Why did John the Baptist baptize with water?

[SavedbyTruth]

The LDS believe you must first be baptized by water, and then be baptized by the Holy Ghost by those with the proper authority.

I have been told by a non-Mormon that the baptisms performed by John the Baptist by water are NOT necessary to enter the kingdom of God. He told me John's form of baptism is NOT Christian. He explained to me that this is why Paul had to "rebaptize" Apollos to replace John's baptism by water, with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Even so, this non-Mormon believes the ordinance of Baptism is NOT required in order to enter the kingdon of God.

What was the purpose of John baptizing people in the first place?

What are your beliefs about this?

Thank you,

SbT

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The LDS believe you must first be baptized by water, and then be baptized by the Holy Ghost by those with the proper authority.

I have been told by a non-Mormon that the baptisms performed by John the Baptist by water are NOT necessary to enter the kingdom of God. He told me John's form of baptism is NOT Christian. He explained to me that this is why Paul had to "rebaptize" Apollos to replace John's baptism by water, with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Even so, this non-Mormon believes the ordinance of Baptism is NOT required in order to enter the kingdom of God.

What was the purpose of John baptizing people in the first place?

What are your beliefs about this?

Thank you,

SbT

Great question. From my POV,

Water baptism indicates a person's willingness to enter the gate (or enter the covenant with God). If a person isn't willing to obey that simple commandment, they aren't likely candidates for heaven, or candidates to obey any of the laws of heaven.

John did not baptize with the Holy Ghost. His baptism was the baptism of repentance, with the stipulation to follow the One who would come after him. I have no problem with re-baptism after John, as I think that the covenant that Christ set forth was different than what the baptism of John set forth.

Baptism of the Holy Ghost cannot take place w/o the prior baptism of water. This demonstrates willingness. Both are administered by the Priesthood of God.

[GraftedIn73]

Great question. From my POV,

Water baptism indicates a person's willingness to enter the gate (or enter the covenant with God). If a person isn't willing to obey that simple commandment, they aren't likely candidates for heaven, or candidates to obey any of the laws of heaven.

John did not baptize with the Holy Ghost. His baptism was the baptism of repentance, with the stipulation to follow the One who would come after him. I have no problem with re-baptism after John, as I think that the covenant that Christ set forth was different than what the baptism of John set forth.

Baptism of the Holy Ghost cannot take place w/o the prior baptism of water. This demonstrates willingness. Both are administered by the Priesthood of God.

Hi Fig, may I call you Fig?

This p***age seems to contradict your statement:

"44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 10:44-48

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Hi Fig, may I call you Fig?

This p***age seems to contradict your statement:

"44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 10:44-48

Thanks.

I think there is a difference between feeling the power or influence of the Holy Ghost as a spiritual gift for converting and convincing, and receiving the GIFT of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. These Gentiles had been converted, but now needed to enter into the covenant with God.

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.

Jesus taught Nicodemus about being born of 1.) water, and 2.) the Spirit.

[Russ]

Thanks.

I think there is a difference between feeling the power or influence of the Holy Ghost as a spiritual gift for converting and convincing, and receiving the GIFT of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. These Gentiles had been converted, but now needed to enter into the covenant with God.

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.

Jesus taught Nicodemus about being born of 1.) water, and 2.) the Spirit.

What Fig means is that the Holy Spirit is something that is with him, as a Mormon, only as long as he is found worthy, i.e. being obedient to the laws, ordinances, principles and covenants of Mormonism.

The modern Mormon concept of salvation is best understood by examining the overall Mormon worldview and how deity fits into it. Salvation in Mormonism is not a permanent fixture, for lack of a better term. In Mormonism, salvation is something which must be earned and maintained by continual obedience to LDS law (repentance, ***hing, callings, proper marriage to another Mormon, the endowment, word of wisdom (abstinence from coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol), etc.) else wise the Holy Ghost departs and eternal life is thereby lost.

P.S. A particular (or random) Mormon might object that he "earns" his salvation.

Thanks to Bill McKeever for the following LDS quotes:


On pages 211-212 of his book The Miracle of Forgiveness, President Spencer Kimball chastised members who "are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things to earn their salvation."

John A. Widtsoe, the respected Mormon apostle whose works are still read widely today, wrote, "Every person will inherit a glory of salvation, which will be the one that he has earned." (Joseph Smith--Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God, p.170,).

Apostle Bruce McConkie said: "’Salvation is free,' but it must also be purchased; and the price is obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:462)

And the Book of Mormon states: "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Ne. 25: 23)

Here's the sad reality. If grace works only after a person has done all he can do, grace doesn't work at all since no one really does all he can do.

