Water and Blood [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

ituttut

05-16-2005, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by mman:

We are saved by grace through faith, how wonderful. Amen! How wonderful.

Hello mman. If I'm understanding your correctly, you understand as I understood as I listened and studied every Sunday, and in Bible Study at my Baptist church. But in my early 20’s I noticed we were not covering the complete Bible, so I decided it may better if just God and me, looked at His Word together. I had already decided that God was now dealing with individuals, and not His nation Israel. Baptists do believe they are saved by Grace, but there is no way they can prove it by their doctrine, or by what they preach. So I was saved before understanding it all, but it means so much more now, for me a Gentile knowing I have a seat at the table, enjoying the conversation, the food, and wine of kings offered and provided by my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Please notice you have just preached two gospels. One of salvation for the Jew under Law and ordinances with mercy and grace. This salvation is for the covenant people. God says He knows who these people are for He created and set them apart. This is under the Law of Moses, and the gospel of John the Baptist. You then sign off in your last sentence with the Christian message of Christ from heaven, of salvation through faith, which is the gospel of Paul to the Gentile, and the Jew today can be saved just as we heathen.

Under Law with its works will not mix with the Grace that comes through Jesus Christ. Your way of salvation follows the route of salvation for the nation of Israel, not the Christian today, for there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Disciples were first called Christian in Antioch, and not Jerusalem. There were two gospel’s running simultaneously shortly after Damascus Road when Christ Jesus from Heaven appointed Paul as the Heavenly Apostle. He is going to tell, and teach Paul something not before known by anyone but God. Christ gave to Paul the dispensational gospel of grace.Ephesians 3:2-6, ”If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3. How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

My friend I am a Gentile, and before Damascus Road the Gentile would never have been able to enter into the Temple. They didn’t back then, and had not Israel refused Messiah, the Gentile would have gotten the scraps from the table of the Jew, for we could only come as proselytes to the Jewish faith, being their servants forever, as Israel served and worshipped their God.

Jesus does not mince words at any time, and He meant what He said in Matthew 15:22-28, ” And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” Notice the woman was not saved, but her daughter was made whole.

Galatians 1:11-12 informs no man, or men, and in particular the earthly Apostles of Jesus were consulted as to salvation in this dispensation we now live in. The gospel of the Cross, the “good news of grace” was reveled to Paul by Jesus Christ from heaven. We either believe Paul, or we do not. Paul should never be quoted in connection with the way of salvation only for the Jew, for Christ told Paul on Damascus Road that he, Paul, was now the One Apostle given blanket authority to preach the Gospel of Grace of God that comes to all through Christ Jesus. We find this truth also in Acts for James, Peter and the rest shake hands with Paul, saying we of the church of Jerusalem and the Jew will not preach to any but our own, for the gospel of the circumcision is not meant for the heathen Gentile.

One gospel was the Pentecostal or Apostolic church of Temple worship of circumcision, blood sacrifices, priest and the “great commission” of Repent and Be Baptized For The Remission Of Sins. The other gospel for the Christian was Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and your house. Can you honestly say there were not two gospel’s? Perhaps this has not be separated out for you before, as it is not easily seen for all the churches follow the tradition of man. However, most Baptists do see a separation but many do not understand it.

Acts 2:21-22 can help clear the air for those willing to admit they have not been taught to do as the Bereans, i.e. go to scripture, and learn to correctly divide the Word of God. Our God is a God of division as He informs us beginning in Genesis 1-1, and then all though the Bible. He also is able to again bring together again, witness e.g. Adam and Eve, and the Red Sea.

Acts 2:21-22 when understood will take contradiction from the Word of God on how we today are able to join into the Body of Christ. Verses 21 and 22, ”And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know”. The Holy Ghost revealed to the Apostles something would come to pass, but the [b]secret]/b] could not be revealed to man (Saul/Paul) until after the stoning of Stephen, as Jesus prophesied something of this nature could occur, in one of His parables to His people.

The above is what His Word teaches. If you don’t believe it, I would have a little talk with Jesus to find out about these matters. In the Spirit we have access to our Lord and Savior, and through Him the Father. He will not steer you wrong. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

DHK

05-16-2005, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by mman:
So basically what you are saying is that Jesus blood was shed because peoples sins were already forgiven? Is that correct? It not only uses the same word but SAME PHRASE.No, that is what you said. I just read it. Don't put words in peoples mouths or you will be charged with false allegations. Christ shed his blood for the whole world. Most people have John 3:16 memorized. I'll post it for your sake.

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.

Christ died, and shed his blood. Why? "that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Fairly simple, don't you think?
Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
John said of Him:
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Jesus was the sacrifical lamb. Lambs are sacrificed primarily that their blood will be shed. For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
You have the choice. You can believe and accept this sacrifice or refuse it. It has nothing to do with baptism. The choice is yours. I made this clear in my previous post. Why did you falsely accuse me of saying something else?

