Baptism prior to the 1520s

[Matt Black]

I'd like to discuss the practice of baptism prior to the rise of the Anabaptists in the 1520s (and obviously prior to the Baptists in 1611). This is fundamentally linked to the question: how do we believe that people become Christians?

I'll use two analogies to explain what I mean.

To buy a house several things must happen. We must hear or know that it is for sale. We must be tempted, drawn, moved, swayed or inclined to buy it. Unless we know it is for sale, and are inclined to buy it, nothing happens. But it still isn't a sale until we clinch the deal, sign the dotted line, "hereby enact the sale". We have to do something that executes the sale - typically sign and exchange a contract, or whatever.

Similarly in marriage. We cannot be married until we know that someone is available and we are inclined to marry them (hopefully, we have fallen in love). But the marriage doesn't occur until we "clinch the deal" by a wedding ceremony. It doesn't have to be elaborate or costly - a mere "registry wedding" will suffice. But we have to make a definitive act of commitment to this relationship - or it doesn't exist. It is not a question of whether I feel married, or feel in love, it is a question of actually committing myself in a definitive way.

Now, what is the equivalent for the relationship between man and God called being a Christian? My understanding, from the scriptures, supported by early church history, is that a person (a non-Christian) who has heard the gospel, and is inclined to enter this relationship with Christ, does so by baptism (more or less like a wedding: two single people enter the church, one married couple walks out; so in baptism a non-Christian enters the church, and a Christian walks out - if I may so put it, they have just tied the knot with Christ (they are "bound" to Him)).

I readily grant that modern Baptist churches do not act this way. It is the practice, in some at least, to get a non-Christian to make a definitive commitment to Christ by means of a prayer of repentance (sometimes called the sinner's prayer). Whereupon the minister or evangelist will declare this person a (new) Christian. It never occurs to people in these churches to suggest to the enquirer that they might become a Christian by baptism, in such manner that it really IS a dying and rising - a prayer with the whole of their body to accept Christ as their Saviour. Consequently, they commit themselves to Christ by means of a non-baptismal prayer, then later undergo a ceremony with the outward trappings of baptism, but which has little of the original meaning of baptism because that has already been pre-empted by the "sinner's prayer". Then they ponder the scriptures ("Baptism even now saves you...") and have to water them down, because the scriptures don't fit contemporary practice.

I also readily accept that there is a heap of historical baggage in the contemporary Baptist churches which might make it difficult to institute such a "conversion-baptism": baptism as _the_ means of making the definitive commitment, rather than as a follow-up to the definitive commitment made in a some private act of prayer.

But my main concerns here are: (1) what was baptism 2000 years ago in the NT church? (2) what was baptism 1600-1700 years ago in the ancient Nicene church? (3) what is baptism in the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican churches?

My limited understanding had been that all three gave and give the same answer: the way a non-Christian, who has heard the gospel and is inclined to commit their life to Christ as Lord, - the way such a non-Christian actually effects their commitment to Christ was/is by baptism - not by a "sinner's prayer", or similar, before baptism. Hence the older churches, as I understood them, teach baptismal rgeneration: not that the ceremony magically causes new birth, but that a person seeking new birth uses _this_ ceremony to effect their side of it (and to receive God's side of it). Just as the purchaser uses scribbling on a piece of paper (signing a contract of sale) to effect their definitive commitment to the purchase of a property, and at the same time to receive ownership of the property.

For the NT and the early church, baptism - as far as I can tell - was the "great divide". Baptism was the "sinner's prayer" back then, which is why Paul says we are buried and risen in baptism and we are baptised into Christ, etc. These things really happened in the act of baptism - at least in NT times - because people were baptised when they sought these changes, when they wanted to "sign the dotted line".

It is difficult to write a whole treatise on baptism in one post, when it is so much at variance with modern church practice and has to address so many (mis?)conceptions about baptism in order to be intelligible. I apologise for the length.

What do others think?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[BobRyan]

Here is the Catholic "confession" of history and the Didache in complete agrement.

BELIEVERS Baptism!

However in here we will find "details" and there are some here who are allergic to "inconvenient details".

So with that understood...



From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org (http://www.catholicdigest.org) for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".


Pg 44
"go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"



pg 45
"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protégé until the baptism"

&lt;&gt;

"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms. (daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."

"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congreation)."

&lt;&gt;

"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off, they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"

&lt;&gt;
"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"


"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (rcc) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fifth century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point
(read change),
baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and councils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy Saturday ceremony"

&lt;&gt;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didache on Baptism by Immersion:

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
]
Didache 7:2 [b]But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.
</font>[/QUOTE]

[MEE]

Matt, I think your post is great! BTW, your reference to the scriptures below tells it all.


Ro 6:3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Ga 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

MEE graemlins/saint.gif

[MEE]

One more thing...I don't believe in Catholic water baptism. It's not Biblical! ;)

MEE graemlins/saint.gif

[Doubting Thomas]

For the NT and the early church, baptism - as far as I can tell - was the "great divide". Baptism was the "sinner's prayer" back then, which is why Paul says we are buried and risen in baptism and we are baptised into Christ, etc. These things really happened in the act of baptism - at least in NT times - because people were baptised when they sought these changes, when they wanted to "sign the dotted line".Good analogy and good post!

graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Matt Black]

I am familiar with not just the Baptist practice here, but also quite a few Pentecostal, Charismatic and similar non-descript independent churches, and these (at least the ones that I have observed) seem to baptise people "any old time" after they make some decisive commitment to Christ by means of a private prayer (perhaps at an "altar call"). I have also seen an evangelist, after leading several people at once through a prayer of confession and commitment at the front of the church, turn to the congregation and introduce these people as new-born Christians. Baptism is seen as a kind of casual, "whenever" ceremony - a good thing to do after you become a Christian. At least, that is my impression of the churches I have seen up close.

The problem is, in my mind, they stress that baptism is commanded and important, and then turn around and teach that it doesn't do anything - it doesn't really change anything. The candidates are already Christians, and already have everything in Christ. To me, it seems like an empty ceremony, one that is insisted on simply because it is commanded. What's more, it doesn't seem to fit those scriptures that do suggest something important happens (or can happen) in baptism - like salvation, death and resurrection, regeneration.

I would say that the historic protestant (Magisterial Reformation) churches, with their emphasis on mature, personal faith and simultaneous practice of infant baptism, do experience a split between baptism and conversion. I am not so sure that Catholics, who seem more to emphasise conversion as a life-long process where children of the faithful are concerned, do feel that baptism is split from conversion.

A legal analogy: A person is killed in a car-crash while driving to his solicitor's office with the draft of a new will. The person was going to sign the will at the solicitor's office before witnesses, but missed out by only minutes owing to the fatal crash. Question: which will do you execute: the old one that is duly signed and witnessed, or the new one that is evidently a truer reflection of the person's final wishes, but lacks a signature and witnesses?

Such difficult cases do occur in law as well as in pastoral theology, but I don't think they invalidate the normal rule of "it is not valid until it is signed". Signing a will or contract or marriage certificate marks the end of a process, just as baptism marks the end of a process. Sometimes that process is abnormally interrupted. But the normal rule would seem to apply in normal cases (i.e. most cases). And my OP was talking mainly about normal cases of adults and baptism.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[BobRyan]

As the "details" point out - they were fasting and praying and "Believing" long before Baptism in the early centuries.

One may well point out that this was "tradition" added beyond the NT text.

I am happy with the NT text "details" as well.

In either case - it is full water baptism of believers prior to the 16th century.

In Christ,

Bob

[SouthernBoy]

Where there Baptist before 1520's?

[Deacon's Son]

Matt:

I completed a fairly short but comprehensive paper on initiatory practices in the Church during the first three centuries. In it, I refer to and discuss every extant primary source on the subject. It's not perfect and it does not discuss theology (it is a purely secular scholarly piece) but it is thorough and well-referenced with copious footnotes.

It's a good point of reference and I think you'd be interested in reading it. If you're interested in having a copy, post a reply on this board and I'll email you a copy in Microsoft Word.

(Of course, if anyone else here would like a copy, they are welcome to it as well. Just let me know here or by email.)

In officio Agni,
Deacon's Son

[Matt Black]

Southern Boy: no, despite what some would have you believe

Deacon's Son: yes, please!

Yours in Christ

Matt

[BobRyan]

Though we have shown "baptism prior to 1520" from BOTH the RC sources AND from ECF sources -- believers baptism by full water emersion.

How instructive.

[Deacon's Son]

Bob:

I'm a little confused about the above statement. There are PLENTY of primary sources from before 1520 with EXPLICIT instructions for baptism that DO NOT incude "full water emersion."

IOA,
Deacon's Son

[bmerr]

Matt,

bmerr here. I could not agree more with the idea that modern ideas have supplanted the pattern so clearly laid out for us in the New Testament. You mentioned the "sinner's prayer". Did you know that nobody nowhere had ever heard of such a thing until 1950? I know some had the "mourner's bench" and other similar inventions, but the phrase "sinner's prayer" has it's origins within the lifetime of many of us members!

With this in mind, one wonders how it came to be so prevalent in so many churches as a means of becoming a Christian. In short, Billy Graham has been very effective in spreading his plan of salvation.

On the other hand, if one were to simply give what the Bible says about baptism from the pulpit of most any Baptist church, he would be all but thrown out of the assembly as a heretic. (Ask me how I know.)

There is a great need in the religious community to examine what we believe and why. Also, the need to abandon all man-made confessions of faith, church manuals, creed books, catechisms, etc., in favor of the Bible (specifically the New Testament) as our sole source of religious authority. Our very souls depend upon our adherence to the New Testament pattern of salvation, doctrine, and practice.

In Eph 4 Paul said there is "one faith". But what do we see when we view the religious world around us? Denominations (divisions) as far as the eye can see. Phrases such as "Christians of all faiths" are commonly used to apply to people who are supposed to only have "one faith".

The Biblical doctrine of baptism is but one of MANY areas which scream for a return to the New Testament as the sole authority.

I'm new here, so I'm not acquainted with you very well yet, but from what I've read so far, I commend you for your attitude toward the Scriptures. If I can be of any help to you at all, please feel free to contact me here or by e-mail, or however you wish.

In Christ,
bmerr

[violet]

(Ask me how I know.)how do you know?

[bmerr]

violet,

bmerr here. I spent about four years as a Southern Baptist, actively engaged in that religion, teaching Bible class to young adults and teens, and occasionally preaching.

At some point I made the commitment to let the Bible have the final say in all doctrinal matters, no matter who it set me against. A friend from my youth got me studying the subject of baptism in the New Testament, and I was shocked at how different Baptist doctrine was from the Bible.

My next opportunity to preach, I spoke on the subject, "What does the Bible say about the meaning and purpose of baptism in the New Testament".

These people who I had grown to love and admire listened in shocked silence as I read to them passages of Scripture that hadn't been heard from that pulpit in at least as many years as I had been there. At one point I opened up the floor for comments, and got some Scripture, and some Baptist doctrine, but mostly just cold stares from my friends and brothers.

At the invitation (which nobody responded to - imagine that!) I offered the same words as Peter did at the close of the first gospel sermon ever preached, to anyone who believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, "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."

It was a long walk to the back of the auditorium, and not too many offered to shake my hand. Later on, I was summoned to a meeting of the "pastor" and all the "deacons", where I was told that I could remain a member there, but I would not be permitted to preach or teach any more unless I retracted the contents of my sermon.

I told them that as long as the Bible kept saying what it said, I would not retract my statements. However, I refuse to be a spectator in any assembly of believers or "believers", and so I left.

I'm still friends with those I was close to, and cordial to the rest, but we don't see each other much anymore. The cost of truth can be high, but truth is well worth it.

In Christ,
bmerr

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Deacon's Son:

I'm a little confused about the above statement. There are PLENTY of primary sources from before 1520 with EXPLICIT instructions for baptism that DO NOT incude "full water emersion."

I agree that infant baptism was practiced prior to the 16th century and that other forms of baptism besides the NT form were also practiced prior to the 16th century.

My list of ECF sources and the RC historical survey quoting ECF sources shows that Full water baptism of believers-only was the starting point and that other ideas crept in over time and evolved "to the very different thing that it is today".

In Christ,

Bob

[Living4Him]

Bob,

Your little cut and paste from the Catholic Digest is a little deceptive. You merely added the little synopis that is found in the index; however, you cannot read the entire article to see exactly what "changes they are talking about". You are assuming that these are changes that would support your arguement.

As you state, "details"

Please provide the link where we can read the article in its entirity

[BobRyan]

You "claim" to know something about this article as IF I had misquoted it -- or simply taken (I don't know what) from then "index".

And then you ask to actually "SEE" IT -- so that you might back your accusation up with "actual fact"??

What a riot!!

[BobRyan]

Here is the post "again".

Please note that NOT ONLY does it tell you of the issue and the page in that issue for EACH section - it also points to the web link for CD.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here is the Catholic "confession" of history and the Didache in complete agrement.

BELIEVERS Baptism!

However in here we will find "details" and there are some here who are allergic to "inconvenient details".

So with that understood...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org (http://www.catholicdigest.org) for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".


Pg 44
"go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"



pg 45
"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protégé until the baptism"

&lt;&gt;

"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms. (daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."

"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congreation)."

&lt;&gt;

"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off, they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"

&lt;&gt;
"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"


"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (rcc) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fifth century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point
(read change),
baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and councils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy Saturday ceremony"

&lt;&gt;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didache on Baptism by Immersion:

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
]
Didache 7:2 [b]But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.
</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]

[Living4Him]

Bob,

Please help me out.

I clicked on your link and it didn't take me to the article.

It takes me to the homepage of Catholic Digest. So, I clicked under Back Issues and selected
June, 1999 and here is the only thing that comes up there is no place to read the article.


June 1999


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Witnessed a Wedding at Cana
The wine smelled of sunshine, fruit, and flowers
By Patricia Kasten

Ok, it wasn't the weddding at Cana, but it was a wedding. And it was at Cana, in Galilee, in the Holy Land.

Our Wisconsin tour group was on the first stop of our pilgrimage. And just as the Evangelist said, "On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee" (Jn 2:1), we were on the third day of our journey. A stop at the Franciscan wedding church is common for pilgrim tours. Married couples often renew their vows in the 118-year-old church with its white towers and vaulted dome. That's what the dozen couples in our group planned on.

[Page 6]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Culinary Adventures of Nasr-ed-Din Hodja
A Turkish folk hero grazes his way through Turkey
By Kathleen Stauffer

By the time he scraped open the gate of the courtyard leading into his earthen home, Nasr-ed-Din Hodja's face bore a smile. He could smell all the wonderful foods his neighbor, the merchant Jemal Pasha, was serving at the party. Surely his neighbor would understand if he, Nasr-ed-Din, a friend all these years, came straight from working in his cabbage patch to the banquet. Why change his robe? Nasr-ed-Din saw no need for such formality, not today! His belly had spoken.

[Page 16]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Evening With St. Paul
By Bernard McDonagh

Though Turkey is today a Muslim country, such was not always the case. Indeed, for Christians, Turkey is of particular interest given its role as the cradle of early Christian evangelization efforts and the birthplace of St. Paul. As Christ had directed, the Apostles set forth from Jerusalem to build the Church.

[Page 25]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Road to Christianity
Chicago Tribune

Not long after the Crucifixion of Jesus, the first Christians got into a shouting match over the nature of their faith. They lived in Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish world, and one faction felt that to be a follower of Christ still meant keeping kosher, just as their parents had. Others were just as convinced that believing in Jesus freed them from the religious code of their ancestors.

[Page 30]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baptism Comes Full Circle
Today's rite is much the same as it was in the Church's beginning.
By Bill Dodds

Like a masterpiece of art that, over time, has been touched up, varnished, and maybe even mishandled a bit, the rite of Baptism has undergone centuries of change. Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the Middle Ages, the rite had evolved into something ever different from that used by the early Christians. Today, however, the Church is returning to its roots. The modern rite of Baptism reflects much of the color and image of the original masterpiece.

[Page 42]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the Girls Took Over St. Columbkille
An early lesson in gender equality
By Sean Patrick

We boys were a pretty smug lot at St. Columbkille. Boys were altar servers. The boy's choir always had the starring role at Mass. Boys were school crossing guards. And boys enjoyed competitive football, baseball, and basketball, as well as a fearsome outdoor track and CYO boxing.

[Page 52]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even in Depression, God Is With You
One man's struggle has given him a mission to help others
By Patrick T. Reardon

It was August 23, 1995, and Father William Burke, pastor of St. Cajetan Catholic Church in Chicago, was having what he thought was a great year. Holy Week had gone well. And the school play, one of his favorite projects, had been a success.

On this particular Sunday, once Masses were done, the parish staff was going away for an important all-day meeting to grapple with the sort of problems, complexities, and questions that face every parish.

But Burke was distracted and tense.

[Page 58]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Encounter in a Taxi
Small acts of kindness can work miracles of healing
From the book: Make Me An Instrument of Your Peace

Twenty years ago, I drove a cab for a living. It was a cowboy's life, a gambler's life, a life for someone who wanted no boss, constant movement, and the thrill of a dice roll every time a new passenger got in the cab.

What I didn't realize when I took the job was that it was also a ministry. Because I drove the night shift, my cab became a rolling confessional. Passengers climbed in, sat behind me in total anonymity, and told me of their lives.

[Page 67]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adventures in Priestly Garb
People's reactions to my clerical "uniform" can be interesting
The Tablet

I call them the "GAFAW" reactions. People tend to notice anyone who wears a uniform, like police officers, soldiers, or letter carriers. And priests are no exception.

Over the years, I've noted that the responses we priests receive are of five basic varieties, hence the "GAFAW" reactions: Guilt, Anger, Friendliness, Assistance, and Wonder.

[Page 72]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When They Passed the Prayer Basket
Strangers suddenly became partners in prayer
By Richard Bauman

We were visitors at the parish, stopping for Mass during our vaction in Colorado Springs. Just before the Offertory, as the collection basket was passed to us, we deposited our contribution and passed it on. Then -- to our surprise -- came another basket.

Bigger than the first, it was filled with brightly colored slips of paper. Some people dropped in strips of paper; others took a piece.

[Page 85]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Singing the Saints to Life
Tom Franzak's unique musical idea is now playing in parishes across the country
By Dana Mildebrath

Tom Franzak spends a lot of time driving to concerts, but not in a fancy tour bus. His 14-foot white van is nondescript, lacking even a bumper sticker. But the inside tells a far more colorful story: It's packed to the ceiling with musical instruments, a fully automated sound and light system, and a full stage set.

[Page 88]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faith Comes Alive in Los Angeles
Small groups turn passive churchgoers into committed Christians
America

Mario Fuentes is coordinator of Comunidades Eclesiales de Base (Basic Ecclesial Communities, or C.E.B. groups) at Dolores Mission Catholic Church in East Los Angeles. Working in small groups, C.E.B. members meet to worship and support a wide range of parish initiative. To be sure, this model of dealing with a community's immediate needs and concerns through small worship groups can work in any parish. Fuentes's story illustrates how faith can be put into action to promote community well-being and justice everywhere, regardless of how great or how small a community's challenges.

[Page 98]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ten Musts for Every Marriage
A Seattle couple has repackaged biblical wisdom for husbands and wives.
Home Life

Marital advice is as common as breath mints -- and lasts about as long. Everyone, from profesors to parents, seems to have the secret formula for a happy marriage. But eventually, superficial advice wears off.

[Page 105]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Gift of Tears and Laughter
My mother's humor and dignity amid loss amazes me.
By Mary Ann Warner

A month ago, I announced to Mom and Dad through a flood of tears that they would have to be separated after 56 years of marriage. She was to leave their lovely assisted-care apartment to move to a nursing home.

"It could be worse," Mom replied after a moment of reflection. "I could be a young person with a family to care for."

Both of my parents have a special way of looking at troubles and inconveniences as blessings and gifts. And they share those gifts. My parents have always been wonderful teachers.

[Page 109]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clara's Castellano Lesson
She was only a toddler, but she had something to teach me about overcoming fear.
Chrisian Science Monitor

I arrived in Argentina with 100 words of Spanish, a desire to learn, and unlimited confidence. Two days later, I was exhausted and discouraged. I had underestimated how different everything -- language, food, money, housing, and transportation -- would be. More important, I'd forgotten that learning requires trememdous energy.

[Page 115]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Old Gold
San Jose Mercury News

You may think this is going to be one of those fish tales. Apparently some folks are prone to exaggeration when it comes to their relationships with nature's denizens of the deep. They fudge about the size, they double the weight. They flat-out lie about the number that got away.

But do they ever fabricate a fish's age?

[Page 126]

[BobRyan]

They offer summaries of back issues there and if you like the summary they provide a place for you to order a copy of the complete issue.

In honor of your need for even more detailed information for that article -- I have updated the introduction for that quote as follows...


From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article. Article by Bill Dodds begins on page 42 and is titled “Baptism Comes Full Circle”. (Page 42 is just a picture of an infant being sprinkled – so no actual words on that page).

Please see www.catholicdigest.org (http://www.catholicdigest.org) for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

[quote]
Page 43
"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".

I don't know how much more explicit I can get on that quote without actually BEING Catholic Digest.

In Christ,

Bob

[eschatologist]

I will attempt to explain what I have learned by putting an enormous amount of material in a tiny little nut shell.

From the time of Paul through the early church fathers until around 200 AD Baptism was taught as both essential(as a union with Christ) and done with immersion. There also was no evidence that it was done to infants.

Sometime after 200 AD(250 AD?) you started to see the practice of sprinkling and pouring invade the church. Yet it was still regarded as essential, being quoted as the time when the Holy Spirt came upon the believer.

Then sometime in the 300 to 400 AD era there was a gradual transition away from fundemental baptism and its meaning. Infant baptism began to gain more popularity. It finally has been diluted to the point of where it is today in regards to importance and necessity. Yet this is NOT what the intention of baptism was and how it was used in the Bible or by the early church fathers. How we could've strayed away from what the meaning of baptism was as presented in Romans, Galatians, and Acts is beyond me. Many will extract a few verses out of the Bible to expain away the necessity of baptism with little regards to the overall weight of scripture. Yet I have found that debating these so called controversial topics amoung people who are passionate with what the believe(whether right or wrong) avails nothing. But what I have tersely presented here is what is historically presented to us in the records left behind. If needed I can present some books here that could be helpful to those interested in this type of biblical history.

[BobRyan]

That seems to be the same report we see from Catholic historians as well as ECF sources and it is what we see in the Bible for the first century - just as you point out.

There are two "essential keys" foundational to infant baptism and totally missing from thye NT text.

#1. The total lack of involvement by the person RECEIVING baptism - and total dependency on the "powers" of spells/sacramental-waters etc at the hands of the "sacred" clergy vs the "profane laity". The emphais switches from "faith" as a "response" to Bible/Gospel preaching and switches TO the idea of "POWER" of the sacrament to change a soul who does NOT participate!

#2. The idea that God would send an infant to hell or limbo or some less-than-good-place due to sin -- if not for some kind of magic ritual stopping Him from doing that.

Once those two errors are embraced fully - infant baptism becomes a must.

There is also a third essential - which is the idea that "making stuff up" (i.e. tradition) is just as "authorotative" as reading it in scripture. This is "key" since there are no cases of infant baptism specifically addressed in the NT == even though this is THE DOMINANT form of baptism in the RCC today.

In Christ,

Bob

[Living4Him]

Bob,

Which Catholic historians stated that there wasn't infant baptism?

Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.


Irenaeus


"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


Hippolytus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

[bmerr]

To All,

bmerr here. I can't help but notice the almost complete lack of Scripture on this thread. That's where we need to be looking, friends. The other sources that have been cited are useful in determining the points at which error crept in to the early church, but there's only one way to get away from these errors. We've got to get back to the Bible.

In Rom 6:3-5 and Gal 3:27, baptism is described as a burial and a raising up again. As far as I know, only immersion in water fits this description.

In Acts 2:38, and 22:16, baptism is for the purpose of the remission, or washing away of sins. The power is not in the water, it's in being obedient to God's commands.

Also in Acts 2:38, we read that baptism is to be in the name of, or by the authority of Jesus Christ. In Matt 28:18, Jesus said all power (authority) had been given to Him, and that baptism was to be in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That also means there's no authority left for Popes or conventions, or synods, etc.

In Mark 16:16 and Acts 8:37, we find that a prerequisite to baptism is belief in the gospel. Infants and the mentally infirm, therefore are not acceptable candidates for baptism.

In Acts 2:41, 47, we find that baptism was the point at which believers were added by the Lord to the church. Nobody in the NT joined a church.

There are other Scriptures pertaining to baptism, but hopefully these will be a starting point in getting back to the Bible on the topic.

After all, the events described in the NT took place WAY before the 1520's!

In Christ,
bmerr

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Deacon's Son:
I completed a fairly short but comprehensive paper on initiatory practices in the Church during the first three centuries...If you're interested in having a copy, post a reply on this board and I'll email you a copy in Microsoft Word. (Of course, if anyone else here would like a copy, they are welcome to it as well. Just let me know here or by email.)Deacon's Son, I would be interested in getting a copy.

Interesting thread, Matt. It made me think of some thoughts I had while reading the "Baptism in Romans 6, what is the referent?" (http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/3/2904.html?) thread. I don't have a lot of time to go into detail or get involved in an extended discussion, and can't say I agree with all your original post. But we Baptists have "devolved" on the importance of baptism. If what we preach can't be confused with being too strong even to the point of sounding like baptismal regeneration, then we have probably "fudged" the message of baptism. What about Peter in Acts 2:38 and I Peter 3:21, or Paul in Romans 6:3 or Gal. 3:27? Also consider that Alexander Campbell and many early 19th century Baptists walked together, at least thinking they were saying the same thing. How many Baptists and Restorationists could be confused as saying the same thing today? I believe we have seen the rise of the idea of "spirit baptism" in so many passages that Baptists never questioned as referring to water in proporation to how many have watered down the necessity of baptism so far that water won't fit those passages for them. In the church where I grew up, no one there could have ever been close to being accused of being a "Campbellite", but they never would have thought of the baptism in passages such as Gal. 3:27 & Rom. 6:3-6 as being anything other than water.

Well that's a lot of rambling that may not make a lot of sense, so I'll close.

[bmerr]

To All,

bmerr here. I think one thing that jams alot of people up is the idea that if "group A" teaches something, then "group B" cannot accept that teaching as true.

It's often as if we're more concerned with not agreeing with another group than we are with making sure we agree with the Bible.

Truth is universal. What I mean is that there are things that are true no matter who says them.

For example, I was once a Southern Baptist. As such, I could agree with someone from the church of Christ if they said that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But, as a Southern Baptist, I'd be ostracized if I agreed with the same person if they said that immersion in water was essential to salvation.

Why? Because the Bible doesn't teach that? No! Because "that's what Campbellites teach!"

That kind of thinking didn't make any sense to me as a Southern Baptist, and it doesn't make sense to me as a member of the church of Christ, either.

rlvaughn, I can definitely sympathize with what you described in your post. The idea of spirit baptism is a source of great, widespread confusion for millions. With this idea planted in the mind, it's nearly impossible to allow many Scriptures dealing with baptism to mean what they say. You may be suprised at the lengths some will go to in order to wring the water out of some passages where it is plainly indicated.

It's a much more honest approach to the Scriptures to be willing to abandon our beliefs if Biblical evidence warrants it. I've had to do that, myself.

In Christ,
bmerr

[billwald]

The Didache, the oldest known "statement of faith," teaches something to the effect "Baptise in living (running) water. If there is no living water then baptise in still water. If there is no still water then sprinkle. In any case, baptise."

[MEE]

Originally posted by billwald:
The Didache, the oldest known "statement of faith," teaches something to the effect "Baptise in living (running) water. If there is no living water then baptise in still water. If there is no still water then sprinkle. In any case, baptise." Didache the oldest known "statement of faith?"

Nah!...don't think so! The Bible comes first and the "Didache" doesn't count. ;) It's a man made doctrine.

Although; I do agree that one has to be baptized.

MEE graemlins/saint.gif

[steaver]

I know a man who when he was ten years old listened to a Billy Graham special on tv while he played with toys on the living room floor. After hearing Billy preach, that same night when he went to bed prayed to Jesus asking Him to save him. He had no discipling from that point until twenty five years later a friend stopped in and invited him to church. He went, and from that point began to learn scripture and about six months later was baptized in the river one Sunday. Those years from age ten to thirty-five were spent with consistent prayer and leading prompted by believing that Jesus Christ was his Savior and God.

My question is, was this man saved at age ten or only after he was baptized by water at age thirty-five?

God Bless!

[Michael52]

A person is saved when God saves him or her. PERIOD!

We can wrangle over what was happening when God adopted them into His eternal family. Were they reciting "the sinners prayer?" Were they being baptized? Were they feeding the homeless? Were they taking the Mass? Were they making a deathbed confession? Were they avoiding a particular sin? were they maintaining an acceptable pious act to sin ratio? Were they _______ (insert any other human work)?

We religious types want to make sure there is some rite of passage that we can point to and control so as to make sure someone has passed the required test or jumped the proper hoop(particularly pertaining to someone else).

Certainly, we are commanded to do certain works: Love our neighbor as ourselves, don't steal, prayer, baptize all nations, honor father and mother, do this in rememberance of me, etc. None of these save us. Why should we do them? Because our Lord is pleased when we do them. If Jesus is our Lord, we want to please Him as much as possible, because He saved us.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Eph 2:8-10 If anyone is in Christ (saved) they are my brother and sister, regardless of the "strange" notions they (and I) profess. We'll know each other by our fruits.

It is not complicated. smile.gif

[DHK]

I agree Michael.
Your post just refuted the COC, the Oneness Pentecostal, and the Catholic Church doctrine of "baptismal regeneration."
DHK

[bmerr]

Originally posted by DHK:
I agree Michael.
Your post just refuted the COC, the Oneness Pentecostal, and the Catholic Church doctrine of "baptismal regeneration."
DHK Perhaps what should be used for comparison is the Bible. Truth is universal. By that I mean that anyone can make a true statement. Our basis for acceptance or rejection of one's statement ought to be "does it agree with the Bible", not whether it agrees with what this group or that teaches it.

For example, if Eph 2:8-10 were the sum total of what the Bible had to say about salvation, then it would be wrong to say that baptism had anything to do with salvation. But there's more to NT teaching on salvation than Eph 2:8-10, isn't there?

In fact, if we study our Bibles, we can find out just what went on in Ephesus in regards to their salvation, and find out what the above verses meant to the original recipients of Paul's letter.

There's an often overlooked word in our text. That word is "ye", as in "For by grace are ye saved through faith..."

"Ye" in our text refers to the saints at Ephesus. We find that way back in the 1st verse of the letter.

If we read on down to 1:13, we read that they trusted in Christ "after that [they] heard the word of truth, the gospel of [their] salvation: in whom also after that [they] believed, [they] were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise".

So here we see that they heard the gospel and believed it, and trusted in Christ.

Now let's turn back to Acts 19:17, where the seven sons of Sceva had just gotten their butts kicked by a demon-possessed man. We see that the the name (or the authority) of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

In verse 18, we read that many "...believed, and confessed, and shewed their deeds." This word for "deeds" can also be translated as "works". Reading further, we see that the work they were doing was public repentance from their curious arts.

So here we see them believing, confessing, and repenting. But let's continue.

If we go back to the beginning of Acts 19, we find Paul just arriving in Ephesus, "...and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Before we go further, let's notice a couple of things.

First, there was the assumption on Paul's part, that if these men were disciples, then they had been baptized. There was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the Bible. Seems as though many think this is possible today, though.

Second, the baptism they had received was not valid. Apparently they had received John's baptism after Christ had died, and John's baptism was no longer in effect (Acts 13:25 refers to John fulfilling his course).

They had believed in the Christ who was coming, when the Christ had already come, and thus believed in the wrong Christ. Their baptism was insufficient. Point? It matters why we are baptized.

Anyway, Paul expalins the fulfillment of John's message in Christ Jesus, and "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Here we have saints at Ephesus hearing, believing [implied], and being baptized in the name (or authority) of Jesus Christ.

In all, we find the "ye" of Eph 2:8-10 hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized. It is in this way that the Ephesians (and all under the New Testament) being saved by grace through faith.

It's a pattern seen throughout the book of Acts, the book of conversions.

In Christ,
bmerr

[Michael52]

Originally posted by bmerr:
First, there was the assumption on Paul's part, that if these men were disciples, then they had been baptized. There was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the Bible. Seems as though many think this is possible today, though.
I guess it is too trivial to mention the thief on the cross, so I won't. ;)

However, I do have a question. When were Jesus’ disciples baptized, by water, unto salvation?

Most, probably assume that Jesus’ disciples had undergone John’s water baptism (Acts 1:22), just as Jesus had. As you pointed out, Paul encountered the men who had also undergone John’s water baptism, yet they had not received the Holy Spirit. If one assumes that they were not saved until they received the Holy Spirit, subsequent to being baptized in Jesus’ name, then that may be a valid assumption. Now, we read no were, that I can think of, were Jesus’ disciples were re-baptized, by water, into Jesus’ name (or any other “formula”). We know that Jesus’ disciples received the Holy Spirit when the risen Jesus breathed on them and were subsequently empowered to speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit fell with power at Pentecost. Yet, there is no explicit mention of the disciples being baptized again in water. Certainly, it could have happened and the inspired writers just failed to mention it anywhere. But it seems to me that, that question would be a rather significant point to be shared with us, especially in light of the importance some Christians place on the importance and efficacy of water baptism in one’s salvation.

What do you think?

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Michael52:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bmerr:
First, there was the assumption on Paul's part, that if these men were disciples, then they had been baptized. There was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the Bible. Seems as though many think this is possible today, though.
I guess it is too trivial to mention the thief on the cross, so I won't. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]bmerr here. By no means is the thief on the cross (ttoc for short) too trivial to mention. To say that he was saved might be a trivial thing, for there is no question but that he was. I would bring a couple of things about him to your attention, though.

First, we cannot prove one way or the other if ttoc had been baptized or not. The Bible says several times that many from Jerusalem and all Judea went out to be baptized by John. The possibility exists that ttoc was among that number. It can't be proven either way.

Second, you'll notice that I said that there was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the Bible. TTOC was not a Christian, but a Jew. Christianity had not begun yet as the Old Testament was still in effect. It was in dying that Jesus fulfilled the Law, and the Law could not pass away until it was fulfilled (Matt 5:17, 18). Jesus was still alive when ttoc was promised paradise.


However, I do have a question. When were Jesus’ disciples baptized, by water, unto salvation?

Most, probably assume that Jesus’ disciples had undergone John’s water baptism (Acts 1:22), just as Jesus had.I would be of the assuming number you mentioned. But you asked of the disciples' (apostles?) baptism unto salvation.

If they had submitted to baptism for the remission of sins under John, while his baptism was still in effect, they would not need to be baptized again.

John's baptism was one of repentance for the remission of sins looking forward to the Christ to come (Mark 1:4; Acts 19:4). Those who received his baptism were to believe on him who would come after him, namely Jesus. These conditions being met, they recieved the promised blessing.

The disciples Paul met in Acts 19 had apparently recieved John's baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected. After Pentecost of Acts 2, all were to be baptized in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ. In Matt 28:19, we see He authorized baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. These guys had not even heard if there was a Holy Ghost, and therefore had not been baptized by Jesus' authority. Thus their need for "re-baptism".

As you pointed out, Paul encountered the men who had also undergone John’s water baptism, yet they had not received the Holy Spirit.Right. As mentioned above, they did not even know there was a Holy Spirit.

If one assumes that they were not saved until they received the Holy Spirit, subsequent to being baptized in Jesus’ name, then that may be a valid assumption.Before I make comment, let me say up front that I don't have everything on the Holy Spirit figured out. There are lots of good men who disagree on His mode of indwelling, and just what Peter meant at the end of Acts 2:38. On the other hand, there are a couple things I think I'm pretty straight on, so with this in mind, I'll continue.

In Acts 2:38, Peter tells his audience to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We read in other passages of people being given gifts of the Holy Ghost, such as tongues, most noteably.

Also, we have the example of the Samaritans in Acts 8 who believed Phillip's preaching and were baptized, (thus meeting the conditions of salvation in Mark 16:16), but didn't receive the Spirit until Peter and John came down from Jerusalem.

The best I can figure, is that there is a gift of the Holy Spirit that believers receive when they submit to NT baptism in water. Additionally, for the early church, there were miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit given through the laying on of an apostles' hands (Acts 8:18; 19:6).

The occurrence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is only recorded on Pentecost of Acts 2, and in the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. The main difference between these two events and the accounts of miraculous gifts being bestowed by the aposltes is that in the former cases, there was no human administrator involved. It was unannounced, and unexpected. In the latter examples, there was the laying on of an apostles' hands.

In any case, the receiving of the Holy Spirit (through the baptism of the Holy Spirit or the laying on of hands) is never given as a condition of pardon, or salvation to an alien sinner. Baptism in water is.

Now, we read no were, that I can think of, were Jesus’ disciples were re-baptized, by water, into Jesus’ name (or any other “formula”).That is correct, sir.

We know that Jesus’ disciples received the Holy Spirit when the risen Jesus breathed on them and were subsequently empowered to speak in tongues when the Holy Spirit fell with power at Pentecost.The verse you mention is John 20:22, correct? I don't think the Holy Spirit was given at this point. No real proof, just that when the Spirit was to come, He would come with power (Acts 1:8), and in John 20:22 they did not receive power. I don't have a clue as to what Jesus' breathing on them was about.

Yet, there is no explicit mention of the disciples being baptized again in water. Certainly, it could have happened and the inspired writers just failed to mention it anywhere. But it seems to me that, that question would be a rather significant point to be shared with us, especially in light of the importance some Christians place on the importance and efficacy of water baptism in one’s salvation.

What do you think? I'm with you. If the apostles had been re-baptized, I'm sure we would have a record of it. Like I said before though, there would not have been a need for it, since the (assumed) baptism of John was effectual when they received it. It's probably a safe conclusion that they were baptized under John.

As I said, I don't have it all figured out. I'm leaning just like everyone else. There are some things I'm sure of. There have also been alot of things I was sure of until I studied them more carefully. It's hard to change our minds, but if the evidence shows us to be in error, we must be willing to change. Sadly, very few are.

Let the Scriptures have the final say. I'll try to do the same.

In Christ,
bmerr

[Michael52]

Originally posted by bmerr:
Second, you'll notice that I said that there was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the Bible. TTOC was not a Christian, but a Jew. Christianity had not begun yet as the Old Testament was still in effect. It was in dying that Jesus fulfilled the Law, and the Law could not pass away until it was fulfilled (Matt 5:17, 18). Jesus was still alive when ttoc was promised paradise. So when did Jesus’ disciples become Christians so they were no longer Jews? Are Messianic Jews also Christians?

The disciples Paul met in Acts 19 had apparently recieved John's baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected. After Pentecost of Acts 2, all were to be baptized in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ. In Matt 28:19, we see He authorized baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. These guys had not even heard if there was a Holy Ghost, and therefore had not been baptized by Jesus' authority. Thus their need for "re-baptism".It seems your argument for the efficacy of John’s water baptism of Jesus’ disciples (apostles?) hinges on, “The disciples Paul met in Acts 19 had apparently recieved John's baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected.”