[GraftedIn73]

Thanks.

I think there is a difference between feeling the power or influence of the Holy Ghost as a spiritual gift for converting and convincing, and receiving the GIFT of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. These Gentiles had been converted, but now needed to enter into the covenant with God.

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.

Jesus taught Nicodemus about being born of 1.) water, and 2.) the Spirit.


Hi Fig,

I believe that Peter's perception of the actions of God on the household of Cornelius are different from yours. Here is how he described the event to those in Jerusalem:

"15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:15-18

BTW, to answer SBT's original question, I believe that the Baptism of John was specifically to the Israelites, in preparation of the coming Messiah and the Kingdom of God. His was used of God in fullfilment of the OT p***ages that said God would send Elijah turn the hearts of His people in preparing the way of the Lord.

The Baptism of Christ, as ins***uted in the Church, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..." Matthew 28:19, is a baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our identification with him. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal 3:27

The people baptized by John the Baptist were not baptized into Christ.

[Russ]

Hi Fig,

I believe that Peter's perception of the actions of God on the household of Cornelius are different from yours. Here is how he described the event to those in Jerusalem:

"15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:15-18

BTW, to answer SBT's original question, I believe that the Baptism of John was specifically to the Israelites, in preparation of the coming Messiah and the Kingdom of God. His was used of God in fullfilment of the OT p***ages that said God would send Elijah turn the hearts of His people in preparing the way of the Lord.

The Baptism of Christ, as ins***uted in the Church, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..." Matthew 28:19, is a baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our identification with him. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal 3:27

The people baptized by John the Baptist were not baptized into Christ.

Grafted, that is the one most powerful p***age in all of scripture demonstrating the gift and power of the Holy Ghost unto eternal life sans baptism, Mormon baptism or not.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Hi Fig,

I believe that Peter's perception of the actions of God on the household of Cornelius are different from yours. Here is how he described the event to those in Jerusalem:

"15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:15-18


I think I read things pretty accurately. The Holy Ghost can come upon people before baptism. That is what we teach. But the actual GIFT of the Holy Ghost is something different than a temporary visitation which can lead to conversion, which is what Cornelius experienced before he was baptized. The GIFT of the Holy Ghost is an ordinance which allows the Holy Ghost to be one's constant companion.

[GraftedIn73]

I think I read things pretty accurately. The Holy Ghost can come upon people before baptism. That is what we teach. But the actual GIFT of the Holy Ghost is something different than a temporary visitation which can lead to conversion, which is what Cornelius experienced before he was baptized. The GIFT of the Holy Ghost is an ordinance which allows the Holy Ghost to be one's constant companion.

Hi Fig, Thanks for the response. I stand by my original opinion that Peter interprets the experience differently than you and the COJCLDS do. There is nothing in the scriptures I quoted that even hint at the distinction you are making. If you have another p***age that you believe would support your viewpoint, I would be glad to see it.

[GraftedIn73]

Grafted, that is the one most powerful p***age in all of scripture demonstrating the gift and power of the Holy Ghost unto eternal life sans baptism, Mormon baptism or not.

Thanks for your response Russ. I agree. This p***age is a powerful demonstration of God's work in saving people.

[SavedbyTruth]

=Russ;14006]What Fig means is that the Holy Spirit is something that is with him, as a Mormon, only as long as he is found worthy, i.e. being obedient to the laws, ordinances, principles and covenants of Mormonism.

I would like to better understand what exactly it is you believe about the Holy Spirit once you have the Holy Spirit indwelling you. Here is a hypothetical question for you.

In your saved state, you commit a murder. This was not manslaughter, and not an act of war. In accordance with your beliefs:

1) Did the Holy Ghost try to persuade you to not commit the murder?

2) Was the Holy Ghost still in you when you committed the murder?

3) What does God expect of you as a result of this murder?

4) What do you expect from God as a result of this murder?

Thank you,

SbT

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Hi Fig, Thanks for the response. I stand by my original opinion that Peter interprets the experience differently than you and the COJCLDS do. There is nothing in the scriptures I quoted that even hint at the distinction you are making. If you have another p***age that you believe would support your viewpoint, I would be glad to see it.

We simply disagree. And temporal argument is not the path to spiritual truth.

So, we will just have to disagree on this point.

Thanks.

[GraftedIn73]

I would like to better understand what exactly it is you believe about the Holy Spirit once you have the Holy Spirit indwelling you. Here is a hypothetical question for you.

In your saved state, you commit a murder. This was not manslaughter, and not an act of war. In accordance with your beliefs:

1) Did the Holy Ghost try to persuade you to not commit the murder?

