JFJ Forums - Saved according to scripture--Get Saved!

wkirscher Wrote:

Isn’t “Sola-Scriptura” wonderful??? The Holy Spirit appears to be guiding Wilby as he interprets scripture into believing that baptism is regenerative and that same Holy Spirit appears to be telling the Evangelicals that it is just symbolic.

The early Christians were UNANIMOUS in there belief that baptism was regenerative. Read all about it here: www.earlychristianwritings.com. I challenge anyone here to find pre-Reformation evidence of a “symbolic only” understanding of baptism. For each source you find (if you can find any), I’ll find 10 others who believed it was regenerative.

Wilby - You are in good company. I’ve taken a quick glance through your posts and see that your understanding of baptism appears to be in agreement with the unanimous consent of the early Church Fathers. All orthodox Christians believe, as did the early church, that baptism is regenerative. Most mainstream Christian denominations do too.

Read all his post at #148

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this post. I know I am correct in baptism. I have been waiting for just one person to say thank you Wilby, I never seen it so clearly like this before. Up till now I have ONLY received grief on this forum by people that have been lied to and can not break away from traditions that have been passed down for decades.

I do feel GREAT in your acknowledgement of truth as I am on my own at this point in my life as far as fellowship goes other than the Holy Ghost which has been revived in me to a level I have never experienced before.

Praise to the Almighty Father, our saviour in Christ Jesus.

wkirscher Wrote:

Isn’t “Sola-Scriptura” wonderful??? The Holy Spirit appears to be guiding Wilby as he interprets scripture into believing that baptism is regenerative and that same Holy Spirit appears to be telling the Evangelicals that it is just symbolic.

The early Christians were UNANIMOUS in there belief that baptism was regenerative.  Read all about it here:  www.earlychristianwritings.com.  I challenge anyone here to find pre-Reformation evidence of a “symbolic only” understanding of baptism.  For each source you find (if you can find any), I’ll find 10 others who believed it was regenerative.

Wilby -  You are in good company.  I’ve taken a quick glance through your posts and see that your understanding of baptism appears to be in agreement with the unanimous consent of the early Church Fathers.  All orthodox Christians believe, as did the early church, that baptism is regenerative.  Most mainstream Christian denominations do too.

I haven’t gone through each post in detail but would like to make a couple points.  Sugarman likes to claim he understands Greek but he clearly doesn’t.  He typically will refer you to a link that appears to be from a fundamentalist Baptist church.  Also, every single instance in scripture of baptism and it’s derivatives uses the Greek word “baptizo”.  If you look in Stroms concordance you will see this and you will also see that it is defined as a ritual of immersion in water.  So if a person is “baptized in the spirit”, if it doesn’t involve water, it appears to be adding something to scripture.  This is a clear “no no” for Sola-Scripturists.

“Sola-Fide” is another invention of the Reformation.  When taken to it’s extreme, one must reject baptism as necessary for salvation because it becomes an act of obedience to God (i.e. a “work”) and therefore contradicts “Sola-Fide”.  Faith and baptism are clearly commanded from scripture.  I must point out that since this is a Messianic JEWISH website, we should consider the Jewishness of “both/and” thought rather than “either/or”.  When taken as a whole, scripture clearly commands baptism.  This is what scripture says, this is what the Apostles handed down to the early church, and this is what 2000 years of our Christian faith has upheld.

By the way “Third Day” – your argument is based on a false assumption.  NOWHERE in scripture does it say we are saved by faith ALONE.  This is another invention of the Reformation!

maybe If you would look on figurative means you would understand that baptism is symoblic.

The Greek reads baptism represents what saves a person NOT what saves.

you and wilby need to learn the differents.

I haven’t gone through each post in detail but would like to make a couple points. Sugarman likes to claim he understands Greek but he clearly doesn’t. He typically will refer you to a link that appears to be from a fundamentalist Baptist church. Also, every single instance in scripture of baptism and it’s derivatives uses the Greek word “baptizo”. If you look in Stroms concordance you will see this and you will also see that it is defined as a ritual of immersion in water. So if a person is “baptized in the spirit”, if it doesn’t involve water, it appears to be adding something to scripture. This is a clear “no no” for Sola-Scripturists.

check this out

antitupon an-teet'-oo-pon neuter of a compound of 473 and 5179; corresponding ("antitype"), i.e. a representative, counterpart:--(like) figure (whereunto).

Now you tell me If baptism represents what saves us then how does it save us.

I try to put a example in plain english.

my mom told me to tell a friend she needs to be pay today I do this favor, I represent my Mom but yet I not literal my mom am I?

I said, go discuss the word of God with your parents and I further warned him concerning salvation and misleading people and now I send this stern warning to you and others as well. Becareful not to found to be a liar at judgement. DO YOU NOT THINK THAT I SPENT YEARS LOOKING INTO SALVATION AND ALL THAT IT MEANS? I don't care how people 'feel' about it. What does ALL HIS WORD say and why? There are reason that we must do what He has instructed to the deciples and we MUST follow CHRIST, read my first post.