Ac 19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
Ac 19:2 And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
Ac 19:3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
Ac 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Ac 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ac 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

It is possible that these disciples received John’s baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected, but NOT by John (maybe John’s disciples?). I think I have heard Baptist preachers say this. Myself, being a “good” Baptist (“listen to what the preacher says, trust what the Bible says”), can’t see where this passage proves that they received John's baptism after Jesus’ resurrection. If someone’s theology depends on the Bible saying something it doesn’t explicitly say, maybe it is a good time to question some presuppositions. Hey, I do that all the time. That’s why I like this forum. smile.gif

Now, If they received John’s baptism before Jesus’ resurrection, then they are no different than Jesus’ disciples with respect to water baptism, except that these didn’t know Jesus! It doesn’t explicitly say Paul preached the Gospel to them. But I think it is safer to assume he did than to make the assumption you made.

Ac 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

There is no question that this could be referring to water baptism (it probably is). But, a key point on the effectual baptism unto salvation is made by John the Baptist himself:

Mk 1:8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Unless one is to make the assumption that everyone who received John’s baptism automatically believed in the risen Jesus to their salvation, then it would seem that John is speaking of a “greater” baptism to come that is Jesus’ to perform.

We'll never have the opportunity for John or Paul to immerse or lay hands on us, but they still preach to us through the Bible and Jesus can certainly baptize us with the Holy Spirit.

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Michael52:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bmerr:
Second, you'll notice that I said that there was no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the Bible. TTOC was not a Christian, but a Jew. Christianity had not begun yet as the Old Testament was still in effect. It was in dying that Jesus fulfilled the Law, and the Law could not pass away until it was fulfilled (Matt 5:17, 18). Jesus was still alive when ttoc was promised paradise. So when did Jesus’ disciples become Christians so they were no longer Jews? Are Messianic Jews also Christians?</font>[/QUOTE]Michael52,

bmerr here. I don't think there is a reference to "Jewish Christians" in the New Testament. The whole concept of conversion centers on turning from one thing to be something esle, doesn't it? No, I'd have to say that once a person converts to Christianity, he is, and should always be, simply a Christian.

To look at the other side of the fence, Gentiles converting to Christianity from idol worship would certainly not maintain allegiance to their former pagan gods, would they?

However, on a couple of occasions Paul does refer to himself as a Jew (Acts 21:39; 22:3), and also as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). I think this would have more emphasis on his background and upbringing than his current preaching and practice, though, since in Acts 26:2 he makes distinction between himself and the Jews.

It seems your argument for the efficacy of John’s water baptism of Jesus’ disciples (apostles?) hinges on, “The disciples Paul met in Acts 19 had apparently recieved John's baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected.”Here's why I have that hinge. Acts 13:25 indicates the time at which the valididty of John's baptism faded out. It reads,

"And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worhty to loose."

This was spoken by John about the same time that Jesus began His earthly ministry. Given the time interval between John 1:19-27 and Acts 19, I'd say it's a pretty reasonable conclusion that the Acts 19 disciples had received John's baptism after it passed out of efficacy.

Ac 19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
Ac 19:2 And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
Ac 19:3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
Ac 19:4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
Ac 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ac 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.It is possible that these disciples received John’s baptism after Jesus had been crucified, buried and resurrected, but NOT by John (maybe John’s disciples?). [/quote]

Not only is it possible, but I think I might even have a suspect!

Look back to Acts 18:21, where Paul is leaving Ephesus bound for Antioch. It seems as though shortly after his departure, Apollos comes to Ephesus, and is preaching the baptism of John (18:24-25).

Of course I couldn't prove it, but based on the evidence, it may have been Apollos who baptized the disciples that Paul found on his return to Ephesus in Acts 19. Later on we learn that Paul and Apollos became laborers together with God in Corinth, where Apollos was bound for just as Paul was returning to Ephesus (18:27).

I think I have heard Baptist preachers say this. Myself, being a “good” Baptist (“listen to what the preacher says, trust what the Bible says”), can’t see where this passage proves that they received John's baptism after Jesus’ resurrection. If someone’s theology depends on the Bible saying something it doesn’t explicitly say, maybe it is a good time to question some presuppositions. Hey, I do that all the time. That’s why I like this forum. smile.gif It would be a stretch to say that my theology depends on the timing of the disciples' submission to John's baptism. I just think it's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

There are lots of things the Bible doesn't explicitly state that are neccessarily true by implication.

For example, in Gen 12, we read of Abraham going down into Egypt to escape a famine. In Gen 13:1, we read that Lot came up out of Egypt with Abraham, but it is never explicitly stated that Lot went down to Egypt in the first place.

However, the fact that Lot came up out of Egypt implies the fact that he went down into Egypt.

We must remember the three ways the Bible teaches us: direct command, approved example, and neccesary inference (implication).

I can't begin to tell you how broad the implications are in your statement that I bolded above! In the future I'm sure we'll discuss some topics that fall under this description.

Now, If they received John’s baptism before Jesus’ resurrection, then they are no different than Jesus’ disciples with respect to water baptism, except that these didn’t know Jesus! It doesn’t explicitly say Paul preached the Gospel to them. But I think it is safer to assume he did than to make the assumption you made.

Ac 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.You give another example of neccessary inference. Since salvation is by faith, and faith cometh by hearing the word of God, it is implied that Paul preached the gospel to these men.

I don't think this is any "safer" of a conclusion, but it is an easier one to come to.


There is no question that this could be referring to water baptism (it probably is). But, a key point on the effectual baptism unto salvation is made by John the Baptist himself:

Mk 1:8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."I would agree that the men in Acts 19 received baptism in water, and I wouldn't even say "probably".

The statement by John in reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit is one of several promises in the Bible that is announced to many, but not applicable to all.

The promise of the land of Canaan to the children of Abraham is another one. Ishmael was also Abraham's seed, but his decendants were not the recipients of the inheritance. Only Abraham's seed through Isaac recieved this promise.

Likewise, the prophesy referred to by Peter in Acts 23:17-ff says that God would pour out of His Spirit upon "all flesh". This promise would have to be narrowed down to a few, or else unbelievers and animals would also be included in this promise. No one would argue for that, would they?

In this instance "all flesh" would be fulfilled as "Jew and Gentile", specifically the apostles in Acts 2 (Jews), and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 (Gentiles).

Unless one is to make the assumption that everyone who received John’s baptism automatically believed in the risen Jesus to their salvation, then it would seem that John is speaking of a “greater” baptism to come that is Jesus’ to perform.Exactly. As mentioned above, the baptism of the Holy Ghost was administered by Jesus, without the mediation of man.

The rarity of such an event is noticed by Peter in Acts 11:15, where he compares what happened at Cornelius' house to that which happened to the apostles "at the beginning". If it had been a common occurrence, I doubt he would have mentioned it at all.

Jesus was said to be the administrator of two baptisms. One was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That has come and gone. The other is the baptism of fire at the Judgement. This is yet to come.

The baptism that was to endure "even unto the end of the world" (Matt 28:20) is one administered by man (Matt 28:19, etc), and can only be immersion in water for the remission of sins. That's the only one that fits the description of a burial and a raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12).

We'll never have the opportunity for John or Paul to immerse or lay hands on us, but they still preach to us through the Bible and Jesus can certainly baptize us with the Holy Spirit. Actually, Jesus cannot still baptize us with the Holy Spirit. To do so would be to violate His word. Eph 4:5 tells us there is "one baptism". It's clear to me that that "one baptism" is immersion in water. For Christ to baptize us with the Holy Spirit would mean that there were "two baptisms", and would contradict the Word of God, which is true from the beginning (Ps 119:160).

In closing, I'd like to say I appreciate the time invested in the replies of all of you. Whether we always agree or not, we all only get 24 hours each day, and if your lives are anything like mine, free time is in short supply. So thanks to you all for taking time to discuss these matters. It is time well spent.

In Christ,
bmerr

[Frank]

bmerr:
I appreciate your post. You are a workman that needeth not be ashamed. II Tim. 2:15. God bless you.
Frank

[steaver]

Actually, Jesus cannot still baptize us with the Holy Spirit. To do so would be to violate His word. Eph 4:5 tells us there is "one baptism". It's clear to me that that "one baptism" is immersion in water. For Christ to baptize us with the Holy Spirit would mean that there were "two baptisms", and would contradict the Word of God, which is true from the beginning (Ps 119:160).
Actually, it is VERY clear from scripture that there are two baptisms. One by water and one by Holy Spirit. So when Eph 4:5 tells us that there is "one", we must discern which one is the critical spoken of. That would be the baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ at conversion. Immersion of the new child of God with the indwellment of the Holy Ghost.

God Bless!

[steaver]

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." (1 Cor 12:13)

What are we all (believers) baptized with? Answer is "one Spirit".

This is the "one" baptism Paul speaks of. Water baptism does not deliver the Holy Ghost, nor save.

God bless!

[Frank]

Steaver:
The context of I Cor. 12:13 indicates that the body is comprised by many members or parts. vs. 12. Furthermore, as the body is animated by one spirit,the different members act under the rule or guide of the one spirit, all members of the church, the body of Christ, were baptized into the one body, whether Jews, Greeks bond or free. vs. 13.

This baptism is that which is commanded by Christ and the holy spirit. This baptism is administered by men as per the one spirit. Mat. 28:18-20. This one baptism is water baptism, as Holy Spirit baptism was: one, not commanded, and two, was not administered by men.

Acts 2:38 connects the one baptism commanded by Christ and the new testament with the gift of the Holy Spirit.*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.

Baptism by the Holy Spirit took place twice in the Bible. Acts 2 and 10. Ephesians 4:4-6 was written years after these happenings. Therefore, the one baptism cannnot be both as this would make two baptisms. Moreover, since Holy Spirit baptism ceased before Ephesians 4 was written water baptism must be in view. I Pet 3:21 teaches us that the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting way of the filth of the flesh but the answer to a clean conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The context of this passage is a reference to the likefigure of Noah's baptism wherein eight souls were saved by water. vs. 20.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
I Pet 3:21 teaches us that the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting way of the filth of the flesh but the answer to a clean conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The context of this passage is a reference to the likefigure of Noah's baptism wherein eight souls were saved by water. vs. 20. the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,

You have two options in your statemennt of belief here, both of which are not only heretical, but are absolutely ridiculous when thought through logically.
First, it plainly says (as you quoted) "the like figure." It is a figure, a symbol, a figure of speech, a similie. If you are basing your salvation on something entirely symbolic, on a similie or figure of speech, then you are standing on sinking sand. Jesus saves; not symbols.

As it says it was a symbol. But even then it is impossible for baptim to save. Again, only Christ can save. You have a problem with a statement that is repeated over and over again in Scripture. Water of no kind (inlcuding baptismal waters) cannot save. That is pure superstition. Jeremiah mocked at that belief thousands of years ago, when he said:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

Get wet. Baptize yourself. Wash yourself while your at it. But it won't wash away your sin. Jeremiah mocks at this very suggestion that water can wash away sin.

The Hindus bathe in the "holy" waters of the Ganges River, thinking that it will wash away their sins. I submit to you that if you beleive that baptism is a part of salvation in washing away your sins, your religion is just as pagan as Hinduism.
DHK

[Frank]

Dhk:
Baptism is a symbol. It is an essential symbol. The bible teaches this in Col. 2;12. The phrase be washed in the blood of Christ is symbolic, as no one has ever been literaly washed in his blood. Rev. 1:5-7. By your logic, you would also eliminate the necessity of the blood of Christ in the forgivenes of sins as it is symbolic.
However, these essential symbols represent God's power to save.

[bmerr]

Originally posted by steaver:
[QB] "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." (1 Cor 12:13)

What are we all (believers) baptized with? Answer is "one Spirit".bmerr here. The text says we are baptized "by one Spirit", not "with one Spirit", as you posted.

The difference? Jesus is the only One Who baptized "with" the Holy Spirit. This occurred in Acts 2 and Acts 10. In these instances, the Holy Spirit was the medium in which the subjects were baptized.

However, the text says that we are baptized "by one Spirit". If you take the position that it is the Holy Spirit that baptizes us, you need to show from Scripture the medium in which He baptizes us, as well as a reference that would indicate that the Spirit would be the administrator of a baptism. The burden of proof is on you, sir.

If, on the other hand, we understand that for us to be baptized "by one Spirit" means that we are baptized according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, then the problem you encountered concerning more than "one baptism" (Eph 4:5) goes away.

The Holy Spirit, through the apostles, taught men to believe the gospel, repent of their sins, and be baptized in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Then and only then could they expect to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This is the "one" baptism Paul speaks of.The baptism Paul spoke of is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12), and "that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Rom 6:17).

Let's compare. When one supposedly receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is he buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit? Be honest! That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it?

Now, when one is baptized in water, is he buried in the water and then raised up out of the water? Why yes, I'd have to say that's how it happens.

It seems quite logical to me that only water baptism fits the description given by the apostle Paul, and performed in several conversion accounts in Acts.

Objectivity is required. If we try to make the Bible fit our preconceived ideas, we run into problems.

In Christ,
bmerr

[bmerr]

Originally posted by DHK:

[quote]You have two options in your statemennt of belief here, both of which are not only heretical, but are absolutely ridiculous when thought through logically.
First, it plainly says (as you quoted) "the like figure." It is a figure, a symbol, a figure of speech, a similie. If you are basing your salvation on something entirely symbolic, on a similie or figure of speech, then you are standing on sinking sand. Jesus saves; not symbols.DHK,

bmerr here. You might keep in mind that in the Bible, the symbolic always precedes the real.

As it says it was a symbol. But even then it is impossible for baptim to save. Again, only Christ can save. You have a problem with a statement that is repeated over and over again in Scripture. Water of no kind (inlcuding baptismal waters) cannot save. That is pure superstition.You say it is impossible for baptism to save. Peter says (by inspiration) "baptism doth also now save us". Who would you have us to put our faith in?

Also, what exactly is the "statement repeated over and over again" that Frank supposedly has a problem with? You didn't say, or else I missed it. A Scripture reference would be helpful.

Jeremiah mocked at that belief thousands of years ago, when he said:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

Get wet. Baptize yourself. Wash yourself while your at it. But it won't wash away your sin. Jeremiah mocks at this very suggestion that water can wash away sin.First of all, Jeremiah was not refuting New Testament baptism. He was speaking to Old Testament Jews. Context, Man!

Second, who suggested that water washes away sin? Frank didn't. Nobody said anything about water washing away sin but you.

Water can't wash away leprosy, either, but Naaman was commanded to dip himself seven times in Jordan in order to be cleansed of it (2 Kings 5:1-14). Did the water wash away his leprosy? No, God did. But Naaman would have gone to his grave a leper had he not obeyed the commandment of God.

In like manner, water does not wash away sin, but baptism in water is commanded by God in order to have one's sins washed away under the New Testament. That's where faith comes in.

The Hindus bathe in the "holy" waters of the Ganges River, thinking that it will wash away their sins. I submit to you that if you beleive that baptism is a part of salvation in washing away your sins, your religion is just as pagan as Hinduism.
DHK [/QB]Be MIGHTY CAREFUL, sir. You're blaspheming the Holy Ghost. I urge you to repent. Read your Bible again, and see Who came up with the idea of immersion in water for the remission of sins. It wasn't the church of Christ, but Christ Himself.

REPENT!

In Christ,

bmerr

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
Dhk:
Baptism is a symbol. It is an essential symbol. The bible teaches this in Col. 2;12. The phrase be washed in the blood of Christ is symbolic, as no one has ever been literaly washed in his blood. Rev. 1:5-7. By your logic, you would also eliminate the necessity of the blood of Christ in the forgivenes of sins as it is symbolic.
However, these essential symbols represent God's power to save. Yes, our sins are under the blood, symbolically; that is true. But baptism is a literal act which one submits to. There is a great difference. You do not fill up a tank with the blood of Christ do you? You fill it up with plain old H2O, and then by superstition believe that that mass of two hydrogen atoms to every one oxygen atom is going to wash away your sins. It ain't going to work. It is a superstition. Jeremiah declared it to be so. Why don't you just believe him? In every case in the Bible baptism took place after one was saved--not before, not during, but after. It is an act of obedience that takes place after one is saved. If baptism was a part of salvation, then salvation would be by works, a heresy that contradicts Eph.2:8,9.

Baptism is not purely symbolical. It is not symbolical when a person gets wet. What happens at baptism? You get wet. You don't get saved. You get wet. That is all. It is does symbolize something--one's death to his old life to sin, and his rising again to a new life in Christ. That is obedience. But in reality, it simply gets you wet. It cannot save; it cannot wash away your sin. That is pure superstition.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:
You say it is impossible for baptism to save. Peter says (by inspiration) "baptism doth also now save us". Who would you have us to put our faith in?Not you, but rather the Bible. You see, you only quoted part of the verse, and that out of its context. What did I emphasize before? The part of the verse that you conveniently ignore--"the like figure..." Peter doesn't say that baptism saves us; he says that statement "baptism saves us" is figurative and pictures something even greater. He even goes on and clarifies himself by adding: " (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:"
Water baptism doesn't put away the filth of the flesh. It doesn't save. That is plain and clear in what Peter says. What saves? The gospel saves. Christ by the power of the resurrection gives a clear conscience toward God. Only Jesus Christ by the power of the resurrection can do that. Not baptism, only Christ. The baptism was simply symbolic of what Christ does in the heart.

Also, what exactly is the "statement repeated over and over again" that Frank supposedly has a problem with? You didn't say, or else I missed it. A Scripture reference would be helpful.By faith are you justified.
You are justifed by faith.
Never does it say that one is justified by faith and baptism.

First of all, Jeremiah was not refuting New Testament baptism. He was speaking to Old Testament Jews. Context, Man!It is in context. Jeremiah was referring to a pagan practice which remains a pagan practice to this day. In reference to Christianity is heresy.

Second, who suggested that water washes away sin? Frank didn't. Nobody said anything about water washing away sin but you.The COC believes that water is essential to baptism. Correct? I have their statement of faith; I know it is correct. What happens at salvation? All our sins are washed away. How are they washed away? By water or the blood? If you believe in baptismal regeneration (as COC does), then you believe that water plays a part in washing away your sins. Absurd!

Water can't wash away leprosy, either, but Naaman was commanded to dip himself seven times in Jordan in order to be cleansed of it (2 Kings 5:1-14). Did the water wash away his leprosy? No, God did. But Naaman would have gone to his grave a leper had he not obeyed the commandment of God.The same prophet also commanded an iron axe-head to swim. Would you like to repeat that act too?

In like manner, water does not wash away sin, but baptism in water is commanded by God in order to have one's sins washed away under the New Testament. That's where faith comes in. And in like manner axe-heads swim. Show me. Water doesn't wash away sin, and axe-heads don't swim.

Be MIGHTY CAREFUL, sir. You're blaspheming the Holy Ghost. I urge you to repent. Read your Bible again, and see Who came up with the idea of immersion in water for the remission of sins. It wasn't the church of Christ, but Christ Himself. I am not blaspheming anyone or anything. Jeremiah himself referred to it as a pagan practice. I am on the side of the Bible, like Jeremiah. It is a pagan practice just like what the Hindus do. Baptismal regeneration is one of the oldest heresies within Christendom. It is damnable heresy that has been leading people straight to the pit of Hell.
DHK

[steaver]

If you take the position that it is the Holy Spirit that baptizes us, you need to show from Scripture the medium in which He baptizes us, as well as a reference that would indicate that the Spirit would be the administrator of a baptism. The burden of proof is on you, sir.
It is Jesus Christ who baptises "with" or "by" the Holy Spirit... (Matt 3:11).

The Holy Spirit, through the apostles, taught men to believe the gospel, repent of their sins, and be baptized in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Then and only then could they expect to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Why do you suppose Jesus said "ask" and it shall be given you? "...how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13)

Why do you suppose Jesus told the Samaritian woman to "ask" for the Holy Spirit rather than telling her to take a dip in the water to receive it? (John 4:10) Was He telling her a half truth?

Does your doctrine of salvation also teach that one must ask for the Holy Spirit in order to receive it? If not, why not, when Jesus told us to ask.

God Bless!

[Frank]

dhk:
The Bible says in Acts 22:16, and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. Baptism washes a way sins. It is simply an instrument God uses to remove sin. God used the brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. Numbers 20:8,9. John equates forgiveness to the symbol of the serpent and Christ being on the cross. John said as Moses lifted up the serpent so shall. the son of man be lifted up. John 3:14-16. God used the baptism in the Red Sea to save Israel. I Cor. 10: 1-4. God used water to save in the days of Noah. I Pet. 3:20. 21. Baptism washes away sin through the power of God , not the water itself. No one is making that argument.

Faith and baptism are connected. Jesus said in Mark 16;16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Baptism saves when it is done by faith of and in Christ. Col. 2:12, Eph. 3:12, Roms. 6: 3-6.

The act of Christ shedding his blood was a literal event. Baptism is also a literal event. However, each act symbolizes God's power to save.
The lifting up of the serpent was a literal act. The looking at the serpent was a literal act. However, the power to save from these acts was God. These acts of faith accessed God's grace that saves. Ephesians 2:8,9.

[Eric B]

However, the text says that we are baptized "by one Spirit". If you take the position that it is the Holy Spirit that baptizes us, you need to show from Scripture the medium in which He baptizes us, as well as a reference that would indicate that the Spirit would be the administrator of a baptism. The rest of the verse (which you did not quote) tells us what the medium is. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one BODY...". the body of christ is what one is baptized into in this passage.
If, on the other hand, we understand that for us to be baptized "by one Spirit" means that we are baptized according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, then the problem you encountered concerning more than "one baptism" (Eph 4:5) goes away. No; because as a symbol, thw water baptism was not "ANOTHER baptism". It symbolized the one baptism into the body of the saved in Christ. The Holy Spirit, through the apostles, taught men to believe the gospel, repent of their sins, and be baptized in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Then and only then could they expect to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
"baptized BY one spirit" does not mean "according to the teaching of", meaning "according to a particular [physical] method", as you are using it. Even if it did; according to the teaching of the Spirit, baptism into the body (salvation) is spiritual, and not of a physical work.
The baptism Paul spoke of is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12), and "that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Rom 6:17).

Let's compare. When one supposedly receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is he buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit? Be honest! That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it?

Now, when one is baptized in water, is he buried in the water and then raised up out of the water? Why yes, I'd have to say that's how it happens.

It seems quite logical to me that only water baptism fits the description given by the apostle Paul, and performed in several conversion accounts in Acts. The Bible clearly speaks of the "old man" going down and dying, and a "new man" rising. This is SPIRITUAL, and only SYMBOLIZED in the water. When a person is baptized into the body, he lays his old man down, and a new man arises. On the other hand, a person can fake it, and go down into the water an "old man", and still rise an "old man". According to your teaching, just going into the water alone should save him. Or now; you'll have to admit that it is the water AND something else ("faith", sincerity, genuine conversion of the heart, etc). Then it is ultimately not the water ceremony that is saving, but rather those spiritual things!
Water can't wash away leprosy, either, but Naaman was commanded to dip himself seven times in Jordan in order to be cleansed of it (2 Kings 5:1-14). Did the water wash away his leprosy? No, God did. But Naaman would have gone to his grave a leper had he not obeyed the commandment of God.

In like manner, water does not wash away sin, but baptism in water is commanded by God in order to have one's sins washed away under the New Testament. That's where faith comes in. is simply an instrument God uses to remove sin. God used the brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. Numbers 20:8,9. John equates forgiveness to the symbol of the serpent and Christ being on the cross. John said as Moses lifted up the serpent so shall. the son of man be lifted up. John 3:14-16. God used the baptism in the Red Sea to save Israel. I Cor. 10: 1-4. God used water to save in the days of Noah. I Pet. 3:20. 21. Baptism washes away sin through the power of God , not the water itself. No one is making that argument.

Faith and baptism are connected. Jesus said in Mark 16;16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Baptism saves when it is done by faith of and in Christ. Col. 2:12, Eph. 3:12, Roms. 6: 3-6.

The act of Christ shedding his blood was a literal event. Baptism is also a literal event. However, each act symbolizes God's power to save.
The lifting up of the serpent was a literal act. The looking at the serpent was a literal act. However, the power to save from these acts was God. These acts of faith accessed God's grace that saves. Ephesians 2:8,9. You all are getting closer to the truth now. But once again, baptism symbolized the washing away of sins, and as people were converted on the spot back then, there would be no reason to refuse a water baptism unless the person did not want his sins washed away. But the problem we encounter today, is that churches no longer baptize on the spot. (this is why an altar call has basically taken its place). This may not have been biblically authorized, but now it is almost universal in Christendom (including the CofC, RCC, EOC -wonder if DT ever got his chrismation yet; and all others who say baptism saves!) But you cannot now say the person is not saved until he has the water ceremony.
And while symbolic always precedes the real; remember that also the physical precedes the spiritual, and the physical is the symbolic, and the spiritual is the real, and not the other way around!

[Frank]

Eric:
I baptize immediately upon confession. Our congregation does not have ceremonial baptisms. This would not follow the pattern in the new testament.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
dhk:
The Bible says in Acts 22:16, and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.More accurately, as Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, as well as others, point out: "having called upon his name." Paul had already called upon the name of the Lord when on the way to Damascus. Read again the account in Acts chapter 9. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. When was Paul saved? When he called upon the name of the Lord, and said: "LORD, What will you have me to do?" Or, when he was baptized much later on? The answer is obvious. Paul even answers that question himself in recounting his testimony in other sections of the Book of Acts. He was not disobedient to the Heavenly vision. He was saved at that point. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.
Baptism washes a way sins.Damnable heresy of the worst kind!
It is simply an instrument God uses to remove sin.False again, God uses FAITH in the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ to remove sin. Water doesn't wash away sin. Your belief in such superstion is heresy.
God used the brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. Numbers 20:8,9. John equates forgiveness to the symbol of the serpent and Christ being on the cross. John said as Moses lifted up the serpent so shall. the son of man be lifted up. John 3:14-16.God did no such thing. He did not use a brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. That again is heresy. The serpent didn't save. It was faith in obedience to the command to look upon the serpent that saved, just as it is faith to look upon and believe in the Saviour that saves. If you believe that the serpent saved anyone, then you believe in idolatry--more heresy.
God used the baptism in the Red Sea to save Israel. I Cor. 10: 1-4. God used water to save in the days of Noah.No, he did not. The waters (of baptism) signified destruction. Those that were baptized drowned. They were destroyed by the flood. The waters flooded the earth, and destroyed all that was therein. It was the earth that was immersed in water, not Noah. What saved Noah? Noah was safe in the Ark, a picture of Christ, which rode on top of the waters.
I Pet. 3:20. 21. Baptism washes away sin through the power of God , not the water itself. No one is making that argument.You are. Look at what you have written above. The text clearly says that this is a figure, a symbol. And that it is the power of Christ by the resurrection that saves. You just don't like quoting the entire verse.

Faith and baptism are connected. Jesus said in Mark 16;16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Baptism saves when it is done by faith of and in Christ. Col. 2:12, Eph. 3:12, Roms. 6: 3-6.They are not connected in salvation. The only connection is that baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation by the believer. Notice the verse clearly says: "He that believeth not shall be damned." You don't have to be "not baptized" to be damned.

The act of Christ shedding his blood was a literal event. Baptism is also a literal event. However, each act symbolizes God's power to save.Yes it was a literal event. And the one that puts his faith in the sacrifice that shed his blood for our sins is a literal event. It is a one time event that gives one eternal life as a free gift of God, that can never be taken away. It is at that time when one is born again (not of baptism), but of the Spirit of God, and of the Word of God (1Pet.1:23), which the water symbolizes. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in John 3.
The lifting up of the serpent was a literal act. The looking at the serpent was a literal act. However, the power to save from these acts was God. These acts of faith accessed God's grace that saves. Ephesians 2:8,9. That's right; it was faith and faith alone that saves. Not baptism--not even faith in baptism. Baptism was always done after salvation. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is by grace are you saved through faith, not of baptism (a work)
DHK

[bmerr]

Originally posted by DHK:
You fill it up with plain old H2O, and then by superstition believe that that mass of two hydrogen atoms to every one oxygen atom is going to wash away your sins.DHK,

bmerr here. You are the only one espousing such a notion, sir. As I've stated before, water, in and of itself is not profitable for the washing away of sin. However, if we believe the teaching of Christ, and submit to His authority, then we will be immersed in water for the remission of sins, and leave the results up to Him.

I know it doesn't make much sense. It seems foolish to many. But that is what is commanded, and none of your protests will change that fact.

It ain't going to work. It is a superstition. Jeremiah declared it to be so. Why don't you just believe him?Jeremiah was speaking to the nation of Israel as they polluted themselves with idolatry. The practice they were engaging in may well have been a part of that pagan worship they were involved in.

This does not refute the command of God to be baptized for the remission of sins under the New Testament, which is by the blood of Jesus Christ. Do you understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants? You don't talk like you do.

In every case in the Bible baptism took place after one was saved--not before, not during, but after. It is an act of obedience that takes place after one is saved. If baptism was a part of salvation, then salvation would be by works, a heresy that contradicts Eph.2:8,9.Just saying it doesn't make it so, sir. You've got to prove it. Nowhere does the Bible teach that one is saved by "faith only". Nowhere in the Bible are we taught that baptism is something one does after salvation.

Eph 2:8, 9 is by far one of the most mis-used texts in the entirety of Holy Writ. I think I've gone over this before, but it's worth repeating.

The "ye" in the text is the saints at Ephesus (1:2). We need to understand Eph 2:8, 9 in the same way they understood it. Let's follow the "ye".

In 1:13, speaking of Christ, we read, "In whom also ye trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."

Do we see the word "only" in connection with "believed" in that text? No. Let's keep it out of our understanding of the text also.

Next, let's turn to Acts 19:18, where we read, "And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds."

Now we have belief and confession, just like in rom 10:9, 10. The Ephesians also "shewed their deeds", or their works. They repented. That means repentance is a work. Doesn't bother me, though, since it is a work commanded by God (Acts 17:30). Faith, repentance, and confession so far. Everyone still on board?

Skip back to 19:1-5, where we see men hear Paul's preaching, demonstrate repentance by accepting his correction, and being baptized.

So, to sum up what we've found, we have preaching, hearing, faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. all of these things would have been in the minds of the saints at Ephesus ("ye") when they read Eph 2:8, 9.

An interesting thing for you to look up is the phrase "faith only". See if you can find it in the New Testament, and tell everyone what it says when you do. It's in there one time. Are you honest enough?

Baptism is not purely symbolical. It is not symbolical when a person gets wet. What happens at baptism? You get wet. You don't get saved. You get wet. That is all. It is does symbolize something--one's death to his old life to sin, and his rising again to a new life in Christ. That is obedience. But in reality, it simply gets you wet. It cannot save; it cannot wash away your sin. That is pure superstition.
DHK [/QB]Look at Rom 6:17, 18. It reads,

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Notice at what point the Romans were made free from sin: When they obeyed from the heart that form of the doctrine they had been delivered.

What was the doctrine that had been delivered to the Romans? And what do you think would be a form, or a symbol of that doctrine?

Nobody's claiming "baptism only", DHK. Just baptism also.

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frank:
dhk:
The Bible says in Acts 22:16, and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.More accurately, as Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, as well as others, point out: "having called upon his name."</font>[/QUOTE]Who the heck are Jameison, Faucett, and Brown, but men who have given their opinion on a text? The opinions of men are not authoritative, most especially when they're wrong.

Paul had already called upon the name of the Lord when on the way to Damascus. Read again the account in Acts chapter 9. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. When was Paul saved? When he called upon the name of the Lord, and said: "LORD, What will you have me to do?"Have you ever noticed that Paul, having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, still understood that he needed to do something? How about the fact that even Jesus Christ Himself didn't tell Paul what to do, but sent him to wait for a man to tell him.

That phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord" is an interesting one. Paul was not the only one told to do such a thing.

In the first gospel sermon on Pentecost of Acts 2, Peter told the crowd, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).

Then down in 2:37, those who were pricked in their heart said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" These people had believed Peter's message, and it was this faith in his message of the risen Christ that prompted their question, which was, by implication, "What shall we do to call on the name of the Lord?"

What did Peter tell them? "I just told you back in verse 21, ya morons! Call on the name of the Lord! What is ya, ignint? Start hollerin' Lord, Lord!"

Of course not!

We all know (whether we like it or not) that Peter told them to "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."

In obeying Peter's command, they were calling on the name of the Lord.

Also, in Rom 10:16, we read, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel..."

This follows hot on the heels of Rom 10:13, "For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

So Paul tells us that to call upon the name of the Lord is to obey the gospel. What could that mean?

Or, when he was baptized much later on? The answer is obvious. Paul even answers that question himself in recounting his testimony in other sections of the Book of Acts. He was not disobedient to the Heavenly vision. He was saved at that point. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.Okay, we need to recognize that when Paul was told to be baptized, it was to wash away his sins. Was he saved while still in his sins? Of course not.

Additionally, the "heavenly vision" he obeyed was Jesus telling him his mission (read Acts 26:16-18), not Jesus telling him how to be saved, or that he already was saved.


Baptism washes a way sins. Damnable heresy of the worst kind!There you go blasphemeing the Holy Spirit again! Repent, man!
False again, God uses FAITH in the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ to remove sin. Water doesn't wash away sin. Your belief in such superstion is heresy.It's a good thing you keep saying things like "baptism does not wash away sin", and "salvation is by faith alone". If it weren't for people like you, people wouldn't believe it, since they won't find it in the Bible.


God used the brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. Numbers 20:8,9. John equates forgiveness to the symbol of the serpent and Christ being on the cross. John said as Moses lifted up the serpent so shall. the son of man be lifted up. John 3:14-16.God did no such thing. He did not use a brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. That again is heresy. [/quote]

God did in the case of the brasen serpent the same thing He did with Naaman, and Jericho, and a host of other examples in the Old Testament. He gave a command to be obeyed in order to receive a promised blessing. These things were written for our admonition (1 Cor 10:11), so that when god commanded immersion in water for the blessing of the remission of sins, we could know tha we could trust Him to deliver if we obeyed.

The serpent didn't save. It was faith in obedience to the command to look upon the serpent that saved,Now you're getting it, sir! Obedience to God's command to look upon the serpent saved the people from dying from the snake bite. The serpent itself did nothing. Keep this in mind with baptism in the New Testament.

just as it is faith to look upon and believe in the Saviour that saves.ARRGHH! You almost had it. You need to find something that the Bible actually commands us to do. We are not told to "look upon and believe in the Saviour" for salvation, or the remission of sins. So close!

God used the baptism in the Red Sea to save Israel. I Cor. 10: 1-4. God used water to save in the days of Noah.No, he did not. The waters (of baptism) signified destruction. Those that were baptized drowned. They were destroyed by the flood. The waters flooded the earth, and destroyed all that was therein. It was the earth that was immersed in water, not Noah. What saved Noah? Noah was safe in the Ark, a picture of Christ, which rode on top of the waters.[/quote]

God used water in the days of Noah to separate the righteous from the unrighteous, the like figure of which baptism is used under the New Testament. There are several examples of God using water as a dividing line. Maybe I'll post on that sometime.


I Pet. 3:20. 21. Baptism washes away sin through the power of God , not the water itself. No one is making that argument.

You are. Look at what you have written above. The text clearly says that this is a figure, a symbol. And that it is the power of Christ by the resurrection that saves. You just don't like quoting the entire verse.Okay, here's the whole enchilada.

20 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:

The filth of the flesh is dirt. The filth of the soul is sin. Sin is what gives us a guilty conscience before God. dirt is what makes us need a bath.

Peter is saying that baptism is not a bath for the body, but an answer (or appeal, request) of (for) a good conscience toward God.

When a repentant believer submits to baptism, he is doing so in "faith of the operation of God" (Col 2:12). He understands that his purpose is not to clean his body of dirt, but to have God wash his soul of sin.

Again, let me emphasize that Frank and I are not proposing salvation by baptism only, but salvation by baptism also. To dunk an unrepentant unbeliever under the water would, in fact, just get him wet (and pretty mad, too!).

Faith and repentance are prerequisites for baptism.

Faith and baptism are connected. Jesus said in Mark 16;16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Baptism saves when it is done by faith of and in Christ. Col. 2:12, Eph. 3:12, Roms. 6: 3-6. They are not connected in salvation. The only connection is that baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation by the believer. Notice the verse clearly says: "He that believeth not shall be damned." You don't have to be "not baptized" to be damned.How needless would it have been for Christ to say "and is not baptized"? One is condemned at the first sin of unbelief (John 3:18). How much more damned could one be by not submitting to baptism?

What if Mark 16:16 promised a new Cadillac? What would you have to do to get it?

The act of Christ shedding his blood was a literal event. Baptism is also a literal event. However, each act symbolizes God's power to save. It is at that time when one is born again (not of baptism), but of the Spirit of God, and of the Word of God (1Pet.1:23), which the water symbolizes. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in John 3.What was Jesus speaking of when He said that one must be born of wter and of the Spirit (John 3:5)?


The lifting up of the serpent was a literal act. The looking at the serpent was a literal act. However, the power to save from these acts was God. These acts of faith accessed God's grace that saves. Ephesians 2:8,9. That's right; it was faith and faith alone that saves. Not baptism--not even faith in baptism. Baptism was always done after salvation. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is by grace are you saved through faith, not of baptism (a work)
DHK Again, let me encourage you to find the phrase "faith only" or "faith alone" in the New Testament.

In closing, let me point out that in Noah's case, God's grace was manifested by God telling Noah what to do to escape the coming judgment.

In Titus 2:11, 12, we read,

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should leve soberly, reighteously, and godly, in this present world;

God's grace to mankind is manifested by His providing a way of escape from the coming Judgment. Our faith in the Way He has provided, demonstrated by our obedience to His commands, is what saves us.

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frank:
dhk:
The Bible says in Acts 22:16, and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.More accurately, as Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, as well as others, point out: "having called upon his name."</font>[/QUOTE]Who the heck are Jameison, Faucett, and Brown, but men who have given their opinion on a text? The opinions of men are not authoritative, most especially when they're wrong.

Paul had already called upon the name of the Lord when on the way to Damascus. Read again the account in Acts chapter 9. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. When was Paul saved? When he called upon the name of the Lord, and said: "LORD, What will you have me to do?"Have you ever noticed that Paul, having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, still understood that he needed to do something? How about the fact that even Jesus Christ Himself didn't tell Paul what to do, but sent him to wait for a man to tell him.

That phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord" is an interesting one. Paul was not the only one told to do such a thing.

In the first gospel sermon on Pentecost of Acts 2, Peter told the crowd, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).

Then down in 2:37, those who were pricked in their heart said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" These people had believed Peter's message, and it was this faith in his message of the risen Christ that prompted their question, which was, by implication, "What shall we do to call on the name of the Lord?"

What did Peter tell them? "I just told you back in verse 21, ya morons! Call on the name of the Lord! What is ya, ignint? Start hollerin' Lord, Lord!"

Of course not!

We all know (whether we like it or not) that Peter told them to "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."

In obeying Peter's command, they were calling on the name of the Lord.

Also, in Rom 10:16, we read, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel..."

This follows hot on the heels of Rom 10:13, "For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

So Paul tells us that to call upon the name of the Lord is to obey the gospel. What could that mean?

Or, when he was baptized much later on? The answer is obvious. Paul even answers that question himself in recounting his testimony in other sections of the Book of Acts. He was not disobedient to the Heavenly vision. He was saved at that point. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.Okay, we need to recognize that when Paul was told to be baptized, it was to wash away his sins. Was he saved while still in his sins? Of course not.

Additionally, the "heavenly vision" he obeyed was Jesus telling him his mission (read Acts 26:16-18), not Jesus telling him how to be saved, or that he already was saved.