2) Was the Holy Ghost still in you when you committed the murder?

3) What does God expect of you as a result of this murder?

4) What do you expect from God as a result of this murder?

Thank you,

SbT

Hi SbT, I'm not sure if you were asking for my opinion as well, but I'll offer it just in case:

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) True repentance.
4) Forgiveness, just as God forgave David who wrote Psalm 51 after being confronted by the prophet Nathan. Forgiveness, just as God forgave Saul of Tarsus for his murderous acts and then called him to be an Apostle.

[GraftedIn73]

We simply disagree. And temporal argument is not the path to spiritual truth.

So, we will just have to disagree on this point.

Thanks.

I agree. Thanks to you as well.

[GraftedIn73]

Great question. From my POV,

... If a person isn't willing to obey that simple commandment, they aren't likely candidates for heaven, or candidates to obey any of the laws of heaven...



BTW Fig, I wouldn't phrase it exactly the way you did here, but I would agree with you that a person who claims to be convicted of sin and in desperate need of a Savior, only to refuse this command to be baptized, should be viewed with suspicion regarding the sincerity of their conviction and repentance.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

BTW Fig, I wouldn't phrase it exactly the way you did here, but I would agree with you that a person who claims to be convicted of sin and in desperate need of a Savior, only to refuse this command to be baptized, should be viewed with suspicion regarding the sincerity of their conviction and repentance.

Thanks for contributing to this forum in a positive way, Mr. G.

[GraftedIn73]

Thanks for contributing to this forum in a positive way, Mr. G.

You're welcome. Thanks to you as well!

[SavedbyTruth]

Hi SbT, I'm not sure if you were asking for my opinion as well, but I'll offer it just in case:

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) True repentance.
4) Forgiveness, just as God forgave David who wrote Psalm 51 after being confronted by the prophet Nathan. Forgiveness, just as God forgave Saul of Tarsus for his murderous acts and then called him to be an Apostle.

Hi GraftedIn73,

With respect to question #2, you believe the Holy Ghost would have still been in you when you committed murder. Being part of the Godhead, or Trinity, as the Holy Ghost is God, how do you reconcile that the Holy Ghost could still abide with you when you commit such a sin. Your action may have denied your victim the chance to be saved. If this is so, the Holy Ghost never had the opportunity to indwell that person. On the other hand, would the Holy Ghost be able to stay inside you while you murdered another whose body He may have also been indwelling? When you consider that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God, does this have any place in your thoughts when you commit this type of sin while on the earth? Are you not actually a part of God's kingdom here on earth? What are your thoughts about this?

Regarding question #3, since you had already been saved, and THEN you had committed the murder as I outlined in my scenario, is "true repentance" possible? I have the understanding by reading other posts that since a person is saved, they are not really capable of true sin because their character is changed. I do not understand how this all reconciles with the beliefs I have been reading about on this forum. What are your thoughts on this?

Thank you,

SbT

[nrajeff]

In Christendom are 2 arguing schools of thought, and only one can be right:

a. Those who believe that baptism by water is a condition for eternal life.
b. Those who do not believe it is necessary, but is a good thing to do.

If it is true that baptism is for the remission of a person's sins, then it is hard to see how unbaptized people can inherit eternal life, since it is hard to believe that God gives eternal life to people who have unremitted sins.

Anyway, to answer the original question:
JTB baptized with water because:
1. Baptism (it is now known) was a Jewish purification ritual that men with authority were performing in the years before Jesus began His ministry.

2. JTB had been chosen before birth to have this role in preparing the way for Jesus' ministry.

3. Washing in water cleans things, and baptism symbolizes cleansing.

4. Being buried in the waters of baptism symbolizes death.

5. Arising from the waters of baptism symbolizes birth, in this case metaphorical rebirth.

Have I omitted any other reasons?

[SavedbyTruth]

In Christendom are 2 arguing schools of thought, and only one can be right:

a. Those who believe that baptism by water is a condition for eternal life.
b. Those who do not believe it is necessary, but is a good thing to do.

If it is true that baptism is for the remission of a person's sins, then it is hard to see how unbaptized people can inherit eternal life, since it is hard to believe that God gives eternal life to people who have unremitted sins.

Anyway, to answer the original question:
JTB baptized with water because:
1. Baptism (it is now known) was a Jewish purification ritual that men with authority were performing in the years before Jesus began His ministry.

2. JTB had been chosen before birth to have this role in preparing the way for Jesus' ministry.

3. Washing in water cleans things, and baptism symbolizes cleansing.

4. Being buried in the waters of baptism symbolizes death.

5. Arising from the waters of baptism symbolizes birth, in this case metaphorical rebirth.

Have I omitted any other reasons?