John's baptism was a baptism unto the remission of sins.You say that John baptized people because of repentance. But Thayer on page 94 in his lexicon says, 'That the phrase 'eis metonoia', for repentance or unto repentance, is to mark the end, to bind one to repentance'. John's baptism was into the kind of life to which the people were obligated by their repentance. That's why he commanded them to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Once again the eis points forward and not backwards. So exactly what did John mean when he said: "Bring forth fruits meet for repentance." Are you still suggesting that John's baptism (as Peter's baptism) would give them remisssion of sins). Why then did they have to bring forth the evidence of their repentance? Their fruit of repentance was brought forth because they had already repented. How much more obvious can it be.

With regards to the preposition eis,it is used about 1,600 times in the New Testament. It's rendered "into" 571 times, "to" 282 times, "toward" 32 times, "for" 91 times, "unto" 208 times, "in" 131 times and never once "because" or "with reference to".No, the word "for" is used instead. The translators avoided all the verbose language that you would use. They used a simple three letter word, and hoped that you would understand the English language.

Go to the store and buy some ice cream for supper.
Does for = "because of supper"
"on account of supper"
or "in order to receive supper"

Your option would be the latter, and yet I don't have to buy ice cream in order to receive supper. That is ridiculous. We use the word "for" "eis" in this way all the time. You are simply forcing your odd definition of it into this verse to fit your theology.

Now if you wish to deny that the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 expresses the purpose of the baptism or that it should read, 'Be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven' or something like that, please show me a single translation to prove it. Acts 2:38 as it stands in your Bible is backed by the responsible scholarship of the centuries and the meaning is so plain that I believe that a child could understand it. "for the remission of sins"
This does not mean in order that sins might be remitted, for everywhere in the New Testament sins are forgiven as a result of faith in Christ, not as a result of baptism. It means be baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek preposition eis, for, has the meaning "because of" not only here but also in such a passage as Mat.12:41 where the meaning can only be "they repented because of (not in order to) the preaching of Jonah." Repentance brought the remission of sins for this Pentecostal crowd, and because of the remission of sins they were asked to be baptized.Ryrie

chadman

05-16-2005, 09:08 PM

DHK said

Absolutely not.
There are no probabilities when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. It is clearly set forth in 1Cor.15:1-4, and further substantiated in hundreds of other verses. Either it is accepted or rejected. Paul writes that if any other gospel other than the one that he has given is preached than that person is accursed. So you had better be sure that your gospel is the right one. Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. He paid the penalty for your sin that you could never pay. He did so with his sacrifice. It was his blood that atoned for your sin. Either you accept that sacrifical death by faith or you reject it. There is no inbetween. This message I am 100% sure of. There is no doubt about it. Salvation is a gift of God offered to all who will accept it by faith. You have the choice to receive or reject. God will not force you to accept his free gift of salvation.
Neither is there any works such as baptism associated with it. It is all of grace. These things are made very plain to us in Scripture. Those that do not understand these things do not understand soteriology. Salvation is not a difficult doctrine to understand, and yet many refuse it anyway.
DHK

You have an odd sense about you. You know I am Baptist, and we agree on salvation.

And, when compared with other brands of Christianity, you can be assured, someone is right, and someone is wrong. Sorry, this by default, not by your self confidence, makes our version of Christianity a probability.

See, the only thing we both really know for sure, is that the Bible is 100% correct. Our interpretation of it, is a probability of being correct. Rest assured, out of 30,000 splinter of Christianity, everybody is not spot on.

DHK, do you seriously not comprehend this fact of split versions of truth? No one questions our Bible, just our 'conclusions'.

Oh, I will agree on your statement however ,that there are no probabilities on the doctrine of salvation. The probability that exists, is our version or understanding, not the reality which exists apart from our awareness or learning.

See how you do that? You changed my statement from the probability of YOUR and MY, understanding of Christianity, to that of the Doctrine of Salvation.

By the way, can you comment on how you do this technique of shifting the topic like that, like I mentioned earlier? Do you realize or acknowlage what I am even talking about? It's like you ignore the question, then change the topic, then dump your agenda. Thats propaganda, not real debate. And the best part...dude...I am on your side! LOL!

mman

05-17-2005, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:

Biblical faith is doing what God said. Here is a biblical example of faith.
Biblical faith is not doing at all. Doing is a work. Faith is not a work. That is why the COC have a works salvation which puts it in the realm of a cult. They believe tehy are going to heaven because of their works. They have a wrong definition of faith. Look up faith in a dictionary, preferably a Bible dictionary, or a Greek lexicon. Faith is not doing. Faith is believing. It is trusting. Faith is putting confidence in the Word of another.

Romans 4:19-21 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Abraham was a man of faith. Faith is definned here. Abraham was confident. He was fully persuaded that what God had promised he was able to perform.
He had confidence in the word of another, specifically God's Word. That is faith. Faith is not doing. Faith is trust, confidence.
DHK [/QUOTE]Fisrt, you obviously don't understand what I believe. I do not believe in works salvation. I personally have never met anyone who truly believed that.