Baptism washes a way sins. Damnable heresy of the worst kind!There you go blasphemeing the Holy Spirit again! Repent, man!
False again, God uses FAITH in the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ to remove sin. Water doesn't wash away sin. Your belief in such superstion is heresy.It's a good thing you keep saying things like "baptism does not wash away sin", and "salvation is by faith alone". If it weren't for people like you, people wouldn't believe it, since they won't find it in the Bible.


God used the brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. Numbers 20:8,9. John equates forgiveness to the symbol of the serpent and Christ being on the cross. John said as Moses lifted up the serpent so shall. the son of man be lifted up. John 3:14-16.God did no such thing. He did not use a brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. That again is heresy. [/quote]

God did in the case of the brasen serpent the same thing He did with Naaman, and Jericho, and a host of other examples in the Old Testament. He gave a command to be obeyed in order to receive a promised blessing. These things were written for our admonition (1 Cor 10:11), so that when god commanded immersion in water for the blessing of the remission of sins, we could know tha we could trust Him to deliver if we obeyed.

The serpent didn't save. It was faith in obedience to the command to look upon the serpent that saved,Now you're getting it, sir! Obedience to God's command to look upon the serpent saved the people from dying from the snake bite. The serpent itself did nothing. Keep this in mind with baptism in the New Testament.

just as it is faith to look upon and believe in the Saviour that saves.ARRGHH! You almost had it. You need to find something that the Bible actually commands us to do. We are not told to "look upon and believe in the Saviour" for salvation, or the remission of sins. So close!

God used the baptism in the Red Sea to save Israel. I Cor. 10: 1-4. God used water to save in the days of Noah.No, he did not. The waters (of baptism) signified destruction. Those that were baptized drowned. They were destroyed by the flood. The waters flooded the earth, and destroyed all that was therein. It was the earth that was immersed in water, not Noah. What saved Noah? Noah was safe in the Ark, a picture of Christ, which rode on top of the waters.[/quote]

God used water in the days of Noah to separate the righteous from the unrighteous, the like figure of which baptism is used under the New Testament. There are several examples of God using water as a dividing line. Maybe I'll post on that sometime.


I Pet. 3:20. 21. Baptism washes away sin through the power of God , not the water itself. No one is making that argument.

You are. Look at what you have written above. The text clearly says that this is a figure, a symbol. And that it is the power of Christ by the resurrection that saves. You just don't like quoting the entire verse.Okay, here's the whole enchilada.

20 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:

The filth of the flesh is dirt. The filth of the soul is sin. Sin is what gives us a guilty conscience before God. dirt is what makes us need a bath.

Peter is saying that baptism is not a bath for the body, but an answer (or appeal, request) of (for) a good conscience toward God.

When a repentant believer submits to baptism, he is doing so in "faith of the operation of God" (Col 2:12). He understands that his purpose is not to clean his body of dirt, but to have God wash his soul of sin.

Again, let me emphasize that Frank and I are not proposing salvation by baptism only, but salvation by baptism also. To dunk an unrepentant unbeliever under the water would, in fact, just get him wet (and pretty mad, too!).

Faith and repentance are prerequisites for baptism.

Faith and baptism are connected. Jesus said in Mark 16;16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Baptism saves when it is done by faith of and in Christ. Col. 2:12, Eph. 3:12, Roms. 6: 3-6. They are not connected in salvation. The only connection is that baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation by the believer. Notice the verse clearly says: "He that believeth not shall be damned." You don't have to be "not baptized" to be damned.How needless would it have been for Christ to say "and is not baptized"? One is condemned at the first sin of unbelief (John 3:18). How much more damned could one be by not submitting to baptism?

What if Mark 16:16 promised a new Cadillac? What would you have to do to get it?

The act of Christ shedding his blood was a literal event. Baptism is also a literal event. However, each act symbolizes God's power to save. It is at that time when one is born again (not of baptism), but of the Spirit of God, and of the Word of God (1Pet.1:23), which the water symbolizes. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in John 3.What was Jesus speaking of when He said that one must be born of wter and of the Spirit (John 3:5)?


The lifting up of the serpent was a literal act. The looking at the serpent was a literal act. However, the power to save from these acts was God. These acts of faith accessed God's grace that saves. Ephesians 2:8,9. That's right; it was faith and faith alone that saves. Not baptism--not even faith in baptism. Baptism was always done after salvation. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is by grace are you saved through faith, not of baptism (a work)
DHK Again, let me encourage you to find the phrase "faith only" or "faith alone" in the New Testament.

In closing, let me point out that in Noah's case, God's grace was manifested by God telling Noah what to do to escape the coming judgment.

In Titus 2:11, 12, we read,

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should leve soberly, reighteously, and godly, in this present world;

God's grace to mankind is manifested by His providing a way of escape from the coming Judgment. Our faith in the Way He has provided, demonstrated by our obedience to His commands, is what saves us.

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

Originally posted by steaver:

It is Jesus Christ who baptises "with" or "by" the Holy Spirit... (Matt 3:11).bmerr here. What you've got there, steaver, is what's called a grammatical error. "With", and "by" do not mean the same thing.

Jesus baptized "with" the Spirit. The apostles were baptized "by" Jesus "with" the Spirit.

Many people were baptized "by" John "with" water.

Do you see the difference? I'm afraid your case is not made, and you are still lacking Scriptural support for the idea that the Holy Spirit would baptize anyone.

"By" the Spirit we are baptized "into" the church, or the "one body", the baptism is administered by man, in keeping with the Savior's command (Matt 28:19), and the element in which we are baptized into the church is water, as demonstrated in Acts 8:38, 10:47, and 16:13-15.

Why do you suppose Jesus said "ask" and it shall be given you? "...how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13)

Why do you suppose Jesus told the Samaritian woman to "ask" for the Holy Spirit rather than telling her to take a dip in the water to receive it? (John 4:10) Was He telling her a half truth?

Does your doctrine of salvation also teach that one must ask for the Holy Spirit in order to receive it? If not, why not, when Jesus told us to ask.This is an exellent set of questions, and I'm not sure if my answer will be satisfactory, but I'll give it a shot.

As has been covered elsewhere (and maybve on this thread, too), the fact is that Jesus lived and died under the Old Testament. The New Testament is the one in His blood, and is binding until the end of time.

Let's say I decide to give you my 1991 Ranger with 273,000+ miles on it. I could just walk up to you, and hand you the keys, and it'd be yours (lucky you, huh?).

But what if, instead of just giving it to you, I leave it to you in my last will and testament. Then you have to wait for me to die before you can get it.

While I'm alive, it's mine to do with as I please, but after I'm dead, it has to be distributed according to my last will and testament. Anything other than that would be against my instructions.

Okay, where am I going with this, right? Here's the deal. While Jesus was alive (before the crucifixion, I mean), He was free to distribute His posessions to anyone He chose, under any conditions that He chose.

Take the rich young ruler from Mark 10:17-ff for example. He was told to sell what he had and give to the poor, and to follow Jesus in order to have eternal life.

In contrast, the thief on the cross did nothing more than ask Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom, and he was promised paradise.

Blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52) received his sight at the word of Christ, but the man born blind in John 9:1-ff got clay made of Jesus' spit and dirt put on his eyes, and then had to go wash in the pool of Siloam before he received his sight. Why the difference?

It was His stuff to give as He pleased before His death.

It's the same way with the Holy Spirit. Before His death, Jesus could tell people to pray to the Father to send Him, or suggest to the woman at the well to ask Him for Him.

But after the cross, Jesus last will and Testament went into effect. Now the Spirit is given only according to the New Testament, which requires faith, repentance, and baptism, and supercedes the Old.

I hope that helps. It's how I see it, and if I've got it wrong, I'm willing to be corrected. I'm in the process of learning like everyone else.

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The rest of the verse (which you did not quote) tells us what the medium is. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one BODY...". the body of christ is what one is baptized into in this passage.bmerr here. I didn't mean to seem like I was avoiding the text, just trying to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

The one body is what we are baptized "into", not what we're baptized "with".

The apostles were baptized "with" the Holy Ghost "by" Jesus.

Many were baptized "with" water "by" John.

So again, if one interprets 1 Cor 12:13 as though the Holy Spirit is doing the baptizing, then he must identify the medium in which the Spirit baptizes us "into" the one body.


No; because as a symbol, thw water baptism was not "ANOTHER baptism". It symbolized the one baptism into the body of the saved in Christ. No, immersion in water is a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:17). It IS a real baptism totally separate and apart from the baptism of the Holy Spirit, with a completely different purpose, and thus makes TWO baptisms, when Paul said years after Acts 10 that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5).

"baptized BY one spirit" does not mean "according to the teaching of", meaning "according to a particular [physical] method", as you are using it. Even if it did; according to the teaching of the Spirit, baptism into the body (salvation) is spiritual, and not of a physical work.Who would you say inspired Peter and the rest of the apostles to preach and teach immersion in water for the remission of sins then?

The baptism Paul spoke of is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12), and "that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Rom 6:17).

Let's compare. When one supposedly receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is he buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit? Be honest! That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it?

Now, when one is baptized in water, is he buried in the water and then raised up out of the water? Why yes, I'd have to say that's how it happens.

It seems quite logical to me that only water baptism fits the description given by the apostle Paul, and performed in several conversion accounts in Acts.

The Bible clearly speaks of the "old man" going down and dying, and a "new man" rising. This is SPIRITUAL, and only SYMBOLIZED in the water. When a person is baptized into the body, he lays his old man down, and a new man arises. On the other hand, a person can fake it, and go down into the water an "old man", and still rise an "old man". According to your teaching, just going into the water alone should save him. Or now; you'll have to admit that it is the water AND something else ("faith", sincerity, genuine conversion of the heart, etc). Then it is ultimately not the water ceremony that is saving, but rather those spiritual things!I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I am espousing salvation by "baptism only". That would be as false as preaching salvation by "faith only".

I've stated several times that faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism. And whether you see baptism as merely a "water ceremony" or not, it's still commanded by God in order to obtain the remission of sins.
Water can't wash away leprosy, either, but Naaman was commanded to dip himself seven times in Jordan in order to be cleansed of it (2 Kings 5:1-14). Did the water wash away his leprosy? No, God did. But Naaman would have gone to his grave a leper had he not obeyed the commandment of God.


[QUOTE]You all are getting closer to the truth now. It's what we've been saying all along. How is it we're getting closer?

But once again, baptism symbolized the washing away of sins, and as people were converted on the spot back then, there would be no reason to refuse a water baptism unless the person did not want his sins washed away.Didn't you just say their sins were already washed away ("converted on the spot")? Who would even believe if they didn't see their need of having their sins washed away?

But the problem we encounter today, is that churches no longer baptize on the spot. (this is why an altar call has basically taken its place). This may not have been biblically authorized, but now it is almost universal in ChristendomThat's the root of the problem of denominationalism. The introduction of things not authorized by Scripture. There is no "Christendom" in the Bible. Only the church.

And while symbolic always precedes the real; remember that also the physical precedes the spiritual, and the physical is the symbolic, and the spiritual is the real, and not the other way around! [/QB]You make my point for me. The symbolic, or physical (baptism in water) precedes, or comes before the real, or spiritual (washing of sins, salvation). I couldn't have said it better myself.

In Christ,

bmerr

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:

bmerr here. You are the only one espousing such a notion, sir. As I've stated before, water, in and of itself is not profitable for the washing away of sin. However, if we believe the teaching of Christ, and submit to His authority, then we will be immersed in water for the remission of sins, and leave the results up to Him.Remember you are posting on a Baptist Board, in an Other Religions or Denominations Forum. No Baptist believes in baptismal regeneration, so you are clearly in the minority, not me. There are very few people here that espouse what you believe, in fact. Baptismal regeneration is a well known documented heresy. Baptism doesn't save. Only Christ can save. It is that simple. Your problem is that you take a few Scriptures out of context and ignore the rest of the Bible. You have a problem with the very words of Christ, don't you?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 5:24 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.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

1 John 5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

None of these Scriptures speak about baptism. They all speak of faith or belief. Your cultish heretical belief is what the Bible defines as damnable heresy.
I know it doesn't make much sense. It seems foolish to many. But that is what is commanded, and none of your protests will change that fact.What the Bible commands is to be saved, and then to be baptized. Baptism follows salvation all the time. No matter what you assert, you will not change the teachings of the Bible.
Jeremiah was speaking to the nation of Israel as they polluted themselves with idolatry. The practice they were engaging in may well have been a part of that pagan worship they were involved in.You are absolutely right. It was a pagan practice. And so is baptismal regeneration, a practice carried out by the Hindus--a superstition that water can wash away sins. Pure paganism.
This does not refute the command of God to be baptized for the remission of sins under the New Testament, which is by the blood of Jesus Christ. Do you understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants? You don't talk like you do.I understand, but apparently you do not. The Bible does not contradict itself. Let's look at that command of Scripture that the Lord Himself gave us:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Now if you look in the Greek, or even a number of other translations, you will find that the first command (after Go) is "disciple" translated "teach" in the KJV. In order to disciple someone, they first have to be brought to Christ. The plan Christ gave to the disciples was:
1. GO
2. Win them to Christ (no baptism). This is the first part of the discipling process.
3. Disciple. This is what is meant by the word teach.
4. Baptize. They weren't to be baptized until after they were saved and then well taught.
5. Teach them more--all things.
--It is very evident that baptism is far removed from salvation, just as it was in the life of Saul.
Just saying it doesn't make it so, sir. You've got to prove it. Nowhere does the Bible teach that one is saved by "faith only". Nowhere in the Bible are we taught that baptism is something one does after salvation.I have already quoted enough Scripture for you to prove this point. If you don't believe Christ, then who will you believe? Did Christ say I am the way, or did He say Baptism is the way? Which is it? You obviously discredit Christ and disbelieve the Bible. You would rather believe a superstition that water saves.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
--Notice it says blood of Christ, not baptism or water.

Eph 2:8, 9 is by far one of the most mis-used texts in the entirety of Holy Writ. I think I've gone over this before, but it's worth repeating.It is one of the plainest and simplest verses in the Bible. You reject its teaching because it goes directly against the heresy that you espouse. You have gone out of your way to make something so simple, so complicated.
The "ye" in the text is the saints at Ephesus (1:2). We need to understand Eph 2:8, 9 in the same way they understood it. Let's follow the "ye".So let's follow it. Simply put, the letter Paul wrote was to the "saints" at Ephesus--the saved. Not hard to understand at all.
In 1:13, speaking of Christ, we read, "In whom also ye trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."As I pointed out to you. It is simple. Paul again says that he is writing to the saved. They had "trusted" Christ as their Saviour. They had believed. They were saved.
Do we see the word "only" in connection with "believed" in that text? No. Let's keep it out of our understanding of the text also.Let's look at another example to answer that question.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--I suppose you would think that because Jesus didn't use the word only that He didn't mean that He alone was the way to Heaven. One can get to Heaven through Mohammed, Krishna, Confucius, and a host of other gods, right? Christ has to say ONLY, according to your theology, in order to make the statement valid. If it doesn't say "Christ ONLY" then He doesn't really mean, that he is the way, and there is no other way to Heaven. This is your ridiculous theology.

Next, let's turn to Acts 19:18, where we read, "And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds."

Now we have belief and confession, just like in rom 10:9, 10. The Ephesians also "shewed their deeds", or their works. They repented. That means repentance is a work. Doesn't bother me, though, since it is a work commanded by God (Acts 17:30). Faith, repentance, and confession so far. Everyone still on board?No, everyone is not on board, because your theology has really gone off the deep end here.
First, look at Eph.19:18 in the ASV

Acts 19:18 Many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds.
--Note: They HAD believed. They were already Christians. They came and confessed. What did they confess? They confessed their invlovement in magic, much like a believer might confess their involvement using a ouiji board today. It is wrong. Delving into the paranormal for any Christian is wrong. That is what they were confessing. They were already Christians. The text says "they had believed."
Skip back to 19:1-5, where we see men hear Paul's preaching, demonstrate repentance by accepting his correction, and being baptized.
They showed their deeds. That's right. Every Christian ought to "show their deeds." Don't you? Good works is the fruit of a Christian. So is giving up bad works or bad habits. That is part of the fruit of a growing Christian.
You use the words: faith, repentance, and confession, as acts or works. They are not. When one puts their faith in Christ he is repenting at the same time. His faith is not a dead faith. These are not separate acts. The only requirement for salvation is faith and faith alone.
So, to sum up what we've found, we have preaching, hearing, faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. all of these things would have been in the minds of the saints at Ephesus ("ye") when they read Eph 2:8, 9.This is all according to bmmer's confused and contradictory theology which doesn't exist in the Bible.
An interesting thing for you to look up is the phrase "faith only". See if you can find it in the New Testament, and tell everyone what it says when you do. It's in there one time. Are you honest enough?I have already addressed that. I hope you read it carefully.
Now I will adress Eph.2:8,9 and explain it to you. It is very simple to understand:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

1. "For by grace are ye saved" Grace is God's free unmerited favor. We are saved by grace because salvation is entirely of God, and man has no part in it at all, and that includes baptism. When Christ was dying on the cross, John 19:30 records one of his last words: "It is finished." Meaning, Salvation is finished. There is nothing more to be done. It is accomplished. Man can do nothing. Christ accomplished it all. It was all of grace--God's grace--His free unmerited favor. We didn't deserve that which he provided for us. Salvation begins and ends with the grace of God. Man has no part in the grace of God. Paul defines that very clearly when he says:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--If there is any work at all involved in the grace of God (and that includes baptism), then grace isn't grace.

2. "through faith" You are saved through faith. It is evident that the "alone" is implied. Do I have to go through my illustration with John 14:6 all over again. Shall I quote the dozens, even hundreds of verses that tell us plainly that salvation is by faith and faith alone. Or, will you throw a childish temper tantrum like some Catholics do because the exact words "faith alone" is not found in the Bible. This one of the most childish arguments I have ever heard. Salvation is by faith, and by faith alone. The context dictates it is. Paul makes sure of that.

3. "and that not of yourselves"
It is not of yourself that you are saved. Baptism is of yourself. It is something that you do; that someone does to you. It is an act, a work. It takes away from the grace of God. It is not necessarily an act of faith. Infants have no faith when they are baptized do they? (A Catholic belief). It is the same concept however, because it is believed that it is the baptismal waters that saves, so why not baptize the infants. One heresy leads to another.

4. "It is a gift of God."
Notice carefully. A gift is a gift. One does not work for a gift. Gifts are given without cost to the recipient. Gifts are free. My children never have to pay me or work for a birthday gift or a Christmas gift. I give it to them out of my own love for them. And God gives us the gift of eternal love at the time of our salvation out of his love for us, because we believe on him. We accept it by faith and faith alone.

5. "It is not of works."
How plain can it be!!! It is not of works. Baptism is a work. It is not of works; not of baptism. If one thinks that baptism is part of salvation they are clearly wrong and contradicting Scripture. There is no work whatsoever involved in salvation. Christ paid the penalty completely with no help from mankind. That is the grace of God. It is a gift of God to be received by faith and faith alone.
Look at Rom 6:17, 18. It reads,

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Notice at what point the Romans were made free from sin: When they obeyed from the heart that form of the doctrine they had been delivered.

What was the doctrine that had been delivered to the Romans? And what do you think would be a form, or a symbol of that doctrine?

Nobody's claiming "baptism only", DHK. Just baptism also.

In Christ,

bmerr Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
The meaning is obvious. They were (in their unsaved life) the servants of sin. But now, that they are saved, they obey from the heart the doctrines that they have learned. Sure that may include baptism, prayer, witnessing, fellowship, etc. All of these things follow salvation. Paul was writing to the saints at Rome. He was writing to Christians.
It is important to note that Paul "came not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Baptism didn't seem to be all important to Paul.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The doctrines that Paul referred to had nothing to do with baptism. That is just reading into the Scripture things that are not there. It is called "wrongly dividing the word of truth." Peter calls is specifically "wresting the Scriptures to ones own destruction." (2Pet.3:16)
DHK

[Michael52]

Originally posted by bmerr:
Again, let me emphasize that Frank and I are not proposing salvation by baptism only, but salvation by baptism also. To dunk an unrepentant unbeliever under the water would, in fact, just get him wet (and pretty mad, too!).
[/QB]As you said, to “dunk” someone while he is an “unrepentant unbeliever” would not save him. I agree. Let’s say a particular “unrepentant unbeliever” has somehow just moved, or been moved, to the state of being a “repentant believer.” I’m assuming most would consider this individual is now a candidate for baptism. Unfortunately, in the interim, this person dies before the actual water baptism ceremony. What should happen to him? Saved or damned?

For those who believe the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration, I guess they could argue he is damned. Though, I have never heard of any denomination officially or unofficially teaching this. I have heard people say that since, “his heart was right” and his sincere desire was to be baptized, then God would make an allowance in this case.

God doesn’t make arbitrary “allowances”. He does what is right and consistent with His nature in all cases, even when we don’t know or do what is right. He does know our hearts. It just seems to me, this is the overarching tenor and message of the scriptures. What good thing can we do that He did not first give us the power to do? What ceremony or rite can we perform to put Him in our debt or make us holy?

Jesus did all the work necessary for our salvation.

[bmerr]

Originally posted by DHK:
Remember you are posting on a Baptist Board, in an Other Religions or Denominations Forum. No Baptist believes in baptismal regeneration, so you are clearly in the minority, not me. There are very few people here that espouse what you believe, in fact.DHK,

bmerr here. Do you actually think that being in the majority means you're right? Not a wise choice at all, sir. In the Bible, the majority is almost always in error. The flood of Noah's day; how many were saved? 8. The spies sent in to check out the Promised land; how many gave a bad report? 10. How many believed God? 2.

Or how about those over the age of twenty in the group last mentioned who actually entered into the Promised land; 2 out of what, 2-4 million?

The broad gate that leadeth to destruction; many there be which go in thereat.

The strait and narrow gate that leadeth unto life; few there be that find it.

I could go on, but I am hard pressed to think of an example where the majority is right.

Baptismal regeneration is a well known documented heresy.Just for the record, would you mind telling me exactly what "baptismal regeneration" is? I've heard it mentioned several times, but I'm not sure I know what it is. I'm serious.

None of these Scriptures speak about baptism. They all speak of faith or belief. Your cultish heretical belief is what the Bible defines as damnable heresy.None of these scriptures says "faith only" or "faith alone" either, but you act as though they do. You still didn't show the one verse where we find the phrase "faith alone". Do you really not know where it is?


What the Bible commands is to be saved, and then to be baptized. Baptism follows salvation all the time. No matter what you assert, you will not change the teachings of the Bible.I think what's keeping you in error is that you are arguing from a false premise. If you start out with an incorrect premise, then you conclusion will also be incorrect.

You keep arguing from the standpoint of salvation by "faith alone", which the Bible does not teach. In fact, it is "faith alone" that the devils have (James 2:19).

James 2:17 says that faith without works is dead. Surely you aren't submitting the view that we are saved by a dead (non-working) faith, which produces a living (working) faith?


You are absolutely right. It was a pagan practice. And so is baptismal regeneration, a practice carried out by the Hindus--a superstition that water can wash away sins. Pure paganism.Again (!) let me emphasize that I do not teach or believe that water washes away sin. Immersion in water of a penitent believer is what God (not me) had commanded in order to receive the remission, or washing away, of sins.

I understand, but apparently you do not. The Bible does not contradict itself. Let's look at that command of Scripture that the Lord Himself gave us:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Now if you look in the Greek, or even a number of other translations, you will find that the first command (after Go) is "disciple" translated "teach" in the KJV. In order to disciple someone, they first have to be brought to Christ. The plan Christ gave to the disciples was:
1. GO
2. Win them to Christ (no baptism). This is the first part of the discipling process.
3. Disciple. This is what is meant by the word teach.
4. Baptize. They weren't to be baptized until after they were saved and then well taught.
5. Teach them more--all things.I'll have to check it out, but I believe "teach" is translated as "make disciples", not "disciple". Like I said, I'll have to check it out.

It is very evident that baptism is far removed from salvation, just as it was in the life of Saul.Are you then saying that Saul was saved while still in his sins? An answer one way or the other would be helpful.


1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
--Notice it says blood of Christ, not baptism or water.Notice also that this was written to Christians, not to alien sinners.

It is one of the plainest and simplest verses in the Bible. You reject its teaching because it goes directly against the heresy that you espouse. You have gone out of your way to make something so simple, so complicated.Eph 2:8, 9 is no more complicated that mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38, verses you seem to have trouble believing.

We can't pick one over the other, DHK. We've got to make them all work together.
Let's look at another example to answer that question.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--I suppose you would think that because Jesus didn't use the word only that He didn't mean that He alone was the way to Heaven. One can get to Heaven through Mohammed, Krishna, Confucius, and a host of other gods, right? Christ has to say ONLY, according to your theology, in order to make the statement valid. If it doesn't say "Christ ONLY" then He doesn't really mean, that he is the way, and there is no other way to Heaven. This is your ridiculous theology.You sir, are a master of misrepresentation. Calm down a little. Don't get upset because you're losing a debate. You're letting your emotions get the better of you and you're spouting off things that no one takes seriously.

No, everyone is not on board, because your theology has really gone off the deep end here.
First, look at Eph.19:18 in the ASV

Acts 19:18 Many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds.
--Note: They HAD believed. They were already Christians. Had they "believed only"?

You use the words: faith, repentance, and confession, as acts or works. They are not. When one puts their faith in Christ he is repenting at the same time. His faith is not a dead faith. These are not separate acts. The only requirement for salvation is faith and faith alone.John 6:28, 29

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Belief is a work.

Jonah 3:10

10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way (repented)...

Repentance is a work.

Baptism is not a work. Baptism is always presented in the passive voice, "be baptized".

Believe is something one must do.

Repent is something one must do.

Confess is something one must do.

Baptism is something one must have done to them.

Faith purifies the heart. Repentance purifies the life. Baptism purifies the soul.


An interesting thing for you to look up is the phrase "faith only". See if you can find it in the New Testament, and tell everyone what it says when you do. It's in there one time. Are you honest enough?[/qb]I have already addressed that. I hope you read it carefully.[/quote]

No you didn't, and I did read it carefully. You cited verses that said "faith" and "believe". There's one that says "faith alone", but you haven't shown it. My guess is that it goes against your doctrine of salvation by "faith only".

salvation is entirely of God, and man has no part in it at all,

Are you a Universalist? God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). If your assertion is true, that God does everything and man does nothing in regards to salvation, then why are all men not saved?

Why would God do for one, what He would not do for another? I eagerly await your explanation, sir

I'll finish this up later.

In Christ,

bmerr

[Eric B]

The one body is what we are baptized "into", not what we're baptized "with".

The apostles were baptized "with" the Holy Ghost "by" Jesus.

Many were baptized "with" water "by" John.

So again, if one interprets 1 Cor 12:13 as though the Holy Spirit is doing the baptizing, then he must identify the medium in which the Spirit baptizes us "into" the one body. You are getting the means mixed up. John baptized people INTO water, so it was WITH water as opposed to WITH the Spirit. Jesus baptizes you WITH the spirit into the body, so it is WITH the Spirit as opposed to with water. Because of the unity of the Godhead, you can also say that it is BY the Spirit --using simply Himself! (No, water is not what the Spirit baptizes with, but nice try!)
No, immersion in water is a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:17). It IS a real baptism totally separate and apart from the baptism of the Holy Spirit, with a completely different purpose, and thus makes TWO baptisms, when Paul said years after Acts 10 that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Are you saying it is only separate IF my view is true, (and is "one" in your view where the water ceremony marks salvation?) If not; then how do you avoid "two baptisms" if they are separate?
"one baptism" goes with "one Lord" and "one faith", and the "one body" and the "unity of" the "one Spirit" (v.3), under "one God, the father of all" (v.6). So it means there is no valid baptism into any other [spiritual] "body". IT is not differentiating between physical and spiritual MODES of baptism; because both concern Christ, the one Lord, and the one body.
Who would you say inspired Peter and the rest of the apostles to preach and teach immersion in water for the remission of sins then?
It would be the Holy Spirit, all right, but that is NOT the "baptism by the Spirit". Being baptized in water is not "baptism by the Spirit" because it is "according to the teaching of the Spirit"; but because it SYMBOLIZED what was taking place spiritually.
Who would you say inspired Peter and the rest of the apostles to preach and teach immersion in water for the remission of sins then?

The baptism Paul spoke of is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12), and "that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Rom 6:17).

Let's compare. When one supposedly receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is he buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit? Be honest! That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it?

Now, when one is baptized in water, is he buried in the water and then raised up out of the water? Why yes, I'd have to say that's how it happens.

It seems quite logical to me that only water baptism fits the description given by the apostle Paul, and performed in several conversion accounts in Acts. This was answered, in what you next quoted, where I discuss the "old man" dying and being reborn on conversion (which is when he is baptized spiritually into the body).
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I am espousing salvation by "baptism only". That would be as false as preaching salvation by "faith only".

I've stated several times that faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism. And whether you see baptism as merely a "water ceremony" or not, it's still commanded by God in order to obtain the remission of sins. And in the same response, I made an allowance that it was not only baptism, but "the water AND something else ("faith", sincerity, genuine conversion of the heart, etc)". Still, as I concluded, "then it is ultimately not the water ceremony that is saving, but rather those spiritual things!" As you have shown, God has allowed for people to be saved without baptism, but He has not allowed for people to be saved without faith. So you cannot make them equal.
QUOTE]You all are getting closer to the truth now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's what we've been saying all along. How is it we're getting closer?Your examples of how God used physical means to accompany, initiate and/or represent or symbolize spiritual truths is close to the truth. But what you miss, is that that was the OC, hence; what I said about the physical preceding the spiritual (which you turned around:
You make my point for me. The symbolic, or physical (baptism in water) precedes, or comes before the real, or spiritual (washing of sins, salvation). I couldn't have said it better myself.
I was talking about typology, and the transition between covenants. If baptism actually preceded the washing of sins, then you are suggesting it was the cause of it; which you are elsewhere tying to deny. But it was either simultaneous, or the baptism was carried on later (whenever possible).
Didn't you just say their sins were already washed away ("converted on the spot")? Who would even believe if they didn't see their need of having their sins washed away? The conversion on the spot was marked by the baptism on the spot. The baptism was just an act of obedience that made a testimony of acceptance of Christ. So refusing would amount to a public rejection of Christ. Since no one can see what has gone on in the heart, baptism to the outside world would be the moment of conversion, even though there may have been some time inbetween their actual acceptance and the ceremony. But by today things have changed, and baptism almost never occurs that quickly. But we cannot say their sins are not washed away until they are. (Hence Michael's question, above).
That's the root of the problem of denominationalism. The introduction of things not authorized by Scripture. There is no "Christendom" in the Bible. Only the church.
and the Church of Christ and all other Campbellistic groups are apart of this "denominationalism", even though they speak against it. Frank says he baptizes on the spot, but I don't think they all do. Especially since they believe they are the only true group, and they differ from orthodoxy in this and other areas. Don't they have to initiate people into their Church before they are baptized? Even for Frank, Michael's question still stands. What if there is no water available for the time being?

[Eric B]

As has been covered elsewhere (and maybve on this thread, too), the fact is that Jesus lived and died under the Old Testament. The New Testament is the one in His blood, and is binding until the end of time.

Here's the deal. While Jesus was alive (before the crucifixion, I mean), He was free to distribute His posessions to anyone He chose, under any conditions that He chose.

Take the rich young ruler from Mark 10:17-ff for example. He was told to sell what he had and give to the poor, and to follow Jesus in order to have eternal life.

In contrast, the thief on the cross did nothing more than ask Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom, and he was promised paradise.

Blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52) received his sight at the word of Christ, but the man born blind in John 9:1-ff got clay made of Jesus' spit and dirt put on his eyes, and then had to go wash in the pool of Siloam before he received his sight. Why the difference?

It was His stuff to give as He pleased before His death.

It's the same way with the Holy Spirit. Before His death, Jesus could tell people to pray to the Father to send Him, or suggest to the woman at the well to ask Him for Him.

But after the cross, Jesus last will and Testament went into effect. Now the Spirit is given only according to the New Testament, which requires faith, repentance, and baptism, and supercedes the Old. That is quite a stretching of the principles. We are not talking about random gifts, but rather salvation. That was always by faith, and physical commandments may have been involved in the OC, still, the NT shows that noone can do works good enough to please God. So while the works may still be expected of us, it is not them that save, but the faith.

Have you ever noticed that Paul, having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, still understood that he needed to do something? How about the fact that even Jesus Christ Himself didn't tell Paul what to do, but sent him to wait for a man to tell him.

That phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord" is an interesting one. Paul was not the only one told to do such a thing.

In the first gospel sermon on Pentecost of Acts 2, Peter told the crowd, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).

Then down in 2:37, those who were pricked in their heart said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" These people had believed Peter's message, and it was this faith in his message of the risen Christ that prompted their question, which was, by implication, "What shall we do to call on the name of the Lord?"

What did Peter tell them? "I just told you back in verse 21, ya morons! Call on the name of the Lord! What is ya, ignint? Start hollerin' Lord, Lord!"

Of course not!

We all know (whether we like it or not) that Peter told them to "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."

In obeying Peter's command, they were calling on the name of the Lord.


So Paul tells us that to call upon the name of the Lord is to obey the gospel. What could that mean? And that is another great stretch. You cannot just mash together those events. Others have explained it already. We call on the Lord and are saved by faith. Then, we are to obey God's commandments. So they called on the Lord; now they were saved. Now they had to start acting like they were saved, or (the passage always misread by Campbellists) "work OUT your salvation" (Phil.2:2). You already have it, now live up to it. It is not the living that gains it for you; but as Paul says "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know all of you not, that to whom all of you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants all of you are to whom all of you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Rom.6:15)
So you cannot now make the baptism the actual act of "calling on the name of the Lord". Calling is calling; being baptized is being baptized! another nice try, though.
Also, in Rom 10:16, we read, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel..."

This follows hot on the heels of Rom 10:13, "For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Not quite "hot on the heels" enough! Look what is what is inbetween those two verses: "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?" So he is NOT saying that THE SAME people have "called on the name of the Lord", but "did not obey the gospel", so were therefore not saved. They have to HEAR also, and some have heard but did not call on the Lord or obey. One is the evidence of the other, as I have been saying, but that does not make one EQUAL the other. Yet another nice try, though.

[steaver]

Excellent teaching DHK! graemlins/thumbs.gif Bemerr's exposition of Ephesians 2:8-9 just doesn't coinside with the full counsel of God's Word.

Bemerr. It flat out states "not of works"! But you said above..."That means repentance (and you are refering to requirements for salvation) is a work. Doesn't bother me, though, since it is a work commanded by God (Acts 17:30).

Who am I to believe bemerr? God, through Paul, says salvation is "not of works". You say salvation "is of works". God would not of had Paul make it so clear if He wanted the teaching of works added to salvation.

It is obvious and absolute that salvation is not of works, not of yourselves, and that anything to do with works can only be attributed to sanctification and fruits of the person who has already been saved through faith. Your doctrine of baptism fails to be supported by Scripture. It absolutely cannot coexist with Ephesians 2:8-9 no matter how hard you try to make it work.

You say your not above learning. Well friend, even the simplist of minds can read Ephesians 2:8-9 and conclude that " by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast "...I just couldn't say it any clearer and niether could Paul.

Bemerr, isn't your preaching of being baptized in water for salvation a "boast"? Shouldn't you humbly tell others that you have done nothing of any merit to receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ alone? If you tell them you were saved because of anything you did, that is a boast and is why God was determined to make salvation all Jesus Christ and nothing from man. The bible teaches works AFTER grace and not as any means to obtain grace.

Directly after Paul's clear message of grace alone he states... " For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works "(10)

Grace, then works, after the rebirth. It is plain and to the point!

God Bless!

[Eric B]

Baptism is not a work. Baptism is always presented in the passive voice, "be baptized".

Believe is something one must do.

Repent is something one must do.

Confess is something one must do.

Baptism is something one must have done to them.

Faith purifies the heart. Repentance purifies the life. Baptism purifies the soul. Sorry, that doesn't fly either. Circumcision was something you had done to you, but that would certainly be considered a "work of the Law". YOU still had to get up and GO to have it done. That is the "work" aspect of it.
And your very own prime proof text defines baptism as "the answer of a good conscience toward God". No "cleansing of the soul" there; that was already accomplished (by the faith, and the initial mental act of repentance), and the baptism is the public answer of it, just like we are saying!

[steaver]

Good stuff as well Eric B! graemlins/thumbs.gif

God Bless!

[Frank]

Eric:

I have never had the problem of not having water in which to baptize someone. The Eunoch found water in the desert. Acts 8. People who do not confess, repent, or believe have the same problem with those who are not baptized. Jesus required them all. John 8:24, Luke 13;3. Mat. 10:32, Mark 16:16. What happens to those who have never heard the gospel because of the primitive and remote land in which they live? Do they get a free pass from the commands of God? Are they saved? If so, how do you know?

We do not initiate anyone. We teach the gospel of Christ. It is the one and only standard used in getting into the family of God. Romans 1:16,Gal. 3:26-29.

We do not use instrumental music. Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19, Hebs. 2:12, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Acts 16: 25,26, Mat. 26:30. The new testament of Christ does not authorize it. Again, the standard is the new testament of Christ, not the synods, conventions, or magisteriums of man. Instrumental music in worship was an invention of the RCC in approximately 605 A.D.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:

We do not use instrumental music. Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19, Hebs. 2:12, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Acts 16: 25,26, Mat. 26:30. The new testament of Christ does not authorize it. The New Testament doesn't authorize using a car either. In fact it doesn't authorize the use of an internet which you are presently using. Shame!
DHK

[Frank]

Dhk:
The internet and cars have nothing to do with new testament worship. There is a difference! Nice joke!!

[mman]

I've followed this topic with some interest, enough so, to register so I could post.

With that said, salvation is not earned, it is a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9). I sure would hate to know that I had to earn my eternal salvation. I could not possibly do enough good works to earn salvation, even for a single moment in Heaven. Water does not wash away my sins, only the blood of Christ can do that (Matt 26:28, Eph 1:7, Heb 9:22). In fact, water can no more wash away my sins than can it cure leprosy. If the water that Naaman dipped in could cure leprosy, then every lepor in the land would have dipped in it.

I am a child of God by faith (Gal 3:26). There is no question about that. Where does faith come from? The word of God (Rom 10:17).

How can it be said that Noah prepared an ark by faith for the saving of his household (Heb 11:7)? First, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:8). What did that grace do? Provided him instructions (Gen 6:13-21). What does God's grace do today? Provides instructions (Titus 2:11-12). God did not owe us anything, but because of His grace, he has provided instructions for ALL men. If Noah had built the ark of oak, it would not have been by faith, because faith comes from God and God said to build it out of gopherwood (Gen 6:14). God didn't say not to build it out of oak and gopherwood or that he couldn't use cedar, or ash. If Noah had strayed from God's commands, he wouldn't have built the ark by faith.

Gen 6:22 tells us that Noah did all that God commanded him. What does the bible call that? In Heb 11:7, it calls it faith. Biblical faith is doing what God has said, not just believing God. Noah did not sit on a rock and wait for God to build the ark. No, he did ALL that God commanded him and that, is biblical faith.

So, Noah recieved instructions by the grace of God and by faith prepared an ark for the saving of his household. Do you see how by grace he was saved though faith?

Yet 1 Pet 3:20 says that Noah was saved by water. How can this be? Is there a confict? Certainly not. God used water in the saving of Noah and his household. Did Noah earn this saving? No, of course not.

I Pet 3:21 says something saves us. Regardless of what that is, it says something saves us. What is it? You see how the saving of Noah is similar to our salvation? God has provided instructions by His grace and we do all that God has commanded us (Faith).