Jeff,

Just wanted to re-emphasize BOTH baptism by water (which John performed), AND baptism (aka confirmation) by the Holy Ghost are required. As I stated in the first sentence of my OP:

The LDS believe you must first be baptized by water, and then be baptized by the Holy Ghost by those with the proper authority.

You have done a great *** of answering my OP in representing the LDS beliefs.

The non-Mormon poster who told me that Paul had to "re-baptize" Apollos did not understand that Paul was performing the second required baptism, which is now known as "confirmation". In other words, Paul was NOT "re"-baptizing in order to replace John's baptism. He was baptizing with the Holy Ghost in order to complete the baptism process.

Thanks Jeff.

SbT

[GraftedIn73]

Hi SbT, I'm not sure if you were asking for my opinion as well, but I'll offer it just in case:

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) True repentance.
4) Forgiveness, just as God forgave David who wrote Psalm 51 after being confronted by the prophet Nathan. Forgiveness, just as God forgave Saul of Tarsus for his murderous acts and then called him to be an Apostle.




Hi GraftedIn73,

With respect to question #2, you believe the Holy Ghost would have still been in you when you committed murder. Being part of the Godhead, or Trinity, as the Holy Ghost is God, how do you reconcile that the Holy Ghost could still abide with you when you commit such a sin. Your action may have denied your victim the chance to be saved. If this is so, the Holy Ghost never had the opportunity to indwell that person. On the other hand, would the Holy Ghost be able to stay inside you while you murdered another whose body He may have also been indwelling? When you consider that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God, does this have any place in your thoughts when you commit this type of sin while on the earth? Are you not actually a part of God's kingdom here on earth? What are your thoughts about this?

Regarding question #3, since you had already been saved, and THEN you had committed the murder as I outlined in my scenario, is "true repentance" possible? I have the understanding by reading other posts that since a person is saved, they are not really capable of true sin because their character is changed. I do not understand how this all reconciles with the beliefs I have been reading about on this forum. What are your thoughts on this?

Thank you,

SbT

Hi SbT,

Regarding question 2, yes, I believe it is possible for a true Christian to commit an act of murder, as well as an act of adultery, as well as an act of fornication, an act of envy, an act of drunkenness, etc. Note that I am saying an act. I am not saying that these acts are normative in that Christian's life. If these acts are the normative produce of a person’s life, he or she falls under the following description:

"19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Gal 5

When a Christian has committed any of these sins, including envy and hatred, forgiveness from God is available if they truly repent by God's grace.



Regarding question 3, yes I believe that it is possible for a Christian who has committed any of these acts of sin to truly repent.

"8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:8-10

"6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:6-9

"16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." 1 John 5:16-18

"1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1

These scriptures, which to some seem contradictory, teach that those whose lives are filled with the deeds of the flesh, are of the flesh and the devil and are liars if they claim to be born of God.

On the other hand, they also teach that if we say the we have no sin, we make God to be a liar.



So two errors are addressed: 1) False professions, those who claim to know Christ, but don't, as evidenced by their lives, and 2) false doctrine, the doctrine of sinless perfectionism.

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not" - Does not persist in an ongoing, unrepentant lifestyle of living to the flesh

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - No sinless perfection

And when a Christian does sin:

"And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."


Regarding the specific question of true repentance, I believe that this is the mark of a true Christian. God gives His people the ability to repent and turn from their sins. When they do, He forgives and cleanses them.


As far as the Holy Spirit ceasing to dwell in us, we who are Christians are clean because of the work done for us and in us by Christ. We are not perfect and holy in and of ourselves. We are made holy by God's work on our behalf. It is in this imputed righteousness that the Holy Spirit is able to dwell in us as temples. We are sanctified by God. If we think that murder or fornication or any 'big' sin like that is the only thing that can defile us, then we have a poor view of the reality of sin before God. Christ said our very thoughts make us impure and that hate is the same as murder and lust is the same as adultery.


In summary, God can and does forgive acts of sin by Christians. God says that those whose lives are dominated by the sinful nature are alienated and hostile to God and are not Christians.

[SavedbyTruth]

Hi SbT,

Regarding question 2, yes, I believe it is possible for a true Christian to commit an act of murder, as well as an act of adultery, as well as an act of fornication, an act of envy, an act of drunkenness, etc. Note that I am saying an act. I am not saying that these acts are normative in that Christian's life. If these acts are the normative produce of a person’s life, he or she falls under the following description:

"19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Gal 5

When a Christian has committed any of these sins, including envy and hatred, forgiveness from God is available if they truly repent by God's grace.


