

“And as they went on [their] way, they came unto certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.”

Now, this is a biblical example of one being BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST at the preaching Phillip who was a man full of the Holy Spirit. And one cannot miss the fact that being baptized is the act of immersing one into water. And when one does this by faith in obedience to or in response to the authority of Christ he is thereby “baptized into Christ”.

Yet we give another example. We are told that John the Baptist was baptizing in Aenon because there was MUCH WATER THERE. Showing again the obvious necessity and connection of water to the action of the verb baptized. And when Christ came to John and was baptized we are told that he came up straight t way OUT OF THE WATER showing yet again the obvious and inseparable necessity of water to the very action of baptism and thus the meaning of the word baptize.

Now, there is no doubt, as I have shown above, that the word baptize has a metaphorical use. And I have shown that the phrase “ baptize in the Holy Spirit” is using the word baptized, which refers to the immersion in water, in a metaphorical sense to mean, “overwhelmed by the Spirit”. But in the verse under our consideration not one single word is used to indicate that there is even the slightest reference to a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” or any element other than water or any hit of a metaphorical usage whatsoever.

Now, with all of the above facts before us we are now going to again make some statements about Mr. Hanson’s above quoted words.

He said:

“ You have emboldened BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST? Apparently you believe Christ IS water?”

Now, I know that Mr. Hanson is here attempting to ignore the simple fact that the word “baptized” means, in its primary sense and usage, “ to dip or plunge in WATER” and by so doing make it appear that I believe that “Christ is water”. And nothing short of both his willful ignorance concerning the meaning of the word “baptized” and his deliberate intent to completely misrepresent what he knows that I believe has caused him to make such ignorant and arrogant remarks. For it is not in the least bit reasonable to conclude from the fact that I “emboldened” the words “BAPTISED INTO CHRIST” that I “believe Christ is water”. Anyone knows that nothing, least of all these words from God in Galatians 3:27 could cause me, or anyone else, reach such a conclusion. And he fails to point out that I have never said anything that would cause anyone to honestly believe that I contend that “Christ is water”. But he has a need represent me as believing something so absurd for it is far easier to answer arguments of his own design (straw men) than to answer the real arguments that I have in truth and in reality made. And I am confident that the thoughtful and discerning can see this pathetic tactical admission of weakness on his part.

Then he says:

“ 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?”

Now, with these words he asserts, without proving that we have made the verse mean something that it does not and asked us to read it again. Well, Mr. Hanson we have read it again and it means the same thing that it has always meant since Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote it. The word “baptized” meant then what it means now. It means to “dip or immerse in WATER”. So when you ask us to “explain to me where you find the word WATER baptism?” We reply along with the best scholarship in the world on this subject, that we find WATER in the word BAPTIZED. And unless you can show that the word is not being used in its primary sense of “dip or immerse in water” you cannot deny the presence of water in this passage. And in the New Testament there is no other kind of baptism except that of baptism in water. Unless the word is being used in a “metaphorical” sense to indicate that someone is “overwhelmed” in some way by either “suffering” or the miraculous endowment of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the House of Cornelius. But this is a metaphorical use of the word and unless one can prove that the word is being used in a metaphorical sense in he must accept that water is included in the meaning of the word baptized in the New Testament. There is no other element into which they were baptized at all. Thus the word “baptized” means, in the New Testament, “immersion in water”.

But Mr. Hanson tells us that he allows the verse to mean what it says as follows:

“ When I allow the verse to mean what it says, I am baptized into CHRIST not WATER.”

But we have shown that he does not allow the word “baptized” to mean what it says, now does he? For the word baptized means “to dip or plunge in WATER” and in his view of this passage it cannot have that meaning, now can it? And his assertion that he was “baptized into Christ, not water” is an example of the fact that he is ignorant of the truth that the word “baptized” means “to be dipped or immersed in WATER”. Thus if he was “baptized” according to this definition he would have to be immersed into water for that is what the word “baptized” mean. And thus one cannot be “Baptized into Christ” without being “dipped or immersed in water”. Therefore we doubt very seriously if Mr. Hanson was “baptized into Christ” without being immersed in water.

Now, if he or anyone one else desires to give this word “baptized” its metaphorical usage of “to overwhelm” he must show that the context in some reasonable way or for some good reason demands we understand it in it’s metaphorical sense. But this he has not done now has he? And this he will not do for it cannot be done.

So we see that Mr. Hanson does not allow the “verse to mean what it says” now does he?

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

Bro Saffold writes:

Now the point that we were making was that salvation is IN CHRIST JESUS (Acts 4:12) and that we are, according to this verse, “baptized into Christ” therefore one must be baptized in order to be “in Christ” wherein they are saved. And the second reason that we mentioned this verse was to show that the word “for” in verse 27 is a translation of the Greek word “gar”, which means “because”. And therefore the passage is saying that we are children of God by faith in Christ Jesus “BECAUSE” we have been baptized into Christ. Thus making baptism an intregal part of the “faith in Christ” that saves us. Showing that without baptism one cannot say that he or she is a child of God by faith. And since this “baptism” involves the use of “water” we have proven that immersion in WATER as Christ commanded (Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5) is essential to faith in Christ and therefore essential to our being children of God by faith. This is the reason that we “brought up this passage” and that it was reasonable to do so should be obvious to anyone who is able to read the simple language of this text.