That is how Paul can say what he did in Gal 3:26-27 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

You cannot show from the scriptures how to get INTO Christ, where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3), without baptism.

Do you preach or tell others about Jesus? Then you preach or tell them about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). If that is not included, then you are preaching or teaching something different than Phillip.

Truth always lies in parallel, never contradicting itself. Jesus said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Words so simple a third grader can understand them. So easy, a person would have to have help to misunderstand that passage. That is in complete harmony with Acts 2:38, Eph 2:8-9 that states that we are saved by grace through faith, Gal 3:26-27 that says we are childern by faith because we have been baptized, I Pet 3:21, Rom 6, Rom 10:10 and with every other scripture. To learn about baptism, study the verses that deal with baptism, not the passages that do not explicitly state baptism. Wow, the mental gymnastics required to explain away Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:35-39, Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 4:5, Col 2:12 and I Pet 3:21 is of olympic caliber.

I do not expect everyone to believe this. I would not be surprised at some derrogitory comments, that's fine. Go back and re-read and study what I've said. Are you seeking truth or trying to win an argument? I humbly am seeking truth.

[DHK]

I will reiterate what I have said before. Paul clearly defines what the gospel is:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

In verse one Paul says this is the gospel which I declare unto you.
In verse two Paul says, it is by this gospel that you are saved.
In verses three and four he defines what the gospel is--the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures. Nowhere does this gospel include baptism.
In fact Paul clearly states that baptism is not important. In his missionary journeys Paul did not baptize, or did it very little, as is indicated by the first chapter of this epistle:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

It is evident from this verse that baptism has nothing to do with the gospel that saves. Paul did not baptize, but rather preached the gospel--the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is that message that saves, and that message alone. Then he emphasized that any other "gospel" or message that was preached was a false gospel, and the consequences of preaching such were severe.

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul was serious. If your gospel contains works; if it contains baptism; then you are accursed of God. This is not my message. I am but the messenger of God. This is what God's Word says.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
Dhk:
The internet and cars have nothing to do with new testament worship. There is a difference! Nice joke!! Contrary Frank. Your argument is one from silence, and therefore cannot be made. The New Testament is silent about instruments just as it is about cars and the internet. The Catholics argue from silence that there were infants in the household of the Philippian jailor, and thus justify infant baptism. Your argument falls into the same category. You cannot justify a doctrine from an argument of silence.
DHK

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frank:
Dhk:
The internet and cars have nothing to do with new testament worship. There is a difference! Nice joke!! Contrary Frank. Your argument is one from silence, and therefore cannot be made. The New Testament is silent about instruments just as it is about cars and the internet. The Catholics argue from silence that there were infants in the household of the Philippian jailor, and thus justify infant baptism. Your argument falls into the same category. You cannot justify a doctrine from an argument of silence.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You cannot use instrumental music in faith because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). God did not tell Noah NOT to use oak or hickory, but told him what to use. God has not told us not to use instruments, but he has told us what type of music to use, and that is singing. For us to add musical instruments would be as presumptous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.

I wonder what Nadab and Abihu would say on using something God had not commanded? Do you think they would say it is important? (Lev 10:1-2).

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
You cannot use instrumental music in faith because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). God did not tell Noah NOT to use oak or hickory, but told him what to use. God has not told us not to use instruments, but he has told us what type of music to use, and that is singing. For us to add musical instruments would be as presumptous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.

I wonder what Nadab and Abihu would say on using something God had not commanded? Do you think they would say it is important? (Lev 10:1-2). You are as legalistic as a Pharisee. Early believers did not meet in church buildings until 250 A.D. God has not told us to meet in church buildings. To meet in church buildings would be as presumptuous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.
Your argument is ridiculous and illogical.
What kind of church building do you meet in?
DHK

[mman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DHK:
[QB] I will reiterate what I have said before. Paul clearly defines what the gospel is:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: [QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------
II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.

Can you explain another way to obey the gospel?

The Corinthian church was divided. That's why Paul was glad that he had not baptized more than he did, because it is wrong to follow after men. It's wrong to have division (denominations teaching different things). Paul did in fact baptize some of the Corinthians. If the gospel did not contain baptism, why then did he baptize some of them(I Cor 1:14)?

Would someone use the scriptures to show me how to obey the gospel, other than what I have described?

Would someone use the scriptures and show me how to get INTO Christ in any method other than baptism? Surely nobody here believes that you can be saved OUTSIDE of Christ???

The simple fact is that Philip preached Jesus and the next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth was a question about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). The gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philips' preaching of the gospel included water baptism and the Eunuch obeyed the gospel (as described in Rom 6:3-4) and we are not to preach any other gospel (Gal 1:8). So, if you are preaching another gospel that does not include baptism, you are preaching a different gospel than Philip.

[mman]

[/QB][/QUOTE]You are as legalistic as a Pharisee. Early believers did not meet in church buildings until 250 A.D. God has not told us to meet in church buildings. To meet in church buildings would be as presumptuous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.
Your argument is ridiculous and illogical.
What kind of church building do you meet in?
DHK [/qb][/QUOTE]
-------------------------------------
If following God's word makes me legalistic as a Pharisee, so be it.

The command is to meet (Heb 10:25). How we fulfil that command is at our discretion, since God did not specify. It is never persumptous to obey a command, only to change or add to a command.

The authorized music is singing. How we accomplish that is left to our discretion (song books, song leader, etc.) as long as we don't add to or change the authorized music (singing).

[DHK]

II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.

Can you explain another way to obey the gospel?Yes, I have explained it before. If you have been reading this thread, you would have read the words of Jesus himself:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 5:24 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.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

1 John 5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

None of these Scriptures speak about baptism. They all speak of faith or belief. Your cultish heretical belief is what the Bible defines as damnable heresy.

The Bible says to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It does not say to be baptize and thou shalt be saved. You preach a heretical "message" for which Paul said one will be accursed.
DHK

[DHK]

If following God's word makes me legalistic as a Pharisee, so be it.

The command is to meet (Heb 10:25). How we fulfil that command is at our discretion, since God did not specify. It is never persumptous to obey a command, only to change or add to a command.

The authorized music is singing. How we accomplish that is left to our discretion (song books, song leader, etc.) as long as we don't add to or change the authorized music (singing).You are being hypocritical.
There is no authorization in the New Testamennt to use hymn books, as there is no authorization in the New Testament (according to you) for instruments. You allow the one, and not the other. That is pure hypocrisy.

This is what Jesus said about such things.
Matthew 23:24-25 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
DHK

[Eric B]

You cannot use instrumental music in faith because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). God did not tell Noah NOT to use oak or hickory, but told him what to use. God has not told us not to use instruments, but he has told us what type of music to use, and that is singing. For us to add musical instruments would be as presumptous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.

I wonder what Nadab and Abihu would say on using something God had not commanded? Do you think they would say it is important? (Lev 10:1-2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those examples do not match. Here's why:
Singing, while a specific act, is not contrary to instruments, any more than it is contrary to reciting the words from a hymnal, projection, or anything else.
The so-called "strange fire" was connected with the incense, commanded in Exodus 30. God had commanded that the censer was to be filled with "sweet" incense (v.7), so any other type of incense would have been the "Strange incense" (v.9) that would have made up "strange fire". So there is your "explicit command" in that instance.
You have to check the contexts of passages like these, not run off with speculation about some unwritten detail that was not mentioned, but still enforced and try to build some universal "principle" on it from a "silence" that is not even real!
So it's not even really "silence"! God gave an explicit command, and an incense that is not sweet, or touching something, for instance, is not some possible alternative that God is simply "silent" on. He explicitly commanded the opposite! Nowhere is anyone punished like that for doing something that does not contradict God's explicit specification. Also, God's specifying of one wood to Noah excluded all others, such as oak or hickory. Likewise, in other examples "restrictive principle" advocates frequently use; Uzzah was struck for touching the holy object (Num.4:15), rather than how they carried or even steadied it! No "silence" there. With Moses and the rock, speaking is contrary to hitting.
They were not punished for carrying the ark over one path instead of another, or using one type of incense that is sweet over another that is sweet, or which words to speak to the rock.

mman, your definition of a "gift" of God by "grace" is basically instructions on works to do to save (justify) one's self. Problem is; Israel already had the whole set of God's Laws. Why didn't it save them, then? Was it simply because God gave them the wrong laws? You Campbellists take the same works-righteousness, and simply change the sabbath to Sunday, and abolish instruments (along with other things associated with the Temple). But otherwise, you are only continuing the mindset of OT Israel.
Or, is it that man could not keep God's laws well enough ever to be able to please God? That is what the entire message of the NT is. Else, where do you draw the line? OK, you are baptized, but what about the millions of other things you do wrong? One must bring God's standards down, and say He overlooks those things, or perhaps particular commands like baptism and "the true Church" makes up for those sins. That is exactly the way Israel thought.
God still has commandments he wants us to keep, but the focus has now shifted from laws to faith, and we cannot trust in ANY of those works to be what actually saves us, though we are to strive to keep them. So yes, people should be baptized in obedience to the NT. But we cannot say one is not saved until it actually occurs.
Now to Frank:

I have never had the problem of not having water in which to baptize someone. The Eunoch found water in the desert. Still, Michael's question stands. Is he lost if he dies before he gets there, and if not, why?

People who do not confess, repent, or believe have the same problem with those who are not baptized. Jesus required them all. John 8:24, Luke 13;3. Mat. 10:32, Mark 16:16. That is because baptism was the public sign of testimony to acceptance of Christ. Still, would people be lost if they couldn't get baptized for some reason?
What happens to those who have never heard the gospel because of the primitive and remote land in which they live? Do they get a free pass from the commands of God? Are they saved? If so, how do you know?
Most of us would say those people would still be held accountable for their sins, which human conscience is aware of even without the Gospel. But what does this have to do with it? We are talking about people who have heard and responded to the gospel, but simply did not yet go through a physical rite.
We do not initiate anyone. We teach the gospel of Christ. It is the one and only standard used in getting into the family of God. Romans 1:16,Gal. 3:26-29.

We do not use instrumental music. Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19, Hebs. 2:12, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Acts 16: 25,26, Mat. 26:30. So you meet with someone, share Christ with him, he accepts, but then you have to teach him the rest of your church's doctrines (instruments, the true NT Church from the 1st century, and how all the denominations are false, etc) which to you are "the gospel of Christ"? You convince him of all that stuff that same day, and then find somewhere to get him baptized?
The new testament of Christ does not authorize it. Again, the standard is the new testament of Christ, not the synods, conventions, or magisteriums of man. Instrumental music in worship was an invention of the RCC in approximately 605 A.D. I don't even see what this has to do with it. Unless that is what you are going around and preaching to people first, as if it were the "gospel" all by itself.

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.

Can you explain another way to obey the gospel?Yes, I have explained it before. If you have been reading this thread, you would have read the words of Jesus himself:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 5:24 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.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

1 John 5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

None of these Scriptures speak about baptism. They all speak of faith or belief. Your cultish heretical belief is what the Bible defines as damnable heresy.

The Bible says to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It does not say to be baptize and thou shalt be saved. You preach a heretical "message" for which Paul said one will be accursed.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]It's obvious to me that you do not think confession is required. It's obvious you do not think repentance is required either since these verses do not mention them either.

You did not show how one "obeys the gospel". You did not show how one obeys the death, burial and resurrection.

It is true the verse you quoted do not include the word baptism. I believe and accept every one of them. They are all in perfect harmony with Mark 16:16 which does say that he that believeth and is baptized will be saved. I Pet 3:21 tells us baptism saves us. These verses still are in the bible whether or not you like it or believe them.

I have shown a logical explaination of how one obeys the gospel, yet you cannot do that because it will include baptism.

If you think unsupported disparring remarks strengthens your position, it doesn't.

Show me through the scriptures how one obeys the gospel.

Show me through the scriptures how one gets INTO Christ.

Thank you.

[mman]

Wow, sterotypes abound on this board. At the top of this web page it has a quotation of scripture, "The Truth shall set you Free". We all know God's word is truth.

One cannot have faith or truth based upon what God did not say.

God's word says for us to sing (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16). That excludes all other music. If song books are used, there is still just one type of music. If a piano is used, there are two types of music, one authorized the other of human introduction. Is that enough to lose you soul over? I'm not going to take that chance. God said the type of music is singing, so that is all I can do in faith.

God's word says he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned (Mk 16:16). It tells us what to do to be saved and what to do to be condemned.

Put what ever label you desire on me, if it makes you feel better or if you think that somehow strengthens your position or gives you more credibility. Are you seeking truth? If so, you will find it. If not, you never will.

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
It's obvious to me that you do not think confession is required. It's obvious you do not think repentance is required either since these verses do not mention them either.When one believes he confesses. Do you, or do you not, believe that Jesus alone is the way to Heaven? (John 14:6)

You did not show how one "obeys the gospel". You did not show how one obeys the death, burial and resurrection.I did. Do you, or do you not believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven? (John 3:16)

It is true the verse you quoted do not include the word baptism. I believe and accept every one of them. They are all in perfect harmony with Mark 16:16 which does say that he that believeth and is baptized will be saved.It also says: "he that believeth not shall be condemned." No mention of baptism there; only unbelief. Do you, or do you not, belief that Jesus is the only way to Heaven? (John 3:16)
I Pet 3:21 tells us baptism saves us. These verses still are in the bible whether or not you like it or believe them.No it doesn't say that baptism saves it. You have only quoted a part of a verse. Psalm 14:1 says "there is no God." Is this your theology?
1Pet.3:21 says,
1 Peter 3:21 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:
--Sure missed a lot didn't you??
The first thing you missed is "The like figure whereunto" Peter specifically indicates that it is a figure, a symbol, a similie, a figure of speech. Baptism doesn't save. He is using symbolic language and specifically says so at the beginning of the verse. The latter part of the verse tells us what does save: Jesus Christ, by His resurrection.

I have shown a logical explaination of how one obeys the gospel, yet you cannot do that because it will include baptism.Contrary. You have shown a heretical belief, and ignored Scripture. You have taken Scripture out of context and tried to make mean something other than what it really means.

Show me through the scriptures how one obeys the gospel.

Show me through the scriptures how one gets INTO Christ.
Thank you. I have shown you many times already.
Again I will repeat it:

I will reiterate what I have said before. Paul clearly defines what the gospel is:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

In verse one Paul says this is the gospel which I declare unto you.
In verse two Paul says, it is by this gospel that you are saved.
In verses three and four he defines what the gospel is--the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures. Nowhere does this gospel include baptism.
In fact Paul clearly states that baptism is not important. In his missionary journeys Paul did not baptize, or did it very little, as is indicated by the first chapter of this epistle:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

It is evident from this verse that baptism has nothing to do with the gospel that saves. Paul did not baptize, but rather preached the gospel--the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is that message that saves, and that message alone. Then he emphasized that any other "gospel" or message that was preached was a false gospel, and the consequences of preaching such were severe.

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul was serious. If your gospel contains works; if it contains baptism; then you are accursed of God. This is not my message. I am but the messenger of God. This is what God's Word says.

The answer to your question of obedience is simply to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Salvation is a matter of faith and faith alone. The gospel is defined above. If one changes it to fit their own theology they are accursed of God.
DHK

[mman]

It's so simple I'll state it again.

II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.

Can you explain another way to obey the gospel? You list scriptures but cannot logically show how one obeys the gospel. Here is another verse for you, John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

The Corinthian church was divided. That's why Paul was glad that he had not baptized more than he did, because it is wrong to follow after men. It's wrong to have division (denominations teaching different things). Paul did in fact baptize some of the Corinthians. If the gospel did not contain baptism, why then did he baptize some of them(I Cor 1:14)? You have not addressed this question.

Would someone use the scriptures to show me how to obey the gospel, other than what I have described?

Would someone use the scriptures and show me how to get INTO Christ in any method other than baptism? Surely nobody here believes that you can be saved OUTSIDE of Christ???

The simple fact is that Philip preached Jesus and the next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth was a question about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). The gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philips' preaching of the gospel included water baptism and the Eunuch obeyed the gospel (as described in Rom 6:3-4) and we are not to preach any other gospel (Gal 1:8). So, if you are preaching another gospel that does not include baptism, you are preaching a different gospel than Philip.

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
It's so simple I'll state it again.

II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.If you do not believe the gospel as presented in 1Cor.15:1-4, which Paul states is the gospel by which one is saved, then Paul also states you believe in another gospel and are thus accursed. Not my words, but the Bible's.

Rom.6:3,4 do not explain the gospel. They explain the meaning of a beleiver's baptism. The believer is baptized. The believer shows in his baptism that he is now dead to his old life to sin and now rises again to live a new life in Christ. It is a picture--purely symbolically. What does the waters of baptism do? It gets you wet, and provides a picture; a symbolic picture.

Can you explain another way to obey the gospel? You list scriptures but cannot logically show how one obeys the gospel. Here is another verse for you, John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."Did you deliberately misquote this verse??

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
--The only way to obey is to believe. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Never does it say to be baptized in order to be saved. If you think it does you are reading the verse wrong.
The Corinthian church was divided. That's why Paul was glad that he had not baptized more than he did, because it is wrong to follow after men. It's wrong to have division (denominations teaching different things). Paul did in fact baptize some of the Corinthians. If the gospel did not contain baptism, why then did he baptize some of them(I Cor 1:14)? You have not addressed this question.Paul did baptize some of them, when he first started the church. But it was only a few, and he thanks God that it was only a few. He clearly says that his mission was not to baptize but to preach the gospel drawing a clear distinction between baptism and the gospel. If you say that baptism is a part of the gospel you contradict Paul and count yourself as one of the accursed.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

There is a clear distinction between baptism, which Christ did not send him to do, and the gospel, which Christ did command him to preach. It is clear then that the gospel does not contain baptism. Your "gospel" is heretical, and according to Paul those that preach it are "accursed"
Would someone use the scriptures to show me how to obey the gospel, other than what I have described?1Cor.15:1-4
The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you believe not that Christ alone took your place on the cross, and believe not that he alone atoned for your sins, you cannot be saved. His blood alone can wash your sins; not baptism. You must put your faith in Christ and in Christ alone. No works can save you--not baptism, nor any other works. Salvation is by faith and faith alone.
Do you believe the gospel as presented in 1Cor.15:1-4; that gospel which Paul says can save? A simple answer will do.

Would someone use the scriptures and show me how to get INTO Christ in any method other than baptism? Surely nobody here believes that you can be saved OUTSIDE of Christ???Baptism simply gets you wet. It isn't magical, and cannot get you into Christ. That is superstion. To be saved you must believe in Christ as your Saviour, as I explained above. Once you put your faith in his shed blood, and trust him completely as your Saviour, the Holy Spirit comes and dwells within. That is how one becomes "in Christ."

The simple fact is that Philip preached Jesus and the next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth was a question about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). The gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philips' preaching of the gospel included water baptism and the Eunuch obeyed the gospel (as described in Rom 6:3-4) and we are not to preach any other gospel (Gal 1:8). So, if you are preaching another gospel that does not include baptism, you are preaching a different gospel than Philip. [/b]The Ethiopian Eunuch was saved when he called upon the name of the Lord, before they even went near the water. After he confessed Christ as Lord, he was baptized. After he was saved, he was baptized. There is no clearer passage than that passage that shows that baptism is after salvation.
DHK

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
It's so simple I'll state it again.

II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.If you do not believe the gospel as presented in 1Cor.15:1-4, which Paul states is the gospel by which one is saved, then Paul also states you believe in another gospel and are thus accursed. Not my words, but the Bible's.
-----------------
I believe it, you have failed to show how to obey it. I have shown how you obey the death, burial, and resurrection.
------------------
Rom.6:3,4 do not explain the gospel. They explain the meaning of a beleiver's baptism. The believer is baptized. The believer shows in his baptism that he is now dead to his old life to sin and now rises again to live a new life in Christ. It is a picture--purely symbolically. What does the waters of baptism do? It gets you wet, and provides a picture; a symbolic picture.
-------------------
Of course Romans 6:3-4 explains how we obey the death, burial, and resurrection. You say all baptism does it get us wet. God says it puts us INTO Christ. I believe God.
-------------------
Can you explain another way to obey the gospel? You list scriptures but cannot logically show how one obeys the gospel. Here is another verse for you, John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."Did you deliberately misquote this verse??
--------------------------
I did not misquote this verse. The version you are using probably mistranslated this verse. In the Greek, two different words are used, that are both translated as believe in some versions. Read it from the NAS, ASV, ESV, RSV. The Greek word for believe is Pisteuo. The other word is Apeitheo which means to be disobedient or to not obey. This same word is used in other places such as Rom 10:21, I Pet 2:7-8, I Pet 3:20, and I Pet 4:17.
----------------------
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

--The only way to obey is to believe. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Never does it say to be baptized in order to be saved. If you think it does you are reading the verse wrong.
----------------------
I am not reading the verse wrong. I am reading the whole thing. In Acts 16:30-31, for example, the jailer was told to believe and be saved. Verse 32 says they spoke the word of the Lord. Verse 33 says he was baptized. Verse 34 says he rejoiced having believed, or believing in God. The jailer understood what it meant to believe in God, and rejoiced. Again, the word of the Lord includes instructions on baptism.
-----------------------
The Corinthian church was divided. That's why Paul was glad that he had not baptized more than he did, because it is wrong to follow after men. It's wrong to have division (denominations teaching different things). Paul did in fact baptize some of the Corinthians. If the gospel did not contain baptism, why then did he baptize some of them(I Cor 1:14)? You have not addressed this question.Paul did baptize some of them, when he first started the church. But it was only a few, and he thanks God that it was only a few. He clearly says that his mission was not to baptize but to preach the gospel drawing a clear distinction between baptism and the gospel. If you say that baptism is a part of the gospel you contradict Paul and count yourself as one of the accursed.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

There is a clear distinction between baptism, which Christ did not send him to do, and the gospel, which Christ did command him to preach. It is clear then that the gospel does not contain baptism. Your "gospel" is heretical, and according to Paul those that preach it are "accursed"
-------------------------
Pauls gospel included baptism, that's why he baptized some of them. To say it didn't is to say that Paul was practicing something different than what he was preaching. There was division in the Corinthian Church. Read the context.
--------------------------

Would someone use the scriptures to show me how to obey the gospel, other than what I have described?1Cor.15:1-4
The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you believe not that Christ alone took your place on the cross, and believe not that he alone atoned for your sins, you cannot be saved. His blood alone can wash your sins; not baptism. You must put your faith in Christ and in Christ alone. No works can save you--not baptism, nor any other works. Salvation is by faith and faith alone.
Do you believe the gospel as presented in 1Cor.15:1-4; that gospel which Paul says can save? A simple answer will do.
--------------------------
Faith alone? Really? Where do you find that? James says not by faith alone? If it were faith alone, the demons would be saved, because they certain believe, according to James. The people in Acts 2:37 believed. What would be your instruction to them? What was Peter's? They understood who Jesus was. Did Peter give them wrong instructions in verse 38? His answer and your answer provided above do not match. Were they saved before they repented? If not, why? They believed? If yes, then why did Peter give them any instruction? Peter, in Acts 2:38 says baptism is for (eis - unto) the remission of sins. The greek word eis never means because of, but is always looking forward, never in retrospect. Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
------------------------------
Would someone use the scriptures and show me how to get INTO Christ in any method other than baptism? Surely nobody here believes that you can be saved OUTSIDE of Christ???Baptism simply gets you wet. It isn't magical, and cannot get you into Christ. That is superstion. To be saved you must believe in Christ as your Saviour, as I explained above. Once you put your faith in his shed blood, and trust him completely as your Saviour, the Holy Spirit comes and dwells within. That is how one becomes "in Christ."
-----------------------
You forgot to use any scriptures as back up. Romans 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 both say that baptism puts us INTO Christ, yet, you say it doesn't. I believe God.
-----------------------

The simple fact is that Philip preached Jesus and the next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth was a question about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). The gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philips' preaching of the gospel included water baptism and the Eunuch obeyed the gospel (as described in Rom 6:3-4) and we are not to preach any other gospel (Gal 1:8). So, if you are preaching another gospel that does not include baptism, you are preaching a different gospel than Philip. The Ethiopian Eunuch was saved when he called upon the name of the Lord, before they even went near the water. After he confessed Christ as Lord, he was baptized. After he was saved, he was baptized. There is no clearer passage than that passage that shows that baptism is after salvation.
DHK [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]Not according to Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 or Acts 22:16 or Romans 6:3-4 or Gal 3:26-27 or I Pet 3:21.

You say a person believes is saved then baptized. Jesus says a person who believes and ins baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16). I believe Jesus and I think he got the order right.

Can a person be saved outside of Christ? You show me one scripture that tells me how to get INTO Christ that doesn't talk about baptism.

[Frank]

Dhk:
My argument is not from silence. There are eight passages that specifically state what is to be done in regards to music. It is to sing. By your logic, I could take steak and water for the Lord's Supper as they are not expressly forbidden.
However, I do not do so because the bible states specifically what is to be done. You have confused specific permission from silent prohibition. There is a difference.

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:

Do you believe the gospel as presented in 1Cor.15:1-4; that gospel which Paul says can save? A simple answer will do.
Still waiting

[Eric B]

You did not show how one "obeys the gospel". You did not show how one obeys the death, burial and resurrection. Would someone use the scriptures to show me how to obey the gospel, other than what I have described?

Would someone use the scriptures and show me how to get INTO Christ in any method other than baptism? Surely nobody here believes that you can be saved OUTSIDE of Christ???
What DHK is point out in the passages he is quoting, is that to obey the Gospel is to believe. The Gospel is good news. The people under the OC had a bunch of laws from God to keep; but they were failing miserably, and still lost. That was bad news. The good news is to stop trying to work your way into salvation, and trust in Christ alone. It is not simply a new set of laws (like the Muslims also think). Then, the works we do (including baptism) are out of love towards God, not to be saved. (1 John 4:9-5:3)
Faith alone? Really? Where do you find that? James says not by faith alone? If it were faith alone, the demons would be saved, because they certain believe, according to James. The point is in v.18. "A man may say 'you have faith and I have works': show me your faith without your works [margin "by itself"], and I will show you my faith BY my works". Once again; the works are not the CAUSE of salvation; only the proof of it. This is what baptism is all about. No one is saying that it or any other works "aren't necessary". They are just not what we trust in for salvation.
The people in Acts 2:37 believed. What would be your instruction to them? What was Peter's? They understood who Jesus was. Did Peter give them wrong instructions in verse 38? His answer and your answer provided above do not match. Were they saved before they repented? If not, why? They believed? If yes, then why did Peter give them any instruction? Peter, in Acts 2:38 says baptism is for (eis - unto) the remission of sins. The greek word eis never means because of, but is always looking forward, never in retrospect. Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
This was when the Holy Spirit first fell onto the church as a whole. The 120 received the Spirit first, now He was being given to the converts as they were baptized. This was the beginning of salvation being "opened up". Baptism itself would not be the means of salvation, but marked it in this occasion. The simple fact is that Philip preached Jesus and the next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth was a question about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). The gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philips' preaching of the gospel included water baptism and the Eunuch obeyed the gospel (as described in Rom 6:3-4) and we are not to preach any other gospel (Gal 1:8). So, if you are preaching another gospel that does not include baptism, you are preaching a different gospel than Philip. The Gospel "included" baptism in the sense that it symbolized the death and resurrection of Christ, but which one is saved, and thus was used as the outward symbol of this freedom of conscience. But still, the ohysicalbaptism is not what does the saving, but rather the spiritual. The people in these passages wwere eager to make their public profession of faith.
Rom.6:3,4 do not explain the gospel. They explain the meaning of a beleiver's baptism. The believer is baptized. The believer shows in his baptism that he is now dead to his old life to sin and now rises again to live a new life in Christ. It is a picture--purely symbolically. What does the waters of baptism do? It gets you wet, and provides a picture; a symbolic picture.
-------------------
Of course Romans 6:3-4 explains how we obey the death, burial, and resurrection. You say all baptism does it get us wet. God says it puts us INTO Christ. I believe God.
------------------- This passage dis not even necessarily speaking about literal baptism! That looks more like spiritual baptism (like 1 Cor.12:13). To be baptized into Christ's death is to be covered by His blood (forgiven of sin, and thus saved) and then immersed into His own Body. Notice, the actual "raising" we do here is not walking out of a literal pool, but a "walk in the newness of life". Thus as I said earlier, "the old man" dies, and a new man rises, spiritually.
The water baptism was to symbolize the beginning of this walk, but it itself did not accomplish this change.

One cannot have faith or truth based upon what God did not say. And that's precisely what you're having. You are making a full scale probibition of something God did not even say!
God's word says for us to sing (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16). That excludes all other music. If song books are used, there is still just one type of music. If a piano is used, there are two types of music, one authorized the other of human introduction. Actually; the text, and musical notes ("sheet music") can be considered "another form of music"; with "one of human introduction" too!
Is that enough to lose your soul over? I'm not going to take that chance. God said the type of music is singing, so that is all I can do in faith. WOW! :eek: So salvation is even determined over an issue like that by itself! Well; you're right. One little blemish like that is enough to condemn. But what all works-righteousness advocates fail to realize is that they make many little mistakes and erros like that every day. Once again; God giving us the instructions on the works to do to save ourselves would be a "gift of grace" --IF we could actually work ourselves to salvation; which would mean absolute perfection! You're into avoiding "chances". With Christ there is no need to worry about chances, especially on an issue of silence that man has tried to read some sort of prohibition into! If what you said was true, then if you're wrong on that, then you
will lose your soul.
My argument is not from silence. There are eight passages that specifically state what is to be done in regards to music. It is to sing. By your logic, I could take steak and water for the Lord's Supper as they are not expressly forbidden.
However, I do not do so because the bible states specifically what is to be done. You have confused specific permission from silent prohibition. There is a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it is evident, from Paul's discussion of "gluttony" that what they were eating was something other than crumbs and little vials. (hread and wine are always mentioned; because Jesus instituted the Supper at a Passover Seder). Still, that is a whole other argument, that I am not even sure of. Still; bread and wine shown taken alone would exclude other food. "sing" does not exclude instruments any more than it does printed music. So once again; your analogies do not match.
Also forgot to address bmerr's earlier statement:
What was Jesus speaking of when He said that one must be born of wter and of the Spirit (John 3:5)? "born of water" was an expression for natural birth. Not baptism. You can see this in 1 John 5:6, for Jesus. Water baptism was used to mark the spirit baptism anyway, so "born of water" has to be a separate occurrance. Now you might say "why would He say that you had to be born of water, [as well as] the Spirit to be saved". But it went without saying that a person was born of water. What He is saying is NOT ONLY water (not just from being BORN an Israelite, as many people thought), but also of the spirit. The contrast is always "flesh" vs. "spirit".

[DHK]

It ought to be evident to all by now that the teaching of the COC is salvation by works, salvation by keeping the law. Consider what the Bible says on this issue:

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

The places a curse on those who do not continue in ALL things written in the law, from birth to death, every day, every minute of their lives. They must live a life of sinless perfection ever moment of their life from birth to death, otherwise they are cursed. This is the teaching of this verse. If you do "not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them" you are cursed.
That includes lying, taking the name of the Lord in vain (even ever so lightly: "Gee" "goodness sake" "O my God," etc) Even the Bible indicates elsewhere that it is impossible to keep the whole law. If you say you do, you are a liar and the truth is not in you. You also make Jesus Christ Himself a liar (1John 1:8,10).

Here is the good news:
Galatians 3:11-12 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
--First no man is justified by the law, for the very fact that it is impossible to do so. Paul says straight out here: The just shall live by fiath," Not faith plus baptism, but faith alone.
There is nothing added to faith. It means faith alone. There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that one should add anything to faith here. That would be to do injustice to the Scriptures--to wrongly divide the Word of truth.

But the law is not of faith. Your religion is not of faith. That is plain to see. Your religion (COC) is of works. You have demonstrated that in your posts. You must keep the works of baptism and other works in order to be saved. You have put yourself under the law. It is impossible to keep. You have set yourself under a curse.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
--This redemption comes only through the acceptance of Christ as Saviuor. You must receive the gift through faith and faith alone. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. How? By being made a curse for us. How did he do that? He became a curse for us by dying on the cross for us and taking the punishment (the curse) upon himself. You must accept that sacrifice and appropriate it to yourself by faith. It is a free gift he offers you by faith. There is nothing that you can do to work for it. That would destroy the work that he has done for you and would be the equivalent of spitting in his face--the greatest insult possible. That is the way that Christ looks upon your baptism, when considered as a part of His salvation. He paid the price, the full price. Baptism has no part in it.

Galatians 3:21-22 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Salvation is to them that believe, and only to them that believe--not to them that believe and are baptized as part of their belief for salvation. What was the purpose of the law? Read the above verses again. "The Scriptures have concluded all under sin." It was to show us our sinfulness for we were unable to keep the law, just as you surely unable to keep your own laws.
DHK

[mman]

I think I see where our differences are concerning baptism.

Let me make this very clear. Baptism is not a work. Baptism is part of faith. This is made clear in Gal 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Nowhere in scripture is baptism said to be a work or in any way merits salvation.

Did Naaman earn his cure for leoprsy? No. Did the water have some magical power? No. Naaman's dipping in the Jordan 7 times was an act of faith. It sounded crazy to Naaman when he first heard it, he even became furious. Wash and be cleansed? How does that make any sense? Did Naaman believe in the power of God to cure him. Yes, he traveled a long way. Yet the instructions didn't make sense to him. Yet when he obeyed, he was cleansed. God did it, not the water, not the "earning" by obeying, but by faith he was cleansed.

Jesus has said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Yes I believe the gospel. Yes I have obeyed the gospel. I in no way have earned anything!!!!! Salvation is a free gift, by faith. I am a child of God by faith. Salvation by faith is a cardinal teaching in the new testament. Read all of Hebrews 11 to undstand biblical faith. Nobody has ever been said to be faithful who did not obey God's instructions.

Don't say I believe in salvation by works. That is a LIE!

There is only one way INTO Christ, according to the scriptures. Have you found it? Seek and you will find.

God bless.

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
I think I see where our differences are concerning baptism.

Let me make this very clear. Baptism is not a work. Baptism is part of faith. Baptism is a work. It is done by man to man. Man does it; not God. How can it be anything else but a work? If you think it is not a work, you are greatly deceived. Prayer is a work. Witnessing is a work. Even loving your neighbour is a work. These are all works--commands of Scripture that we are to obey after we are saved. They are evidences of a Christian life, not an unsaved life. One of the evidences of a saved life is that he will take a step of obedience and be baptized. That step of obedence in baptism has nothing to do with salvation. If it does, then your salvation is by works, and you believe in another gospel, a false gospel, a gospel which Paul says makes you accursed.
DHK

[bmerr]

The point is in v.18. "A man may say 'you have faith and I have works': show me your faith without your works [margin "by itself"], and I will show you my faith BY my works". Once again; the works are not the CAUSE of salvation; only the proof of it. This is what baptism is all about. No one is saying that it or any other works "aren't necessary". They are just not what we trust in for salvation.EricB,

bmerr here. It seems as though one of the biggest issues keeping so many in confusion is the idea that faith and works can be separated, and still be what God desires.

Faith and works are like two sides of a coin. If you separate a quarter front and back, you do not end up with two quarters. Only two halves, neither of which would be accepted by the U.S. mint.

You cited from James 2, and I'm glad you did, for that particular chapter has much to say about the separation of faith from works.

v. 14 is a rhetorical question, basically asking, "If a man says he has faith, and has no works to demonstrate that faith, can the faith he professes save him?" The answer is, "No".

v. 17 tells us flat out, that faith, if it have not works, is dead, being alone." So much for "faith only".

v. 20 repeats the fact that faith without works is dead.

Verses 21-24 make reference to an oft used verse to support the idea that one can be declared righteous before God by faith alone. That verse is first found in Gen 15:6, and reads,

"Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."

If I remember correctly, this verse is cited by Paul in one of his epistles, as well.

Anyway, 21-24 reads,

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest that how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 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.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Did you notice at what point the imputation scripture was fulfilled? After Abraham offered his son, not just when he believed that God had commanded him to offer him.

And also, Abraham's faith was made perfect, or complete, when he acted on it, and not until then. Up to that point, he had still not obeyed.

My friend, nobody is espousing salvation by meritorius works (well, maybe the RCC, but not us). There is no earning of salvation. One cannot keep the Law in order to be saved.

But in Abraham's case, the works God commaded him to do were before the Mosaic Law. For us under the NT, God's commands are after the Mosaic Law.

Gotta go.

In Christ,

bmerr

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:

My friend, nobody is espousing salvation by meritorius works (well, maybe the RCC, but not us). There is no earning of salvation. One cannot keep the Law in order to be saved.
If you are advocating that baptism is necessary for salvation (as COC teaches), then that is exactly what you are espousing--salvation by meritorious works.

Consider once again the plain teaching of Scriptures:

Romans 4:1-5 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Verses 1 and 2 state that if Abraham wanted to glory in his works he could, but not before God. That is, his works would do him no good in respect to salvation for salvation was provided 100% from God. It is God's free gift to man. You cannot work for it. Abraham could boast in all that he had done. But his good works were as filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6)

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Instead what does the Scripture say in verse 3:
Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
In other words, before Abraham set out from the Ur of the Chaldees, before Abraham did any of the works that we know him for, he was already righteous before God. He was already saved. He already had eternal life. He already had believed on God. This is what the Scripture says here. It is not only what the Scripture says; it is what the Scripture says the Scripture says. "Now what saith the Scripture?"

Verse 4 and 5 teach a beutiful truth based on the illustration of Abraham's life:
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
--When a person works he deserves what he works for. That is his wage. If he works for 40 hours a week, then at the end of that week he deserves the amount of money that he settled for with his employer. That is his wage. That is what he deserves. If his employer comes along and gives him a gift (instead of a wage) at his own whim and wish, the employee would be greatly put out. For a gift could be very minute. The laborer is worthy of his hire. He wants what he worked for. He doesn't want grace. He wants his wage.

But then it says 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--You don't have to work (the work of baptism included), but only believe on him (Christ) to be justified. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness. There is one and only one thing required for salvation here. It is faith, and faith alone. That is what was required of Abraham and that is what is required of us. Faith in the sacrifical work of the Saviuor. It is not faith plus baptism. In fact it is not baptism at all, for baptism is a work. It is simply faith. That is what this passage teaches. You cannot get anything else from this passage of Scripture. Salvation is by faith alone.
DHK

[mman]

Baptism is not a work of merit. It is an act of faith.

Any work that is done is on God's part. Have you not read Col 2:12, "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

That is why we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized. No contradictions in that statement. OR maybe I should just say it exactly like Paul did in Gal 3:26-27, " For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

If anyone says it is some type of work, then I challenge them to prove it using scripture, not just make unsupported statements.

Others say they put on Christ before baptism, yet this verse clearly teaches that we put on Christ in baptism and we are baptized INTO Christ. You can search the bible from cover to cover and you will not find any other way to get INTO Christ.

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
Baptism is not a work of merit. It is an act of faith.Your assertion is just plain silly, without any Biblical evidence. It is an act, a work that man does, that man receives. If God did it at all, it would have been when Christ baptized on earth, but even then His disciples did the work of baptism on his behalf. God baptizes no one. This is an absolute ludicrous suggestion. Show me where God came down from heaven and baptized anyone. It is a work of man. Who baptized you? God or man?