Regarding question 3, yes I believe that it is possible for a Christian who has committed any of these acts of sin to truly repent.

"8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:8-10

"6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:6-9

"16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." 1 John 5:16-18

"1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1

These scriptures, which to some seem contradictory, teach that those whose lives are filled with the deeds of the flesh, are of the flesh and the devil and are liars if they claim to be born of God.

On the other hand, they also teach that if we say the we have no sin, we make God to be a liar.


So two errors are addressed: 1) False professions, those who claim to know Christ, but don't, as evidenced by their lives, and 2) false doctrine, the doctrine of sinless perfectionism.

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not" - Does not persist in an ongoing, unrepentant lifestyle of living to the flesh

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." - No sinless perfection

And when a Christian does sin:

"And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."


Regarding the specific question of true repentance, I believe that this is the mark of a true Christian. God gives His people the ability to repent and turn from their sins. When they do, He forgives and cleanses them.

As far as the Holy Spirit ceasing to dwell in us, we who are Christians are clean because of the work done for us and in us by Christ. We are not perfect and holy in and of ourselves. We are made holy by God's work on our behalf. It is in this imputed righteousness that the Holy Spirit is able to dwell in us as temples. We are sanctified by God. If we think that murder or fornication or any 'big' sin like that is the only thing that can defile us, then we have a poor view of the reality of sin before God. Christ said our very thoughts make us impure and that hate is the same as murder and lust is the same as adultery.

In summary, God can and does forgive acts of sin by Christians. God says that those whose lives are dominated by the sinful nature are alienated and hostile to God and are not Christians.

Hi GraftedIn73,

Thank you for the time and effort you have put into responding to my questions. It makes it so much easier for me to understand how it is you have arrived at your beliefs. Even though I don't agree with everything you believe, at least I understand you better.

God bless,

SbT

[nrajeff]

Jeff,

Just wanted to re-emphasize BOTH baptism by water (which John performed), AND baptism (aka confirmation) by the Holy Ghost are required.


---Yes, that needs to be emphasized. The baptism by water doesn't do much good if the person never gets the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost. Both are necessary. Kind of like faith and doing good for others are both needed and commanded. One without the other doesn't cut it. If you think about it, you can probably see similar patterns in the gospel, where there is a dualism, or a combination of 2 things that are both integral. Body and spirit, etc.

[GraftedIn73]

Hi GraftedIn73,

Thank you for the time and effort you have put into responding to my questions. It makes it so much easier for me to understand how it is you have arrived at your beliefs. Even though I don't agree with everything you believe, at least I understand you better.

God bless,

SbT

Hi SbT,

Thanks! When I first responded, I was worried that I was ****ing in a bit.

As far as what I believe, one thing has become very clear to me as I have grown as a Christian through the years: Whatever I am ever able to truly understand about God and His word, He has graciously enabled me to do so.

In saying that, I am not implying that I know everything, or even that everything I 'know' is absolutely correct. I believe what I believe with deep conviction. I have also been moved from one deeply held viewpoint to another in times past, more than once. Whenever this has occurred, it has been the result of 'someone' patiently sharing a viewpoint with me, telling me the reasons why they believe what they believe, and then giving me space to explore the viewpoint by prayer, by considering it against competing viewpoints, more prayer, a little recreation :), more prayer, etc., until I finally reach a point where I either accept and embrace the new viewpoint, or politely reject it.

This need in me to prayerfully mull things over and compare competing viewpoints has given me a deep respect for the needs of others to consider things in their own time and in their own way as well. Hopefully, as a result, on this board you will find me stating my beliefs or opinions, but not heatedly arguing them. There is a difference between a lively debate and a heated argument in my opinion. An exchange must take place over a period of time, and some of that may be unclear as a result of this medium we use to communicate. A fair chance to 'misunderstand' and 'clarify' needs to be given. Even when clearly understood disagreements occur, further dialogue can often continue when the parties involved are desirous of and willing to shift gears and go around a road-block. If the debate has devolved into mud-slinging and name-calling, it's probably best to hang it up at that point.

At any rate, to make my actual point, I don't think minds will usually be changed here on the board during the actual exchange, especially if the various participants are all online, just waiting for that next response :mad: !

My goal in anything I post here is to give another person an opportunity to hear a viewpoint that they may not have considered before. If they consider what I have to say and are encouraged, great. If they consider what I have to say and are convinced I am right, even better! But if they consider what I have to say and do not agree with me, that's ok too. I don't believe it is my *** to convince someone. My *** is to share what I believe the Lord has graciously allowed me to understand, and then to stand back and see what He does with it. My prayer is that God's good pleasure will be accomplished in all our lives in an increasing manner.