___________________________

Lee,

With all due respect, you have not "proven that immersion in WATER as Christ commanded (Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5) is essential to faith in Christ and therefore essential to our being children of God by faith."

I totally agree with the assertion that we must be baptised into Christ to be saved, but no one has demonstrated that this has anything to do with water.

I have more than amply demonstrated that John 3:3-5 is likening and contrasting spiritual birth to physical birth--the water part has nothing to do with baptism here--no derivative of BAPTO is even mentioned.

And Mark 16:16 can be honestly questioned, as I have written before.

Finally, for all the definitions and scholars you cite, which I really appreciate, none of that proves that the metaphorical meaning is not what is in view.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

;-) ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

Brother White:

I appreciate your kind response. You have said the following:

“Lee, With all due respect, you have not "proven that immersion in WATER as Christ commanded (Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5) is essential to faith in Christ and therefore essential to our being children of God by faith."

I appreciate the respect with which you write whether it is genuinely due to me or not. You are kind to write in this way. But I must with similar respect say that I have abundantly proven that immersion in water is essential to our being Children of God. I have done so by showing that water is found in plentiful supply in the word “baptized” in the passage which I discussed at length which was Gal. 3:26,27. And if you wish to demonstrate that the word “baptized” in Galatians 3:27 means anything other than that which I have shown from the abundant quotations from eminent Greek scholars that it means in this verse. Then I must respectfully state that it is your responsibility to give evidence to support your assertion, which you have not done. I have shown conclusively that the word is to be taken in its primary sense of “to dip, plunge or immerse in water” unless there is evidence that requires or demands that it be taken in a metaphorical sense. And you have not shown the slightest amount of justification for that view.

Then you say:

“I totally agree with the assertion that we must be baptized into Christ to be saved, but no one has demonstrated that this has anything to do with water.”

Indeed we are agreed that baptism is essential to salvation which means that it is essential to faith in Christ which saves us and therefore it is essential to our being children of God by faith. (Gal.3:26,27). But the difference between us is clear. You do not believe that baptism has anything to do with water. But I have offered abundant evidence to the contrary all of which you have ignored in your response. I have demonstrated that baptism has much to do with water and anyone reading the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch at the preaching of the inspired Evangelist Phillip can easily see. I will quote that verse again and hope that you will at least give it some attention since I have now mentioned it three times only to have it all completely ignored.

““And as they went on [their] way, they came unto certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.” (Acts 8:35-40).

Now note that the eunuch was immersed in water and we are told by Peter in Acts 2:38 that such baptism is “for (in order to obtain) the remission of sins” and thus we are justified in concluding that this is exactly what the eunuch received upon being so immersed. And for that reason he went on his way “rejoicing”. And we note also that the “spirit” did not come upon the eunuch in any way but rather the Spirit caught away Phillip, the preacher so that the eunuch “saw him no more”. So this is a case of pure immersion in water and it was connected with the conversion of the eunuch to Christ. And it was in harmony with acts 2:38 which means it was for the remission of sins.

Now when the Eunuch said, “see here is water what doeth hinder me to be baptized?” if Phillip, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, had thought as does my good friend and Brother White thinks. He would have said, “no one has demonstrated that being baptized into Christ has anything to do with water”. But the inspired evangelist said no such thing, now did he? In fact, all we are told in this account that Phillip preached was “Jesus” for it says, “And he began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus.” And as a result of hearing Phillip preach Jesus when they came to a certain water the very first thing on the eunuch’s mind was “see here is WATER what doeth hinder me to be baptized”. Now he knew the meaning of the word baptized and he knew that it had to do with this Jesus that Phillip preached and he would not wait to attend to it. This proves that when one preaches Christ as did those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit preached it those who hear it will learn about baptism in WATER. And they will feel a sense of urgency about it so that as soon as they see water they will ask, “see here is WATER what doeth hinder me to be baptized? And it also shows that the inspired Phillip did not hold the view that “baptism had nothing to do with water” as you claim.

If the word “baptized” means “to dip, plunge or immerse in water” as we have proven abundantly that it does except in cases where there is evidence to suggest that the word is being used in a metaphorical sense. Then being baptized has very much to do with water and when Paul told the Galatians that they had been “baptized into Christ” then he clearly mean that they had by baptism in water at the command of Christ come into union with him. He had taught the Romans the same thing in Romans 6:3-6,17.

Then you say:

“I have more than amply demonstrated that John 3:3-5 is likening and contrasting spiritual birth to physical birth--the water part has nothing to do with baptism here--no derivative of BAPTO is even mentioned.”

I still think highly of you Brother White but I must with the utmost of respect inform you that you have not “demonstrated” anything that you have said about John 3:3-5. You have done nothing more than assert it without any proof or demonstration at all. If you have any proof that Jesus was talking about “physical birth” when he said, “except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God” we will be happy to examine it objectively. But thus far all you have done is assert that his mention of water is a reference to “physical birth” and there is absolutely nothing in that verse which would give anyone that idea in the least. The question that Nicodemus asked Jesus was, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? And in answering him Christ told him what he did not know concerning how to be born the SECOND TIME. He was not even attempting to tell him how a child is born in the first place. And if we must I will write a complete post dedicated to this very passage. But I have never said that any derivative of the word “baptidzo” is to be found in John 3:3-5. For there Jesus uses the word “water” in connection with the NEW BIRTH. And I was quoting the verse to show that water is indeed connected by Christ to the New Birth. And it indeed is so connected by Christ. And the word WATER cannot be removed from the passage. You say that water has nothing to do with salvation at all but we have Christ telling us that it is connected to the new birth. So my use of John 3:3-5 is appropriate and proves my point.