Any work that is done is on God's part.Pure semantices. That doesn't mean that God does it. If it isn't done by God than it isn' an act of God. It is obviously an act of man. Man does it, whether or not it is for God. That is irrelevant.
Have you not read Col 2:12, "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."And so??
The verb "buried" is a past participle, better translated "having been buried." It symbolically refers back to our baptism. It pirctures what has been done in the believers life. It is a picture. If you take this so literal do you also (like the Roman Catholics) believe in cannibalism, when Jesus says: "This is my flesh, Take and eat." :rolleyes:

That is why we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized.Mormons have faith in their baptism. So do Catholics, and so do HIndus. Your faith in your baptism is a Hindu pagan belief. It is paganism. It is superstition. It has nothing to do with the Bible. Faith in the blood of Christ is what saves, not baptism.
I wasn't baptized for two years after I received Christ as my Saviour, yet I knew I was saved. I knew that if I would have died I would go straight to heaven, just as I know that today--baptized or not. I know that because my sins are covered by the blood of Christ. I don't have to depend on baptism.
No contradictions in that statement. OR maybe I should just say it exactly like Paul did in Gal 3:26-27, " For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. That is what saves us. Why don't you believe that? That is what gives one salvation. Of course those that are obedient to Christ after salvation will be baptized. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. Did Christ lie when he said: "I am the way"? Should he have said: "Baptism is the way"? This is COC theology.

If anyone says it is some type of work, then I challenge them to prove it using scripture, not just make unsupported statements.I have already used Scripture. You either don't read my posts or just dismiss them. Go back and read my exposition of Rom.4:1-5.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--There is no baptism here. Why? Baptism is a work. There are no works in salvation.
Study also Eph. 2:8,9. Salvation is not of works. Baptism is a work. Man does it. It is a work.

Others say they put on Christ before baptism, yet this verse clearly teaches that we put on Christ in baptism and we are baptized INTO Christ. You can search the bible from cover to cover and you will not find any other way to get INTO Christ. What you put on in baptism is water It gets you wet.
DHK

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Baptism is the one doctrine and practice the true Protestant should rethink from the beginning. And as far as his views agree with the new Pope's, let him know for sure it is error, and basically the doctrine of righteousness by works.
No, since I have learned about the RCC's stand on baptism, I learned baptism is the trump-card up the sleeve of the anti-christ.
The baptism of Jesus Christ is with the Holy Spirit through regeneration, conversion, and the perseverance of the saints. It is NOT a baptism in or with water - which used to be the Apostolic sign in the beginnings of the Gospel.
The pope succeeded in style to side track Protestants with issues like whether it should be baptism by immersion or with sprinkling; or of an infant or a confessing believer. He breaths scorn down the same sleeve he slipped water-baptism up in.
Just read Matt's remarks, they all highlight man's doings and merit - none of which are the work of God alone whereby a man if saved shall be saved.

[Eric B]

bmerr here. It seems as though one of the biggest issues keeping so many in confusion is the idea that faith and works can be separated, and still be what God desires.

Faith and works are like two sides of a coin. If you separate a quarter front and back, you do not end up with two quarters. Only two halves, neither of which would be accepted by the U.S. mint.

You cited from James 2, and I'm glad you did, for that particular chapter has much to say about the separation of faith from works. Yes, it is two sides of a coin, as we see from comparing James 2 with Romans 4. Still, James is showing that as I said, works are evidence of faith, not faith itself. Abraham wasn't "lost" until he offered up his son, and then saved by that. Faith mean doing whatever God told him. If he didn't, then he did not have faith. Still, it is the faith that saves, because there were plenty pagans sacrificing their children, (and Israelites copied this), but they did not have faith in the true God. And in the New covenant, it is slightly different, because we do not have God speaking directly, audibly to us anymore, and it has been established that man does not always obey God, or even interpret/practice the written Word right. If our salvation were based on being baptized, or over instruments being used or not, then who can be saved?
So, yes, "works" can be "Acts of faith", but it is the faith that saves, not the works, because none of us do them perfectly.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting bmerr,
" the works are not the CAUSE of salvation; only the proof of it."

This is perfect popish, anti-christ teaching. Once you've learnt to grasp that, you'll understand why your views on baptism are all seriously wrong.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Hello Eric B,
It's me, Gerhard Ebersoehn, back for a chat.
By the way, I'm busy with those discussions of ours on Galatians, be sure!

Now sorry to upset you once more, but I want to challenge you on this one, quoting you, as saying,
"So, yes, "works" can be "Acts of faith", but it is the faith that saves, not the works, because none of us do them perfectly",
with this remark: Another of those pure popish doctrine stuff, just like above where I quoted bmerr.

[mman]

Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Gal 3:26-27 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Ro 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

Ac 22:16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Ac 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

1Pet 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
21 ¶ There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

All is perfect harmony.

[DHK]

Perfect harmony in saying that:
#1. Salvation is by faith, and faith alone.
#2. Baptism always follows salvation as a step of obedience for the believer, the one who has already believed on Christ by faith.
DHK

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mman:
[qb] Baptism is not a work of merit. It is an act of faith.Your assertion is just plain silly, without any Biblical evidence. It is an act, a work that man does, that man receives. If God did it at all, it would have been when Christ baptized on earth, but even then His disciples did the work of baptism on his behalf. God baptizes no one. This is an absolute ludicrous suggestion. Show me where God came down from heaven and baptized anyone. It is a work of man. Who baptized you? God or man?

=============================================
My assertion???? God said it, not me. I believe it. Without biblical evidence? Read again Col 2:12 and Gal 3:26-27. Now your challenge is show where it is a work? Not your words but use God's word. God's word says it is faith and you say it is a work. I believe God.
=============================================

Any work that is done is on God's part.Pure semantices. That doesn't mean that God does it. If it isn't done by God than it isn' an act of God. It is obviously an act of man. Man does it, whether or not it is for God. That is irrelevant.

========================================
Pure semantices??? Do words have meaning? If God's word doesn't mean what is says then we can't know what it means. "In the working of God", means it is God working not man. What is so hard to accept that baptism is a part of faith and not a work of merit.
=========================================

Have you not read Col 2:12, "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."And so??
The verb "buried" is a past participle, better translated "having been buried." It symbolically refers back to our baptism. It pirctures what has been done in the believers life. It is a picture. If you take this so literal do you also (like the Roman Catholics) believe in cannibalism, when Jesus says: "This is my flesh, Take and eat." :rolleyes:

=============================================
I'm sorry, I missed your point. Having been buried with Him in baptism and having been raised through faith...I don't see the difference. When you were buried in baptism how long until you were raised? How can it be by faith? Simple, God said to do it (Mk 16:16, Acts 2:38, and so on). How did Noah prepare an ark by faith (Heb 11:7)? He did all that God commanded him (Gen 6:22).
=========================================

That is why we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized.Mormons have faith in their baptism. So do Catholics, and so do HIndus. Your faith in your baptism is a Hindu pagan belief. It is paganism. It is superstition. It has nothing to do with the Bible. Faith in the blood of Christ is what saves, not baptism.
I wasn't baptized for two years after I received Christ as my Saviour, yet I knew I was saved. I knew that if I would have died I would go straight to heaven, just as I know that today--baptized or not. I know that because my sins are covered by the blood of Christ. I don't have to depend on baptism.

=====================================
Wow, bacause I believe Gal 3:26 AND verse 27 you say, "Your faith in your baptism is a Hindu pagan belief"? Is that right? Gal 3:26-27 is Hindu pagan belief? This passage is so plain that you would have to have help to misunderstand it. I am going to tie this all together using scriptures in a simple, logical manner, that will no doubt be disconcerting to some, but hopefully helpful for someone.

Gal 3:26-27, " For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Vs 26 is so plain and most accept this readily. Vs 27 is just as plain but many try to explain it away because of how they feel inside????

Yes, only the blood of Jesus can wash away sins. I agree 100% on that point. How do we come in contact with the blood? Oh that is the question. Where did his blood flow? At his death? Romans 6:4 says that we are baptized into his death. Once again we are back to baptism. Lets go another route. Heb 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. I know we all agree on that point. Acts 2:38 says that baptism is for the remission of sins, again tying baptism to the blood and remission of sins. Eph 1:7 says "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace". In whom? Christ. How do we get into Christ? Again, back to baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27). Lets go another route, what else did Jesus' blood do? It purchased the church, according to Acts 20:28. Christ is savior of the body (Eph 5:23) which is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). How do we get INTO the church? We are baptized into the church (I Cor 12:13). Christ adds to the church those who are being saved (Acts 2:47). Baptism adds us the the church, I don't think we have disagreement on this point, but I'm not sure. When Philip taught the Eunuch, he preached Jesus which included water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). See how nicely this all ties together. Baptism washes away our sins. Isn't that exactly what Saul was told to do after believing and praying for 3 days,"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord Acts 22:16." Why did this believer have sins to be washed away after 3 days of praying? Only because he had not come in contact with the blood of Christ. You see, it is not the water, but the blood of Jesus. Not because God owes us anything or we earn anything in baptism, but by our faithful obedience. You cannot lay out a logical explaination using scriptures of how we come in contact with the blood, how we get into Christ, or how we get into the Church without mentioning baptism. Did you ever wonder why blood and water came forth from Jesus' side (John 19:34). The Spirit, water and blood all agree as one according to I John 5:8. On the day of Pentecost, the spirit was talking though Peter (ACts 2:4). Acts 2:38 Then Peter (Spirit - talking though Peter) said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized (water) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (blood - see also Matt 26:28); and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here we have the Spirit, water and blood all agreeing.

I have no doubt this will produce anger in some because it is different from what they have been taught and believe, but I encourage everyone who reads this to study this for yourself. Don't take anything I say or anyone else says, but let God's word speak for itself.

[steaver]

Perfect harmony in saying that:
#1. Salvation is by faith, and faith alone.
#2. Baptism always follows salvation as a step of obedience for the believer, the one who has already believed on Christ by faith.
DHK DHK is exactly right. All of these passages support the position that one believes first and then gets baptized. It must be this way. A person must first believe else they would have no desire to be baptized in the first place, and if no faith then the baptism is meaningless. If one first has faith, then the baptism by water is a work of obedience which declares the believer's faith in Christ before another or others.

James made this very clear..." show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works ". Very simple!

God Bless! graemlins/thumbs.gif

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
Perfect harmony in saying that:
#1. Salvation is by faith, and faith alone.
#2. Baptism always follows salvation as a step of obedience for the believer, the one who has already believed on Christ by faith.
DHK ====================
Faith alone? Where do you read about faith alone? So, confession is not required? No repentance? No baptism? Demons have faith alone.

Baptism follows salvation? So believe, saved, baptized. Is that your order?

Here is Jesus' order, believe, baptized, saved (Mark 16:16).

[steaver]

mman, does God give exceptions for those who cannot get baptized in water for any reason?

God Bless!

[mman]

Originally posted by steaver:
mman, does God give exceptions for those who cannot get baptized in water for any reason?

God Bless! -----------------------------------------------
All I know is what He has revealed in His word. I know it is impossible for God to lie. I have never personally known of a single case where that has happened. Here I have to step away from scripture and give my opinion, based on biblical principles. God will provide. If we are asking, seeking, and knocking, we will receive, find, and it will be opened. We can all come up with "what ifs". What if a person is dies right before they believe? Will God accept them as unbelievers? What if they are die right before they repent? What if they die before they confess? What if they die right before they are baptized? I believe God will provide an opportunity for those who are seeking to obey Him. How many opportunities may a person squander? I have no idea? I know God is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

An example of God providing is in Acts 8, when the Eunuch was in a deserted place. Philip preached the word of Jesus to him and the next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth was, "Here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized?" They did not wait 2 day, 2 months, or 2 years. They went down into the water and the Eunuch was baptized and went on his way rejoicing.

[steaver]

An example of God providing is in Acts 8, when the Eunuch was in a deserted place. Philip preached the word of Jesus to him and the next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth was, "Here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized?" They did not wait 2 day, 2 months, or 2 years. They went down into the water and the Eunuch was baptized and went on his way rejoicing. Yes, but you let out a couple of lines. Philip pressed the issue of faith with the Eunuch before he lead him into the water..." And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest ." Then the Eunuch confessed Jesus as Lord..." And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ". Only then did Philip comand the chariot to stop and went down into the water.

So you have a contradidtion in your position because John tells us that..." Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God ".(1 John 4:15)

It is clear by scripture that the Eunuch was IN God and God was IN the Eunuch before the baptism by water took place. The Eunuch had already been born of God through his confession before the water baptism. I don't see how anyone "seeking the truth" (as you say) can come to any other conclusion.

How did the Enuch "believe with all his heart" before a rebirth?

How did the Eunuch confess Jesus is the Son of God without God indwelling him?

The Eunuch was "INTO" Christ as you say before he went into the water. The very scripture you provided to support your position proves this so.

God Bless!

[steaver]

All I know is what He has revealed in His word. I know it is impossible for God to lie. I have never personally known of a single case where that has happened. Here I have to step away from scripture and give my opinion, based on biblical principles. God will provide. If we are asking, seeking, and knocking, we will receive, find, and it will be opened. We can all come up with "what ifs". What if a person is dies right before they believe? Will God accept them as unbelievers? What if they are die right before they repent? What if they die before they confess? What if they die right before they are baptized? I believe God will provide an opportunity for those who are seeking to obey Him. How many opportunities may a person squander? I have no idea? I know God is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
"What if a person is dies right before they believe? Will God accept them as unbelievers?"
Scripture says no salvation. There is no what if here.

"What if they are die right before they repent?" Scripture says you must repent from unbelief to belief else you will not be saved. There is no what if here.

"What if they die before they confess?" Scripture says you must confess Jesus is Lord. There is no what if here.

"What if they die right before they are baptized?" Scripture says yes they will still enter into paradise. The thief on the cross did repent and confess but did not get baptized in water.

One can think of numerous situations. How about those who call on Jesus in a fox hole and then moments later are killed by enemy fire. How about those who confess Jesus as Lord behind the bars of a prison in some third world country. Do you think a terrorist is going to allow a convert to Jesus Christ a baptism by water before he executes him? How about those lying in a hospital bed hooked up to a machine that is keeping them alive, maybe waiting for a transplant donor. Should we immerse them with the machine as well?

God created us with the ability to logically apply His Word to life situations. What you have done is determined your doctrine by the surface of the letter without pressing into the spirit behind that letter. It is exactly what the Pharisees did, they lived and preached the letter of the law and ignored the true purpose of the letter which was the spiritual and life application behind that letter.

All I know is what He has revealed in His word. I know it is impossible for God to lie. True or false? " Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God "(1 John 4:15)

True or false? The Eunuch " believe with all his heart " and " confess Jesus as the Son of God " BEFORE he was baptized with water.

Was God indwelling the Eunuch before or after his baptism by water?

God Bless!

[Eric B]

To pick up on what Steaver said; the difference between those first three situations and the last one, is that if a person dies before believeing, repenting, confessing, we would say that it was they who put it off; and we always warn people in preaching and tracts that tomorrow is never promised, so accept Christ today. Baptism is a physical act, that a person might not be able to undergo at any gven time, for various reasons. Not only the ones Steaver mentioned, but once again, most churches, I belive (unlike Frank) do not baptize people on the spot. They will want to indoctrinate people into the Campbellistic faith first, and you cannot hold off salvation for them until they accept all the doctrines. For then, it is faith in Christ ...PLUS all this other stuff.
My assertion???? God said it, not me. I believe it. Without biblical evidence? Read again Col 2:12 and Gal 3:26-27. Now your challenge is show where it is a work? Not your words but use God's word. God's word says it is faith and you say it is a work. I believe God."works" is "ergon", which means an act, deed, doing.... Yes, it is "passive" (done to you), but you still have to get up and go and consent to it. IT is still, something you DID. So this IS semantics. Just admit it's a work!
When you were buried in baptism how long until you were raised? How can it be by faith? Simple, God said to do it (Mk 16:16, Acts 2:38, and so on). How did Noah prepare an ark by faith (Heb 11:7)? He did all that God commanded him (Gen 6:22). And once again; that's a picture. Noah was physically "saved" by obeying a physical command. We are now spiritually saved by spiritually being baptized into Christ. The water ceremony is just a symbol of that, not what actually saves us.
Wow, bacause I believe Gal 3:26 AND verse 27 you say, "Your faith in your baptism is a Hindu pagan belief"? Is that right? Gal 3:26-27 is Hindu pagan belief? This passage is so plain that you would have to have help to misunderstand it. I am going to tie this all together using scriptures in a simple, logical manner, that will no doubt be disconcerting to some, but hopefully helpful for someone.

Gal 3:26-27, " For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Vs 26 is so plain and most accept this readily. Vs 27 is just as plain but many try to explain it away because of how they feel inside????

Yes, only the blood of Jesus can wash away sins. I agree 100% on that point. How do we come in contact with the blood? Oh that is the question. Where did his blood flow? At his death? Romans 6:4 says that we are baptized into his death. Once again we are back to baptism. Lets go another route. Heb 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. I know we all agree on that point. Acts 2:38 says that baptism is for the remission of sins, again tying baptism to the blood and remission of sins. Eph 1:7 says "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace". In whom? Christ. How do we get into Christ? Again, back to baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27). Lets go another route, what else did Jesus' blood do? It purchased the church, according to Acts 20:28. Christ is savior of the body (Eph 5:23) which is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). How do we get INTO the church? We are baptized into the church (I Cor 12:13). Christ adds to the church those who are being saved (Acts 2:47). Baptism adds us the the church, I don't think we have disagreement on this point, but I'm not sure. Once again; you mistake the spiritual baptism those passages you cited is speaking of. 1. Cor. especially shows us this. Even Gal. says nothing about WATER! Water baptism was the symbol of being baptized into Christ, so both meanings of the word could be used together. But it is clearly the spiritual baptism "into one BODY" ("the Church", as you even said; not a literal pool), that saves.
When Philip taught the Eunuch, he preached Jesus which included water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). See how nicely this all ties together. Now you're adding to the text! You assume the Eunuch could have only known about baptism through Philip, but remember, baptism "for the remission of sins" was practiced by the Jews, such as John the Baptist (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3), before that! So people would naturally expect a baptism from [the disciples of] the One whom John prepared the way for!
Baptism washes away our sins. Isn't that exactly what Saul was told to do after believing and praying for 3 days,"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord Acts 22:16." Why did this believer have sins to be washed away after 3 days of praying? Only because he had not come in contact with the blood of Christ. You see, it is not the water, but the blood of Jesus. Yes, notice: [one act]"be baptized, AND [another act] wash away your sins [how?] CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD!" Once again, the water accompanied this, and was thus associated with it, but it was clearly the "calling" that saved, as 2:21 teaches. He "prayed" for 3 days, but did not yet call on the name of the Lord Jesus!
Not because God owes us anything or we earn anything in baptism, but by our faithful obedience. If baptism is what saves, then once you are baptized, God owes you salvation. (one can try to make a similar argument for "calling on the name", but this is what is contrasted to "works" as purely "faith", and it is an acknowledgment of one's debt to God, so the concept of God's "owing" something is moot. But a work likebaptism would surely be "earning" something!)
You cannot lay out a logical explaination using scriptures of how we come in contact with the blood, how we get into Christ, or how we get into the Church without mentioning baptism. Did you ever wonder why blood and water came forth from Jesus' side (John 19:34). The Spirit, water and blood all agree as one according to I John 5:8. On the day of Pentecost, the spirit was talking though Peter (ACts 2:4). Acts 2:38 Then Peter (Spirit - talking though Peter) said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized (water) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (blood - see also Matt 26:28); and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here we have the Spirit, water and blood all agreeing. Read the context of 1 John; it is not discussing the "waters" of baptism (once again, not even mentioned in the text). verse 6: "He who CAME BY water and blood...". Once again, that is speaking of physical birth. "born of water AND the Spirit", first birth bywater, second birth by the Spirit THROUGH the blood. So yes, "these three agree" in one".
I have no doubt this will produce anger in some because it is different from what they have been taught and believe, but I encourage everyone who reads this to study this for yourself. Don't take anything I say or anyone else says, but let God's word speak for itself. Most of us here have most likely been baptized, and would have nothing to lose if your doctrine were true. But we must get straight what actuallys aves and what does not save.

[Eric B]

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
Hello Eric B,
It's me, Gerhard Ebersoehn, back for a chat.
By the way, I'm busy with those discussions of ours on Galatians, be sure!

Now sorry to upset you once more, but I want to challenge you on this one, quoting you, as saying,
"So, yes, "works" can be "Acts of faith", but it is the faith that saves, not the works, because none of us do them perfectly",
with this remark: Another of those pure popish doctrine stuff, just like above where I quoted bmerr. Actually, what you quoted from bmerr was actually also a quote he made of me.
So how is what I am saying popish? The popish doctrine on baptism is basically the same as the Campbellistic doctrine we are opposing here: that the water of baptism saves, or when challeneged on that, they shuffle it around, and say it is not the water, but rather the "obedience"--"in faith". I am merely acknowledging that faith is evidenced by obedeince (James), but that clearly, it is the faith that saves, not the works of obedience, because we do no obey perfectly enough to even be saved by works. This point is ignored by both the Catholists and the Campbellites, so I don't see how what I am saying is like what they are saying.

[mman]

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

This verse tells what it takes to be saved and what it takes to be lost.

When were Sauls sins washed away according to Acts 22:16?

I John chapter 2 starting in verse 3 also says, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him."

Matt 7:21 states that on the day of judgment, that it is going to take more than just believing and calling him Lord. We have to DO the will of the Father. Here are sincere people who call Jesus Lord and are arguing with Jesus on the last day. They couldn't understand why they were lost. They believed on him, they worked for him, yet they were lost.

In the scriptures, salvation never preceeds baptism. If your argument includes the thief on the cross, you obviously don't understand the new covenant or when it went into effect.

Now lets compare what God said with what I have seen here:

God - MK 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Man - He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized

God - Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins

Man - Repent for the remission of sins and be baptized

God - Acts 22:16 - And why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord.

Man - And why tarriest thou, arise and call on the name of the Lord and wash away yours sins, and then be baptized

God - Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Man - Or do you not know that when you believed you were put into Christ and then later baptized to show you were already saved....

God - Ga 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Man - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus and baptism is just a symbol because baptism is not part of faith, it is a work.

God - 1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Man - There is also an antitype which DOES NOT now saves us--baptism because all that baptism does is get you wet (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ


Didn't Saul called Jesus Lord on the road to Damascus, yet he still had sins to be washed away?

What would have been your instructions to Saul? What did Ananias tell him (Acts 22:16)?

[Eric B]

He did not call on the name on the road. He was blinded by Christ, and responded to Him and went where He told him, but he was not regenerated until he arrived to Ananias, and then his eyes were opened, and THEN he was baptized. (read the original account in ch.9)

Matt 7:21 states that on the day of judgment, that it is going to take more than just believing and calling him Lord. We have to DO the will of the Father. Here are sincere people who call Jesus Lord and are arguing with Jesus on the last day. They couldn't understand why they were lost. They believed on him, they worked for him, yet they were lost. And if that's because of works, then that's going to be ALL of us! Pretty scary, isn't it?
Jesus was speaking to the Jews who were rejecting Him and, trusting on what else, but their own works. Notice, verse 22 where they begin listing their works, all of which were good things commanded by God. So there is something else missing in this "will of God". None of you "works" advocates ever notice 1 John 3:23 "And THIS is His commandment; that we believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ". That is the "will" me must do first to be saved; before we even think of ANY other work.

NOW lets compare what God said with what I have seen here:

God - MK 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Man - He that is baptized is believing

God - Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins

Man - be baptized in order to Repent for the remission of sins

God - Acts 22:16 - And why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord.

Man - And why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized to call on the name of the Lord and thus wash away yours sins.

God - Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Man -Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into watrer were baptized into Christ's death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into water, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also will be saved whan we rise out of the pool.

God - Ga 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Man - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus which is baptism.

God - 1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Man - There is also an antitype which DOES NOT now saves us--faith; because it is really baptism that is the filth of the soul.

[DHK]

mman
Read Acts 26. It is Paul's testimony of his salvation as he relates it to King Agrippa. He devotes the entire chapter to his testimony. There is obvious omission in his testimony. There is no mention of baptism anywhere in that chapter. In a testimony of his salvation there is no mention of baptism because to Paul baptism was not important to salvation. If it was important to his salvation he would have mentioned it. But it wasn't.
DHK

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
mman
Read Acts 26. It is Paul's testimony of his salvation as he relates it to King Agrippa. He devotes the entire chapter to his testimony. There is obvious omission in his testimony. There is no mention of baptism anywhere in that chapter. In a testimony of his salvation there is no mention of baptism because to Paul baptism was not important to salvation. If it was important to his salvation he would have mentioned it. But it wasn't.
DHK --------------------
How many times does it have to be recorded for you to believe it? How many times does it have to be recorded to make it true? I agree it is not recorded in Acts 26 but it is recorded in Acts 22 and Acts 9. If all he told Agrippa is recorded in Acts 26, I don't know. Regardless, when we put all three accounts together we get a good idea of what happened. He had different audiences so he was emphasizing different aspects of his conversion. By your logic, confession is not important since it is not mentioned. Belief is not important either because he was never told to believe. He did say he was not disobedient. He obeyed what God told him, which was go into the city and it will be told what you must do (Acts 9:6). The first thing he was told to DO was to arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

That is always my approach, to see all God has said on any subject. One verse never negates another, but is always a compliment. Truth lies in parallel and never in contradiction.

After reading all three together, when were Sauls sins washed away?

[DHK]

Obviously Saul's sins were washed away when he called upon the name of the Lord. He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision he told King Agrippa. He said nothing to the king about baptism. It wasn't important to his salvation. The King did not have the other accounts of the Book of Acts, so those don't count in this case--only what he said to the King. That was his testimony to the king of his salvation. No baptism. It wasn't important. What he heard in his vision was important. How he responded was important. "Lord what will thou have me to do?" For the first time in his life he called on Christ, and addressed him Lord. He recognized him as the Messiah for the first time in his life. That is when his sins were washed away. Baptism was totally irrelevant.
DHK

[mman]

Eric B.

So exactly when were Saul's sins washed away? If you read all the accounts, you will have a good understanding of the events that took place.

Saul was told that he was to go into the city and there it would be told to him what he MUST DO? (Acts 9:6).

What was the first thing he was told to DO?

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
[QB] Quoting bmerr,
" the works are not the CAUSE of salvation; only the proof of it."[qb]Gerhard,

bmerr here. I don't think you quoted this from me. It sounds more like one of the other members. You might want to check that out.

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Eric B:
[QB] He "prayed" for 3 days, but did not yet call on the name of the Lord Jesus!EricB,

bmerr here. You're going against DHK now. A while back, he said Saul called on the name of the Lord back in 9:6, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

It looks like one of you guys has got it wrong.

Actually, BOTH of you have it wrong.

You cited Acts 2:21, where Peter told the crowd that whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

On down in 2:37, the crowd says by implication, that they didn't know HOW to call on the name of the Lord. They already believed the gospel that Peter preached to them, so they weren't told to believe.

Of course, you know what Peter told them in 2:38, right?

Now Saul, by the time Ananias showed up already believed in the risen Christ, and had repented, so what was he told to do to call on the name (authority) of the Lord? Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

The washing away of sins was accomplished by Sauls' calling on the name of the Lord by submitting to baptism for the remission of sins, just like Peter had preached, and like he preached afterward.

If baptism is what saves, then once you are baptized, God owes you salvation.What could one possibly EARN by being baptized? It'd be like an old rich uncle leaving you a 5 million dollar inheritance, which you could only recieve if you had held down at least a minimum wage job for one month.

If you went out and worked for minimum wage (at least) for a month, you would then be eligible to recieve the 5 million dollar inheritance from your old, rich, dead uncle's estate.

Now, would you EARN 5 million dollars by working one month for minimum wage? Does it really need answering?

But there you'd be, after a month of flipping burgers or whatever, recieving your check for 5 million dollars. You wouldn't turn down an offer like that, would you?

With God, the stakes are way higher. All He asks of us is to obey the gospel, and to live faithfully for the remainder of our short lives, and Heaven will be our eternal home. Nothing asked of us in this life could ever compare or equate to "earning salvation".

In Christ,

bmerr

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:

With God, the stakes are way higher. All He asks of us is to obey the gospel, and to live faithfully for the remainder of our short lives, and Heaven will be our eternal home. Nothing asked of us in this life could ever compare or equate to "earning salvation".

In Christ,

bmerr And that is your heretical false gospel of works which Paul condemns in Gal.1.
You stess salvation is by obedience, obedience, obedience. It is not.
Salvation is by faith. Obedience to Christ's commands results because of faith put in the sacrifial blood of Christ.

You "gospel" so-called goes directly contrary to Eph.2:8,9

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

#1. Salvation is of grace, not of baptism. It is of grace not of obedience. It is of the free gift of God. That is what grace is. The very fact that salvation is of grace automatically excludes any kind of acts of obedience, otherwise it wouldn't be grace. That would negate the definition of grace. Grace is all from God, nothing from man.
Paul puts it this way.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--With that definition it would be impossible to include baptism in the plan of salvation. For salvation is by grace. It is all of the grace of God. Baptism is not grace.

#2. "ye are saved through faith" It doesn't say faith alone, it implies it. One is saved by faith and faith alone. There are no works involved in faith. Faith is the one thing that is not a work. It is belief or trust. That is not a work. It is the confidence that you put in an individual. It is not a work. We are saved by the faith that we put in the sacfificial work of Jesus Christ that he provided for us by the grace of God. Salvation is the work, the only work. It is accomplished all by Christ on the cross, and all by His grace.

#3. "And that not of yourselves" This makes it even more emphatic that baptism could not possibly involved in salvation. Salvation is a work of man. Man does it; man receives. It is of "yourself." Every work you do is "of yourself." Salvarion is not of yourself; it is all of God. Christ said on the cross "It is finished." (John 19:30) There is nothing man can do. YOU cannot do anything. Christ paid the entire penalty. It is not of yourself. It is of the grace of God.

#4. "it is a gift of God" A gift is something that is given; nothing that is worked for. You cannot work for a gift. A gift is never earned. Baptism is not a gift. Baptism is a work. Salvation is a gift already provided for by Christ. Like any gift one only has to receive it by faith. You don't have to do anything for it (like being baptized.) That is a work. All that is needed for salvation, like any other gift, is to reach out and take it. You do that by faith. One receives a gift by faith.

#5. "Not of works" Plain and simple isn't it? It can't get any clearer. It is not of works!! Baptism is a work. It is something that man does. God doesn't baptize you; man does. It is a work. Salvation is not of works.

#6. "Lest any man should boast." Do you really expect to see all the COC people in heaven boasting and glorying in their baptism. Christ paid 90% of the penalty of their sin, and they paid the other 10% by their baptism. You are going to boast in heaven because your baptism got you there? Right? That is precisely why Paul stresses it is not of works--not of baptism. It is all of the grace of God.

To believe that salvation is by baptism is a pagan supersition. Baptism doesn't wash away sins. It simply gets you wet.
DHK

[mman]

We are not saved by grace alone, faith alone, baptism alone, or anything alone.

If grace alone were enough to save then all men would be saved. Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

But, from Matt 7:13-14 we see that most men are lost and only a few find the narrow way. Titus 2:12 states that His grace provides teaching or instructions.

Faith alone (belief) is not enough to save. Even the demons believe and tremble (Jas 2:19). The rulers believed yet would not confess (John 12:42). In Acts 8, Simon believed and was baptized, yet because of his actions, statements such as these were made: "May your silver perish with you", "for your heart is not right before God", "Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity."

Baptism alone will not save. If that were the case, then everyone who ever went swimming or was submerged under the water would be saved. Why would anyone ever be re-baptized if baptism alone saved. Acts 19:1-6 shows that baptism must be for the right reason.

Eph 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Gal3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Col2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

I Pet 3:20-21, ...in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Truth never contradicts itself. These passages are in perfect harmony.

[Eric B]

Eric B.

So exactly when were Saul's sins washed away? If you read all the accounts, you will have a good understanding of the events that took place.

Saul was told that he was to go into the city and there it would be told to him what he MUST DO? (Acts 9:6).

What was the first thing he was told to DO? EricB,

bmerr here. You're going against DHK now. A while back, he said Saul called on the name of the Lord back in 9:6, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

It looks like one of you guys has got it wrong.

Actually, BOTH of you have it wrong.
I thought I saw him earlier say that it wa when he called on the name after ancountering Ananias.
Anyway, trying to pit us against each other will do no good. Whether he was saved right then on the road when he said "Lord", or whether it was another instance of calling on the Lord before Ananias; it was still the CALLING, which was a SEPARATE act from the Baptism.
You cited Acts 2:21, where Peter told the crowd that whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

On down in 2:37, the crowd says by implication, that they didn't know HOW to call on the name of the Lord. They already believed the gospel that Peter preached to them, so they weren't told to believe.

Of course, you know what Peter told them in 2:38, right? Oh, no you don't! You're reading your own ideas ("implication") into the text again. IT does NOT say they believe and wanted to call on the namebut didn;t know how. They were CONVICTED by their sin in their part in the Crucifixion. So then, they asked "What shall we do" (to escape the obvious judgment for that sin). They are told REPENT, and be baptized. Once again; baptism is always accompanied by a spiritual act, which does the saving, and baptism is just the outward symbol of it.
Now Saul, by the time Ananias showed up already believed in the risen Christ, and had repented, so what was he told to do to call on the name (authority) of the Lord? Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. DHK may see it differently; but to me, this looks like the same thing as in the above example. For one thing; "Lord" also meant "sir". Before I realized this; I always wondered why the blind man He had healed called him "Lord" in the same sentence as asking who He was (John 9:35-38).
So Saul was now obeying what the the Lord told him, and addressing Him with a title of respect; but it does not say that he really accepted him at that point. So once again, it was "repent ["call on the name"] and be baptized", with one washing away the sins, and the other symbolizing this spiritual occurrence.
The washing away of sins was accomplished by Sauls' calling on the name of the Lord by submitting to baptism for the remission of sins, just like Peter had preached, and like he preached afterward. Sorry, it is only by your stretched "implication" that you can make being baptized = "Calling on the name". They were two separate acts that were to accompany one another; not one act with two names.
Once again; God says "And why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized AND wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord", and man says "And why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized TO call on the name of the Lord and thus wash away yours sins".
What could one possibly EARN by being baptized? It'd be like an old rich uncle leaving you a 5 million dollar inheritance, which you could only recieve if you had held down at least a minimum wage job for one month.

If you went out and worked for minimum wage (at least) for a month, you would then be eligible to recieve the 5 million dollar inheritance from your old, rich, dead uncle's estate.

Now, would you EARN 5 million dollars by working one month for minimum wage? Does it really need answering?

But there you'd be, after a month of flipping burgers or whatever, recieving your check for 5 million dollars. You wouldn't turn down an offer like that, would you? Yes, that would be "Earning" it! "If you do this; then I'll give you this". When the person does it; then he can say "OK; I did this; now you give me what you promised". Nice try; you try to suggest that "he did not earn 5 million from a minimum wage job". In this case, there are basically TWO earnings, from two different people. He earns a minimum wage from his employer, and he earns the 5 million from his uncle just for keeping a job (whatever that job was).

[bmerr]

Eric B,

How do you figure that working for minimum wage for a month EARNS 5 million dollars? Are you with the Federal Govt?

No, the job EARNED $824. An insignificant amount compared to the reward of meeting the condition set for the reciept of the inheritance. There would be no boasting of EARNING the 5 million.

The pattern of "Do this, and I'll give you that" is seen throughout the Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments. God has always offered blessings or cursings, according to His peoples' obedience or rebellion. The things He asks of us are miniscule compared to what He offers in return for our obedience.

Take me and my sins, as an example. In my former conversation, I was guilty of blasphemy, adultery, fornication, drunkenness, lying, covetousness, thievery, loving the things of this world, and rebellion against the rule of God, in general.

Then, I repented of those things, and became guilty of vain worship in the denominational world, still bearing the burden of my sins, but being told that I was forgiven.

Finally, after much searching, with the Bible as the final authority, I obeyed the gospel by being baptized for the remission of sins. Such a small thing to ask in order to receive Divine relief as the burden of my soul was washed away! Not just because I was baptized, (for I had been baptized before, under false teaching), but because I just did what God commanded.

I know it doesn't make much sense. That's the whole point of Biblical faith. God asks us to do things that don't make sense to us, in order to receive that which we have need of. Faith is taking God at His word.

The widow of Zaraphath needed food. God provided her need, but in order to receive His provision, she had to give away the last bit of food she had. It didn't make sense, but she obeyed by faith.

Without obedience, faith is worthless.

In Christ,

bmerr

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:

The pattern of "Do this, and I'll give you that" is seen throughout the Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments. God has always offered blessings or cursings, according to His peoples' obedience or rebellion. The things He asks of us are miniscule compared to what He offers in return for our obedience.
No you are entirely wrong. The exact opposite is taught all throughout the Bible. The theme is God's grace to sinful man. God gives freely of the riches of his grace to undeserving man who does absolutely nothing to earn, and in fact could do nothing to earn his grace.

Romans 4:4-8 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

God will not impute sin to those who have put his trust in Him. It has nothing to do with baptism. David was not baptized.
The thief on the cross was not baptized.
Saul himself was not baptized until well after he trusted Christ on the road to Damascus.
Paul said that baptism was not important him. "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel," he said, putting a clear differentiation between the gospel that saves and baptism which does not.
Only faith in the finished work of Christ can save.
Faith in baptism, or that the waters of baptism can save is pure pagan superstition.
DHK

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bmerr:

The pattern of "Do this, and I'll give you that" is seen throughout the Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments. God has always offered blessings or cursings, according to His peoples' obedience or rebellion. The things He asks of us are miniscule compared to what He offers in return for our obedience.
No you are entirely wrong. The exact opposite is taught all throughout the Bible. The theme is God's grace to sinful man. God gives freely of the riches of his grace to undeserving man who does absolutely nothing to earn, and in fact could do nothing to earn his grace.

Romans 4:4-8 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

God will not impute sin to those who have put his trust in Him. It has nothing to do with baptism. David was not baptized.
The thief on the cross was not baptized.
Saul himself was not baptized until well after he trusted Christ on the road to Damascus.
Paul said that baptism was not important him. "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel," he said, putting a clear differentiation between the gospel that saves and baptism which does not.
Only faith in the finished work of Christ can save.
Faith in baptism, or that the waters of baptism can save is pure pagan superstition.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Saul was baptized to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16). Why did Saul still have his sins after believing and praying for 3 days? Remember, he was told to go into the city and it will be told to you what you MUST do (Acts 9:6). The first thing he was TOLD TO DO, was arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. I encourage anyone to find scriptual evidence his sins were washed away on the road to Damascus. The only reason people claim this is because it fits their view of salvation, not because of any scriptual record of the event.

When you say the thief on the cross was not baptized, how do you know? John baptized alot of people. But, it doesn't matter. He lived and died under the old law. I can explain this further if you don't understand.

You said, "Paul said that baptism was not important him." That statement is certainly unscriptural, or I certainly can't find it. If it were unimportant, why did he baptize some of them? Paul preached the gospel and it was of no significance who did the baptizing.

Paul certainly understood the importance of baptism. Notice what Paul said some of them were saying, "I am of Paul" or that they belonged to Paul (I Cor 1:12). Notice what conditions Paul put on them belonging to him in verse 13. Paul would have had to die for them and they would have had to be baptized in his name, then they would have belonged to Paul. Since Christ did die for us and we are baptized in his name, we belong to Christ.