Second, I don't have to look up faith in a dictionary when God has not only defined it but given examples of what it is in Heb 11.

Speaking of Abraham, the bible has more to say about him and his faith. Starting in James 2:19, You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! 20But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Notice Verse 23, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." This was said after his obedience made his faith complete.

Belief is tied to obedience.

Here are some biblical examples.

“He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

Following Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, certain devout Jews inquired: “What shall we do?” The apostle commanded them to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remission thereof (2:38). Those who “received his word were baptized” (v. 41). Luke then says: “And all that believed were together” (v. 44). “Believed” sums up the obedience described previously.

On the initial day of its existence, the church consisted of at least 3,000 souls. Later, Luke records that many others heard the word and “believed; and the number of men came to be about five thousand” (Acts 4:4). It is obvious that the 5,000 mentioned here included the 3,000 referenced earlier, and that the “believed” of this passage means precisely what it did in 2:44.

When Paul went to Ephesus , he met certain sincere students who had been immersed with the baptism that was a part of the teaching of John, the forerunner of Christ. Perhaps something alerted the apostle to a deficiency in their earlier instruction; he asked: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They replied in the negative. Paul then asked: “Into what then were you baptized?” He was not framing a new question on an entirely different theme. Rather, baptism was a part of the belief process, concerning which he had just inquired.

No, this is not two gospels as someone else claimed, but one gospel.

The gospel must be obeyed according to II Thes 1:8 and 1 Pet 4:17. Romans 10:16 also ties obeying the gospel to believing.

It cannot be summed up better than what Paul did in Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

mman

05-17-2005, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
So basically what you are saying is that Jesus blood was shed because peoples sins were already forgiven? Is that correct? It not only uses the same word but SAME PHRASE.No, that is what you said. I just read it. Don't put words in peoples mouths or you will be charged with false allegations. Christ shed his blood for the whole world. Most people have John 3:16 memorized. I'll post it for your sake.

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.

Christ died, and shed his blood. Why? "that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Fairly simple, don't you think?
Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
John said of Him:
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Jesus was the sacrifical lamb. Lambs are sacrificed primarily that their blood will be shed. For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
You have the choice. You can believe and accept this sacrifice or refuse it. It has nothing to do with baptism. The choice is yours. I made this clear in my previous post. Why did you falsely accuse me of saying something else?

John's baptism was a baptism unto the remission of sins.You say that John baptized people because of repentance. But Thayer on page 94 in his lexicon says, 'That the phrase 'eis metonoia', for repentance or unto repentance, is to mark the end, to bind one to repentance'. John's baptism was into the kind of life to which the people were obligated by their repentance. That's why he commanded them to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Once again the eis points forward and not backwards. So exactly what did John mean when he said: "Bring forth fruits meet for repentance." Are you still suggesting that John's baptism (as Peter's baptism) would give them remisssion of sins). Why then did they have to bring forth the evidence of their repentance? Their fruit of repentance was brought forth because they had already repented. How much more obvious can it be.

With regards to the preposition eis,it is used about 1,600 times in the New Testament. It's rendered "into" 571 times, "to" 282 times, "toward" 32 times, "for" 91 times, "unto" 208 times, "in" 131 times and never once "because" or "with reference to".No, the word "for" is used instead. The translators avoided all the verbose language that you would use. They used a simple three letter word, and hoped that you would understand the English language.

Go to the store and buy some ice cream for supper.
Does for = "because of supper"
"on account of supper"
or "in order to receive supper"

Your option would be the latter, and yet I don't have to buy ice cream in order to receive supper. That is ridiculous. We use the word "for" "eis" in this way all the time. You are simply forcing your odd definition of it into this verse to fit your theology.

Now if you wish to deny that the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 expresses the purpose of the baptism or that it should read, 'Be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven' or something like that, please show me a single translation to prove it. Acts 2:38 as it stands in your Bible is backed by the responsible scholarship of the centuries and the meaning is so plain that I believe that a child could understand it. "for the remission of sins"
This does not mean in order that sins might be remitted, for everywhere in the New Testament sins are forgiven as a result of faith in Christ, not as a result of baptism. It means be baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek preposition eis, for, has the meaning "because of" not only here but also in such a passage as Mat.12:41 where the meaning can only be "they repented because of (not in order to) the preaching of Jonah." Repentance brought the remission of sins for this Pentecostal crowd, and because of the remission of sins they were asked to be baptized.Ryrie [/QUOTE]I was trying to put words in you mouth to show your incosistency. It was obvious you had not said that, but the conclusion is inevitable.

The greeks had a word for because, "hoti". This word was NOT used in Acts 2:38. The greek word "eis" was used which never is translated as "because", since is does not mean "because". Just because our english word "for" can sometimes be used for "because" doesn't mean the greek word "eis" can.