The word says baptism is a representative what saves not what Literal saves period!

i suggest you drop baptism saves this is a false doctrine.

sorry willby your not correct.

The word says baptism is a figure of what saves

The greek reads its represents what saves period!

what part do you guys not understand?

and as for solo scripture you notice Jesus either said It is written or he would just quote The OT to prove his point.

you will find that jesus use The scriptures way more to quote then other rabbis writings.

infact Jesus wetn so far to called traditions of men.

make me wonder why did Jesus use scripture alone to counter his enemies?

The early Christians were UNANIMOUS in there belief that baptism was regenerative.  Read all about it here:  www.earlychristianwritings.com.  I challenge anyone here to find pre-Reformation evidence of a “symbolic only” understanding of baptism.  For each source you find (if you can find any), I’ll find 10 others who believed it was regenerative.

I challenge you to show me in the greek that it what literal saves not just represents what saves.

can you do that?

Plz i challenge wilby  with this but no answer so  the same for you.

antitupon an-teet'-oo-pon  neuter of a compound of 473 and 5179; corresponding ("antitype"), i.e. a representative, counterpart:--(like) figure (whereunto).

Look at the words and try to get anything literal out of here Please.

The greek in my case agree with me.

baptism represent what saves not what saves

The early Christians were UNANIMOUS in there belief that baptism was regenerative. Read all about it here: www.earlychristianwritings.com. I challenge anyone here to find pre-Reformation evidence of a “symbolic only” understanding of baptism. For each source you find (if you can find any), I’ll find 10 others who believed it was regenerative.

oh on another thought even if eariler christian believe this. it does not make it true.

what makes something true when a teaching can hold up to scripture.

But scripture liek I said before is The counterpart of somone salvation as the greek says it.

When One believe they are saved seal with the holy spirit 1 eph 1:13 The first thing they do as a command as jesus said to obey him is being baptism which is the counter part but not the part that saves.

Your guys problem is peter and The greek meaning of figurative.

One is regenerative when they believe not baptism

When they are baptism it an Representative of the regenerative not what Literal regenerative The believer

Plan and simple

Sugarman –

An anti-type is something symbolic that precedes a type.  In scripture, the anti-type is typically a prefigurement from the O.T. of something that will be brought to it’s fullness by Jesus Christ.  An example might be Melchezidek – a priest/king who was an anti-type, or prefigurement of Jesus the High Priest/King or Adam as the anti-type and Jesus as the type, or temple sacrifices as the anti-type to the Final Sacrifice.  These are all over scripture.

So if you read this passage in context, you will see in the preceding verse that the Great Flood was used to describe how Noah’s family was saved “… where in few, that is, eight souls were saved by water” ( 1Pt3:20).  There are many such anti-types in scripture that foreshadow baptism as part of God’s plan for salvation -  The Flood, parting of the Sea, crossing the Jordan, the Jewish Mikvah (ceremonial washing) ….

The next verse is describing the Great Flood as an anti-type (or “antitupon” in Greek) to baptism.  It is the Flood (or other ant-types to baptism) that is the figurative form and baptism that is the literal.  The same can be said for the parting of the Great Sea.  This is a figurative ant-type to baptism.  Through the parting of the sea, the Jewish people were saved from bondage (sin), and sin was crushed (the Egyptian army, “Horse and Rider”.  Through the crossing of the Jordan River, where Jesus was baptized, the Jewish people entered into the “Promised Land”.

(As a side note, there are many who have taken literal interpretation of scripture to an extreme and tend to reject many of these type->anti-type analogies.  Peter and Paul use them so I think it is probably a good idea for us to use them too!!!)

So Sugarman, the Greek does not agree with you, in fact in this case it opposes your interpretation.  The Greek supports exactly what the Early Church received from Jesus Christ through the Apostles, what they recorded in Scripture, and what has been upheld by most Christians for nearly 2000 years.

(Sugarman - It would be helpful if you could condense your comments into one post and only include the previous posts if you will be quoting directly from it.  Otherwise, the thread gets too clutered with repeated material.  Thanks.)

Wilby, responding to your post #150:

You are confused about baptism, Who baptises us into Christ and how; what saves a sinner. Like a true cultist, you actually despise the notion of saving faith: for cults, salvation must be by doing something that can be supplied and orchestrated by human hands, and only through one human interpreter, such as your late minister Kolenda. Even better, if you can somehow fill his absence by imitating his mantle, as you apparently do here in another thread:

Baptistic Wrote:

Wilby Wrote:

I HAVE TRUTH! I mandate truth.

Mi punto, Wilby.

You have not told the truth concerning baptism and salvation.

You can discuss what you have learned, but you cannot truthfully present yourself as the person to accept. That goes for Kolenda too, or Armstrong, or Russell, or Smith, or that guy who thinks he's the antichrist.

Whether you realize it or not, your own words are going to find you out at the judgment, unless you stop justifying yourself and confess that you can do nothing.