To say that Paul said baptism was unimportant is incorrect. When read in context, he did baptize some of them but since they were divided, following men, he was glad that he had not baptized more of them, because there would be more saying, "I am of Paul". This passage shows the importance of baptism, rather than diminish it. It does not say or even remotely hint that any there said, "I am of Paul" because Paul preached to them and they believed the gospel.

Paul tells why he was glad he did not baptize more of them in verse 15, "lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name." Paul realized the importance of baptism.

You said, "Faith in baptism, or that the waters of baptism can save is pure pagan superstition." No, it is not. It is scriptural.

Acts 2:38 clearly states that baptism is "for the remission of sins". Not because of (hoti) but in order to obtain (eis). This was clearly water baptism. Make fun of it all you want, but this truth will not change.

[Frank]

All:
Faith must be obedient to please God. Romans 15:26,27, Hebrews 11:6. A disobedient or inactive faith never pleases God. James 2:17-24,John 12:42-44. Belief is work, John 6: 27-29. Repentance is a work. Eph. 4, Acts 19. Confession is a work. Romans 10:9,10. Baptism is a work. Col. 2:12. Doing good is a work. Gal. 6;10. They are works of God that we must do. They are all forms of an obedient faith which is mandatory to be saved by the grace of God. These works are not something one brags about.Eph. 2:8,9, Titus 3:5. The one who has an obedient faith is surrendering himself to God through the one who died for him. Romans 5,6.

[chadman]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bmerr:

The pattern of "Do this, and I'll give you that" is seen throughout the Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments. God has always offered blessings or cursings, according to His peoples' obedience or rebellion. The things He asks of us are miniscule compared to what He offers in return for our obedience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No you are entirely wrong. The exact oppositeis taught all throughout the Bible.
LOL! Wow - Is it even remotely concievable to a heathen looking in, that you two guys read the same Bible? I would be scared reading this.

Sorry, this just hit me oddly.

[DHK]

It is a simple thing Chadman. The COCer's have changed the meaning of faith to fit their own warped theology. Look in any dictionary. Faith is trusting, believing, confidence. It is not doing, or works. That has never been the definition of faith and never will.

Works are the product or the fruit of faith. But COC say that faith isdoing or works. This is where they are very wrong, and very confused.
DHK

[chadman]

Agreed DHK, but like I said, from the outside looking in, we Christians appear to have no clue. We all have access to the same Holy Spirit, and it is pretty crystal clear somebody, a lot of bodys, are missing the boat.

[chadman]

Paul said that baptism was not important him.
(Cringe)...why do people say things like this? Paul never once said that in the Bible. You are twisting stuff around. You don't need to twist. It is what it is DHK. Paul never said that, rather he himself was baptized, did baptize, so that is kind of off-the-wall remark. You know, you make some good points, then you say stuff like that?

See, this just drives me crazy, those kind of statements, when you consider Jesus told the Apostles to go and Baptize people in the Great Commission. Jesus' vote is in on the importance of Baptism. Plus, when we see the first thing Paul did after Damascus was get Baptized...it colors your posts with a hint of frustration. It looks like you are trying to convince yourself with this type of literary technique.

All that matters on Baptism bottom line is what is does or does not do. The text does not, and never has, and never will literally support our Evangelical position, so you just have to concede that they have a reason to believe what they believe. The text does support a forgiveness postion. It takes no genius to see that. It is really obvious.

But we don't always believe everything literally, so take that position and make your points well.

See, we are in the unenviable postion on this topic, have been for as long as I was a Christian, of supporting WHY we don't take some of the text on baptism literally. We do that for a LOT of other stuff too, nothing new.

These guys have not warped anything from my viewpoint. Christians from all periods in recorded history have held their type of postion in this regard. We, starting at the Reformation, are bringing the real truth to the world, so it is US who have to make our case. And when we do, and the text does not support us literally, it is actually the RCC folks who are correct that we are looking at Baptism in a new way.

Nothing wrong with that, it is the truth. The truth should be shouted to the world. But you make it sound like these guys made this stuff up and it's somehow new or novel. It is not new or novel. The Church has been in error based on a literal redering of these passages since the first Apostles died. Until the Reformation of course.

You know, I guess I just want literary honesty. We are what we are, now make our case to the world.

[Eric B]

How do you figure that working for minimum wage for a month EARNS 5 million dollars? Are you with the Federal Govt? No, the job EARNED $824. An insignificant amount compared to the reward of meeting the condition set for the reciept of the inheritance. There would be no boasting of EARNING the 5 million.I explained this. There are basically TWO earnings, from TWO different people. No, he did not earn 5 Million from the employer (the govt.) Someone else decided to pay additionally for working that job.
The pattern of "Do this, and I'll give you that" is seen throughout the Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments. God has always offered blessings or cursings, according to His peoples' obedience or rebellion. The things He asks of us are miniscule compared to what He offers in return for our obedience. And that is PRECISELY the contrast between the OT, and the New. The Israelites had all of those promises of blessings and curses, and God provided them with the intructions (the "grace", as you call it), but what did they continuously earn? The curses! By copying that pattern into the NT, you are just turning it into another curse! (Gal.3:10)
Take me and my sins, as an example. In my former conversation, I was guilty of blasphemy, adultery, fornication, drunkenness, lying, covetousness, thievery, loving the things of this world, and rebellion against the rule of God, in general.

Then, I repented of those things, and became guilty of vain worship in the denominational world, still bearing the burden of my sins, but being told that I was forgiven.

Finally, after much searching, with the Bible as the final authority, I obeyed the gospel by being baptized for the remission of sins. Such a small thing to ask in order to receive Divine relief as the burden of my soul was washed away! Not just because I was baptized, (for I had been baptized before, under false teaching), but because I just did what God commanded. So you repent of one thing, come to Christ, but find you still lack something else. So do you NOW think you are finally doing everything PERFECTLY? IF not, then you are actually still in the same predicament as when you were supposedly, still under false teaching! So where does it stop? This is precisely what your gospel consistently misses.
I know it doesn't make much sense. That's the whole point of Biblical faith. God asks us to do things that don't make sense to us, in order to receive that which we have need of. Faith is taking God at His word.

The widow of Zaraphath needed food. God provided her need, but in order to receive His provision, she had to give away the last bit of food she had. It didn't make sense, but she obeyed by faith. Once again, appealing to "it doesn't make sense, but it is by faith" doesn't cut it. It has to be faith in the right thing. Once again, this baptism-in-exchange-for-salvation transaction IS what MAKES SENSE to you, and to man's fallen nature in general. IT is BY FAITH that we "enter His rest" by "ceasing from [one's] labors"--meaning trusting in those works for salvation. (Heb.4)
Faith must be obedient to please God. Romans 15:26,27, Hebrews 11:6. A disobedient or inactive faith never pleases God. James 2:17-24,John 12:42-44. Belief is work, John 6: 27-29. Repentance is a work. Eph. 4, Acts 19. Confession is a work. Romans 10:9,10. Baptism is a work. Col. 2:12. Doing good is a work. Gal. 6;10. They are works of God that we must do. They are all forms of an obedient faith which is mandatory to be saved by the grace of God. These works are not something one brags about.Eph. 2:8,9, Titus 3:5. The one who has an obedient faith is surrendering himself to God through the one who died for him. Romans 5,6. All agree with this. (except for maybe the "Belief is work" argument)But we cannot tie saving faith to any physical work, because we do none of them perfectly or consistently. Work is the manifestation of faith, not the definition of it!

[Frank]

Eric:
Jesus said our faith is a work. Read it for yourself. By all means, do not take my word for it. John 7:27-29. Jesus was asked what MUST WE DO to works the works of God. Jesus replied, This is the work of God that you BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent. I might add this was also connected with getting to heaven. Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for eternal life which the son will give for him hath God sealed.

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
It is a simple thing Chadman. The COCer's have changed the meaning of faith to fit their own warped theology. Look in any dictionary. Faith is trusting, believing, confidence. It is not doing, or works. That has never been the definition of faith and never will.

Works are the product or the fruit of faith. But COC say that faith isdoing or works. This is where they are very wrong, and very confused.
DHK Heb 11 talks more about faith and gives more examples of faith, than any other book. It not only defines it, it gives examples of what it is.

Again, why would anyone need to look it up in a dictionary when God has already defined it? The Only motive I can think of is if the dicitonary supported the desired position.

Yes, these are O.T. examples recorded in the N.T. Notice in Heb 11:6, is says without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. What kind of faith? He then goes on to give example after example of people who trust God enough to obey him. The bible calls that faith.

Heb 11:30 says, By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

When your definition of faith has the walls coming down, then you have a biblical definiton of faith.

When you understand biblical faith, the statements in Gal 3:26-27 make sense and fit completely with Eph 2:8-9 and James 2.

[DHK]

Originally posted by chadman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Paul said that baptism was not important him.
(Cringe)...why do people say things like this? Paul never once said that in the Bible. You are twisting stuff around. You don't need to twist. It is what it is DHK. Paul never said that, rather he himself was baptized, did baptize, so that is kind of off-the-wall remark. You know, you make some good points, then you say stuff like that?
</font>[/QUOTE]Because it is true. But let me clarify so that others will have a better understanding.
First, baptism in and of itself is very imporant.
It is in the Great Commission, commanded by Jesus, himself.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)

Matthew 28:19-20 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 Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (ASV)

Notice that the ASV more accurately translates the word "teaching" as "discipling" giving the sense that a person must be saved before he is baptized. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation, but always comes after salvation, as an outward sign of that which was done inwardly at salvation. So this is a command by Jesus not to be ignored. It is important.

Now to Paul's ministry. What was Paul's miinistry. Paul's ministry was the preaching of the gospel. He was a pioneer missionary. He set up churches of saved individuals, and apparently after one was appointed the pastor of the church, that pastor did the baptizing of the new converts, not Paul.

Therefore Paul says in 1Cor.1:

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

The church had to start somewhere. It seemed to start with the ones that Paul mentioned: Crispus and Gaius, whom he baptized, and then those in the household of Stephanus.
Remember that the church of Corinth grew to be a very large church--hundreds if not over a thousand members. Paul is speaking of just a handful of people that he baptized: a half dozen to a dozen at the most.

Then he says the most remarkabel thing:
Summed up: Baptism isn't the important thing here. It was not important to his ministry.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

Christ did not send him to baptize. Get that. It is important. Paul did not baptize the majority of his converts. They were saved but not baptized. That is not what Paul was called to do. He did not baptize. He was not called to baptize. Baptism is different than preaching the gospel. It is not part of the gospel. It doesn't save, does not have the power to save, cannot was away sins or remit sins. Paul states this very clearly.
He was sent to preach the gospel, not baptize. The gospel could be preached and was preached without baptism. Baptism was not part of the gospel.

The gospel he defines in 1Cor.15:1-4 as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is belief in that gospel that saves--that gospel and none other.

He says in Gal.1 that if any man bring any other gospel than the gospel that I have brought to you let him be accursed. Be aware of putting baptism into the gospel. Be aware of saying that baptism saves or remits sin. It does not. Your argument here is with God. Paul has made it very clear. I have not yet found any refutation of these Scriptures. All that believe in baptismal regeneration must depend on the Book of Acts or the gospels--books of history and not of doctrine to defend their petty doctrines.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
Heb 11 talks more about faith and gives more examples of faith, than any other book. It not only defines it, it gives examples of what it is.

Again, why would anyone need to look it up in a dictionary when God has already defined it? The Only motive I can think of is if the dicitonary supported the desired position.

Yes, these are O.T. examples recorded in the N.T. Notice in Heb 11:6, is says without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. What kind of faith? He then goes on to give example after example of people who trust God enough to obey him. The bible calls that faith.

Heb 11:30 says, By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

When your definition of faith has the walls coming down, then you have a biblical definiton of faith.

When you understand biblical faith, the statements in Gal 3:26-27 make sense and fit completely with Eph 2:8-9 and James 2. You have talked abuot faith. You have skirted the issue. You won't give a definition of faith--not a Biblical definition of faith, nor a secular definition of faith. You are content to rely on examples of men of faith, without understanding what faith is. Look up faith in a dictionary, and then you will have a better understanding of Hebrews 11. Find out first what faith is.
Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
DHK

[bmerr]

Eric B,
The pattern of "Do this, and I'll give you that" is seen throughout the Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments. God has always offered blessings or cursings, according to His peoples' obedience or rebellion. The things He asks of us are miniscule compared to what He offers in return for our obedience. And that is PRECISELY the contrast between the OT, and the New. The Israelites had all of those promises of blessings and curses, and God provided them with the intructions (the "grace", as you call it), but what did they continuously earn? The curses! By copying that pattern into the NT, you are just turning it into another curse! (Gal.3:10)The reason the Israelites continually reaped curses is that they consistently were disobedient to God. In the times when they actually followed the commandments of God, they were blessed.

The OT was a shadow, or pattern of the NT (Heb 10:1).

The OT shadow of blessings for obedience and cursings for rebellion was cast by the reality of blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience in the NT.

The shadow of a thing neccessarily has the same form of the thing that casts the shadow.



So you repent of one thing, come to Christ, but find you still lack something else. So do you NOW think you are finally doing everything PERFECTLY? IF not, then you are actually still in the same predicament as when you were supposedly, still under false teaching! So where does it stop? This is precisely what your gospel consistently misses.You started out right, and then lost track. Let me explain. You correctly stated that I repented of one thing, and came to Christ, but were still lacking something else.

In leaving my former lifestyle, I did, in fact, come to Christ, and I was told by the preacher that my sins had been forgiven.

But sins forgiven is a spiritual blessing, is it not? Do you know where all spiritual blessings are? They are "in Christ" (Eph 1:3). So there I was, having come to Christ, but still outside of Christ, yet being told that I possessed a spiritual blessing that was only found "in Christ".

How does one get "into Christ"? How does one gain entrance into the body, the church, the kingdom, of (belonging to) Christ?

1 Cor 12:13 says we are baptized into one body.

Eph 1:22, 23 tells us that His body is the church.

Acts 2:38, 41, and 47 demonstrate that those who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins are added to the church.

John 3:3-5 tell us that unless one is born again, born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Rom 6:3-5 show that one is baptized "into Christ".

Gal 3:26, 27 state that one becomes a child of God by faith when he is baptized "into Christ".

Coming to Christ is not enough. All spiritual blessings, including salvation, are "in Christ". Baptism is the step of obedient faith which places one "in Christ" where are found all spiritual blessings.


Once again, appealing to "it doesn't make sense, but it is by faith" doesn't cut it. It has to be faith in the right thing. Correct. Man's efforts to do enough good works to be pleasing to God are futile. Man cannot come up with his own plan of redemption. That's what Titus 3:5-7 speaks of,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Remember, It is not I, but the Bible that says the grace of God is what teaches us how to be saved (Titus 2:11-15).

So, no, one cannot be saved by doing good works. At the same time, one cannot be saved unless he is obedient to the commands of God (Heb 5:8, 9).

The church of Christ did not author the idea of baptism for the remission of sins. The Christ of the church did.


All agree with this. (except for maybe the "Belief is work" argument)But we cannot tie saving faith to any physical work, because we do none of them perfectly or consistently.Come now, Eric! That could be used as a cop-out to avoid attempting to do ANYTHING that God commands. Do you ever preach? do you preach perfectly? If not, maybe you should stop. how ridiculous is that logic?

The relationship of Christ to His church is comapred to the marriage relationship (Eph 5:32). Are we perfect husbands? Are our wives perfect? Should people never get married since nobody's perfect? NO!

As husbands and wives, we are to be FAITHFUL, not perfect. Likewise, with being (or becoming) a Christian, we are to be faithful to Christ, He knows we are not perfect.

Work is the manifestation of faith, not the definition of it! [/QB]The Bible says that works perfect, or make complete, our faith. Without works, our faith is dead.

In Christ,

bmerr

[chadman]

DHK thanks for the reply. Your entire explaination with the Scriptures, demonstrates at most, that Paul had a priority with regards to Baptism. He never stated directly, nor does the Bible, state that...

Paul said that baptism was not important him.
You infer this indirectly. But if you look at the whole Bible, Baptism, no matter how you think of it's significance, is very important. Even for a Baptist. It is the very word of God. Our words and banterings on the matter will never nullify what is there in the Bible.

In this case, I'll take Jesus' words as they were offered. Jesus commanded it. It is important.

Hehe, I know nothing will convince you of this, but in this case, I have to go with the Bible. Talk about rippiing Christianity up into little boxes, each seperate, well this is an example of that very thing.

I mean, the very first public proclamation of the Gospel in Acts 2, the important stuff was there, including repentance, and baptism, Just like Jesus commanded. Not sure how one can really reduce it's significance. Just do it and worry about what happened later.

[Eric B]

Eric:
Jesus said our faith is a work. Read it for yourself. By all means, do not take my word for it. John 7:27-29. Jesus was asked what MUST WE DO to works the works of God. Jesus replied, This is the work of God that you BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent. I might add this was also connected with getting to heaven. Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for eternal life which the son will give for him hath God sealed. And look what it says: This is the work of God that you BELIEVE". That is in a totally different category from some other PHYSICAL works that we do of our own power.
The reason the Israelites continually reaped curses is that they consistently were disobedient to God. In the times when they actually followed the commandments of God, they were blessed. And overall, what was the entire assessment of the record of Israel? Disobedience and the curse of judgment of the old system and its temple shortly after the NT&gt;
Why? What was the difference between them and us? Was it simply that God gave them the wrong laws? the 7th day instead of the first? sacrifices instead of communion? Curcumcision instead of baptism? Or was there a problem in man, that he could not be obedient consistently? Was God overall happy that some Israelites, or the nation in general obeyed sometimes? Or is His standard perfection?
The OT was a shadow, or pattern of the NT (Heb 10:1).

The OT shadow of blessings for obedience and cursings for rebellion was cast by the reality of blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience in the NT.

The shadow of a thing neccessarily has the same form of the thing that casts the shadow.
So it's the same exact system, only nopw, the blessings and curses have been upgraded to salvation and eternal damnation? We are back and forth between them just like the Israelites? You call that "Good News"? It sounds WORSE to me!
The blessings and curses of the OT foreshadow blessing and curses for obedeince in the NT, but this has nothignt o do with salvationm. As we often say; we are saved only by grace, but receive or lose rewards by our works. So yes, in that respect, and ONLY that respect it is an exchange of "do this and I'll give you that". But we cannot extend this to salvation, because NOBODY would make it.
You started out right, and then lost track. Let me explain. You correctly stated that I repented of one thing, and came to Christ, but were still lacking something else.

In leaving my former lifestyle, I did, in fact, come to Christ, and I was told by the preacher that my sins had been forgiven.

But sins forgiven is a spiritual blessing, is it not? Do you know where all spiritual blessings are? They are "in Christ" (Eph 1:3). So there I was, having come to Christ, but still outside of Christ, yet being told that I possessed a spiritual blessing that was only found "in Christ".

How does one get "into Christ"? How does one gain entrance into the body, the church, the kingdom, of (belonging to) Christ?

1 Cor 12:13 says we are baptized into one body.

Eph 1:22, 23 tells us that His body is the church.

Acts 2:38, 41, and 47 demonstrate that those who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins are added to the church.

John 3:3-5 tell us that unless one is born again, born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Rom 6:3-5 show that one is baptized "into Christ".

Gal 3:26, 27 state that one becomes a child of God by faith when he is baptized "into Christ".

Coming to Christ is not enough. All spiritual blessings, including salvation, are "in Christ". Baptism is the step of obedient faith which places one "in Christ" where are found all spiritual blessings. Sorry, there is no such thing as coming "to" Christ; but not being "in" Christ. When we speak of "coming to Christ", we mean being "in" Him. By one spirit are we all immersed into the Body, and water was only to be a symbol of this, not the reality itself! He is the one who comes TO us, and stands outside knocking on the door. We don't come to Him and stand outside knocking, and have to do something else to get in. You have it all backwards, there!
Correct. Man's efforts to do enough good works to be pleasing to God are futile. Man cannot come up with his own plan of redemption. That's what Titus 3:5-7 speaks of,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Remember, It is not I, but the Bible that says the grace of God is what teaches us how to be saved (Titus 2:11-15).

So, no, one cannot be saved by doing good works. At the same time, one cannot be saved unless he is obedient to the commands of God (Heb 5:8, 9).

The church of Christ did not author the idea of baptism for the remission of sins. The Christ of the church did. Once again, you are reading your own meaning into that passage. Grace is not instructions on how to something in which God demands perfection, and nobody can do perfectly (Gal.3:10). By God's GRACE, we can have our sins washed away by believing, and being immersed into Christ's Body. THEN we are to "deny ungodliness", etc., out of LOVE for God (1 John 4), not to gain salvation.
Come now, Eric! That could be used as a cop-out to avoid attempting to do ANYTHING that God commands. Do you ever preach? do you preach perfectly? If not, maybe you should stop. how ridiculous is that logic?

The relationship of Christ to His church is comapred to the marriage relationship (Eph 5:32). Are we perfect husbands? Are our wives perfect? Should people never get married since nobody's perfect? NO!

As husbands and wives, we are to be FAITHFUL, not perfect. Likewise, with being (or becoming) a Christian, we are to be faithful to Christ, He knows we are not perfect. And since "faithful" is defined by doing the commands; what is "Faithful"? Once again; Just as long as you are trying? In imperfect human relationships, this might be considered faithful; but do we bring God's standard down to ours, and say God just accepts us as long as we are trying? Then once again, where do we draw the line? What aboput someone who tried to be baptized, but just couldn't for some reason?
Do you see how shaky it all becomes? It has to be grace through faith? The Bible says that works perfect, or make complete, our faith. Without works, our faith is dead. We all agree with this. But we cannot judge someone because they lack a particular deed.

[bmerr]

Eric B,

bmerr here. Before we continue, I want to tell you how much I have appreciated our conversation thus far. I'm sure your time is as dear to you as mine is to me, and we've both spent quite a bit of it to this point. I hope we agree that it is time well spent.

More than anything, I appreciate the thought you have put into your comments, and the fact that you have not merely stooped to the name-calling and cries of "heresy" that so many are prone to. When that happens, reasonable conversation is all but impossible.

That said, sir, let us continue.

And look what it says: This is the work of God that you BELIEVE". That is in a totally different category from some other PHYSICAL works that we do of our own power.Something worhty of notice in John 6:28, 29 is the fact that the people were the ones asking to do the works of God. Jesus told them that to believe on him whom He hath sent was the work of God that they were to do.

Your comment seems to suggest the idea that even our belief in Christ is dependent upon God giving us faith, perhaps by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon our hearts.

This is something I have heard taught by some in the religious world. If I have read too much into what you said, it was not intentional.

However, if my understanding of your words are correct, and you are advancing the idea that God gives us faith, since we cannot even believe on our own, consider the following.

God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). If it is the case that we need a direct operation of the Spirit in order for us to believe, and without this divine work we are incapable of having faith, how is it that all men are not saved?

What I mean is, why would God send His Spirit to open the heart of one man to the gospel, but deny Him to another? On what basis would He choose?

Secondly, Rom 1:16 tells us that the gospel is "...the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth...". If the Holy Spirit had to be directly involved, then the gospel would not be the power, but a power.

Do you see what I mean? For one to be saved and not another would eventually be because God sent the Holy Spirit to the one, but not the other.


What was the difference between them and us? Was it simply that God gave them the wrong laws? the 7th day instead of the first? sacrifices instead of communion? Curcumcision instead of baptism? Excellent question. You know, for the longest time, I always pictured OT Israel as "superheros of faith", all running around saying "Yes LORD", "Right away LORD", "We'll get right on it LORD". As I've grown older and studied for myself, I realize that they were just as hard-headed and stupid as we often are today! I'm still not sure if I should be encouraged or disheartened by that fact!

Getting back to your question though, no, the fault was not with God. Heb 8:7-8 says,

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Also, Ps 19:7, 8 says,

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The statutes of the LORD are fight, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

So, no, the fault under the OT was not with God or His laws, but with the Israelites.


Or was there a problem in man, that he could not be obedient consistently? Was God overall happy that some Israelites, or the nation in general obeyed sometimes? Or is His standard perfection?The problem is definitely in man, but not that man cannot obey God faithfully, but that man often times will not be faithful.

I'm sure you're familiar with the view of man advanced by John Calvin that states that man is born totally depraved and is incapable of doing anything that is pleasing to God. It is a view held by many, and though John Calvin held many beliefs that were well-grounded in truth, this one is not one of them.

We don't have to get real deep into this here (maybe we could start another thread, if you want), but let me give just a couple of verses that demonstrate that it is within man's capability to obey, but often not within man's will.

Matt 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Luke 9:23, 24 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

It's a question of submitting one's will to God's.

So it's the same exact system, only now, the blessings and curses have been upgraded to salvation and eternal damnation? We are back and forth between them just like the Israelites? You call that "Good News"? It sounds WORSE to me!

No no! It IS good news! Under the NT, we have a "...better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (Heb 8:6).

The main thrust of the book of Hebrews is the fact that the NT under Jesus Christ is superior to the OT under Moses. Better sacrifice, better priesthood, better everything.

Under the NT, we have liberty. For example, in the mater of giving, Israel was required to give a tenth, or a tithe of their increase. (Actually, I think it totalled up to about 30% after all was said and done.)

Under the NT, we are commanded "Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him..." (1 Cor 16:2), and "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7).

Not that one shouldn't or couldn't tithe, but the amount is left up to us, so long as we give according to God's prospering of us.

Aside from that, the fact is that salvation and damnation were at stake for Israel, too. What options did they have regarding pardon for sins? They had the OT sacrificial system, {which had to be accompanied by a contrite heart), and faith in the promises of God, that one day, the Messiah would come.


That's about all I can do for now. My pillow is urgently calling to me. I hope all is well with you and yours. Talk to you later.

In Christ,

bmerr

[Eric B]

No; I am not Calvinist. In fact; a couple of times I was going to mention this, as your argument that "faith is a work" is precisely what they use to say that it is out of reach to man, and therefore it is His "gift" to some, but is withheld from others. But I didn't really want to get into that here. My answer to them was "But what He is saying is that in order to do the works of God, one must first believe in His Son, who they saw doing those works. And as a 'work' it is still credited to God, rather than the man doing a 'work' in order to 'save himself' or otherwise contradict faith alone. First of all, nobody denies that salvation is initiated by God, and without any type of call on His part, man would be unable to find life, let alone do God's works".
Excellent question. You know, for the longest time, I always pictured OT Israel as "superheros of faith", all running around saying "Yes LORD", "Right away LORD", "We'll get right on it LORD". As I've grown older and studied for myself, I realize that they were just as hard-headed and stupid as we often are today! I'm still not sure if I should be encouraged or disheartened by that fact!
That's precisely the point of the whole lesson of the OT. there were some faithful we look up to, but overall, the people could not keep the Law, and thus were not justified by it, but only condemned. But we have Christ, so there is nor eason to be disheartened, unless one is simply trying to repeat the ways of the OT!
Getting back to your question though, no, the fault was not with God. Heb 8:7-8 says,

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Also, Ps 19:7, 8 says,

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The statutes of the LORD are fight, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

So, no, the fault under the OT was not with God or His laws, but with the Israelites. No no! It IS good news! Under the NT, we have a "...better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (Heb 8:6).

The main thrust of the book of Hebrews is the fact that the NT under Jesus Christ is superior to the OT under Moses. Better sacrifice, better priesthood, better everything.

Under the NT, we have liberty. For example, in the mater of giving, Israel was required to give a tenth, or a tithe of their increase. (Actually, I think it totalled up to about 30% after all was said and done.)

Under the NT, we are commanded "Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him..." (1 Cor 16:2), and "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7).

Not that one shouldn't or couldn't tithe, but the amount is left up to us, so long as we give according to God's prospering of us.

Aside from that, the fact is that salvation and damnation were at stake for Israel, too. What options did they have regarding pardon for sins? They had the OT sacrificial system, {which had to be accompanied by a contrite heart), and faith in the promises of God, that one day, the Messiah would come. The problem is definitely in man, but not that man cannot obey God faithfully, but that man often times will not be faithful.

It's a question of submitting one's will to God's.But once again, why "will" he most often not? The wrong laws? The examples you showed show it was man, but one of them also says "if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second". The covenant itself was inadequate; because it only gave them the Law, but did not address what exactly man's problem was. So for a new covenant to just rehash the law by changing days and modes of propitiation and initiation will not solve the problem, and thus not be "better". If that was it, man still "will not" always obey, and thus remain largely condemned, and it won't be a "better promise". People still will have no promise of Heaven. So the "better" covenant is not based on works, but faith, and then works follow as a response of love.

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Eric B:
No; I am not Calvinist. In fact; a couple of times I was going to mention this, as your argument that "faith is a work" is precisely what they use to say that it is out of reach to man, and therefore it is His "gift" to some, but is withheld from others. But I didn't really want to get into that here. My answer to them was "But what He is saying is that in order to do the works of God, one must first believe in His Son, who they saw doing those works. And as a 'work' it is still credited to God, rather than the man doing a 'work' in order to 'save himself' or otherwise contradict faith alone. First of all, nobody denies that salvation is initiated by God, and without any type of call on His part, man would be unable to find life, let alone do God's works".bmerr here. Okay, good. You're not a Calvinist (whew!). I really don't like "labels", and I do my best to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I was not aware that they used John 6:28, 29 to support their doctrine, though I can see how it might be twisted to that effect. Even so, I think we're still not quite agreed on what those verses say.

My take on them is that the people wanted to do works like Jesus was doing (Miraculously producing food, healing, etc). They had followed after Him from the other side of the sea of Galilee [or Tiberias] (6:22-25).

Jesus told them that the work of God that they were to do was to believe on Him. It was the work of God, not because God did it for them, but because God commanded it of them.

I may be off, but that's how I read that verse.



That's precisely the point of the whole lesson of the OT. there were some faithful we look up to, but overall, the people could not keep the Law, and thus were not justified by it, but only condemned. But we have Christ, so there is no reason to be disheartened, unless one is simply trying to repeat the ways of the OT!I still say that the Israelites could have kept the Law faithfully, if they had wanted to. You yourself mention the fact that there were some who were faithful. If those few were, then the rest could have been, but they chose not to be.

Likewise, under the NT, anyone CAN be faithful to Christ, but sadly, few choose to be. Matt 7:21-23 states this fact pretty clearly.

But once again, why "will" he most often not? The wrong laws? The examples you showed show it was man, but one of them also says "if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second". The covenant itself was inadequate;We've got to realize that there are always at least two sides to any covenant. The OT was a covenant between Jehovah and the nation of Israel. God's end of the covenant was held up perfectly, since He is, after all, God.

The other party in the covenant was the Israelites, people just like you and I, and the fault in the OT was in them, not in God's Law.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Notice the two parties represented in Heb 8:7, 8. "Them", and "He". The fault was in "them", so "he" said "...I will make a new covenant..."

because it only gave them the Law, but did not address what exactly man's problem was.God gave Israel instructions on how to live for Him, with each other. Not one command was impossible for them to keep. God never asks of man that which is impossible for man to do. Sometimes difficult? Yes, but not impossible.

From your point of view, just what exactly is man's problem? I'm very interested in your response, as it will help me to understand where you're coming from.

So for a new covenant to just rehash the law by changing days and modes of propitiation and initiation will not solve the problem, and thus not be "better". If that was it, man still "will not" always obey, and thus remain largely condemned, and it won't be a "better promise". People still will have no promise of Heaven.Eric, from the beginning, man has remained largely condemned, for the same reason men are condemned today: they refuse to submit to the righteousness of God, choosing instead to come up with their own plan of salvation, their own way to please God (Rom 10:3).

God has never left man in the dark as to how to be acceptable to Him. God has always given grace for man to have faith in. Man has, and unfortunately will, consistently chosen to ignore the grace of God.

It is possible for man to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1).

So the "better" covenant is not based on works, but faith, and then works follow as a response of love. I can go with that to a point. The NT is not based on the works of the law (Rom 3:20), but on the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 16:26).

I've made mention of it before, but I don't think it can be overemphasized, that faith is made complete by the works it produces. Unless and until one's faith (belief) manifests itself in the form of appropriate works, it is of no effect.

It's the equivalent of knowing what to do, but not doing it. Until what ought to be done is done, the knowledge of what to do is of no effect. It is vain. Simply knowing that Jesus died for our sins is not enough. We must demonstrate our faith by doing what He has commanded.

I think it would be worth our while to do a study on works in the NT sometime.

In Christ,

bmerr

[Eric B]

Eric, from the beginning, man has remained largely condemned, for the same reason men are condemned today: they refuse to submit to the righteousness of God, choosing instead to come up with their own plan of salvation, their own way to please God (Rom 10:3).

God has never left man in the dark as to how to be acceptable to Him. God has always given grace for man to have faith in. Man has, and unfortunately will, consistently chosen to ignore the grace of God.
I still say that the Israelites could have kept the Law faithfully, if they had wanted to. You yourself mention the fact that there were some who were faithful. If those few were, then the rest could have been, but they chose not to be.

Likewise, under the NT, anyone CAN be faithful to Christ, but sadly, few choose to be. Matt 7:21-23 states this fact pretty clearly.Then there is no gain in this covenant over the last one. The instructions have simply changed, then, but man is still largely incapable of consistently "choosing" to be faithful.
We've got to realize that there are always at least two sides to any covenant. The OT was a covenant between Jehovah and the nation of Israel. God's end of the covenant was held up perfectly, since He is, after all, God.

The other party in the covenant was the Israelites, people just like you and I, and the fault in the OT was in them, not in God's Law.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Notice the two parties represented in Heb 8:7, 8. "Them", and "He". The fault was in "them", so "he" said "...I will make a new covenant..."
I was not saying there was any moral "fault" with God's covenant. Clealy the moral fault was with Israel. But still, the OC was deficient somehow, if it had to be superseded with a "better" covenant. But so far, it seems the new covenant is no different than the old one, because in both man is able to be faithful, but mostly fails.
God gave Israel instructions on how to live for Him, with each other. Not one command was impossible for them to keep. God never asks of man that which is impossible for man to do. Sometimes difficult? Yes, but not impossible.

From your point of view, just what exactly is man's problem? I'm very interested in your response, as it will help me to understand where you're coming from.
Not one is impossible. But all of them all the time (God's true standard) is quite a different story! THAT is where the problem is. (to answer your question). NOW, we're getting somewhere!

It is possible for man to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1). God's offer of salvation is as much by grace as the ctual salvation itself (He seems to be talking to people he prays "to be reconciled to God" (5:20)) No, we do not lose salvation over and over again from not doing good enough. For then, we would never have been saved in any real sense to begin with. Once again, where is the line drawn?
I've made mention of it before, but I don't think it can be overemphasized, that faith is made complete by the works it produces. Unless and until one's faith (belief) manifests itself in the form of appropriate works, it is of no effect.

It's the equivalent of knowing what to do, but not doing it. Until what ought to be done is done, the knowledge of what to do is of no effect. It is vain. Simply knowing that Jesus died for our sins is not enough. We must demonstrate our faith by doing what He has commanded. All that's true, but once again, we will never this side of eternity, do it perfectly/consistently. So our salvation cannot be based on performance. Works are evidence of saving faith, not another name for it.

[bmerr]

Then there is no gain in this covenant over the last one. The instructions have simply changed, then, but man is still largely incapable of consistently "choosing" to be faithful.[/quote

Eric,

bmerr here. I'm still having trouble nailing down your viewpoint regarding man's real problem. Here's what I mean.

You have said you're not a Calvinist, and that's a good thing. As you probably know, one of the "five points" of Calvinism is man's inability to do good, apart from a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, commonly known as "Total hereditary Depravity".

As I've said before, I try to avoid labeling people before I understand where they're coming from. I don't like name-calling, and other childish stuff, and I don't want to do it by implication, either.

But here's my point of confusion: In the portion of your post I quoted above, you said "man is still largely incapable of consistently "choosing" to be faithful".

That sounds very similar to T.H.D. from Calvinism.

Please forgive me if I cast a bad light on you. That's not my intention. I just don't understand your comment.

[QUOTE]I was not saying there was any moral "fault" with God's covenant. Clealy the moral fault was with Israel. But still, the OC was deficient somehow, if it had to be superseded with a "better" covenant. But so far, it seems the new covenant is no different than the old one, because in both man is able to be faithful, but mostly fails.Agreed on the point that there was no moral fault with God. The main difference between OT and NT is that the OT was a shadow, or pattern of things in the NT. God was the same, and man is the same, but the once for all sacrifice of Christ is far better than those of the OT system. The High Priest is better, as well as the royal priesthood of the believers.

Also, under the NT, men no longer say "Know the Lord" (forgive the lack of Scripture references; I don't have my Bible with me).

Under the OT, people were born into a covenant relationship with God by virtue of their parentage. One was a Jew by birth. As one grew older, he would be educated about the covenant he had been born into.

But, under the NT, those of an accountable age, of ANY nation, can choose to bring themselves into covenant with God, by the authority of Christ. Those who hear and believe the gospel, are willing to repent of their sins and confess the name of Jesus, can undergo the new birth by submitting to baptism in water for the remission of sins. That being done, one is a new creature, a babe in Christ.

He does not need to be told, "Know the Lord", because he has to know about Him and His kingdom before he can enter into it.

The odds of being faithful to a covenant one has chosen for himself are far greater than they are if one is simply in a covenant by birth.

Not one is impossible. But all of them all the time (God's true standard) is quite a different story! THAT is where the problem is. (to answer your question). NOW, we're getting somewhere!God's true standard for man is faithfulness (1 Cor 4:1; Rev 2:10;). God knows our frame, and He remembers that we are dust. Jesus understands our infirmities, having taken on the form of sinful flesh Himself. Provision is made for our stumblings (1 John 1:7-9). Perfection is our "always out of reach" goal.

No, we do not lose salvation over and over again from not doing good enough. For then, we would never have been saved in any real sense to begin with. Once again, where is the line drawn?Agreed, our "not doing good enough" would keep us all out of Heaven. God does expect us to do our best, though.

He is too good of a Father to expect anyone to walk, talk, and behave as a mature Christian as soon as they become one. He understands that we need tome to grow. Phil 3:16 comes to mind, which basically says, "Do what you know to do, and as you learn more later, do that, too."

"The line" in regards to salvation is drawn at baptism in water. As far as the old question, "At what point am I condemned after I am baptized?", I guess it would be the point at which one turns back to the worldly ways of his past, or wanders off into false doctrine or something. I wonder why it is that people ask that question. Why would anyone want to know where "the edge" is? Certainly not so they could walk as close to it as possible!


All that's true, but once again, we will never this side of eternity, do it perfectly/consistently. So our salvation cannot be based on performance. Works are evidence of saving faith, not another name for it. [/QB]Parting thought. Have you ever considered the two things that people will be told at the Judgment? It's either, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant", or "Depart from me, I never knew you", or similar words. It appears that faithfulness means alot.

In Christ,

bmerr

[Eric B]

bmerr here. I'm still having trouble nailing down your viewpoint regarding man's real problem. Here's what I mean.

You have said you're not a Calvinist, and that's a good thing. As you probably know, one of the "five points" of Calvinism is man's inability to do good, apart from a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, commonly known as "Total hereditary Depravity".

As I've said before, I try to avoid labeling people before I understand where they're coming from. I don't like name-calling, and other childish stuff, and I don't want to do it by implication, either.

But here's my point of confusion: In the portion of your post I quoted above, you said "man is still largely incapable of consistently "choosing" to be faithful".