Then you say:

“And Mark 16:16 can be honestly questioned, as I have written before.”

Now here you fail to recognize, Brother white, that there is a big difference between an “honest question” of one who does not have all of the facts in the case and the idea that the questions asked have no answer or that there is any true justification for doubt. I have said to you before that I am convinced that the evidence supporting the text of Mark 16:16 as we now have it in the majority of our English translations is overwhelming. Now, neither of us has discussed this in detail because it would be a lengthy and detailed discussion that we both may not have sufficient time to pursue and which would take us far a field from our current discussion. But we can pursue it sometime if you like. Yet, I will not stop quoting this verse until someone can prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the verse is spurious. You have not done so and I have read those who try and thus far they have failed. Mark 16:16 stands like a rock of Gibraltar and it will never be removed from the text simply because the evidence against it being a part of the text is too weak to accomplish this feat, especially when the evidence in favor of it is so strong.

Then you say:

“Finally, for all the definitions and scholars you cite, which I really appreciate, none of that proves that the metaphorical meaning is not what is in view.”

You must not take my words out of their context of answering Mr. Hanson’s question concerning where I find water in this passage. I have found an abundant supply of water in the word baptized in this verse by pointing to the meaning of the word. And I have proven without doubt to any objective person that the word in its most common New Testament usage means “to dip, plunge, immerse in water”. Especially is this true when speaking of the baptism of Christ, and of the baptism of John and the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch and every person who ever became a Christian in the New Testament after the resurrection of Christ.

The evidence that I cited was not intended to “prove that the metaphorical meaning is not what is in view”. It was intended to show the meaning of the word “baptize” and to show that unless one can demonstrate from the text or it’s immediate context that evidence exist which demands the “metaphorical meaning” then it must be given it’s primary meaning. And my contention is that there is nothing in the text of Galatians 3:27 or its immediate context that demands the metaphorical sense and therefore its primary meaning is all that is left. And I have amply shown that the primary meaning of this word is “to dip, plunge or immerse in water”.

Now, if you are convinced that there is just cause for one to demand that the word be taken in its metaphorical sense of “overwhelm”. Then why did not you just give us the evidence instead of stating that my arguments do not prove what they were never intended to prove in the first place? The arguments, which I have given, have proven the assertions, which I stated at the beginning of my post that they were intended to prove. I intended to prove that the word “baptized” means “to dip. Plunge, immerse in water”. And anyone reading my post objectively can see that I have proven just that without doubt. And I have shown that such is the meaning in every place where there is not sufficient reason to justify it being taken in its metaphorical sense of “overwhelm”. Now, I am asking you or Mr. Hanson to show just what in this verse or its immediate context requires us to take this word in its metaphorical usage. I have found the WATER unless you can find the “METAPHOR”, Brother White. But you cannot just assert a metaphor in any place that you do not like the primary meaning of a word. One must show that there is something in the text or its context, which forces us to receive it as being metaphorical in its usage meaning, “to overwhelm”. But nothing such as this exists in this text, now does it?

Now if you would like to prove that the meaning in Galatians 3:27 must be “metaphorical” then do so. I will be glad to entertain with the utmost respect any evidence that you might wish to present concerning that matter. But thus far no one, You my good friend included, has offered any such evidence, now have they?

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Brother Saffold,

Herein is why I do not believe youo have proven yoour point. It is not a matter of exegesis but theology. I believe as for Mark 16:16 we shall agree to disagree. As for the passage in John, like I said, water is mentioned, but you have failed to show that it is a reference to baptism. If we look solely at the text, my explaination is most plausible simply because there is no mention of baptism.

As far as the metaphorical use of BAPTO is concerned, it does not have to mean overwhelm. It can mean immerse, but be used in a sense of immersing into whatever is spoken of--such as I might say, "As a grad student I immersed myself in the writings of Elton Trueblood." (He was one of my teachers and my close friend, BTW)

That is the sense intended for immerse in the following passages:

(Mat 3:11 NIV) "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

It is obvious that John does not mean Jesus will "immerse you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." The fact that John uses the conjunction BUT makes clear that Jesus' baptism is not with water. (Luke and M ark record parallels which I will not cite here.)

(Mark 10:38 NIV) "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

They had already been baptised in water, so that cannot possibly be what Jesus meant here, but he does not mean overwhelm.

(Acts 1:5 NIV) For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

These are the words of our Lord himself, but again, the word BUT makes clear that he is not talking about water.

(Acts 10:47 NIV) "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

This one is clearly a reference to baptism in water. HOWEVER, they had already received the Holy Spirit. So if one of them had died while waiting in line to be baptized--would he go to heaven or hell? They had received the Holy Spirit, and according to Romans 8:9 anyone who does n ot have the Spirit of Christ does n ot belong to Christ. They had the Spirit, thus they belonged to Christ, and yet they had not yet been baptized in water. (One can argue that they were baptized out of obedience in witness--but this is different from arguing that you must be baptized in water to be saved. That is simply not the truth!)