If you can easily understand "eis" in Matt 26:28, why is it so hard to understand in Acts 2:38. Not only is the same word used but the SAME PHRASE. Every example showing how our english word "for" can mean "because" to attempt to show that baptism is because we have remission of sin (Acts 2:38) can also be used in Matt 26:28 to show that Jesus blood was shed because mankind had already received remission of sins. It is a very incosistent position unsupported by the greek language.

mman

05-17-2005, 08:26 AM

ituttut

Paul said there was just one gospel. The same gospel was preached to the Jews first and also to the Greeks (Rom 1:16).

Eph 4:5 says there is one faith.

Jude 3 says contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

I did not preach two gospels, but one gospel. I Cor 15:1-4 tells us that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection.

Rom 6:17 says, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered."

Obeyed what form of doctrine? What he had just told them in Rom 6:3-4. Since we can't literally die, be buried, and raised again for our sins, we obey a form of that in baptism. We are baptized INTO His death (that is where the blood flowed)and buried with him in baptism, raised to walk in a new life.

No longer slaves to sin since you obeyed the gospel.

It is the same gospel preached on the day of Pentecost and through the epistles.

Again, it is summed up in Gal 3:26-29 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Therefore, everyone that is in Christ got there the same way.

chadman

05-17-2005, 10:45 AM

DHK said:

Biblical faith is not doing at all. Doing is a work. Faith is not a work.
Isn't this where the predstination folks kind of challenge the Baptist postition (if we can acutally formally have any position)?

I mean, even to me, this logic seems silly at best because to even say a sinners prayer, you are 'doing' an act (of faith). It is more than a thought in a vaccum. It is a mental decision followed by a resolution and acceptance, usually a real prayer. This is an act as far as common sense would have it. A work(Not a work of the Law mind you, as a Jew understood a work). But it is still an action a person has to take.

Why would any brand of Christian try to destroy the beautiful 'unity of faith with action' that the Bible 'clearly' states many times? I may be on the minority side of Baptists, but I love James chapter 2. It is real hard for me to read that fantastic passage and buy into a statement like this...

Biblical faith is not doing at all.
I mean, what kind of statement is that? I don't know a handful of Baptists in our congregation that would state that so boldly. The Bible contains belief and actions together. Why try to rip them to shreds and put them all in containers seperated from eath other. Thats not Biblical either.

Does not the Bible (being Biblical of course), not say that if a person says they have faith, yet have no works, their faith is dead? Does it not also say that Abrahams faith was made perfect by his actions? I mean, how can anyone say Biblical faith is not doing AT ALL?

Are you not going to the extreeme to make a theological point perhaps?

I don't think the Apostle James would back you up on your statement if he were here today. Is James a gospel of straw? Should it have been canonized or is this up for grabs as well, seeing that is organized by men?

And look for the record, I may seem like I am not playing ball here, not bashing the RCC folks and all, not playing to my Baptist side with blind zeal. Frankly, I could so care less about which side gets an edge. The Bible and truth stand apart from all opinions and thoughts of men. If we cannot ask our selves the hard questions, then we never grow. I am really here for me, not some debate team member that helps some sides position.

Besides, the truth is, these forums are for the individulas posting more for themselves than anything. It is important to be able to state your position to yourself. How many people switch sides here based on what they have read? Thats what I thought. (smile)

Eric B

05-17-2005, 11:11 AM

In those two passages, you still mistake spiritual baptism for water baptism. "Baptism INTO CHRIST" is the same as 1 Cor.12 "By one SPIRIT are we baptized into ONE BODY". The water ceremony symbolized this, but does not in itself save us.

ituttut is right that you are relying on the OT aspect of the Gospel. It may not be entirely an "other" gospel; but is the incomplete stage of God's plan that is superseded by the NT where, it is all by faith. Yes, they are both the same Gospel, as even in the NT, it was by faith, as many did all those works, and still were not justified (Rom.9:30-32). So works, as are cited regarding Noah, Abraham and the others, are once again, a fruit of salvation. In Noah's case, works brought about a type of physical "salvation"; but this, along with Abraham and Isaac is but a shadow of the final NT plan, as they are used in Hebrews and elsewhere. So you can't take baptism and say "See, just as the ark saved Noah, baptism saves us". In the NT it is spiritual, and the Body of Christ is our "ark" (Matt.24:37-51), which is of course, entered by faith.
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. To repeat fromthe other thread:
Once again, 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? 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. Yes, 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! 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.

mman

05-17-2005, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
In those two passages, you still mistake spiritual baptism for water baptism. "Baptism INTO CHRIST" is the same as 1 Cor.12 "By one SPIRIT are we baptized into ONE BODY". The water ceremony symbolized this, but does not in itself save us.