That sounds very similar to T.H.D. from Calvinism. I kind of figured that would still sound Calvinistic. But the truth is; they do have a good point there, that is taken to an extreme. The difference in my statement is, the key wor is consistently. God's standard is perfection, and while we may be able to chose to come to Him, we still cannot choose to ALWAYS do the right thing! We can try, but it is not possible. So just because we can do some things right some of the time, we are not to think that man has the power to save himself by doing good works or even "remaining faithful".
Agreed on the point that there was no moral fault with God. The main difference between OT and NT is that the OT was a shadow, or pattern of things in the NT. God was the same, and man is the same, but the once for all sacrifice of Christ is far better than those of the OT system. The High Priest is better, as well as the royal priesthood of the believers.

Also, under the NT, men no longer say "Know the Lord" (forgive the lack of Scripture references; I don't have my Bible with me).

Under the OT, people were born into a covenant relationship with God by virtue of their parentage. One was a Jew by birth. As one grew older, he would be educated about the covenant he had been born into.

But, under the NT, those of an accountable age, of ANY nation, can choose to bring themselves into covenant with God, by the authority of Christ. Those who hear and believe the gospel, are willing to repent of their sins and confess the name of Jesus, can undergo the new birth by submitting to baptism in water for the remission of sins. That being done, one is a new creature, a babe in Christ.

He does not need to be told, "Know the Lord", because he has to know about Him and His kingdom before he can enter into it.

The odds of being faithful to a covenant one has chosen for himself are far greater than they are if one is simply in a covenant by birth.
So it's just "better odds"? That's the only way the New Covenant is better? That and a "better sacrifice"; but then people are still left hanging on a string above Hell until they do certain works until their death?
And actually, people from outside the covenant could come and join provided they were circumcized and followed the Law. But now, it's worse; because rather than being taught while in the Kingdom, you have to perfectly "know the Lord" before you are even in!
God's true standard for man is faithfulness (1 Cor 4:1; Rev 2:10;). God knows our frame, and He remembers that we are dust. Jesus understands our infirmities, having taken on the form of sinful flesh Himself. Provision is made for our stumblings (1 John 1:7-9). Perfection is our "always out of reach" goal.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, we do not lose salvation over and over again from not doing good enough. For then, we would never have been saved in any real sense to begin with. Once again, where is the line drawn?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed, our "not doing good enough" would keep us all out of Heaven. God does expect us to do our best, though.

He is too good of a Father to expect anyone to walk, talk, and behave as a mature Christian as soon as they become one. He understands that we need tome to grow. Phil 3:16 comes to mind, which basically says, "Do what you know to do, and as you learn more later, do that, too."OK, this most would agree with; but then this would show that it is grace we are saved by; not the works then.
"The line" in regards to salvation is drawn at baptism in water.But you have tried to prove this with scriptures taken to show that salvation depends on works. If baptism is just one example of a work we are saved by; then the line wouldn't be drawn there, bur rather in everythign else we do afterward. As far as the old question, "At what point am I condemned after I am baptized?", I guess it would be the point at which one turns back to the worldly ways of his past, or wanders off into false doctrine or something. I wonder why it is that people ask that question. Why would anyone want to know where "the edge" is? Certainly not so they could walk as close to it as possible! My point in asking that is to show you how works-salvation is totally unsure and shaky ground. It's people who believe this who are more likely to try to "push it as close to the line as possible"; just look at all your nominal Catholics. "I'm baptized; so I'm saved, no matter what I do". But then wait, we can't have that, so it is "living faithfully". That's even harder than baptism, and we're "imperfect", so it's "living faithfully as best as we can". How do we even define "as best as we can"? We can almost aways do things better than we actually do. So it's "just not falling away into worldliness or false doctrine". Why not just say all along that it is by grace through faith? (and if your doctrine happens to be wrong, you've just condemned yourself!) This is precisely why there can be no "line" drawn amidst our works. The line is Christ!
Parting thought. Have you ever considered the two things that people will be told at the Judgment? It's either, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant", or "Depart from me, I never knew you", or similar words. It appears that faithfulness means alot. That still begs the question of the line. If we refuse one homeless person, are we the goats? Or is it giving to one that makes us the sheep? No; the immediate context of that statement (one good thing I have learned from the Preterists) is the different "nations" of people who either receive the apostles (who were without home, and needed food and clothes all that stuff), or reject them. "He who receives you receives me" He elsewhere told them. So even this apparent blatant appeal to "works" ultimately points to one's receiving of Jesus! (unbelievers love to throw this one at us to prove one does not even need Jesus, because "many nonChristians are much more giving". So unfortunate that most Christians do not even know what He really meant, and cannot answer that charge, except for just reciting "faith, not works", which makes it look like a contradiction when this is not explained.

[dean198]

For the NT and the early church, baptism - as far as I can tell - was the "great divide". Baptism was the "sinner's prayer" back then, which is why Paul says we are buried and risen in baptism and we are baptised into Christ, etc. These things really happened in the act of baptism - at least in NT times - because people were baptised when they sought these changes, when they wanted to "sign the dotted line".

It is difficult to write a whole treatise on baptism in one post, when it is so much at variance with modern church practice and has to address so many (mis?)conceptions about baptism in order to be intelligible. I apologise for the length.
Matt, perhaps the ground has been covered already, but I wanted to point out some resources you might be interested in. I just read them, and they are very informative on the whole issue of baptism as the initiatory act of discipleship (and as a conveyor of the benefits of salvation). These two both deal with the surprisinly sacramental understanding of baptism among the early English Baptists, as well as the revival in the view amongst Baptist scholars in the twentieth century.

Stanley K. Fowler, More Than A Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptist Sacramentalism (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 2002).


Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (editors), Baptist Sacramentalism (Studies in Baptist History and Thought, 5; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003).

[dean198]

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.


Irenaeus


"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

The problem with this quote, and this is NEVER pointed out in fairness to opposing views, is that for this passage in Irenaeus we are at the mercy of a Latin translator two centuries after Irenaeus. Since a little later this translator has Irenaeus saying that Jesus was fifty years old when he died, we have to admit the possibility that we do not have an accurate reflection of the original Greek here. We know that young children, who could say the creed, were baptised, but even in the church of Rome, we know from the catacombs that babies were not normally baptised. Hippolytus is unclear, and we cannot have complete confidence in the text as it has come down to us. But we do know from the catacombs that young infants, two year olds etc, were not baptised unless they had a serious illness and were about to die.

[dean198]

Bmerr
To me the problem with the 'Restorationist' position is that it views faith as assent, and baptism as a requirement needed over and above assent. In Restorationism, baptism is not 'faith-baptism', but a legal requirement. I know that the Enlightenment influenced view of Campbell has been modified in many cases, and that many in this movememt would have a view of baptism no different from Baptist Sacramentalists, and from myself. Here are some quotes from the book, More Than a Symbol edited by Stanley K. Fowler on the differences between CoC and Baptist views of baptism:

(1) The Disciples tradition has from the beginning interpreted baptism as the final human condition which must be met before entrance into salvation, as part of the terms of surrender which evoke divine acceptance, but Baptists have placed a greater emphasis on the grace of God which has been at work in the individual evoking the faith-response and is at work in the baptismal event itself. ...

(2) From its beginning the Disciples tradition has been concerned with the formulation of a rational approach to religion which is able to make “faith” easily understandable and readily identifiable. .... Faith has been interpreted as believing revealed facts and obeying revealed commands, so that the conditions of divine acceptance are assent to the facts of the gospel and obedience to the baptismal command. Baptists, on the other hand, have consistently emphasized ... that the faith confessed in baptism is both belief in the facts about Christ and an attitude of trust and commitment.
(3) The early Disciples movement was driven to a large extent by a desire for objectivity in religious experience, as opposed to the search for subjective signs of grace which prevailed on the American frontier.
...(4) As demonstrated above, Baptist sacramentalists do not teach an absolute necessity of baptism for personal salvation. Instead, they argue that the link between baptism and salvation is normal and experiential, but not strictly necessary. ...This is a corollary of the distinction between baptism as final human condition (Disciples) and baptism as a divine-human act (Baptist).


I would add to this that the CoC has no place for the confirming and Spirit-strengthening rite of the laying on of hands following baptism (and this has fallen out of general - but not total - usage among Baptists).

All the best
Dean

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by dean198:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For the NT and the early church, baptism - as far as I can tell - was the "great divide". Baptism was the "sinner's prayer" back then, which is why Paul says we are buried and risen in baptism and we are baptised into Christ, etc. These things really happened in the act of baptism - at least in NT times - because people were baptised when they sought these changes, when they wanted to "sign the dotted line".

It is difficult to write a whole treatise on baptism in one post, when it is so much at variance with modern church practice and has to address so many (mis?)conceptions about baptism in order to be intelligible. I apologise for the length.
Matt, perhaps the ground has been covered already, but I wanted to point out some resources you might be interested in. I just read them, and they are very informative on the whole issue of baptism as the initiatory act of discipleship (and as a conveyor of the benefits of salvation). These two both deal with the surprisinly sacramental understanding of baptism among the early English Baptists, as well as the revival in the view amongst Baptist scholars in the twentieth century.

Stanley K. Fowler, More Than A Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptist Sacramentalism (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 2002).


Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (editors), Baptist Sacramentalism (Studies in Baptist History and Thought, 5; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003). </font>[/QUOTE]Indeed; the early Baptist confessions are surprisingly sacramental with respect to both baptism and communion.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[bmerr]

Dean,

bmerr here. I'd have to say that your knowledge of Restoration history and other related topics is far superior to my own. I confess I've not spent much time researching men such as T. and A. Campbell, B. Stone, etc. It would doubtless be beneficial for me to look into the subject.

Thank you, by the way, for taking the time to add your comments. Time is precious for all of us in this hectic world.


I would add to this that the CoC has no place for the confirming and Spirit-strengthening rite of the laying on of hands following baptism (and this has fallen out of general - but not total - usage among Baptists).Do you mean the laying on of hands as done by the apostles (ie Acts 8:17, 18; 19:6) for the conferring of miraculous spiritual gifts? It seems as though there may be other references to the laying on of hands, but I can't recall them at the moment. I'd be glad to try to provide some information, but I'd like to know better what you're referring to.

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

I kind of figured that would still sound Calvinistic. But the truth is; they do have a good point there, that is taken to an extreme. The difference in my statement is, the key word is consistently. God's standard is perfection, and while we may be able to chose to come to Him, we still cannot choose to ALWAYS do the right thing! We can try, but it is not possible. So just because we can do some things right some of the time, we are not to think that man has the power to save himself by doing good works or even "remaining faithful".[quote]

Eric,

bmerr here. I'm glad you can see that your position sounds a bit Calvinistic. Like I said, there are WAY more than enough false assertions about others in discussions like these, and I try not to add to them.

Regarding God's standard of perfection, we both know that Jesus was the only One to meet that standard. In His dying for Man, while in the likeness of Man, He met God's standard of perfection for Man. We both know this, I'm sure.

Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 2:23), the best the rest of us can hope to do is to be faithful. Perfection is not demanded of us, since it's already been attained by Jesus.

Faithfulness is the requirement we must meet (1 Cor 4:1). "How faithful is faithful enough?", you might ask. Not a question I'm prepared to answer, except to say we must do our best.

I've mentioned before that the relationship of Christ to His church is likened to the marriage relationship between a man and his wife (Eph 5:32). The Bible gives only one cause for divorce, that being fornication (Matt 19:9;Mark 10:1-12).

Fornication is a broad term which includes all kinds of sexual sin, including sex with someone other than one's spouse. Although divorce is never commanded, it is permitted for this cause.

Since the relationship of Christ to His church is like that of marriage, it seems that if one who has met the conditions to enter into "marriage" with Christ, then commits spiritual fornication by turning away from Him without repentance then that one can expect to be served "divorce papers" at the Judgement.

We all fail the Lord at times. The Bible makes provision for these times (1 John 1:7-9). God knows our weaknesses, and the blood of Christ is sufficient for our failings, as often as we are willing to repent of them.

We need to understand that a "stumble" in one's walk is not equivalent to turning and walking the other way.

I'd be willing to accept correction on this, if neccessary, but that's kind of how I see it, off the top of my head.

[QUOTE]So it's just "better odds"? That's the only way the New Covenant is better? That and a "better sacrifice"; but then people are still left hanging on a string above Hell until they do certain works until their death?Well, there's no "Once saved, always saved" as is taught in Calvinism, but I wouldn't say we're all "hanging on a string above Hell", either.


And actually, people from outside the covenant could come and join provided they were circumcized and followed the Law. But now, it's worse; because rather than being taught while in the Kingdom, you have to perfectly "know the Lord" before you are even in!True, there were provisions for Gentiles to bring themselves under the Mosaic Law, and there were things they had to do to enter into that covenant. But those who did so were never fully accepted as Jews. There was still a distinction between them and those born as Jews.

Eric, you're going to extremes with all this "perfectly" stuff. I didn't say that, and the Bible doesn't say it either.

What must one know in order to have faith in Christ?

--He must believe that he is a sinner, and that he is lost.
--He must believe that God sent His Son Jesus to die for the sins of mankind.
--He must believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion.

This is basically what was taught by the apostles, and either believed or rejected by those that heard them.

Those who "gladly recieved" their word were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. By obedience to this instruction, they justified God (Luke 7:29).

Those who rejected their message rejected the counsel of God against themselves (Luke 7:30), and were condemned already.

I know these last two verses were speaking of the baptism of John, but how much more so would they apply to a baptism commanded by Jesus Christ Himself?

In Christ,

bmerr

[bmerr]

Originally posted by EricB:
[QUOTE]I kind of figured that would still sound Calvinistic. But the truth is; they do have a good point there, that is taken to an extreme. The difference in my statement is, the key word is consistently. God's standard is perfection, and while we may be able to chose to come to Him, we still cannot choose to ALWAYS do the right thing! We can try, but it is not possible. So just because we can do some things right some of the time, we are not to think that man has the power to save himself by doing good works or even "remaining faithful".

Eric,

bmerr here. I'm glad you can see that your position sounds a bit Calvinistic. Like I said, there are WAY more than enough false assertions about others in discussions like these, and I try not to add to them.

Regarding God's standard of perfection, we both know that Jesus was the only One to meet that standard. In His dying for Man, while in the likeness of Man, He met God's standard of perfection for Man. We both know this, I'm sure.

Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 2:23), the best the rest of us can hope to do is to be faithful. Perfection is not demanded of us, since it's already been attained by Jesus.

Faithfulness is the requirement we must meet (1 Cor 4:1). "How faithful is faithful enough?", you might ask. Not a question I'm prepared to answer, except to say we must do our best.

I've mentioned before that the relationship of Christ to His church is likened to the marriage relationship between a man and his wife (Eph 5:32). The Bible gives only one cause for divorce, that being fornication (Matt 19:9;Mark 10:1-12).

Fornication is a broad term which includes all kinds of sexual sin, including sex with someone other than one's spouse. Although divorce is never commanded, it is permitted for this cause.

Since the relationship of Christ to His church is like that of marriage, it seems that if one who has met the conditions to enter into "marriage" with Christ, then commits spiritual fornication by turning away from Him without repentance then that one can expect to be served "divorce papers" at the Judgement.

We all fail the Lord at times. The Bible makes provision for these times (1 John 1:7-9). God knows our weaknesses, and the blood of Christ is sufficient for our failings, as often as we are willing to repent of them.

We need to understand that a "stumble" in one's walk is not equivalent to turning and walking the other way.

I'd be willing to accept correction on this, if neccessary, but that's kind of how I see it, off the top of my head.

So it's just "better odds"? That's the only way the New Covenant is better? That and a "better sacrifice"; but then people are still left hanging on a string above Hell until they do certain works until their death?

Well, there's no "Once saved, always saved" as is taught in Calvinism, but I wouldn't say we're all "hanging on a string above Hell", either.


And actually, people from outside the covenant could come and join provided they were circumcized and followed the Law. But now, it's worse; because rather than being taught while in the Kingdom, you have to perfectly "know the Lord" before you are even in!

True, there were provisions for Gentiles to bring themselves under the Mosaic Law, and there were things they had to do to enter into that covenant. But those who did so were never fully accepted as Jews. There was still a distinction between them and those born as Jews.

Eric, you're going to extremes with all this "perfectly" stuff. I didn't say that, and the Bible doesn't say it either.

What must one know in order to have faith in Christ?

--He must believe that he is a sinner, and that he is lost.
--He must believe that God sent His Son Jesus to die for the sins of mankind.
--He must believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion.

This is basically what was taught by the apostles, and either believed or rejected by those that heard them.

Those who "gladly recieved" their word were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. By obedience to this instruction, they justified God (Luke 7:29).

Those who rejected their message rejected the counsel of God against themselves (Luke 7:30), and were condemned already.

I know these last two verses were speaking of the baptism of John, but how much more so would they apply to a baptism commanded by Jesus Christ Himself?

In Christ,

bmerr

[dean198]

Dean,

bmerr here. I'd have to say that your knowledge of Restoration history and other related topics is far superior to my own. I confess I've not spent much time researching men such as T. and A. Campbell, B. Stone, etc. It would doubtless be beneficial for me to look into the subject.

Hi bmerr. I have read a little here and there. One book that was helpful to me was C. Leonard Allen, and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering Our Roots (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988).

This work is interesting because it is written by members of the CoC (and published by ACU press), yet it is honest about the influence of enlightenment thinking on Alexander Campbell.

But many CoCers have moved on from Campbell, and teach a view of baptism that I would not argue with... ie see Born of Water
http://www.greatcommission.com/BornOfWaterInEnglish.pdf



quote:

Do you mean the laying on of hands as done by the apostles (ie Acts 8:17, 18; 19:6) for the conferring of miraculous spiritual gifts? It seems as though there may be other references to the laying on of hands, but I can't recall them at the moment. I'd be glad to try to provide some information, but I'd like to know better what you're referring to.
Ahh, yes indeed. I am guessing from your answer that you believe that the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit was only something done by the apostles. There are two interesting scriptures that have generally led to confusion throughout Christian history.

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."

According to this, the gift of the Holy Spirit is given in response to repentance and baptism, and is to continue unitl the end (v. 39).

But the other passage is this:

Acts 8:14-18
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money"

Some taking the first scripture, teach the baptism with the Holy Spirit, but nothing of the apostolic laying on of hands (Pentecostals). Others teach the laying on of hands, but do not require an apostle to do it (early Baptists whose 'apostolic messengers' were not the only ones who laid on hands, Faith movement). Others deny that this can be given today (against the first passage), since there are no apostles (Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterian, Restoration Movement). I beleive the ante-nicene Church had it right - they practiced the laying on of hands, but only those who succeeded to the office of the apostles. But that would take us into the question of apostolic succession ...

Dean

[Frank]

Dean:

Quote/
I have read a little here and there. One book that was helpful to me was C. Leonard Allen, and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering Our Roots (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988).

This work is interesting because it is written by members of the CoC (and published by ACU press), yet it is honest about the influence of enlightenment thinking on Alexander Campbell.

But many CoCers have moved on from Campbell, and teach a view of baptism that I would not argue with... ie see Born of Water
http://www.greatcommission.com/BornOfWaterInEnglish.pdf

I have no comment on the veracity of waht Allen and Hughes have to say.

I suggest reading a book authored by someone who heard Campbell preach and was converted by him. THE PREACHER: ALEXANDER CAMPBELL by Archibald Cox. Here is another suggestion. Try locating the sermons of Campbell. Since there are only five texts preserved in his handwriting, it would be most difficult to understand what he taught about the new testament unless you use other written sources. You might learn more about Campbell from the MILLENIAL HARBRINGER. He co-authored articles with Moses Lard.

I am amazed that so many who are not members of the church know so much about those of us who are members. By the way, your reference to members of the church of Christ as cocer's is offensive and not biblical. We are Christians as per Acts 11:26.

[Matt Black]

And yet, far from abolishing separate denominations, you managed to set up not one new sectarian denomination setting itself aside from all others, but two main one, with at least half a dozen smaller ones, some of whom don't even talk to each other!

"We are just the church, not a denomination" ALWAYS means "you aren't really the church, you are just a denomination".

Yours in Christ

Matt

[ May 27, 2005, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

[Eric B]

bmerr,
what you are saying basically gets into the issue of "falling away". Many of us will admit not knowing eveyrthing on that. 5 point Arminians would agree with you, but Calvinists and four-point Arminians (which is probably most of us here) would say that someone who falls away was probably never saved. But it is a bit speculatory. Only God knows, really.

Otherwise; I'll say what I just told Frank on one of the other threads:
Faithful service is what is rendered by those who believe. Those in Christ are not under the Law, so you cannot place them in the same constant danger of damnation as the unbelievers. So it's still about "faith". People who persistently "practice sin" ("walk in the darkness", etc) are questioned by most of us, also. But that does not give one the license to make one single work the determination of salvation, as that is what this discussion is really about. If you want to be that meticulous, then once again, ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is God's standard, and no "flaws" would be tolerated, and no one could be saved. If someone is not baptized, then the question is "why". Perhaps the church doesn't baptize until they go through the classes, and become a member. Perhaps a person accepted Christ and couldn't find a Church to "join" right away (My case. It took me 10 years to find a church I trusted enough to be baptized into. So wouldn't this be at most a case of one of those "flaws" of the Christian otherwise "practicing faithful service"? Do we deny them salvation?

[Frank]

Matt:

Quote/
And yet, far from abolishing separate denominations, you managed to set up not one new sectarian denomination setting itself aside from all others, but two main one, with at least half a dozen smaller ones, some of whom don't even talk to each other!

You could not prove this statement if your life depended upon it. I Thes.5:21. I have managed to preach and teach new testament Christianity for more than 10 years. Jesus said men could be one. John 17:21. The new testament makes this possible because Jesus died for it, not religious division. Hebrews 9:15-17, Mat. 15:14,15. I prefer to follow the new testament just as my brethren of the first century did. Acts 2:40-47.

You cannot accept pristine new testament Christianity because you are enslaved by the secterian thought promulgated by the proliferation of man made creeds, articles of faith handed down by the councils, synods, and magesteriums of men.

[dean198]

Here is another suggestion. Try locating the sermons of Campbell. Since there are only five texts preserved in his handwriting, it would be most difficult to understand what he taught about the new testament unless you use other written sources.
In fact, Frank, I have read a number of Alexander Campbell's works on different subjects. I simply recommended a resource that is good because it puts Campbell in historical context, and quotes alot of primary material. However I have little intention of studying much further, for there are, in my opinion, far better materials to read from other traditions.


I am amazed that so many who are not members of the church know so much about those of us who are members. By the way, your reference to members of the church of Christ as cocer's is offensive and not biblical. We are Christians as per Acts 11:26. Well, I think that you are overly sensitive. I do not accept your idea that you alone are in the true church. Believe it or not, adherents of the 'Restoration Movement' are not the only ones who have a claim to the name Christian. There are many societies out there who think that they alone have recreated NT Christianity. Just in my experience alone I have come across your own group, the Plymouth Brethren, the Gene Edwards sect, the John Metcalfe sect, and others who all believe that they alone are the NT church. You follow the church and teachings of a few disgruntled Enlightenment-influenced former Presbyterians and Baptists who had the audacity to believe that they could set up their own body and call that 'the Church' to the exclusion of everyone else.

[Frank]

Dean:
Quote/
Well, I think that you are overly sensitive. I do not accept your idea that you alone are in the true church.
I am not alone in the church. Where and when did I say this? I am not overly sensitive. I do object to falsehoods and false names.
Quote/
Believe it or not, adherents of the 'Restoration Movement' are not the only ones who have a claim to the name Christian.

Once again, your biased secular mind rears it's ugly head. Please provide a quote where I made such a statement. There will be those in heaven who are not Christians. The bible says, in Matthew 8:11 *And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. I do believe these gentlemen died before the cross, not after.
Quote/
There are many societies out there who think that they alone have recreated NT Christianity. Just in my experience alone I have come across your own group, the Plymouth Brethren, the Gene Edwards sect, the John Metcalfe sect, and others who all believe that they alone are the NT church.

Where and when did I make the statement, we recreated new testament Christianity? Who is this they? Christ produced Christians by his word. Luke 8:11-14. Seed bears after it's kind. Genesis 1:11. The new testament produces Christian's. The seed principle of God knows nothing of hybrid forms of Christianity.
Quote/
You follow the church and teachings of a few disgruntled Enlightenment-influenced former Presbyterians and Baptists who had the audacity to believe that they could set up their own body and call that 'the Church' to the exclusion of everyone else.

This statement is without foundation. I challenge you to prove it. I Thes. 5:21. Assertions are not proof.
The bible teaches one church. Col. 1:18.
The bible teaches one body. Eph. 5: 23.
The bible teaches one head. Col. 1:18.
The bible teaches one way. John 14: 7.
The bible teaches one blood bought church. Acts 20:28.
It appears the overly sensitive one is you. Why???

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Frank:
Matt:

Quote/
And yet, far from abolishing separate denominations, you managed to set up not one new sectarian denomination setting itself aside from all others, but two main one, with at least half a dozen smaller ones, some of whom don't even talk to each other!

You could not prove this statement if your life depended upon it. I Thes.5:21. I have managed to preach and teach new testament Christianity for more than 10 years. Jesus said men could be one. John 17:21. The new testament makes this possible because Jesus died for it, not religious division. Hebrews 9:15-17, Mat. 15:14,15. I prefer to follow the new testament just as my brethren of the first century did. Acts 2:40-47.

You cannot accept pristine new testament Christianity because you are enslaved by the secterian thought promulgated by the proliferation of man made creeds, articles of faith handed down by the councils, synods, and magesteriums of men. Define 'New Testament Christianity'

Yours in Christ

Matt

[bmerr]

Originally posted by dean198:
Hi bmerr. I have read a little here and there. One book that was helpful to me was C. Leonard Allen, and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering Our Roots (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988).

This work is interesting because it is written by members of the CoC (and published by ACU press), yet it is honest about the influence of enlightenment thinking on Alexander Campbell.Dean,

bmerr here. I may have to find a copy of that. It's often profitable to look at things from others' perspectives.

But many CoCers have moved on from Campbell, and teach a view of baptism that I would not argue with... ie see Born of Water
" target="_blank">http://www.greatcommission.com/BornOfWaterInEnglish.pdf (http://www.greatcommission.com/BornOfWaterInEnglish.pdf<font size=)[/QUOTE]

Frank has made mention of this, and if I seem "over sensitive" for bringing it up again, forgive me, but I really would appreciate it if we could use something other than "CoCers" when referring to those in the church of Christ.

Here's why. Restore that abbreviation to what it represents, and you get "Church of Christer". Who is "Christer"? That just sounds awful! do you see what I mean?

We call Baptists "Baptists", and Methodists "Methodists", and that's what those in those organizations call each other as well. However, in the church described in the NT, believers were called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

The restoration movement sought to return to the NT as it's sole authority for doctrine and practice. However successful you may think we have been, you certainly can't argue with the goal. In keeping with this goal, we call ourselves "Christians", and would like to be known as such.

I don't expect wide-spread aquiesence to my request, but if every now and then someone took the time to type out "members of the church of Christ" or something like that instead of "CoCers", I sure would be grateful.


Ahh, yes indeed. I am guessing from your answer that you believe that the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit was only something done by the apostles. There are two interesting scriptures that have generally led to confusion throughout Christian history.

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."

According to this, the gift of the Holy Spirit is given in response to repentance and baptism, and is to continue unitl the end (v. 39).

But the other passage is this:

Acts 8:14-18
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money"

Some taking the first scripture, teach the baptism with the Holy Spirit, but nothing of the apostolic laying on of hands (Pentecostals). Others teach the laying on of hands, but do not require an apostle to do it (early Baptists whose 'apostolic messengers' were not the only ones who laid on hands, Faith movement). Others deny that this can be given today (against the first passage), since there are no apostles (Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterian, Restoration Movement). I beleive the ante-nicene Church had it right - they practiced the laying on of hands, but only those who succeeded to the office of the apostles. But that would take us into the question of apostolic succession ...Let me say at the start that I don't have everything figured out in regards to the Holy Spirit. There are a few things I'm pretty sure of, but there have been many men far more learned than I that have seen things differently regarding the Holy Spirit.

So far as I can figure at this time, there may be a difference between the "gift (singular) of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38), and the miraculous "gifts" (plural) of the Spirit which were conferred by the laying on of the apostles' hands.

In this line of thinking, (which may or may not be correct, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if I'm in error), Acts 2:38 still has application today, while the absence of modern-day apostles would relegate miraculous gifts to a bygone era.

There were certain qualifications which only the apostles had, one of which was having seen the risen Christ (Acts 1:22). Not everyone who saw Jesus after the resurrection was an apostle, of course, but everyone who was an apostle had seen Jesus after His resurrection.

Anyway, in 1 Cor 15:8, Paul states that "And last of all he (Christ) was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

If Paul was the last to see the resurrected Christ, then Paul was the last apostle of Christ. I know that some today claim the office, but I'd have to say they simply are incapable of meeting all the qualifications to hold it.

All of that said, an answer to the original question would be that I don't see where the laying on of hands today would have any purpose.

On the other hand, if there is a NT example of a symbolic laying on of hands, then certainly we should practice it in it's proper context. I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as there is NT authority for it.

In Christ,

bmerr

[ June 02, 2005, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: bmerr ]

[dean198]

Frank has made mention of this, and if I seem "over sensitive" for bringing it up again, forgive me, but I really would appreciate it if we could use something other than "CoCers" when referring to those in the church of Christ.

Here's why. Restore that abbreviation to what it represents, and you get "Church of Christer". Who is "Christer"? That just sounds awful! do you see what I mean?
Hi again, I certainly understand your point and will refrain from using that abbreviation. I thought that 'Campbellite' would obviously (and rightly) be very offensive, but it seems to me that those who are members of the churches that came out of what is called the Restoration Movement use the name 'Christian' (meaning little anointed ones) as though it only applies to them. Perhaps that is the wrong inference I have drawn. For the same reason I cannot use 'members of the Church of Christ' unless I put the name of the church in inverted commas, because I don't believe that that church = THE church of Christ. So I hope you will not be offended at 'members of the churches that came out of what is called the Restoration Movement’


The restoration movement sought to return to the NT as it's sole authority for doctrine and practice. However successful you may think we have been, you certainly can't argue with the goal. In keeping with this goal, we call ourselves "Christians", and would like to be known as such.
The goal is a very good one indeed, and one with which I am very much in sympathy. There have been many groups with the same goal, and though I do not believe any have been totally successful, they have all had their strengths and weaknesses. I think the Plymouth Brethren were far more consistent than Campbell was. So also the ‘Two by Twos’ (Cooneyites), who made a serious effort to restore NT Church government. The modern ‘house church’ movement has recovered many aspects of early church life passed over by the Protestant denominations until now. In my opinion (for what it is worth), I think the early ‘Six Principle’ Baptists of the 17th century got closest to the ‘blueprint’ if we can use such an impersonal concept. The Campbell associated movement, in my opinion, was far too rationalistic in their approach. Campbell even taught that the seat of the spirit of man is in his intellect – a belief shared by the Eastern Orthodox churches, and inherited by them straight out of Platonism and Stoicism. Campbell, however, was, I believe, RIGHT to react against the excesses of the ‘Great Awakening’, but it think it must be conceded that he went way too far, throwing out ALL spiritual experience not mediated through the ‘nous’ or rational mind. The whole idea of Christianity is that the Lord has come to make known to us the Father, by the Holy Spirit, and not through the intellect alone (as the Gnostics, and in our day the false JWs teach). In fact, Campbell taught that we do not need the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment to understand the Bible, and rejected the gifts of the Spirit for today. Given a choice between emphasising the right ‘blueprint’, and seeking after the presence and power of God, I would rather the latter. The early Methodists and Pentecostals perhaps saw more of the manifest glory and power of God than any other groups since the days of the primitive Church. We need the new wineskins – yes. But we need the new wine too. But no church has fully restored the ‘blueprint’. Take the three ‘pastoral’ epistles – the two Timothy epistles and Titus. What church follows those today? What church has an external ministry both with the power to ordain elders by the laying on of hands, and to censure and depose them? Or to receive the pledge of widows? (what church even has widows? – the early Baptists and Mennonites did, and the Anglicans have tried reviving this).



Let me say at the start that I don't have everything figured out in regards to the Holy Spirit. There are a few things I'm pretty sure of, but there have been many men far more learned than I that have seen things differently regarding the Holy Spirit.

So far as I can figure at this time, there may be a difference between the "gift (singular) of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38), and the miraculous "gifts" (plural) of the Spirit which were conferred by the laying on of the apostles' hands.
Some people do say that, but when the laying on of hands is mentioned in Acts, it always speaks of the ‘gift’ (singular) of the Spirit – though this gift is of course evidenced by the gifts or manifestations of the Spirit.


In this line of thinking, (which may or may not be correct, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if I'm in error), Acts 2:38 still has application today, while the absence of modern-day apostles would relegate miraculous gifts to a bygone era.

There were certain qualifications which only the apostles had, one of which was having seen the risen Christ (Acts 1:22). Not everyone who saw Jesus after the resurrection was an apostle, of course, but everyone who was an apostle had seen Jesus after His resurrection.
Yes, true. But there were others also called apostles, who were not of the chief apostles, and whose authority came from the chief apostles. Think of Apollos, Timothy, Epaphrus etc. We see in the epistles of Timothy and Titus Paul handing over his mission to these young apostolic men, in view of his own departure, and this charge he urges Timothy to keep until the coming of the Lord, showing that Paul envisioned the continuation of the Timothy ministry. After all, it was the apostles who ordained elders in every church, and Paul delegated this authority to Timothy and Titus. The congregations and elders consented of course, but they never did the ordaining. But this ministry is continued by the secondary apostles. This is where the Plymouth Brethren at least are consistent, for they say that apostles ceased, and therefore they say that no one today has authority to ordain elders, hence they are all just simple ‘brethren’ meeting as such amidst the ruin of Christendom. Consistent … but wrong!


All of that said, an answer to the original question would be that I don't see where the laying on of hands today would have any purpose.
And as you note, it would require that the delegated ‘Timothy’ ministry is still here today. I believe it is still available – 1 Tim 6:13-14. And the testimony of the primitive church agrees.

In the early church, disciples repented, were baptised for the remission of sins, and then had hands laid upon them for the reception of the Spirit. As you noted, the promise of the Spirit is given to all – Acts 2:38 – all who repent and are baptised. And however we understand 1 Cor. 13, elsewhere there is strong indication (if not outright proof) that the gifts are to be here until the second coming – 1 Cor. 1 :4-8; 1 Thes. 5:16-23.

Regards
Dean

[Bro. James]

Do we deny them salvation?

Is not the question in as much as "salvation is of the Lord". There is only one "priestly act" which saves a man's soul: Jesus' shed blood at Calvary. He said: "IT IS FINISHED".

That is what the apostle Paul preached: Jesus Christ--and Him crucified.

Another nail in the "salvation by works" coffin: "It is not by acts of righteousness which we have done; but according to HIS mercy HE saved us".

"Without the shedding of blood and washing the body in water, there is no remission of sin" is a perversion of The Word of God.

One could be baptized into every church in the world--and still go to hell.

A depraved man depending on an act of a depraved man to gain heaven seems utterly absurd. Have we considered the doctrines of Grace?

Grace does not allow any sort of work--including what some call baptism.

Selah,

Bro. James

[Matt Black]

I'm still waiting with baited breath for Frank's definition of NT Christianity

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Bro. James]

NT Christianity=OT Christianity-Mosaic Law +Church.

Selah,

Bro. James

[Matt Black]

Meaning?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Bro. James]

Meaning: "Saved by Grace through Faith, not of ourselves, the gift of God, not of works, there is no boasting, we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God has before ordained that we should walk in them." A paraphrase of Eph. 2:8-10.

Also: Eph. 3:21, "Unto Him be glory in the church...".

Salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT--grace through faith.

No one has ever been saved by their works.

Selah,

Bro. James

[dean198]

Bro. James - you are actually affirming antinominism - whatever you think to the contrary. Baptism is the faith-response to the gospel ... it is the 'washing of regeneration', not only according to scripture, but according to Luther, Calvin, and the early Baptists, Calvinist and General, including Benjamin Keach and Thomas Grantham. You're gross oversimplification is simply an american perversion of the gospel, of the same ilk with the four spiritual laws.

[Matt Black]

NT Christianity wasn't pristine. If it was, we wouldn't have had the Epistles.

Plus wot Dean sed.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by dean198:
Bro. James - you are actually affirming antinominism - whatever you think to the contrary. Baptism is the faith-response to the gospel ... it is the 'washing of regeneration', not only according to scripture, but according to Luther, Calvin, and the early Baptists, Calvinist and General, including Benjamin Keach and Thomas Grantham. You're gross oversimplification is simply an american perversion of the gospel, of the same ilk with the four spiritual laws. [resurfacing]
Dean....good answer graemlins/applause.gif

Matt...good point about the Epistles. graemlins/thumbs.gif
[/resubmerging]

[Frank]

Matt:
Jesus defined new testament Christianity in Mat. 28:18-20. The teaching and practice of all things commanded by the authority of Christ.

[Bro. James]

Affirming "Antinomianism"(the correct spelling??)

"Name calling" is no argument at all. Stereo-typing and generalizations do not make good debate.

Shall we discuss the biblical "Doctrines of Grace" and see how "the Laws of God" relate to the Gospel? (T-U-L-I-P-S)

Other suggested topics:
1. The Mosaic Law as applied to Jews--then as to Gentiles
2. The Law which was fulfilled at Calvary
3. The "perfect Law of liberty"
4. The "Law" written on the tabernacle of the heart
5. Redemption from the "curse" of the Law

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. Baptism is a picture of death, burial and resurrection. It "washes away" nothing--except perhaps a little soil.

[ June 04, 2005, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Frank:
Matt:
Jesus defined new testament Christianity in Mat. 28:18-20. The teaching and practice of all things commanded by the authority of Christ. Were that to be the only definition of NT Christianity, again there would be no need for the epistles - I refer you to my earlier answer and ask my earlier question again: what do you mean by NT Christianity

DT - good to have you back graemlins/thumbs.gif

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Frank]

Matt:
The new testament is divine. The saints of the kingdom are not divine. This does not change the waht new testament Christianity is just becaseu some chose not to practice and teach as per Mat. 28:18-20. When one does not comply with the will of Christ, he makes up his own defintion, this has been going on for ages. This is precisely the reason we have denominationalism. When one follows and practices all things by the authority of Christ, he is a Christian.

[mman]

Baptism is a picture of death, burial and resurrection. It "washes away" nothing--except perhaps a little soil. Acts 22:16 says it washes away sins.

I Pet 3:21 is exactly the opposite of what you say. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

From this verse, it clearly teaches that something saves us, what is it? What is it's purpose? Not the removal of the filth of the flesh, as you have suggested.

Baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). The same phrase is used in Matt 26:28, which states that Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of sins. This is the only time this phrase is used not in conjunction with baptism. We can see the real meaning of the phrase in Matt 26:28. Jesus blood shed in order for people to obtain the forgiveness of sins. We are baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins. Same phrase, same meaning. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to twist or attempt to explain away this verse.

It is not the water that cleanses us, but the blood.

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Frank:
Matt:
The new testament is divine. The saints of the kingdom are not divine. This does not change the waht new testament Christianity is just becaseu some chose not to practice and teach as per Mat. 28:18-20. When one does not comply with the will of Christ, he makes up his own defintion, this has been going on for ages. This is precisely the reason we have denominationalism. When one follows and practices all things by the authority of Christ, he is a Christian. We all do both - follow and practice by the authority of Christ but also fail to comply with His will; the latter is called sin and I would respectfully submit that you are no more immune to this than the rest of us, and that therefore the group of believers with whom you meet are as much a denomination as those of the rest of us here.