(1 Cor 10:1-2 NIV) For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. {2} They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Here he is using the term metaphorically by referring to the deliverance of the Israelites at the Red Sea--but they crossed on dry land, if they were immersed, somehow they did not get wet. :) I do not think he means overwhelm here, but he certainly is not speaking of water baptism.

(1 Cor 12:13 NIV) For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

The baptism of the Spirit incorporates us into the body of Christ. But one must bring an assumption along to get water baptism here, because there is no mention of water!

(Gal 3:23-27 NIV) Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. {24} So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. {25} Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. {26} You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, {27} for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Again, he is speaking of faith in contranst to law. And being baptized into Christ here means we have identified with him, but it cannot mean immersion in water is required, or else all we have done is substitute a new law for an old one and Paul's doctrine of justification by faith is undermined.

(Eph 4:4-7 NIV) There is one body and one Spirit-- just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- {5} one Lord, one faith, one baptism; {6} one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. {7} But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.

Remember that John baptised with water BUT Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit. That is not one baptism but two. So how can Paul state that there is but one baptism--it cannot be in water--because that was the ministry of John. No, he must mean the "ONE BAPTISM" is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This is in keeping with the entire scope of the Ephesian letter:

(Eph 1:13-14 NRSV) In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; {14} this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God's own people, to the praise of his glory.

We are marked with the seal of the Spirit, not with water.

Ephesians 2 begins with our being dead in tresspasses and sins (v. 1) and moves on to our being saved by grace through faith (8-9) because we have been made alive by grace (v.5). This being so, then being buried with him is not in Rom 6:4 a reference to immersion, but a contrast of life before faith with life after faith. He then speaks of circumcision in vv.12-13. Note the ritual really benefits nothing. We are made near by the blood of Christ. Paul understood that Christ appointed no rituals for perpetual observance.

Verse 18--we have access to God through the spirit, not through water baptism.

I am unable to do any better at expressing this than did the authors of the 1887 Richmond Declaration of Faith, a summary of Quaker belief:

We would express our continued conviction that our Lord appointed no outward rite our ceremony for observance in His church. We accept every command of our Lord in what we believe to be its genuine import, as absolutely conclusive. The question of the use of outward ordinances is with us a question, not as to the authority of Christ, but as to his real meaning. We reverently believe that, as there is one Lord and one faith, so there is, under the Christian dispensation, but one baptism, (Eph 4:4,5) even that whereby all believers are baptized in the one Spirit into the one body. (1 Cor 12:13 RV) This is not an outward baptism with water, but a spiritual experience; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, (1 Pet 3:21) but that inward work which, by transforming the heart and settling the soul upon Christ, brings forth the answer of a good conscience towards God, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the experience of His love and power, as the risen and ascended Savior. No baptism in outward water can satisfy the description of the apostle, of being buried with Christ by baptism unto death. (Rom 6:4) It is with the Spirit alone that any can thus be baptized. In this experience the announcement of the Forerunner of our Lord is fulfilled, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." (Matt 3:11) In this view we accept the commission of our blessed Lord as given in Matthew 28:18, 19 and 20th verses: "And Jesus came to them and spake unto them saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (RV) This commission, as we believe, was not designed to set up a new ritual under the new covenant, or to connect the initiation into a membership, in its nature essentially spiritual, with a mere ceremony of a typical character. Otherwise it was not possible for the Apostle Paul, who was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostle, (2 Cor 11:5) to have disclaimed that which would, in that case, have been of the essence of his commission when he wrote, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." (1 Cor 1:17) Whenever an external ceremony is commanded, the particulars, the mode and incidents of that ceremony, become of its essence. There is an utter absence of these particulars in the text before us. Which confirms our persuasion that the commission must be construed in connection with the spiritual power which the risen Lord promised should attend the witness of his apostles and of the church to Him, and which, after Pentecost, so mightily accompanied their ministry of the word and prayer, that those to whom they were sent were introduced into an experience wherein they had a saving knowledge of, and living fellowship with, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

CG,

Here's something to consider:

You said......

<<<(Acts 10:47 NIV) "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

This one is clearly a reference to baptism in water. HOWEVER, they had already received the Holy Spirit. So if one of them had died while waiting in line to be baptized--would he go to heaven or hell? They had received the Holy Spirit, and according to Romans 8:9 anyone who does n ot have the Spirit of Christ does n ot belong to Christ. They had the Spirit, thus they belonged to Christ, and yet they had not yet been baptized in water. (One can argue that they were baptized out of obedience in witness--but this is different from arguing that you must be baptized in water to be saved. That is simply not the truth!) ">>>

You assume that they "Had" the Holy Spirit (i.e. the indwelling presence) and were therefore already saved. Most reliable translations I've come across say the the Spirit came UPON them and they spoke in tongues.

I propose that there is a distinct difference between having the Spirit come UPON you and having the Spirit INDWELL you.

A case in point is Sampson. When you go through the accounts in Judges, Sampson proved himself to be a spiritual Scally-Wag up until his final action that "brought down the house". And yet, the Spirit came UPON him several times in the midst of his sins and allowed him to whoop-up on the Philistines. If Sampson had been slain by Delilah as she cut his hair, would he have been in God's good graces? If the lion had eaten him in the vineyard (remember Sampson was a Nazarite from birth and was not allowed to even go Near a grape), would he be in paradise today?