ituttut is right that you are relying on the OT aspect of the Gospel. It may not be entirely an "other" gospel; but is the incomplete stage of God's plan that is superseded by the NT where, it is all by faith. Yes, they are both the same Gospel, as even in the NT, it was by faith, as many did all those works, and still were not justified (Rom.9:30-32). So works, as are cited regarding Noah, Abraham and the others, are once again, a fruit of salvation. In Noah's case, works brought about a type of physical "salvation"; but this, along with Abraham and Isaac is but a shadow of the final NT plan, as they are used in Hebrews and elsewhere. So you can't take baptism and say "See, just as the ark saved Noah, baptism saves us". In the NT it is spiritual, and the Body of Christ is our "ark" (Matt.24:37-51), which is of course, entered by faith.
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 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. To repeat fromthe other thread:
Once again, 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? 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. Yes, 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! 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. [/QUOTE]You talk of two baptism. Eph 4:5 says there is just one. Yes, there have been many, but there is now just one? Which one?

Acts 19:1-7. When did these men receive what you call "spiritual baptism".

Baptism is a greek word transliterated into english. It means to dip or plunge. Acts 8 says that Philip preached Jesus and the next thing out of the Eunuch mouth is "Here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized". We know baptism is in water from this and other passages (I Pet 3:20-21, John 3:5, Eph 5:26).

New Testament baptism always means in water, unless otherwise clarified by the text or context.

BY one Spirit means something totally different than WITH one Spirit.

I encourage you to study I Cor 12:13 with Acts 2. Are you saying these people entered the church in two different ways?

Once we are in the light, the blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing us. The question is how do we get into the light or into Christ or come in contact with his blood? The original message address that.

Baptism is not a work. How would that obligate God to save me? Frankly, it makes no sense to me how going into the water and coming out of it will wash away my sins. By faith, I accept what God has said on the subject. By faith I obey (Read all of Heb 11 for God's definition and examples of faith - without which it is IMPOSSIBLE to please him (Heb 11:6)).

By faith I am a child of God because I have been baptized (Gal 3:26-27).

I challenge anyone to show how baptism is a work when the bible calls it faith.

Today, there is just one baptism. Accept one and reject the other.

DHK

05-17-2005, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by chadman:
DHK said:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Biblical faith is not doing at all. Doing is a work. Faith is not a work.
Isn't this where the predstination folks kind of challenge the Baptist postition (if we can acutally formally have any position)?

I mean, even to me, this logic seems silly at best because to even say a sinners prayer, you are 'doing' an act (of faith). It is more than a thought in a vaccum. It is a mental decision followed by a resolution and acceptance, usually a real prayer. This is an act as far as common sense would have it. A work(Not a work of the Law mind you, as a Jew understood a work). But it is still an action a person has to take.
[/QUOTE]My statement is not silly, but rather Biblical If you care not to believe it you put yourself in direct contradiction to the Bible, and have started to believe a false gospel as well. The Scripture plainly teaches:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For 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.
--We are not saved by works. The Bible makes that clear. The Bible also makes it clear that we are saved by faith, which obviously then is not a work:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith

Do you have a problem in believing the Bible?

I never suggested that we are saved through the sinners prayer. Where did you get that idea? We are not saved through the sinner's prayer. We are not saved through the repetition of any prayer. In fact, that is the downfall of many; the very reason that many are not saved when they think they are.
We are saved by faith.
Go to 1Sam,1, and read about Hannah when she prayed. Hannah prayed in her heart. Only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard, the Scriptures record. Prayer is from the heart. It does not have to heard. It is communication between God and man. It is the expression of one's faith. Faith in and of itself is not a work. It is trust.
That is why Jesus said "Except ye be as a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of God." What work does a little child do to enter the kingdom of God? A little child can do no work. A little child has implicit faith in its parents that they will provide and protect him. That is not a work; that is faith. You need to come to an understanding of faith, and the difference between faith and works.
DHK

mman

05-17-2005, 03:38 PM

James 2:19 You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

James 2:20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

James 2:22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James 2:24 is the only passage in the bible to mention faith alone, yet why people keep saying we are saved by faith alone, is beyond my understanding. James does not contradict Paul. They are both in complete harmony, if you rightly divide the word of truth.

Why would some change what Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." You can add whatever verse to this you want. It will only compliment it, not negate it.

These verses are in complete harmony with Eph 2:8-10. We can never earn our salvation, but if all we do is believe and don't do what God has commanded, then our faith is useless, incomplete and no more than what the demons have.

DHK

05-17-2005, 03:48 PM

These verses are still in harmony of what the Bible says about faith. Take them out of their context and read into them your own theology and you have the makings of a cult. The fact does not change that faith is not a work. If these verses are in complete harmony then harmonize them with Eph.2:8,9. I can. But I want to hear it from you.
DHK

mman

05-17-2005, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
These verses are still in harmony of what the Bible says about faith. Take them out of their context and read into them your own theology and you have the makings of a cult. The fact does not change that faith is not a work. If these verses are in complete harmony then harmonize them with Eph.2:8,9. I can. But I want to hear it from you.
DHK Matt 5:11"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

From the passages in James it should be clear that believing alone is dead faith. Useless. Incomplete. The Hebrew writer in Heb 11 talks about the kind of faith that is required to please God. Faith that obeys.