If the teaching of Jesus is all that one needs to follow, I presume therefore you do not condemn same-sex relationships, since neither did Jesus...?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[dean198]

Baptism is a picture of death, burial and resurrection. It "washes away" nothing--except perhaps a little soil.
This is typical Enlightenment thinking, in which Baptism is simply a compliance with no real meaning. In this philosophy, baptism is simply an outward testimony which conveys absolutely nothing. How Calvin must be turning in his grave to see those calling themselves after his name put a gnostic wedge between the natural and the spiritual. And the 'Restoration Movement' was likewise faulty (though many modern followers no longer hold this error) by keeping the divorce between faith, and faith-expressed-in-baptism and making baptism an additional requirement to faith; a compliance necessary to salvation. And the Baptists (US kind) and others likewise have abandoned faith-baptism and replaced it with the non-apostolic response of faith called the altar call, invented by baby sprinklers who had no room for a sacrament of conversion in their theology. Maybe one day the evangelical church will awake from its 'enlightenment' slumber.

[Briguy]

Hi All, I am jumping in here but have not read but the first page so if I repeat what was said I am sorry.

Matt said something in his first post that I have said many times. In the early church Baptism was to "sign on the doted line". It was an open commitment to Christ. It was an outward expression which made everyone around know the alligence of the person Baptized. With the Baptism came persecution. To be baptized was to say "I belong to Christ" or I belong to "The Way". This was very serious and opened the believer up to physical and verbal persecutions. In the year 2005 much has changed and so has Baptism. Baptism does not in and of itself open a person up to persecution and is not a sure sign of ones faith in Christ. We proclaim our faith now by confessing it to others and by joining a local assembly, which will typically meet in a building with a name on it (Racine Bible Church, in my case).

Also, I saw right away someone mention Acts 2:38. This verse is so widely used and abused it drives me crazy. Peter was addressing a question from a group of jews and directed his answer to the "house of Isreal". The repentance he spoke of was for "Isreal to repent of putting to death the Son of God and becoming an ememy of God. The Baptism and repentance was to put them in a position to receive Christ and be saved. Just thought I would correct the direction that that verse takes some folks.

In Christ,
Brian

[mman]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi All, I am jumping in here but have not read but the first page so if I repeat what was said I am sorry.

Matt said something in his first post that I have said many times. In the early church Baptism was to "sign on the doted line". It was an open commitment to Christ. It was an outward expression which made everyone around know the alligence of the person Baptized. With the Baptism came persecution. To be baptized was to say "I belong to Christ" or I belong to "The Way". This was very serious and opened the believer up to physical and verbal persecutions. In the year 2005 much has changed and so has Baptism. Baptism does not in and of itself open a person up to persecution and is not a sure sign of ones faith in Christ. We proclaim our faith now by confessing it to others and by joining a local assembly, which will typically meet in a building with a name on it (Racine Bible Church, in my case).

Also, I saw right away someone mention Acts 2:38. This verse is so widely used and abused it drives me crazy. Peter was addressing a question from a group of jews and directed his answer to the "house of Isreal". The repentance he spoke of was for "Isreal to repent of putting to death the Son of God and becoming an ememy of God. The Baptism and repentance was to put them in a position to receive Christ and be saved. Just thought I would correct the direction that that verse takes some folks.

In Christ,
Brian Baptism in Acts 2:38 was for the remission of sin. Not "because of" (hoti) but unto (eis) or in order to obtain. It doesn't matter what sins, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16).

You are right about this passage being abused.

[Briguy]

mman, Read the verse below in context. It is intended only for the House of Isreal. It has no bearing on how or what Gentiles do to be saved. It shows a Baptism like John's Baptism, not a believer Baptism as clearly shown later in Acts. Acts 2:38 does not mean that Baptism has something to do with salvation. Read below with an open mind and see what it says and who the auidence of Peter's was.

Acts 2 (KJV)
[32] This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
[33] Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
[34] For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
[35] Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
[36] Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
[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?
[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.
[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.
[40] And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Think about "Save Yourself" for a moment. Did you save yourself?? I know I didn't. No, there is more to what Peter is saying. The house of Isreal needed to repent and put themselves in a postion to be saved and in that sense they could save themselves. Hope that cleared that up.

In Christ,
Brian

[mman]

Originally posted by Briguy:
[QB] mman, Read the verse below in context. It is intended only for the House of Isreal. It has no bearing on how or what Gentiles do to be saved. It shows a Baptism like John's Baptism, not a believer Baptism as clearly shown later in Acts. Acts 2:38 does not mean that Baptism has something to do with salvation. Read below with an open mind and see what it says and who the auidence of Peter's was.There's no question as to who he was talking to. He was talking to the Jews. But notice verse 39. Who do you think those that are "afar off" are? Obviously they weren't Jews, because they were all covered by "you, your children".

Think about "Save Yourself" for a moment. Did you save yourself?? I know I didn't. No, there is more to what Peter is saying. The house of Isreal needed to repent and put themselves in a postion to be saved and in that sense they could save themselves. Hope that cleared that up.Did some other person believe for you? No, you have responsibility. If someone throws me a rope when I am about to drown and says, "Here, save yourself", I understand I have to grab the rope. Did I save myself? I did in that I grabbed the rope and trusted him who threw it to me. Without the rope, I would have drowned, so in that sense, I could have never saved myself.

Jesus said, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Did Jesus say go only to the Jews? No. Did he say preach different gospels to different people? No. Preach THE GOSPEL.

He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, just like in Acts 2, which was preached to the Jews first then to the Greeks (Rom 1:16). The same gospel is for all.

You and itutut must be brothers.

[Briguy]

Hi mman, I was just talking about Acts 2:38. The other verse you quoted is a different story and we don't need to debate that in this thread. Anyway, at least you admit that the qoute was for the Jews. Peter would not have answered a question directed at him from a group of jewish folk and answered as though Gentiles were there. The "afar off" is simply those down the line. He said children and the "afar off". Think about it. He would not have said your children's children and your children's children's children. No he had to say something that meant "all those generations to follow" and he chose "afar off" or what ever the greek word is for that, or at least the word Luke used was greek. Anyway by that act of repentent Baptism the House of Isreal could put themselves in a position to be saved. The next generation, I believe, would not have to do this because they weren't alive or were just small children when Jesus was put to death. That generation, which Peter calls an Untoward generation were the ones who needed to repent and be baptized and it would put all the rest of the jews down the line in a postion where they could Trust in Christ and be saved. My interpretation makes sense in light of what is being said and to whom it is being said. Your way to look at this verse is common but jjustdoes not meet a logical conclusion.

Yes the Gospel is for the world, AMEN!!!! The Gentiles could come to Christ without repenting of putting the death of the Son of God. The gentile could simply repent of their sins and trust in the power of the blood of Christ to save them, just as we all, including Jews do now.

Your rope anology works fine for the choice the Jews had to repent of what they had done to Jesus or not repent. In the true sense we can't save ourselves. Once we put us into the equation the perfection of Jesus and the true saving power of Jesus seem to be lessened because we are so horribly imperfect. Well I am anyway smile.gif

In Christ, Have a great weekend!!
Brian

[Frank]

Matt:
Quote/
We all do both - follow and practice by the authority of Christ but also fail to comply with His will; the latter is called sin and I would respectfully submit that you are no more immune to this than the rest of us, and that therefore the group of believers with whom you meet are as much a denomination as those of the rest of us here.

Matt, I repectfully ask for you to PROVE IT! I Thes. 5: 21.

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Briguy:

Matt said something in his first post that I have said many times. In the early church Baptism was to "sign on the doted line". It was an open commitment to Christ. It was an outward expression which made everyone around know the alligence of the person Baptized. With the Baptism came persecution. To be baptized was to say "I belong to Christ" or I belong to "The Way". This was very serious and opened the believer up to physical and verbal persecutions. In the year 2005 much has changed and so has Baptism. Baptism does not in and of itself open a person up to persecution and is not a sure sign of ones faith in Christ. We proclaim our faith now by confessing it to others and by joining a local assembly, which will typically meet in a building with a name on it (Racine Bible Church, in my case).Hello, Briguy,

bmerr here. I would agree to your point that those baptized in the first century were doubtless subject to more physical persecution than we are today.

However, I would have to say that there was more to one's baptism than simply a public profession of one's faith. For example, to whom did the Ethiopian eunuch declare his faith in Christ when he was baptized? Not Phillip, since he had already heard the eunuch's verbal confession. Not to the on-lookers, for there were none. Not to God, for He knew of the eunuch's faith already.

No, there would have to be more significance to baptism than merely a public confession, or a "signing the dotted line".

If we let the Scriptures speak, we will find that baptism was for the remission, or washing away of sins (you know the verses as well as I do). We also find that it plays a part in our salvation. It is the door by which one enters "into Christ" where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3).

Also, I saw right away someone mention Acts 2:38. This verse is so widely used and abused it drives me crazy. Peter was addressing a question from a group of jews and directed his answer to the "house of Isreal". The repentance he spoke of was for "Isreal to repent of putting to death the Son of God and becoming an ememy of God. The Baptism and repentance was to put them in a position to receive Christ and be saved. Just thought I would correct the direction that that verse takes some folks.

In Christ,
Brian As has already been mentioned, there is but one gospel for all the world. I have heard the idea that the 12 were sent with a gospel including baptism for the Jews, while Paul preached a gospel to the Gentiles that did not require basptism.

I don't think this is what you're advocating, but it reminded me of it.

The term "afar off" is usually used in reference to Gentiles. I'd be hard pressed to find where it referred to anyone else. The gospel preached on Pentecost of Acts 2 was the same as was taken to the Gentiles.

Admittedly, the Gentiles were not as directly involved in Jesus' crucifixion as were the Acts 2 Jews, but their sins, and ours today were no less in need of forgiveness than the sins of the Acts 2 Jews. If my sins didn't require the death of Christ, then His death doesn't atone for them.

The Pentecostians heard the gospel and believed it. As a result, they asked what they should do to be saved. They were told (having already believed) to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. This is the pattern of conversion found throughout Acts, and oft referred to in the Epistles.

Nice to have you in the discussion, sir.

In Christ,

bmerr

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Frank:
Matt:
Quote/
We all do both - follow and practice by the authority of Christ but also fail to comply with His will; the latter is called sin and I would respectfully submit that you are no more immune to this than the rest of us, and that therefore the group of believers with whom you meet are as much a denomination as those of the rest of us here.

Matt, I repectfully ask for you to PROVE IT! I Thes. 5: 21. Both you and I try to 'test and approve' all things - but we still come up with different conclusions. Hence why we are in different denominations...

Yours in Christ

Matt

[BobRyan]

Both you and I try to 'test and approve' all things - but we still come up with different conclusions. Hence why we are in different denominations...Let's try the wrong answers first.

#1. Because God can not be trusted to really "Guide us into all truth" as HE claims He will do in John 16.

#2. Because God's Word is unreliable - we need tradition to interpret it for us rather then simply reading it and believing it. Certainly we would never use it to SEE "IF Those things told to us by an Apostle are true" as they did in Acts 17!!

#3. Because Person-A does not have a church leader spouting strong doctrinal dogma and person-B has a Pope that does??

#4. Because all Christian groups don't know how to read the Bible.

#5. Because the Catholic church has finally admitted to all their doctrinal errors! Being so fully experienced in the role of introducing doctrinal error and man-made-tradition they alone should be trusted to KNOW error when they see it and tell everyone else what is really truth!

I think that just about covers it!

In Christ,

Bob

[Matt Black]

And do you have a right answer?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Briguy]

bmerr, sorry for the delay in my response. The Eunuch did need to "prove" to Phillip that he was serious, i.e He asked to be Baptized. Plus there was a driver of the chariot and perhaps others involved with hin in where he was going. We do not know for sure. The baptism was also a reassurance for the eunuch himself. We also know that Phillip made him say first what he believed.

As for "afar off" please give me scriptures from the new testement that use this term for the Gentiles.

Again, Would you address one group and talk about what they needed to do and the reference a whole differnt groups decendants? What about the gentiles alive right then? If what Peter said applied to Gentiles that were afar off, it would have apploed to the gentiles right at that time.

Peter was addressing Jews and everything he said was meant for the Jewish people. Gentiles things in Acts were not even spoken of until many chapters later. Anyway, this does not really hurt whatv you say, it is just you can't make Acts 2:38 say what you want it to mean.

In Christ,
Brian

[DHK]

Bump

[Frank]

Matt:
Quote/
Both you and I try to 'test and approve' all things - but we still come up with different conclusions. Hence why we are in different denominations...

You have provided no inspired evidence for your claim. You do not prove all things without inspired scripture. Now, please provide some evidence for your previous post.

Just provide evidence that sustains your claim to the following:
1. I am a part of a denomination.
2. The group of believers with which I associate are a part of a denomination.
3. I do not follow and comply with the authority of Christ.

You seem to know more about me than I do myself. I cannot wait for the maundered bilge that is to follow.

[Frank]

Matt:
Quote/
If the teaching of Jesus is all that one needs to follow, I presume therefore you do not condemn same-sex relationships, since neither did Jesus...?

Your statement is false. It shows a a lack of understanding of the words of Christ and the original order of relationships ordained of God.

Jesus authorizes males and females to marry. Have you ever read Mat. 19:1-9 ? JESUS SAID, 1And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; 2And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. cf. Genesis 2:24.

[Matt Black]

Frank, forgive the delay, but I have just come back from vacation. To follow your numbered paragraphs in your penultimate post:

1. Would you therefore be happy attending my church if you lived close to me: www.lhfc.org.uk (http://www.lhfc.org.uk) ? If not, why not?

2. Because you hold to a different set of doctrines and practices than the rest of the Church eg: my local church -see above

3. I'm sure you do to the best of your knowledge, information and belief...as do most of the rest of us here

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Ed Edwards]

Brother Matt Black:
I'm an Electrical Engineer who used to work with a
technician who liked to talk about "the headset
problem". No, he wasn't talking a listening
device which had failed, he was talking about the
state of mind one gets them self into as
"the headset problem".

I see a major headset problem with those who determine
that denominationalism is unscriptural. In fact,
denominationalism is quite neutral, it can be used by
the person using it as good or evil. Using denominationalism
to separate and divide and exclude those whom God
has included is evil. And there are those who practice
denominationalism in that matter, in fact even disdaining
ecumenticalism.

I would be glad, were i ever moved to the
Hampshire area of England, to attend
your church: Locks Heath Free Church. In fact,
I suspect within a year i could be teaching in
that Church. I read the SOF = Statement of Faith, at:

http://www.lhfc.org.uk/belief.asp

and agree with it fully.

BTW, i use Velcro to hold my shoes on.
I'm just waiting for the anti-terrorist world to
realize that shoe strings are terrorist tools
and the whole world will start using Velcro to
hold their shoes on their feet. But anyway, Velcro
is NOT mentioned in the Bible. However Velcro is not
evil (though I'm sure the evil person can find some
evil purposes for Velcro).
Likewise is denominationalism -- it is inert until
people start to use it. BTW, i note that all
anti-denominationalists are members of a denomination.
I've studied HANDBOOK OF DENOMINATIONS
In the United States, 11th Edition (Abingdon Press, 2001)
/also i have the 10th Edition and used to have
the 9th Edition/. Seems to me about 27% of all denominations
were founded to fight denominationalism smile.gif
I note that none cured denominationalism.
I don't think denominationalism will be
'cured' until the Antichrist makes one global
denomination during the Tribulation Period. :(
So I'm in no hurry to end denominationalism.

[bmerr]

Briguy,

bmerr here. Wow! Has it been almost a month already? Like Andy Rooney once said, "Life is like a roll of toilet paper: the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes!" graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

Getting back to your post...

Originally posted by Briguy:
[QB] bmerr, sorry for the delay in my response. The Eunuch did need to "prove" to Phillip that he was serious, i.e He asked to be Baptized. Plus there was a driver of the chariot and perhaps others involved with him in where he was going. We do not know for sure. The baptism was also a reassurance for the eunuch himself. We also know that Phillip made him say first what he believed.Okay, I hadn't thought about the chariot driver.

Concerning any reassurance for the eunuch though, to be baptized would only reassure him if there were an adequate reason for him to baptized right then. If he knew he was lost, and wanted to be free from sin so he could be saved, then he would be reassured, and rejoice, when he knew he was saved. Verse 39 has him rejoicing as he went on his way after being baptized.

His confession affirms that baptism without faith would be ineffective (sorry, baby-sprinklers).

As for "afar off" please give me scriptures from the new testement that use this term for the Gentiles.In his letter to the Ephesian saints, who were largely Gentiles, I believe, Paul uses the term "far off" in Ch. 2. Let me back up a couple verses for context.

2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Skipping down to verse 17

2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off and to them that were nigh. (Gentiles and Jews, respectively)

There may be other places where this term is used, but this is what I came up with off the top of my head.

Again, Would you address one group and talk about what they needed to do and then reference a whole different groups' decendants?I see what you mean. I'd ask a similar question regarding the idea that Acts 2 was just for the Jews. If the gospel is for every nation in all the world (Mark 16:15; Matt 28:19), would it make sense to begin the preaching of the gospel with a message that only applied to the Jews?

If, on the other hand, the message given at Pentecost applies to all men under the NT, then lots of problems (concerning what Peter meant as opposed to what Paul meant) fade away...

What about the gentiles alive right then? If what Peter said applied to Gentiles that were afar off, it would have applied to the gentiles right at that time.You know, I wish I had a better answer than what I'm about to give, but it's all I've got.

When the Holy Spirit spoke through men, it was the case, on occasion, that the human speaking did not fully understand what was being said through him.

Acts 2 is a good example of this. Here's Peter, proclaiming that the promise was to them that were afar off, meaning Gentiles (my opinion), and yet, roughly ten years later, at Simon the tanner's house, Peter still needs to see the sheet vision three times before he starts to understand that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to them.

What about the Gentiles living in the intervening years? Man, I just don't know. It could very well be that Cornelius was the first Gentile in that long to actually fear God. Gentiles weren't known for their devotion to Jehovah.

I'd have to say that the meaning of the message in Acts 2 is just what it appears to be. It's the first gospel sermon, with which Peter opened up the kingdom of Heaven with the keys Jesus gave him.

In Christ,

bmerr

[Frank]

Matt:
1. I was added to the Lord's church, not Matt's. Acts 2:47. Since God added me to his church, there would be no need to attend Matt's. All spiritual blesssings are IN Christ and the church , not in Matt's. Acts 2:47 Eph. 1;3, II Tim. 2:10.

2. The saved ( the church) follow the teachings of the new testament of Christ, no more no less. John 12:48, Hebrews 9:15-17. This makes one a Christian, not a part of any ist or ism, which you cannot find in the pages of the new testament Acts 11:26.

3. You have no knowledge of your claim. You cannnot with rationality provide any biblical evidence of my unfaithfulness or, for that matter, my faithfulness to the teadhings of Christ. John 7:24.

It is unfortunate you choose to make claims you cannot substantiate from God's word. This would be another reason I have no need for " Matt's church". By the way, when did you establsih your church. I cannot find it in the new testament?

[Matt Black]

It is not Matt's church - just the fellowship I attend. It is as much 'the Lord's church' as the congregation you attend - unless you can prove otherwise. i cannot find proof the church you attend is listed in the New Testament either...

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Ed Edwards]

Matt Black: "It is not Matt's church - just the fellowship I attend."

Amen, Brother Matt Black. Some people have a problem
with SALVATION OWNERSHIP. I know i speak of 'my
salvation' because it pertains to me. But in all
reality, it is God's Salvation - my salvation belongs to
our God, the source and creator of it:

Revelation 7:10 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible):
And they cried out in a loud voice:
Salvation belongs to our God,
who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!

Likewise, there seems to be a confusion here (not Matt's
confusion nor God's confusion) between little 'c'
'church' and capital 'C' 'Church'. Little 'c' church
is each local group. I go to where the Alameda Baptist
church meets. Just a half-mile down the street is
where the Alameda church of Christ meets. Another
half-mile down the street is where the Trinity Luthern
church meets. These are all local churches (each is
associated with a 'denomination' which is neither
a church nor the Church. "The Church" with a capital "C"
is the group which is called 'the Body of Christ' AND is
called 'the Bride of Christ. Needless to say,
the Trinity Luthern 'church' on the corner is NOT
'the Church of Christ' but is 'a church of Christ'.

I've met with all three of these local body churches
and find people there the Holy Spirit impresses upon me
are part of the Body of Christ/Bride of Christ Church.

[Briguy]

Hi bmmer, you made some good points. After my last post I did run into the "afar off" in Ephesians but have not had time to see if the Greek word is the same in both places. It could just be that that term "afar off" is just what the interpreters put in but the Greek may be different. Can you check that out? I will try as well.

You made a good point for me in what you said about Peter not accepting the Gentiles, even much later in the book of Acts. I think to say that God wrote the Bible and put words that even those speaking did not get is a slippery slope to go down. It opens up far too many other ways of looking at verses and would give people a right to claim that any Bible concept could mean anything because God of course meant it differently. I think it best to stick with direct context. Direct context and audience in this case points that the baptism in Acts 2:38 was to get the jews to a new status, that being a move away from being an ememy of God.

Baptism in the early church was important. The reason the Enuch rejoiced was that he proved to himself he was a child of God. I believe in the early church everyone around knew that baptism = commitment. You would not be baptized and open yourself up to that great of persecution unless you really believed and were "transformed". So, In the early church and for the Enuch, Baptism was a needed element to confirm salvation, but not then or now is it the means of salvation.

Acts a little later says that when the gospel was preached to the Gentiles, "those who God ordained, believed" Hmmm what if one is Baptized but God did not ordain them to believe?? I will let you ponder that.

Thanks again for your response. Hope you are well. I know how fast life can go. It seems like just the other day my son was crawling, and now this fall he will be in high school (we homeschool so it is not as hard as it could be but still I am feeling old)

Take care, In Christ,
Brian

[Frank]

Matt:
Quote/
It is not Matt's church - just the fellowship I attend. It is as much 'the Lord's church' as the congregation you attend - unless you can prove otherwise. i cannot find proof the church you attend is listed in the New Testament either...

You said it was your church. Now, you say it is the one you attend. Which is the correct statement?

It is as much the Lord's church as the one you attend. This is unsubstantiated. You make claims without scripture. I cannot find any refernece to the church you linked in the bible. It seems to me if your statement were true the new testament would at least mention it.

Quote/
i cannot find proof the church you attend is listed in the New Testament either.
Proof:
1. The church is the saved . Acts 2:47.
The church by description belongs to Christ. Romans 16:16, I Thes.1:1. Christ is the exclusive owner of the saved. Acts 20:28.
2. Members of the church are called Christians,( belonging to or of Christ) brothers or sisters. Acts 11:26, Gal. 6:18.
3 There are no Reverends, fathers, or Pastors( in the ecclesiastical sense).

4. The church is organized by the pattern of I Tim. 3:1-11, Titus 1:1-9. Pastors and deacons must meet thee qualifications to serve in this office. In short, a single man cannot be a pastor as he has no believing children and is not the husband of one wife.
5. The church of the Lord worships in five specified ways.
a. Lord's supper. I Cor. 11: 24-26.
b. Giving as one has beeen prospered. Christians do not tithe as a matter of faith. cf.I Cor. 16;1,2.
c. Preaching. Acts 20:7.
d. Singing. Hebrews 2:12, Eph. 5:19, Col.
3:16. Chrisitians sing without the aid of the mechanical instrument. Acapella was the original form Christ specified for his people.cf. Mat. 26:30.
e. Praying, I Thes. 5:17, I Tim. 2;8.

Salvation requires one believe, Romans 10:17, Hebrews 1:6; Repent, Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30; Be Baptized, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Remain Fauthful, Revelation 2:10.

I am more than willing to compare what " your church" teaches to the new testament of Christ. I have provided the scripture from the new testament of Christ that the faithful of Christ teach and practice. Now, let me make it easy for you. Please provide " your churhes" teaching on the following:
1. Church organization
2. Qualifications of pastors and deacons
3. Worship
4. Salvation

A brief summary in these areas will suffice at this point. I look forward to your response.

[Matt Black]

It is the church I attend. You are just splitting hairs and you know it.

Re # 3 of your list - the NT does refer to pastors eg Eph 4:11-12

Re #4 - Why only pastors and deacons? Why not the people listed in eg I Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11-12? Or bishops? Seems to me that the church you attend is as selective in its use of Scripture as the rest of us...

Re #5d - utterly unwarranted and indeed expressly contradicted by Scripture. Your ecclesial tradition may interpret Matt 26:30 as "the orginal form Christ specified for his people" but that's not what that verse says! And what does your comment say about the psalmists who praised God using the psaltry, timbrel and harp?

Locks Heath Free Church believes and practices the following on your numbered questions:-

1. Congregational government by church members and congregational autonomy. Officers of the church are pastors, elders and deacons - Acts 20:17-28; Eph 4:11; I Tim 3:1-11, Titus 1:1-9; we are as selective in our use of Scripture there as you!

2. Those listed in I Tim 3:1-11; Titus 1:1-9 with two caveats: (a) the passages concerned strictly speaking refer to bishops and deacons rather than specifically pastors and deacons, but we take them to refer to anyone in authority; (b) we would interpret the reference to 'husband of one wife' as a prohibition of polygamy rather than your church's interpretation of marriage and children being mandatory. We would also interpret I Tim 3:11 as permitting women to hold those offices equally.

3. See reference to the psalms above; we would interpret that as permitting any instruments to be used as the Spirit leads.

4. Locks Heath Free Church does not believe in baptismal regeneration, but rather salvation by the grace of God through faith eg: Rom 5:1; 8:1. We tend to be agnostic on the whole Calvinism vs Arminianism Dead Horse as we recognise that both can be argued from Scripture

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Ed Edwards]

Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It is a total waste of your time
and it annoys the pig.

graemlins/wave.gif

[Briguy]

Frank, Acts 2:38 is not for me and you and should not be used as proof of anything in regards to Gentiles.

In Christ,
Brian

[Frank]

Briguy:

Acts 2:38 is for both Jew and Gentile. If you check the who's who list of nations present on Pentecost, you will find Proselytes vs. 10. Furthermore, in verse 39, the same promise is made to those who are afar of. These passages harmonize with Paul's declaration of Ephesians 2: 17-19. Once again, Paul uses the phrase afar of in reference to Gentiles. All men are brought nigh by the blood of Christ as we are washed in it. Rev. 1:5. There are no exceptions under the gosple dispensation. Romans 1:16.

Our Lord had Gentiles in his family linage. See Rahab Joshua 2, Mat. 1:5. The Old law allowed gentiles in the land to practice as Jews. A proselyte would be anyone who practiced the jewish religion. The Eunoch was from Ethiopia. Acts 8. He became a Christian before Peter preached to Cornelius. I disagree with the idea the Gentiles did not obey the gospel until Acts 10. It is true Peter was reluctant to change. It is true that Gentiles were for the most part denied the blessings of Christianity until Acts 10. Acts 2:38 was spoken primarily a Jewish audience. However, to say it was exclusively for them is in correct.

[Frank]

Matt:
Quote/
Re # 3 of your list - the NT does refer to pastors eg Eph 4:11-12.
Yes, However, they are not given any tile of Honor. This violates the declarative statement of Christ himself. cf. Mat. 23:8-10.
Quote/
Re #4 - Why only pastors and deacons? Why not the people listed in eg I Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11-12? Or bishops? Seems to me that the church you attend is as selective in its use of Scripture as the rest of us...
First, pastors and bishops are the same office. The qualifications are specified for those offices. Please note the context of I Tim. 3 Titus 1. God gave specific authority for the organization of the church. This eliminates general application. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Quote/
Re #5d - utterly unwarranted and indeed expressly contradicted by Scripture. Your ecclesial tradition may interpret Matt 26:30 as "the orginal form Christ specified for his people" but that's not what that verse says! And what does your comment say about the psalmists who praised God using the psaltry, timbrel and harp?

I am under the law of Christ, not Moses. Cf.I Cor.9:21, Gal.5:4.
The law of Christ commands us to sing. cf. Eph. 5:19, Col.3:16, I Cor 14:15, Romans 15:9, Hebrews 2:12, Acts 16:24,25,Mat. 26:30, James 5:13. There is not one passage in the new testament that authorizes the playing of a mechanical instrument in the worship to God under the law of Christ. The practice of using instruments began 500 years after the church was establsihed. It was introduced by the Catholic church. There was such a revolt inthe 600's that the heathen practice ceased for nearly seventy years. However, some men do things because they like it , not because God likes it.

I do not burn incense, offer the blood of bulls and goats,or wash in a basin of the temple.Moses, David and the Israelites did so. Do you do these too? If not, why not?

Quote/
1. Congregational government by church members and congregational autonomy. Officers of the church are pastors, elders and deacons - Acts 20:17-28; Eph 4:11; I Tim 3:1-11, Titus 1:1-9; we are as selective in our use of Scripture there as you!

2. Those listed in I Tim 3:1-11; Titus 1:1-9 with two caveats: (a) the passages concerned strictly speaking refer to bishops and deacons rather than specifically pastors and deacons, but we take them to refer to anyone in authority; (b) we would interpret the reference to 'husband of one wife' as a prohibition of polygamy rather than your church's interpretation of marriage and children being mandatory. We would also interpret I Tim 3:11 as permitting women to hold those offices equally.
You contradict yourself and the scriptures. God has granted NO AUTHORITY FOR WOMEN IN THE ASSEMBLY. I Tim. 2: 12-14. Women are to be in SUBJECTION and not have authority over men. God gave the reason why this is the case. cf.vs.13,14.
Quote/
3. See reference to the psalms above; we would interpret that as permitting any instruments to be used as the Spirit leads.
The spirit does not lead. It is the word of God that directs. Romans 10;17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The spirit uses the word to lead. Eph. 6:17, Hebrews 4:12. See the eight passages found in the covenant of Christ that commands us to sing.
Quote/
4. Locks Heath Free Church does not believe in baptismal regeneration, but rather salvation by the grace of God through faith eg: Rom 5:1; 8:1. We tend to be agnostic on the whole Calvinism vs Arminianism Dead Horse as we recognise that both can be argued from Scripture.
One may argue any thing. However, the truth saves John 8:32.
Every person converted by example in the new testament had in common the following:
1. Heard the word. Romans 10;17
2. Believed the word. John 8: 24.
3. Repented or acted upon his belief. Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30
4. Confessed Jesus. Acts 8:37
5. Baptized for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Col. 2:12, I Pet. 3:21.

Sincerely,
Frank

[Claudia_T]

When we were told to go baptizing all nations, teaching them to observe ALL that jesus commanded us, was part of the package...

Matthew 28:
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The Book of Revelation clearly points to a certain group of people who compose God's true Church...

Rv:12:17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This "WOMAN" symbolizes the Church.

Jer:6:2: I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman.


Rv:14:12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.


THE SCRIPTURES, WHILE FORETELLING OF A DREADFUL APOSTASY (see Revelation 14:6-12, ALSO PLAINLY TEACH THAT JUST BEFORE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, MANY WILL BE RESCUED FROM THE DARKNESS OF ERROR AND SUPERSTITION. ONCE MORE THE EARTH IS TO BE LIGHTENED BY THE GLORY OF GOD. THE PURE TRUTHS OF THE BIBLE ARE TO SHINE FORTH. AND IN THIS TIME OF HEAVENLY ILLUMINATION MARKING THE APPROACHING END OF THE AGE, THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT ARE AGAIN TO BE MANIFEST IN THE TRUE CHURCH. "IT SHALL COME TO PASS IN THE LAST DAYS, SAITH GOD, I WILL POUR OUT OF MY SPIRIT UPON ALL FLESH: AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS: AND ON MY SERVANTS AND ON MY HANDMAIDENS I WILL POUR OUT IN THOSE DAYS OF MY SPIRIT; AND THEY SHALL PROPHESY." ACTS 2:17, 18; JOEL 2:28, 29.

IN CLEAR TERMS THE PROPHET JOHN SPEAKS OF "THE REMNANT," OR THE LAST CHURCH, AS THOSE WHO "KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, AND HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST." REVELATION 12:17. IN ANOTHER PASSAGE THE SAME WRITER GIVES A PLAIN DEFINITION OF WHAT HE MEANS BY THE "TESTIMONY OF JESUS." WHEN ON ONE OCCASION JOHN ATTEMPTED TO WORSHIP THE ANGEL WHO APPEARED TO HIM IN VISION, THE ANGEL SAID:


"SEE THOU DO IT NOT: I AM THY FELLOW SERVANT, AND OF THY BRETHREN THAT HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS: WORSHIP GOD." REVELATION 19:10.

UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME ANGEL SAID, AS RECORDED IN ANOTHER PLACE:

"SEE THOU DO IT NOT: FOR I AM THY FELLOW SERVANT, AND OF THY BRETHREN THE PROPHETS." REVELATION 22:9.

THE THOUGHT EXPRESSED IS THE SAME IN BOTH THESE PASSAGES. IN ONE, HOWEVER, JOHN'S "BRETHREN" ARE SAID TO HAVE "THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS;" IN THE OTHER THESE "BRETHREN" ARE CALLED "THE PROPHETS."

THEREFORE IT IS THE PROPHETS WHO HAVE "THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS;" AND THE ANGEL WHO APPEARED TO JOHN IS EVIDENTLY THE SPECIAL MESSENGER WHO CONVEYS INSTRUCTION TO ALL THE PROPHETS,--DOUBTLESS THE ANGEL GABRIEL, WHO IS MENTIONED AS HAVING APPEARED TO DANIEL. SEE DANIEL 8:16; 9:21. THE SAME ANGEL FURTHER SAID TO JOHN, "THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS IS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY." REVELATION 19:10.

COMPARING THE BIBLE EXPRESSION, "THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS," WITH THE STATEMENT OF REVELATION 12:17 CONCERNING THE "REMNANT . . . WHICH KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, AND HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST," WE CONCLUDE THAT PRIOR TO CHRIST'S SECOND COMING HIS TRUE CHURCH WILL BE KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS, AND THAT THEY WILL HAVE THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.

THE RAPID FULFILLMENT OF THE PREDICTIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE REGARDING THE SIGNS AND EVENTS WHICH WERE TO MARK THE CLOSING SCENES OF EARTH'S HISTORY, IS A SURE EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE NOW LIVING IN THE LAST DAYS. THEREFORE A COMPANY OF CHRISTIAN PEOPLE WHO KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD AND WHO HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST--THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY--SHOULD TODAY BE IN EXISTENCE. WHERE MAY THEY BE FOUND?


Revelation 14:6-12 also specifically points to the 4th commandment as one that is being ignored (see verse 6, in which the Angel of Revelation quotes from the Sabbath commandment) a warning is given in regards to this neglect of the 4th commandment (which has been changed by the Roman Catholic Church to Sunday).

6: And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7: Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8: And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.


...and says God's true people will be they who keep the commandments (see verse 12) Rv:14:12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.


Matthew 5:
16: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 28:
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Also, Romans chapter 6 CLEARLY teaches that Baptism is to be a symbol of regeneration into a new man, one who has allowed the old man of sin to be buried, to die. Sin is lawlessness, transgression of the law

1Jn:3:4: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

1: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7: For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8: Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10: For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11: Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12: Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13: Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.


Once again, God's true Church are composed of they who "keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus" Revelation 14:12 -and that is the true Church that we are to be baptised into, the Church who keep the commandments of God (all 10 of the commandments including the Sabbath) AND who have the Spirit of Prophecy.

They who claim they are in God's Church but who teach we are "no longer under the law and thus we have a license to sin" COMPLETELY misunderstand the Scriptures on that point. Please read:
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/jones_waggoner.htm

It isnt some sort of "sprinkling with magic holy water" that saves you. It is faith in Jesus Christ as your Saviour who died for your sins and it is simply obedience to what God commands you to do... that saves you. You are not saved because you perform some magical rites. And one thing God told you to do is... GET BAPTISED. You can analyze that to death... but it isnt recommended. If you get baptised but do not experience the change of heart and the burying of the old man of sin, then your baptism means absolutely nothing.

[ July 20, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[Claudia_T]

"We are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom. 6:4.

Christ made baptism the entrance to His spiritual kingdom. He made this a positive condition with which all must comply who wish to be acknowledged as under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Those who receive the ordinance of baptism thereby make a public declaration that they have renounced the world, and have become members of the royal family, children of the heavenly King. . . .

Christ enjoins those who receive this ordinance to remember that they are bound by a solemn covenant to live to the Lord. They are to use for Him all their entrusted capabilities, never losing the realization that they bear God's sign of obedience to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, that they are subjects of Christ's kingdom, partakers of the divine nature. They are to surrender all they have and are to God, employing all their gifts to God's glory.

Those who are baptized in the threefold name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, at the very entrance of their Christian life declare publicly that they have accepted the invitation, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. 6:17, 18). "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (chapter 7:1). . . .

Let those who received the imprint of God by baptism heed these words, remembering that upon them the Lord has placed His signature, declaring them to be His sons and daughters. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, powers infinite and omniscient, receive those who truly enter into covenant relation with God. They are present at every baptism, to receive the candidates who have renounced the world and have received Christ into the soul temple. These candidates have entered into the family of God, and their names are inscribed in the Lamb's book of life.

------------------

Claudia Thompson

[ July 17, 2005, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

[Matt Black]

Time for me to take Ed's sound advice, Frank, and bow out of this particularly fruitless dialogue of the deaf.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Frank]

Matt:
Even the Lord put the devil to silence when he used the scriptures.You remind me of a dog that chases his own tail. He never gets it. He just continuosly runs in a circle getting no where and learning nothing. Since you and Ed like animals so well perhaps you can grasp this concept.

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi bmmer, you made some good points. After my last post I did run into the "afar off" in Ephesians but have not had time to see if the Greek word is the same in both places. It could just be that that term "afar off" is just what the interpreters put in but the Greek may be different. Can you check that out? I will try as well.

You made a good point for me in what you said about Peter not accepting the Gentiles, even much later in the book of Acts. I think to say that God wrote the Bible and put words that even those speaking did not get is a slippery slope to go down. It opens up far too many other ways of looking at verses and would give people a right to claim that any Bible concept could mean anything because God of course meant it differently. I think it best to stick with direct context. Direct context and audience in this case points that the baptism in Acts 2:38 was to get the jews to a new status, that being a move away from being an ememy of God.

Baptism in the early church was important. The reason the Enuch rejoiced was that he proved to himself he was a child of God. I believe in the early church everyone around knew that baptism = commitment. You would not be baptized and open yourself up to that great of persecution unless you really believed and were "transformed". So, In the early church and for the Enuch, Baptism was a needed element to confirm salvation, but not then or now is it the means of salvation.

Acts a little later says that when the gospel was preached to the Gentiles, "those who God ordained, believed" Hmmm what if one is Baptized but God did not ordain them to believe?? I will let you ponder that.

Thanks again for your response. Hope you are well. I know how fast life can go. It seems like just the other day my son was crawling, and now this fall he will be in high school (we homeschool so it is not as hard as it could be but still I am feeling old)

Take care, In Christ,
Brian BriGuy,

bmerr here. I just found this post. I'm such a slacker! Just been busy. I did have the pleasure of baptizing both of my sons for the remission of their sins the other night. Pretty cool stuff!

Anyway, I'll see what i can find out about the "afar off" stuff and the other issues, and I'll get back with you.

Be careful out there, my friend.

In Christ,

bmerr

[Briguy]

Hi bmerr, I will wait for you. I may look up some Greek stuff myself. Talk to you soon. Glad to hear your boys received Christ and then got Baptized to signify this change of heart (he he). Seriously, it is a great joy to know our children will share Heaven with us some day. God bless you and your family!!

In Christ our Lord,
Brian