I highly compliment you on what I read about your view of OSAS. You are right on when you quoted Ezekiel and how God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
I have a question for you that I want you to consider. What if the Lord one day says, "Depart from me, because I told all of you in scripture to be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins." several times even giving you examples. What if all the passages (there are many) about the baptism of the great commission WERE intended to coincide with all the passages about "calling on the name of the Lord and you will be saved." ? Gal 3:27 is a passage about becoming a child of God. Mark 16:16, Acts 2 and the foundation of the church, Acts 8, 9... all the conversions...
Not to get into the thief before you do, but he was saved in the Old Law. Christ had not died yet. But my main point about that is, why would I use a man who spoke with Christ himself and say, "I do not have to because he didn't" John 8- I do not have to worry about adultery because Jesus let her go and just told her to sin no more. You get the idea. I don't think Jesus would admire someone using one person HE SPOKE WITH to rule out a part of salvation HE COMMANDED Mark 16:16 after He had been with the Lord and knew exactly how to be saved. (not that He didn't before)
These are questions I want you to consider. People seem to have many passages of scripture down, yet when it comes time to see obedience, Rom 6 "raised to walk in newness of life" we excuse it because... it wasn't really a command?--- No, Jesus did not leave that example?--- NO, he did. Jesus did not show us examples of people who did and rejoiced afterward?-- No he did (eunuch). Many break down Acts 2:38 into a grammar battle with plural and singular. If you were there and you heard that command, would you have done it? The 3000 did?? I believe there are many sincere people, believers in God almighty that do not realize the importance of this command. It is not a command for that time period or we could write off the whole bible. It was included for a reason in the Great commission and requests the true obedience of the sinner to "repent and be baptized for remission of sins" not as a sign, Rom 6. You become clothed with Christ at that time, Gal 3:27. There I go typing too much. Hope you can comment.
Thanks a bunch..
My response is in Green:
I have considered that, have you considered the opposite? What if the Lord says depart from me because you didn't find my sacrifice sufficient for your sins? You added a work to the job I finished on the cross.
I would ask you to read this passage:
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. [NIV]
Why would Paul say that? Simple, they were trying to be justified by the physical act of circumcision. Couldn't the same be true of baptism? Remember they were commanded to be circumcised before Christ's death, but now Paul is telling them it will null and void Christ's work in their lives.
I take my position very seriously, which you don't seem to believe since you asked me to consider what if. I have and I have prayed about it and I have look deeply into my Bible. I don't use the thief, but if a person wanted to, your argument wouldn't hold water, no pun intended, since he died AFTER Christ died not before, therefore he died not under the Law but under grace. Read the account, his legs were broken, but they found Jesus already dead, so as I said, your argument against using him falls apart. Or if you hold to it, then was Peter and the other 11 saved under the old covenant or the new? Remember they were all baptized before Christ's death, we have no record of them being rebaptized after His death.
But here is another passage to consider:
"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." [NIV]
They received the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized. Are you telling me someone who was not yet saved received the Holy Spirit? That is exactly what proponents of baptism (as part of salvation) will say, but I don't believe it.
Also you should do a word study on the word baptism, did you realize there are more than one baptisms mentioned? Yet Paul says this:
There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called--  one Lord, one faith, one baptism;  one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. [NIV]
One baptism. Okay, so which one is the ONE? Well what does the Bible say?
"For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
1 Cor. 12:13
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. [NIV]
Again this baptism isn't with water, it is a baptism by the Holy Spirit.
Then there is Paul who clearly separates the gospel from baptism, why would he do that if the final step were baptism?
1 Cor. 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. [NIV]
That is a very short explanation of the study I have done on this subject. I don't disagree that we are commanded to be baptized and to baptize those who place thier faith in Jesus, but I do disagree that this baptism is part of what saves us. I believe it is an outward sign that we HAVE been baptized into the Body of Christ BY the Holy Spirit!
E-Mail Ralph (whose comments are in green)
|911 - God's Help Line||Articles||Apologetics||Book Reviews|
|Contemplating Suicide?||Discipleship||Eternal Security||How to know Jesus|
|Help for the Cutter||In Memory||Marine Bloodstripes||Police Humor|
|Police Memorial||SiteMap||Statement of Faith||Testimonies|
|Thoughts to Ponder||True Life Stories||Vet's Memorial||Why I Have a Page|
Posted Dec 2009