GraftedIn73

[SavedbyTruth]

Hi SbT,

Thanks! When I first responded, I was worried that I was ****ing in a bit.

As far as what I believe, one thing has become very clear to me as I have grown as a Christian through the years: Whatever I am ever able to truly understand about God and His word, He has graciously enabled me to do so.

In saying that, I am not implying that I know everything, or even that everything I 'know' is absolutely correct. I believe what I believe with deep conviction. I have also been moved from one deeply held viewpoint to another in times past, more than once. Whenever this has occurred, it has been the result of 'someone' patiently sharing a viewpoint with me, telling me the reasons why they believe what they believe, and then giving me space to explore the viewpoint by prayer, by considering it against competing viewpoints, more prayer, a little recreation :), more prayer, etc., until I finally reach a point where I either accept and embrace the new viewpoint, or politely reject it.

This need in me to prayerfully mull things over and compare competing viewpoints has given me a deep respect for the needs of others to consider things in their own time and in their own way as well. Hopefully, as a result, on this board you will find me stating my beliefs or opinions, but not heatedly arguing them. There is a difference between a lively debate and a heated argument in my opinion. An exchange must take place over a period of time, and some of that may be unclear as a result of this medium we use to communicate. A fair chance to 'misunderstand' and 'clarify' needs to be given. Even when clearly understood disagreements occur, further dialogue can often continue when the parties involved are desirous of and willing to shift gears and go around a road-block. If the debate has devolved into mud-slinging and name-calling, it's probably best to hang it up at that point.

At any rate, to make my actual point, I don't think minds will usually be changed here on the board during the actual exchange, especially if the various participants are all online, just waiting for that next response :mad: !

My goal in anything I post here is to give another person an opportunity to hear a viewpoint that they may not have considered before. If they consider what I have to say and are encouraged, great. If they consider what I have to say and are convinced I am right, even better! But if they consider what I have to say and do not agree with me, that's ok too. I don't believe it is my *** to convince someone. My *** is to share what I believe the Lord has graciously allowed me to understand, and then to stand back and see what He does with it. My prayer is that God's good pleasure will be accomplished in all our lives in an increasing manner.

GraftedIn73

Hello GrafedIn73,

Wow. I am very pleased to meet you. I think everything you said in your response is spot on. From what I have seen of your posts, your words ring true. It very much seems you are led by the Spirit.

If you see any threads going on right now that are of interest to you, let me know. We can start directing our posts to each other. Of course, if you don't see something of interest, you can always start a new thread.

What is your religious affiliation and personal religious history?

SbT

[GraftedIn73]

Hello GrafedIn73,

Wow. I am very pleased to meet you. I think everything you said in your response is spot on. From what I have seen of your posts, your words ring true. It very much seems you are led by the Spirit.

If you see any threads going on right now that are of interest to you, let me know. We can start directing our posts to each other. Of course, if you don't see something of interest, you can always start a new thread.

What is your religious affiliation and personal religious history?

SbT

Hi SbT,

I didn't want you to think that I missed this or am ignoring it. I am trying to compose a response that won't rival War and Peace for length! I will hopefully be able to post it later today.

GI73

[SavedbyTruth]

Hi SbT,

I didn't want you to think that I missed this or am ignoring it. I am trying to compose a response that won't rival War and Peace for length! I will hopefully be able to post it later today.

GI73

Hi GI73

LOL. It is amazing how difficult getting the correct words down can be. It's because posting on these boards makes us so aware of how easy it is to be misinterpreted. Good luck on your response. Alas, maybe that's really what finally did poor Yorick in.

SbT

[GraftedIn73]

Hi GI73

LOL. It is amazing how difficult getting the correct words down can be. It's because posting on these boards makes us so aware of how easy it is to be misinterpreted. Good luck on your response. Alas, maybe that's really what finally did poor Yorick in.

SbT


Hello GrafedIn73,


Wow. I am very pleased to meet you. I think everything you said in your response is spot on. From what I have seen of your posts, your words ring true. It very much seems you are led by the Spirit.

If you see any threads going on right now that are of interest to you, let me know. We can start directing our posts to each other. Of course, if you don't see something of interest, you can always start a new thread.

What is your religious affiliation and personal religious history?

SbT

Hi Sbt,

Well, in order to keep this from being so long, I am just going to post the 'outline' version. Please let me know if you need me to elaborate on any area.