I see a difference here. The Spirit UPON you can cause you to do great things. The Spirit IN you, saves you.

Now I hope you would agree that the Spirit does not indwell an evil heart.....as God cannot be present with sin. Therefore, the heart has to be cleansed or purged of evil so the Spirit can come in. Paul writes that this purging is a "circumcision of the heart" which occurs when?...............At Baptism. And Paul also tells us that the indwelling Spirit is our "earnest" (our down payment) toward Salvation.

So here's the logical equation: No Baptism = no prepared (circumcized) heart. No prepared heart = no Indwelling Holy Spirit. No indwelling Holy Spirit = no Salvation.

It's elementary my dear Watson.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Nice try Mark, but no cigar/.

They had received the Spirit, He indwelt them. No mistaking that, the test does not say the Spirit was on them. Not so elementary :)

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

To All,

Apparently, Mr. Saffold is having difficulty in reading the verse? I can only surmise this as he continues to add the word "water" to the text.

For everyone's reading and compressive benefit I will again quote to you the text and if Mr. Saffold could point out in the text where the word water is stated I may believe that he is sincere. If not I can only deduce that he is unable to provide the explanation as to why he continues to insist that CHRIST is WATER. As the text so explicitly states;

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26,27).

"Baptized into Christ".

It does not state we are baptized into water. Mr. Saffold apparently wants the text to read.

"For ye are all the children of God by faith AND WATER BAPTISM in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been WATER baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Except, we can plainly see this is NOT what the text states, because this is not even the intent of the text.

Our baptism into Christ is completely understood within the context of the text. The preceding verse Mr. Saffold so conveniently ignored states that we are children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

It does not state that we are children of God by water baptism and faith in Christ Jesus.

Only because of denominational and traditional dogma does one continue to insist that Christ is water.

However, I see Mr. Saffold has taken on a new angle of attack, let's watch his subtle shifts:

First, Mr. Saffold insists that this verse is in no way speaking metaphorically to justify his position that the word baptism could not possibly be taken with in the context:

"Now, inasmuch as there is no other element mentioned. And there is no evidence whatsoever that the word is being used metaphorically."

Then, Mr. Saffold states:

"And thus we can see that when Paul uses the words "as many of you as have been baptized into Christ" he meant by the very use of the word "baptized" that they were immersed in water. And that after having thus been buried with him they rose from the water and just as they would put on new, clean cloths they had, metaphorically speaking, "put on Christ".

"METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING, PUT ON CHRIST" (emphasis mine).

Which is it Mr. Saffold? Is there no evidence whatsoever in the text metaphors are being used or not? You seem to be confused?

Either there is NO evidence whatsoever in the text that Paul is speaking metaphorically or there is evidence.

You have contradicted yourself.

The text does lend itself to a metaphorical construct as you have so amply pointed out.

Furthermore, you state, "inasmuch as there is no other element mentioned" - what is the body of Christ? According to Colossians 2:8,

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

I am cautioned not to be "spoiled" through your philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world!

Hmmm, rudiments of the world, what would be a rudiment of the world? WATER!

And not after Christ! So I am to look at "baptism into Christ" - not after the rudiments of the world - but rather after Christ Himself. (Just a little prelude to Colossians - but very applicable to the present conversation).

Mr. Saffold would like me to believe no other element is mentioned - as if our baptism into Christ is perhaps a strange concept? Throughout the Scriptures it is mentioned that we are "in Christ" - in fact the concept originated with Jesus Himself, John 17:21,

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Jesus teaching that we would be one in God without any reference to water baptism - and one would really be out on a limb to suggest such, but I would not put it beyond Mr. Saffold to do so.

Therefore, Mr. Saffold, despite openly admitting that very text is speaking metaphorically, we have contextual evidence throughout Scripture that we are "in Christ".

Now it all depends if one wishes to place every reference to being "in Christ" as metaphorical, as I suppose Mr. Saffold would like to do. Yet the Scriptures tell us that Christ was in the Father - was this metaphorical? Or was Christ in the Father?

Jesus prayed that this would be true with us as well and later confirmed throughout the Scriptures that indeed we are "in Christ" through faith!

Getting to the definition of baptism - Mr. Saffold has gone through quite the effort to show that baptism by definition means "water baptism" but then makes the following remark:

"Then we must take it in it's primary meaning which is "to be immersed in water" and since that is the meaning of the word there is without question plenty of WATER in this passage which Mr. Hanson cannot see."

Why is it that Mr. Saffold must qualify this statement with the injunction, "in it's primary meaning"?

Because Mr. Saffold knows right well that baptism has multiple meanings - he may wish baptism to have as a "primary" meaning water baptism. Fortunately, for Mr. Saffold there are references to water baptism and the concept is one that western minds have an easy time with. Unfortunately for Mr. Saffold we are looking at a text not written in the English language and in the Greek style of communication the same word can have a different meaning - baptism being a classic example. 1 Corinthians 10:1,2

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;"

They were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea. According to Mr. Saffold they were dunked into water which really meant the cloud. Again, they were immersed in water speaking of the red sea - which would lend itself to Mr. Saffold's position seeing that the red sea is water - however this completely goes against the whole story of Israel passing through on dry ground.

Obviously, baptism must be understood within context. Mr. Saffold has stated:

"And when one cannot see that which is clearly present before him it is usually because he is either blind or he has his eyes closed."