3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

By faith Abel offered... (indicates God told him what to do since faith comes from hearing God's word (Rom 10:17)). Cain sincerly offered a sacrifice and was displeased when God did not accept it. What was the difference? Abel offered his by faith and obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

By faith Enoch was taken up ...for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.

By faith Noah, ...prepared an ark (Gen 6:22 - Noah did all that God commanded him).

By faith Abraham... obeyed

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac...

By faith he left Egypt,

By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them.

By faith they passed through the Red Sea

By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days.

Here is an interesting example. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down. Does that mean they didn't have to "do" anything? Did their actions cause the walls to fall or was God obligated to make them fall because they earned it. No, they fell because of faith in that they obeyed God.

who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.

And all these, having gained approval through their faith.

Without this type of faith, it is impossible to please God.

Eph 2:8-10 was not written to alien sinners telling them how to be saved, but to baptized believers, some of which may have been those we can read about in Acts 19:1-6.

Later in Eph 5:25 "...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

How could they have been saved through faith? Because they did what God said. It could not be made more plain that Gal 3:26-27, "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."

If your faith equals belief only, then congratulations, you have the same dead, useless, incomplete type of faith that the demons have. If you believe God enough to do what he says, then you have a perfect or complete faith. It is this type of faith that saves us, no doubt.

DHK

05-17-2005, 05:03 PM

You have failed to reconcile any of what you have posted with Eph.2:8,9 which indicates that salvation is by faith alone, and not of works--not of any works.
The verses that you post only indicate that works is a result of saving faith and that is all.
DHK

BobRyan

05-17-2005, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Ac*2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ro*10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro*10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Peter and Paul both preached the exact same message. Believe and ye shall be saved. Just Call Upon His Name. Not "go swimming".

I always am amazed by the Acts 2:28 folks. They inevitably skim right over Acts 2:21.

In HIS service;
Jim True enough.

To "believe" in the "magic of baptism" (as in saving your soul only as the water touches your skin) you have to ignore some key Bible teachings.

#1. 1 Peter 2 - it is NOT the act of touching water in Baptism that "Saves" but the moment of the "APPEAL TO GOD for a clean conscience".

#2. Romans 3 says that man WITHOUT the working of the Holy Spirit "does NOT seek after God" does not choose light (let alone Baptism). Baptism comes only AFTER a person CHOOSES to YIELD to Christ, to pray the sinners prayer, AND to confess AND to repent AND to turn and in faith to walk with Christ in obedience including the good work of "Baptism".

Because of the Romans 3 principle of total depravity apart from Christ -- The full sequence above is not possible without the new birth.

#3. Those who appeal to Baptism as a magic sacrament may eventually go to the point of infant baptism.

In Christ,

Bob

mman

05-17-2005, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
You have failed to reconcile any of what you have posted with Eph.2:8,9 which indicates that salvation is by faith alone, and not of works--not of any works.
The verses that you post only indicate that works is a result of saving faith and that is all.
DHK You are right, that is because Eph 2:8-10 nowhere talks about faith alone. It talks about faith. Faith alone is Man's doctrine. Faith alone, according to James is no means of justification.

I would like to go back to the statement that by faith, the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for 7 days.

Joshua 6:1 Now Jericho was securely shut up because of the children of Israel; none went out, and none came in.
2 And the LORD said to Joshua: "See! I have given Jericho into your hand, its king, and the mighty men of valor.
3 "You shall march around the city, all you men of war; you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days.
4 "And seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark. But the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets.
5 "It shall come to pass, when they make a long blast with the ram's horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, that all the people shall shout with a great shout; then the wall of the city will fall down flat. And the people shall go up every man straight before him."

They obeyed God's instructions and the wall fell by faith.

Think about that, "By faith, the walls of Jericho fell". What all is wrapped up in that word faith. They did not believe the walls would fall and ignore God's commands and do nothing. They didn't do most of what God said. They didn't change God's commands based on how they felt inside or based on their logic since they couldn't figure it out.

Now, did the marching of the people cause an earthquake and that would have caused them to fall down anyway? Of course not. Did the marching and trumpet blowing and shouting cause the walls to fall. No. Did they in any way earn, by their obedience, the walls falling down? No. Did it make sense to the people? I doubt it.
What does marching around a city doing all those "works" have to do with walls falling down?
God did the work. Man did not earn it, yet without the obedience, the walls would not have fallen. They fell by faith.