I posted a detailed account of the spiritual struggle that I went through prior to becoming a Christian in another thread. Here is the link to that post:

http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/showpost.php?p=13996&postcount=10 (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13996&postcount=10)



I became a Christian in 1973, hence GraftedIn73.

I got involved in the Charismatic movement and joined a Church of God church that later left the denomination and became independent.

During this period I discovered Walter Martin on the radio.

After becoming disillusioned with many excesses I saw in the Charismatic movement, I moved to a more mainstream Conservative Baptist church. I still believed then, and still do now, that God is at work today and miracles still happen. I was just disappointed with the excess, greed, doctrinal error, casualness, etc., that marked so many people who were supposedly 'filled with the Spirit' and 'walking in God's power'.

My doctrinal understanding about this time was basically evangelical Protestantism. The conclusions I had come to were arrived at by a fervent studying of God's word. Some of the significant highlights are:

*I held a Pre-Millennial view of scripture.

*I held a Post-Tribulational view of the Rapture. After reading tons of material by Hal Lindsey, John Walvoord and others, I remained convinced that the Bible did not teach a Pre-Tribulational Rapture.

*Contrary to the popular view that "God is a gentleman and would not violate my free-will," I believed that God chased me down, threw me in the dust, put His foot on my neck and His sword under my chin to confront me with my sin. who was I to refuse such an offer? ;)

*I believed that I could lose my salvation. As with the Pre-Tribulational Rapture, I read lots of material on the subject of 'Eternal Security'. After a long period of prayerfully considering the scriptures and the arguments from both sides of the issue, I was convinced I had been wrong and embraced the view of the Security of the True Believer.

Some time after this, a person gave me a book on the 5-points of Calvinism. As I read this book, I was amazed to find that it was describing what I had come to believe already. I was unaware that there was anything called Calvinism, or the Sovereignty of God, or Doctrines of Grace, or Reformed Theology. What shocked me was to find a book that was describing a set of beliefs that I had come to just by reading the Bible - with the exception of the Eternal Security issue.

I learned that the Reformed view of Eternal Security was called the Perseverance of the Saints. The main difference between the two positions as I understood it was that the people who believed in Eternal Security also for the most part believed in Free-Will. "You've got free-will until you decide for Christ, then you no longer have free-will!" That never made any sense to me. The Reformed perspective, the Perseverance of the Saints, was more logical (though that in and of itself does not make it true or false). God chose you, God pursued you, God enlightened you, God regenerated you, God gave you faith, God is going to keep you. God's work is what freed your will from the bondage to sin and death, and God's work is what perseveres in a Christian's life.

*Since that point in time, I have attended churches that have a Reformed view of scriptural interpretation.

While attending one such church, a friend of mine wanted to challenge me on my millennial view. I politely told him that I was not inclined to do that at that time. It bugged him, but I was just being honest. I was not ready at that time to investigate the subject.

Later, I was...

And...

After reading tons of material on every millennial view I could find, and prayerfully considering them all, I came to the belief that the Amillennial view was the position that was most consistent with Scripture.

I don't think I ever told my friend as he had moved away and I lost contact with him. One point why this is important here. He was a really aggressive guy - very pushy - very argumentative - even with friends. That is not how I am induced to consider a proposition. I did not want my study of an important scriptural doctrine to be clouded with resentment over pushiness and pressure from him. That would have impeded my ability to carefully and prayerfully consider the various points. That's how I'm wired. That's in a nutshell why I don't try to be pushy and argumentative.

Please see the next post for two more areas I need to address in answering your question.

GI73

[GraftedIn73]

I'll try to quickly address the other two areas. I'm pointing these two out, as these two subjects are addressed elsewhere in this forum: http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/showthread.php?t=105

One of the things that used to amuse a number of my Charismatic and Baptist friends is that I spent a great deal of time reading the Old Testament as well as the New. I was always surprised when I encountered this reaction. It was amazing to me how many people felt that I should be 'concentrating' on what God had done for us in Christ, not what He had done for and with the Jews. Without implicitly or explicitly accusing or looking down on anyone else, I just think that the words of Jesus, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me," from John 5:39 had a different impact on my thinking that it did on theirs. This p***age, as well as others made me realize that the teachings of the New Testament could best be understood, if a person were very familiar with the Old Testament.