Again, what does the context state?

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26,27).

It does not state "..been water baptized into Christ have put on Christ".

From Mr. Saffold's own words I believe that he is blind.

One cannot continue to examine the text without coming to the obvious conclusion that we are baptized into Christ (as stated) and not into water (as it does not state). Therefore, I must conclude that Mr. Saffold is blinded to the truth, not unwilling to believe the truth but unable to come to the truth.

I believe only prayer will be Mr. Saffold's solution. I have come to the conclusion that this cannot be won by argument. It is a spiritual condition.

Again Mr. Saffold ignoring even his own statements says:

"Now, I know that Mr. Hanson is here attempting to ignore the simple fact that the word "baptized" means, IN IT'S PRIMARY SENSE and usage, " to dip or plunge in WATER" and by so doing make it appear that I believe that "Christ is water". And nothing short of both his willful ignorance concerning the meaning of the word "baptized" and his deliberate intent to completely misrepresent what he knows that I believe has caused him to make such ignorant and arrogant remarks." EMPHASIS MINE.

Mr. Saffold must qualify once again his statement with "primary sense" because he knows right well as does anyone who knows the Greek that the text must dictate the usage. Therefore, by Mr. Saffold's continual insistance that we must accept this text upon it's "primary sense and usage" is as I have already pointed out a spiritual issue.

I have taken the text at it's face value without imposing any bias, it says "baptized into Christ". Christ is not water. For Mr. Saffold to continue to insist that we must prefer one meaning of baptism over another is a "deliberate intent to completely misrepresent" the Sacred Scriptures.

Taking what it actually says and twisting the meaning into some denominational understanding.

If Mr. Saffold were not making "such ignorant and arrogant remarks" I would feel he were simply closing his eyes.

Continuing, he states:

" For it is not in the least bit reasonable to conclude from the fact that I "emboldened" the words "BAPTISED INTO CHRIST" that I "believe Christ is water". Anyone knows that nothing, least of all these words from God in Galatians 3:27 could cause me, or anyone else, reach such a conclusion. And he fails to point out that I have never said anything that would cause anyone to honestly believe that I contend that "Christ is water"

Perhaps if Mr. Saffold could refrain from running off onto tangents and respond to what I have asked we would make some progress. I have not stated this was your position but questioned how anyone could deduce the text was indicating water baptism when it specifically and emphatically states we are baptized into Christ and not into water! With all the time it has taken Mr. Saffold to compose this supposed response to my question - he has basically said very little.

It boils down to this. Mr. Saffold contends that because he reads in other texts that baptism refers to baptism in water it must refer to water in this text.

Is this being honest with the text? To assume that this Greek word would mean the same in every passage because that is what Mr. Saffold would like it to mean?

Let us try this for one minute, allow the words to mean what they say and not what Mr. Saffolds wants them to mean.

Baptism also means to overwhelm or immerse which does not always imply in water. The meaning must originate with the context.

What does the context state is the honest question.

It emphatically states "baptized into Christ".

Again it does not state WATER baptized into Christ and Christ is not water. Therefore we have to believe the text and not Mr. Saffold - "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

You see the text says we enter into Christ by faith. We are born again when we believe. When we believe we are baptized into Christ.

Mr. Saffold cannot accept the plain teaching of the Scriptures but must twist and turn and make them say what it does not say.

Finally, getting to the end of this, Mr. Saffold writes:

"But we have shown that he does not allow the word "baptized" to mean what it says, now does he? For the word baptized means "to dip or plunge in WATER"

No, Mr. Saffold, baptize does not always mean to dip or plunge in WATER - you are in error. As you have once again contradicted yourself, as you have persistently said this was only it's "primary" meaning.

Next he states:

"Thus if he was "baptized" according to this definition he would have to be immersed into water for that is what the word "baptized" mean. And thus one cannot be "Baptized into Christ" without being "dipped or immersed in water". Therefore we doubt very seriously if Mr. Hanson was "baptized into Christ" without being immersed in water.".

Again, Mr. Saffold, repeats that baptism by definition means dipped or immersed in water as if continuing to repeat this single definition from a word that has multiple definitions makes it so. Unfortunately, for Mr. Saffold baptism has more than this single meaning and he has failed miserably to show that "baptized into Christ" means anything other than what it states; that we are baptized into Christ. He has spent much time telling us that baptism into Christ does not mean baptism into Christ but rather baptism into water.

Any sensible person may discern for themselves, does the text state baptized into water, or baptized into Christ?

I prefer to stick with the text and leave Mr. Saffold with his own gospel.

In Christ and the plain truth,

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

I do not think the polemicizing that Barry and Lee are doing here are helpful. Comment on issues, not on each other! I agree with Barry theologically here but I think he could be more gentle.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

CG,

Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus or when he "washed his sins away"?

When did he receive the Indwelling Spirit?

How could the Spirit indwell until the Sins were washed out?

If the Spirit indwelled before the "washing", why bother?

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Mr. White,

Great job!

Although I would continue to observe water baptism for a figure as an outward demonstration to all, that indeed, the transformation from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God has already occurred. It is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to all that one has believed upon Jesus as their personal savior.

Also, I believe I read somewhere that you stated that in Eph. 4:4-6 the one baptism being mentioned was in reference to the one and only baptism that concerns our redemption, that being our baptism into Christ. Just as there is only one God that saves, one faith that saves, there is only one baptism that saves. (Our baptism into Christ).