By faith the walls of Jericho fell.... (think of all that is wrapped up by that word faith - with not one ounce of it earned)

By grace we have be saved through faith.... (think of all that is wrapped up by that word faith - with out one ounce of it earned)

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 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.

James 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

mman

05-17-2005, 06:19 PM

True enough.

To "believe" in the "magic of baptism" (as in saving your soul only as the water touches your skin) you have to ignore some key Bible teachings.

#1. 1 Peter 2 - it is NOT the act of touching water in Baptism that "Saves" but the moment of the "APPEAL TO GOD for a clean conscience".

#2. Romans 3 says that man WITHOUT the working of the Holy Spirit "does NOT seek after God" does not choose light (let alone Baptism). Baptism comes only AFTER a person CHOOSES to YIELD to Christ, to pray the sinners prayer, AND to confess AND to repent AND to turn and in faith to walk with Christ in obedience including the good work of "Baptism".

Because of the Romans 3 principle of total depravity apart from Christ -- The full sequence above is not possible without the new birth.

#3. Those who appeal to Baptism as a magic sacrament may eventually go to the point of infant baptism.

In Christ,

Bob #1 - I agree. There is no power in the water. The power is in the blood. This verse does say something saves us. What is it?

#2 - Just where do you read about the sinners prayer? What chapter and verse is it? Did Peter give faulty instructions in Acts 2:38. Was Jesus mistaken or kidding when he said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."?

#3 - Baptism is only for believers. This is made clear in Acts 8:36-37. Baptism for the wrong reason is invalid. Acts 19:1-6 shows that. Out of curiousity, when do you think these people in Acts 19 were saved? What about Saul as recorded in Acts 22:16? When were his sins washed away?

What would have been your advise to Naaman. He received instructions to dip in the Jordan river 7 times.

Some might say, "There's no power in that water, that's just silly. Just believe God and your leprosy will be cured. After it is cured, go dip in the Jordan river as a symbol that you believe."
That's crazy Naaman, you think that "work" will earn your cure? Naaman, do you feel in your heart that you are cured? Just say you're cured and that's all there is to it. I know God never instructed you to pray and be cured but trust me.

No, it took his servant to bring Naaman around to his senses. If it was something hard you would do it, but he told you something easy, Wash and be clean.

Naaman's problem was, "Behold, I thought...". God didn't do it the way Naaman thought he would. No, but that simple act of faith, wash and be clean, cured him of his leprosy.

While there is no power in the water, there is power in obeying God's commands.

DHK

05-17-2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DHK:
You have failed to reconcile any of what you have posted with Eph.2:8,9 which indicates that salvation is by faith alone, and not of works--not of any works.
The verses that you post only indicate that works is a result of saving faith and that is all.
DHK You are right, that is because Eph 2:8-10 nowhere talks about faith alone. It talks about faith. Faith alone is Man's doctrine. Faith alone, according to James is no means of justification.
[/QUOTE]Faith alone is not man's doctrine. It is what the Bible teaches. How can you reconcile Eph.2:8,9 with the rest of Scripture. I have posted this before. I will post it for you again.

Salvation is by faith. Obedience to Christ's commands results because of faith put in the sacrifial blood of Christ.

Your "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

05-17-2005, 08:37 PM

#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.#1 - Titus 2:11 says the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all - By your logic, all men will be saved. Also by your logic, the act of confession is unessential. The act of repentance is unessential. With that definition it would be impossible to include confession or repentance in the plan of salvation. For salvation is by grace. It is all of the grace of God. Confession and repentace are not grace. By your very definition, faith is also excluded since ,"Grace is all from God, nothing from man." You are in direct contradiction with God's word. Luke 13:3, Matt 10:32, Rom 10:10, Heb 11:6 and other places).

By your faulty logic and definition, you have excluded confession, repentance and Calling on the name of the Lord. I will substitue Confession where you had baptism.

#1. Salvation is of grace, not of confession. 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 confession in the plan of salvation. For salvation is by grace. It is all of the grace of God. Confession is not grace.[/QUOTE]

#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.#2 - It does not imply faith alone. THis whole paragraph is in direct conflict with what James said. It is in direct conflict with Heb 11.

Using your definition of faith YOU CANNOT explain how "by faith the walls of Jericho fell"? You say faith is belief or trust and it is the one thing that is not a work.

John 6:29, "Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

The funny thing is, I can show you where belief is a work, yet you say it isn't, and I can show you where baptism is a part of faith, and you call it a "work", yet have NO SCRIPTURE TO BACK UP THIS STATEMENT.

By your definition, confession is a work, because it is something an individual must do. It takes effort to perform. By your logic, you think you are earning or working your way to heaven by making a confession.

#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.# 3 - Using your faulty logic, confession, repentance, or calling on the name of the Lord is unessential. You could plug any of these into your statement.