One such area is the relation of the Church to Israel. Dispensational Theology teaches that Israel and the Church are two distinct groups of people. Many Dispensationalists believe they will remain so throughout eternity. This viewpoint is behind the Pre-Tribulational Rapture as well as other doctrinal distinctives. Despite a considerable amount of study, I was never able to agree that the Scriptures were to be properly understood ("rightly divided") as Dispensational. I believe that it is only by reading INTO the Bible that a person is able to come to that conclusion. What I believe Bible teaches is that the Israel of God, True Israel, and the Church are one and the same. There are a host of scriptures that I believe teach this, both from the OT and the NT, but I am not trying to defend this position here, just clearly point out WHAT I believe. When Paul says in Romans 11:26, "And so all Israel shall be saved..." I believe he is including the grafted in Gentiles of the preceding verses. (GraftedIn73). True Israel is composed of the OT believers who anticipated Christ by trusting in the faithfulness of God, and the NT believers from all nations who have been grafted in through the accomplished work of Christ. This is the heart and essence of Covenant Theology. In this, Covenant Theology is opposed to the temporal/eternal separation between True Israel and the Church as taught by Dispensationalism.

The second area I wanted to mention is Eschatology. Despite the claims of 'Prophecy Teachers' galore, interpreting Biblical prophecy relating to the 'end times' is not as simple as picking up your newspaper. The Jews of Jesus' day misinterpreted many of the Scriptural prophecies pertaining to the coming of the Messiah. As a result, many of them rejected Jesus. Even the disciples had a difficult time fitting the words of Jesus about His coming suffering, death and resurrection into their 'view' of prophecies related to the Messiah. They as others had been influenced by the ‘Hal-eem ben Lindseayroth’ ;) of their day. It was not until Jesus was resurrected and opened their understanding (Luke 24:44-46) that they could 'see' what had been written so long before.

In our day, there are competing Eschatological views. A person's core theology will to a great extent determine which viewpoint they embrace, and which they reject. I have always urged anyone I have spoken to about this area, to be patient, loving and comp***ionate on those who hold to different viewpoints than themselves. Sincere, genuine believers can have great differences of opinion in this area. Of all areas of Biblical teaching, this is probably the area that we should give the greatest amount of la***ude to others. As I mentioned before, I have personally moved from the Pre-Millennial to an A-Millennial position. I did it without becoming a Liberal or a heretic (although some would disagree). I changed my views because I was convinced BY SCRIPTURE, not IN SPITE OF SCRIPTURE that the A-Mil position is more accurate. But, I could be wrong. :eek: The same la***ude should even be extended to those holding the Preterist viewpoint of Eschatology. There clearly are extremists in any 'camp' and Preterism is not without their own. But we need to be careful that we don't go about condemning others, as that is a two-way street. there are many Preterists who would call Dispensationalists heretics and vice-versa. Sincere men can be sincerely wrong, and yet not be heretics.

I personally believe there is much about the Preterist view that is compelling. At this point, I would say that I am a partial Preterist. Again, for the purposes of this thread, this is merely a self-identification in response to SbT's questions. I would be most willing to discuss any of these issues in a thread more appropriate to such discussions.

Sorry two posts were so long. Remember though, this is the 'outline' version! :D

GI73

[alanmolstad]

from the things I have read....the idea of a "baptism" is one that was known in OT times.

There is the story in the OT where a type of "baptism" was performed to bring healing - 2 Kings 5:14


So it was not an unheard of thing for a preacher like John to start doing baptisms.

[alanmolstad]

I also think that the reason John baptised is that john felt that even with the temple stuff there was something lacking in how people got their hearts right with God.

And people that went out to listen to john seem to also have understood that the blood of birds and sheep and stuff just did not help their hearts need to be changed and made new.

[James Banta]

I also think that the reason John baptised is that john felt that even with the temple stuff there was something lacking in how people got their hearts right with God.

And people that went out to listen to john seem to also have understood that the blood of birds and sheep and stuff just did not help their hearts need to be changed and made new.

But baptism has the same power to change the heart as does the blood sacrifice of birds, calves, and lambs.. Baptism is just another religiosity that has the same power to cleanse us of sin as does the blood of animals.. The Holy Spirit through the prophet Hosea taught "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6). For one ordinance to replace another doesn't change the heart of man. Our heart (in the flesh) is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked... (Jeremiah 17:9) So it turns out that that any ordinance is nothing, what matters is a change of heart, a change or our nature.. This is found only in an act of God creating in us a new heart (Psalm 51:9-10), by an act of His grace we can be reborn spiritual (John 3:1-6).

It is clear that a new heart, a completely new SPIRITUAL rebirth is what we need. Washing off the old heart, the old nature isn't enough.. It must be completely replaced with a new creation.. Neither water nor the blood of breasts can change us. That that a creative act of God.. This is a major failing with mormonism.. They see nothing wrong with our nature. They teach that we can "choose the right".. Strange that no man other than Jesus has EVER been able to do that, it isn't our nature.. IHS jim