It would seem obvious therefore that the qualification indicates the existence of other possible "gods", "faiths" and "baptisms" which would not save.

I mention this because it seems that it has been assumed only one baptism exists at all, and according to Heb. 6:1,2 there are multiple baptisms.

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

We see clearly there is a Doctrine of Baptisms, plural. Meaning that we must rightly discern between the multiple baptisms that exist, Baptism into Christ, Baptism into the Holy Spirit, Baptism into Water, Baptism into Suffering. Which of these baptisms does Scripture indicate as fundamental to redemption? Our "Baptism into Christ" which we see clearly taught in Gal. 3:26, Romans 6:1-7; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 2:10-12 is what occurs upon our believing. Our "Baptism into Water" which we see clearly taught in Acts 8:12, 35-40; Acts 9:17; Acts 10:47 is what occurs after we have believed and thus Baptized into Christ.

Also, Mr. White, I will take your message to heart. It was never my intention to respond to Mr. Saffold's attacks in such a manner I suppose I have become somewhat defensive.

Faithfully His,

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Mark

Let me think about Paul on the way to Damascus for awhile, you raise good questions--although you do not answer all of mine. I like this discussion because it is sharpening my thinking.

And Mark, I like you.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

To All:

I would like to point out some often overlooked evidence in Acts 8:35 - 37. (And as before mentioned will comment on the issue at hand and leave off polemicizing).

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

The eunuch asks Philip, "what doth hinder me to be baptized?"

First, Philip does not answer him, "nothing hinders you - jump right in there buddy".

Notice very carefully the answer and just exactly what the text states, Philip qualifies the fruitless action of water baptism apart from faith!

"If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."

Faith must precipitate water baptism.

The problem facing Mr. Saffold and friends is that the moment one believes they have been Baptized into Christ! Therefore making the act of Water Baptism but a figure of the internal work that has already taken place. With the confession of Christ by the eunuch indicates that this transformation has already taken place. The fact that the eunuch then enters into good works, obedience, water baptism, etc. further indicates that, indeed, the Holy Spirit has taken up residence and the eunuch is in Christ.

Simply,

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Mark, You are bringing up only one of the recorded instances of Paul's conversion from Acts 22:16; "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." But there is the initial record of Paul's conversion in Acts 9:11-18 "And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold,he prayeth, 12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." Here we see the big picture in greater detail and in order of the events as they occurred. A few points to make. 1. Paul had been praying (vs.11) to whom? Obviously, to Jesus as He had heard his prayers.
2. Paul had seen a vision (vs. 12) from the Lord.
3. (vs. 17) Ananias calls Paul "brother", the obvious intent is that Paul is a brother in the Lord. Now with these few points, it is clearer whether or not Paul had placed faith in Jesus before Ananias arrived or not. However, to remove doubt as to how one is born again - either by faith or by water baptism - let us look at 22:16; The obvious question is, are sins washed away when one is water baptized or when one calls on the name of the Lord? Because the text states, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, there are abundant references that tell us we are born again when "calling on"/believing on Jesus. Conversely, there are only a handful of highly disputed references that only appear to suggest that we are born again via the work of water baptism. In the context of the whole of Scripture we plainly see that Paul's sins were washed away when he believed upon, called upon the name of the Lord. Obviously one can call on the name of the Lord while in the process of being water baptized but this does not implicate redemption with water baptism. Only that sins may be washed away at water baptism if the person has not already believed on the Lord Jesus Christ prior to that point. For once a person has believed they are in Christ. We see this illustrated with the eunuch as well. Philip informed him he could be water baptized only if he believed. Once he was sure of his condition of faith, water baptism makes sense. There is no sense in going through steps of obedience if one is not a child of God first. Children of darkness attempting to please God by doing good works are simply participating in an act of futility. It has been mentioned by many here that a person can go down a sinner and come up a sinner because they have not acted in faith. If this is indeed the sentiment, then for one to say that they believed on Jesus, thus their act (work) of obedience in water baptism would have placed them in Christ before they were ever water baptized. Our baptism into Christ happens upon believing. If a person is not attempting to please God by doing good works but is attempting to be obedient to the command of Christ in water baptism, then by this indication they have already believed on Jesus by hearing the Gospel and have already been baptized into Christ through faith. Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

I don't know why that happened again to another one of my posts, but it makes it very difficult to read - reposting….

Mark,

You are bringing up only one of the recorded instances of Paul's conversion from Acts 22:16;

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

But there is the initial record of Paul's conversion in Acts 9:11-18

"And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold,he prayeth, 12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized."

Here we see the big picture in greater detail and in order of the events as they occurred.

A few points to make. 1. Paul had been praying (vs.11) to whom? Obviously, to Jesus as He had heard his prayers. 2. Paul had seen a vision (vs. 12) from the Lord. 3. (vs. 17) Ananias calls Paul "brother", the obvious intent is that Paul is a brother in the Lord.

Now with these few points, it is clearer whether or not Paul had placed faith in Jesus before Ananias arrived or not. However, to remove doubt as to how one is born again - either by faith or by water baptism - let us look at 22:16;

The obvious question is, are sins washed away when one is water baptized or when one calls on the name of the Lord?

Because the text states, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, there are abundant references that tell us we are born again when "calling on"/believing on Jesus. Conversely, there are only a handful of highly disputed references that only appear to suggest that we are born again via the work of water baptism.

In the context of the whole of Scripture we plainly see that Paul's sins were washed away when he believed upon, called upon the name of the Lord.

Obviously one can call on the name of the Lord while in the process of being water baptized but this does not implicate redemption with water baptism. Only that sins may be washed away at water baptism if the person has not already believed on the Lord Jesus Christ prior to that point. For once a person has believed they are in Christ.

We see this illustrated with the eunuch as well. Philip informed him he could be water baptized only if he believed. Once he was sure of his condition of faith, water baptism makes sense.

There is no sense in going through steps of obedience if one is not a child of God first. Children of darkness attempting to please God by doing good works are simply participating in an act of futility.

It has been mentioned by many here that a person can go down a sinner and come up a sinner because they have not acted in faith. If this is indeed the sentiment, then for one to say that they believed on Jesus, thus their act (work) of obedience in water baptism would have placed them in Christ before they were ever water baptized. Our baptism into Christ happens upon believing.

If a person is not attempting to please God by doing good works but is attempting to be obedient to the command of Christ in water baptism, then by this indication they have already believed on Jesus by hearing the Gospel and have already been baptized into Christ through faith.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Brethren I am starting a new thread to continue our discussionof this matter because it is begining to take a long time to download and respond. The new Thread will be entitled, "An old discussion of Bpatism continued". Please go to it to see my continued responses to my friends in this thread.

For Christ and truth,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Barry, I like this thread better.

I think Lee just doesn't want others to read your very excellent posting.

By the way ~ great to 'see' you again!!!

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Connie:

You have said:

“Barry, I like this thread better.”

I am glad that you like the thread.

Then you say:

“I think Lee just doesn't want others to read your very excellent posting.”

Now, no thinking person would justifiably come to the conclusion that I am trying to keep others from reading Mr. Hanson’s postings as you claim. I stated that my genuine reasons for continuing the same thread by starting a new one with the same name so that everyone would know that it is a continuance of the original thread. I have done so for the same reason that others have done so in the past in this forum. The reason was that the thread is getting long and it takes a lot of time for me to down load it in order to respond. Now, if Mr. Hanson objects to my starting a new thread for the same reasons that you object to my doing so. Then I will continue to post in this thread. But I would hope that he has more common sense than you display with this pathetically unjustifiable remark.

Your remark shows that you have no genuine interest in serious consideration of this subject but only to deceive. You would like to make it appear that I am trying to keep others from reading Mr. Hanson’s words in order to prevent them from giving a fair and objective hearing to mine. You have no good reasons for believing that I do not want others to read Mr. Hanson’s remarks and could not prove that such is the case to save your life. In fact, I was the one that started this thread and copied and pasted all of Mr. Hanson’s words from other threads where he and I had discussed this matter just so that everyone could see all of his words and not miss any of them. And in continuing this thread I have used the same name so that others will know that it is a continuance of the discussion. And they will easily be able to refer back to it if they feel the need to do so. And you also know that when I respond to some one that it is my habit to quote their words first and my response following and I do not leave any of their arguments out. I respond to all of them eventually. I do not have time to write constantly but in time I will have responded to all of Mr. Hanson’s words. And that includes the words that I have not yet responded to from this thread and when I respond to them I will quote them and reference this thread as everyone in this forum knows it is my habit to do.

In fact, I assume that everyone reading this forum regularly has already read Mr. Hanson’s words and those who enjoy them, as you do, have most assuredly read them. And the simple fact that there is absolutely no way in which I could prevent anyone from reading them makes your remark even more absurd.

Then you say to Mr. Hanson:

“By the way ~ great to 'see' you again!!!”

Indeed I agree with you that it is good to see Mr. Hanson again. I am enjoying our discussion and will continue it, as I have stated, in another thread unless he, and not you, seriously objects with good reason to my doing so. In which case I will allow him, and not you, to decide when it is becoming too difficult for some people with only a phone line to download this lengthy post and it is good for us to start a new one if we are to continue. But I will not allow it to become so long that others do not have an opportunity to read my words because it takes too much time to down load it even if Mr. Hanson objects.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Connie,

It is good to see you as well.

Since the last Forum we were on has been discontinued I have yet to find another that is as inviting.

I wandered back onto this forum to see what might be going on and found messages that I had posted 17 months ago had yet to be answered.

Except one thread had a response 6 months after the fact, which did not even address my message, only pontificated personal opinion. So I thought I would respond after another 11 months of inactivity, never thinking that anyone would even respond. To my amazement someone took notice and finally responded. However, instead of replying to my 17 month old inquiries I was told that I had failed to answer questions (?). Looking back over the multiple threads I had posted on, I could only find that I had been the last to reply and my messages have gone unanswered for 17 months. Since this affront I suppose I have become a bit defensive in a few of my later posts, perhaps I had become adjusted to our other forum where objective discussions took place.

Well, it is good to see you are still around and contending for the faith.

Your Bro,

Barry

Mr. Saffold,

I have no objection to carrying the discussion to a new thread :)

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Hi, Barry,

Yes, that other forum was interesting, because more ideas were discussed, and more of a Christian spirit was displayed.

I really miss 'Defensor Fidei', even though I disagreed with him frequently.

Have you ever run across him since?

In Him,

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001