"And that not of yourselves" This makes it even more emphatic that confession could not possibly involved in salvation. Salvation(I think you meant baptism, so insert confession here) is a work of man. Man does it; man receives it (confession is before men). It is of "yourself." Every work you do is "of yourself." Salvation 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. #4. Again, with your faulty logic, you could say the same about confession, repentance, Calling on the name of the Lord, thus making them unessental.

"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. Confession is not a gift. Confession 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 confessing, repenting, or calling on the name of the Lord.) 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.Again, by your faulty definition and logic, you've just excluded confession, repentance, and calling on the name of the Lord. Let use confession again.

5. "Not of works" Plain and simple isn't it? It can't get any clearer. It is not of works!! Confession is a work. It is something that man does. God doesn't confess for 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.Again your faulty logic and definitions have excluded confession, repentance, and calling on the name of the Lord.

Lets see how confession fits.

#6. "Lest any man should boast." Do you really expect to see all the Baptist people in heaven boasting and glorying in their confession. Christ paid 90% of the penalty of their sin, and they paid the other 10% by their confession. You are going to boast in heaven because your confession got you there? Right? That is precisely why Paul stresses it is not of works--not of confession. It is all of the grace of God.

To believe that salvation is by confession is a pagan supersition. Confession doesn't wash away sins. It simply gets you hoarse.

All your baptism may have made you was wet, but mine was for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), washed my sins away (Acts 22:16), put me into the death of Christ and put me INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27), added me to the Church of which Christ is savior (Acts 2:41,47, I Cor 12:13) and was by faith (Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12).

Ps 119:160 The entirety of Your word is truth
Ps 119:172 ...For all Your commandments are righteousness.

Heb 5:9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

2Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done , whether good or bad.

Eph 2:8-9 and Gal 3:26-27. Perfect Harmony.

DHK

05-18-2005, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by mman:
[QUOTE]#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.[QB] #1 - Titus 2:11 says the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all - By your logic, all men will be saved.I never said that, neither implied that, nor does the Bible say that. Don't teach heresy or especially accuse me of doing so. False accusations are unacceptable on this board. If you can find where I made such a statement then quote me.
Also by your logic, the act of confession is unessential. The act of repentance is unessential. With that definition it would be impossible to include confession or repentance in the plan of salvation. For salvation is by grace. The Church of Christ's error is to package up every theological concept into little boxes and name them all as works: work #1 is faith; work #2 is confession; work #3 is repentance, etc. Of course all that is heresy. The only correct statement that you said in the above is "Salvation is by grace." Corroborate that with Rom.11:6. If it is all of grace, then it is not of works. That defeats your whole theology. And salvation is all of grace--the grace of God. There is nothing man can do--not baptism, church membership, confirmation, the Lord's Supper, speaking in tongues, etc. There is no religious rite, baptism included, that has a part in salvation. For salvation is ALL of the grace of God. No human merit will do. Baptism is man's effort, man's work. To say that baptism is a part of salvation is the equivalent of spitting in the face of God; for it is saying that God was unable to atone for your sins on the cross; he had to have your help in baptism. How arrogant!!
It is all of the grace of God. Confession and repentace are not grace. By your very definition, faith is also excluded since ,"Grace is all from God, nothing from man." You are in direct contradiction with God's word. Luke 13:3, Matt 10:32, Rom 10:10, Heb 11:6 and other places).The work of salvation is all of the grace of God. It is a free gift to man, that is, to every man who will receive that gift The work is the work that Christ paid on the cross when he shed his blood for sins of the world. It was by the grace of God that Christ came from the glories of Heaven to this sinful world to die for our sins. He was not obligated to. It was out of love that he did so. It was his free gift to mankind. That is grace. Giving that (His Son) to us, who are so unworthy of his love. It is all of grace--His grace.

By your faulty logic and definition, you have excluded confession, repentance and Calling on the name of the Lord. I will substitue Confession where you had baptism.First, all of the above have nothing to do with grace of God. Salvation is provided to mankind freely by the grace of God. It is God's grace, that cannot be bought, paid for, or worked for, not even with baptism.
If you will accept the Scriputres, salvation is by faith, faith alone. I exhort you to study this Scripture that I have expounded for you (Eph.2:8,9). It is impossible for you to reconcile its teachings with yours. Again you have bottled up "confession, repentance, calling on the name of the Lord," all as separate acts or works. You believe in a heretical works salvation.

#1. Salvation is of grace, not of confession. 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 confession in the plan of salvation. For salvation is by grace. It is all of the grace of God. Confession is not grace.
That is right. Christ provided salvation by grace--His grace. Confession does not provide salvation. Christ provides salvation. The Bible says If we call upon the name of the Lord we shall be saved. That assumes that we call on him in faith. It is the faith that saves. But the faith is on our part. Faith is not a work that we do. Faith is trust. That is why an infant can trust his parents without work. An infant has no capability to work, but it does have the capability to trust. Jesus said you must be as little childrent to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

#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. #2 - It does not imply faith alone. THis whole paragraph is in direct conflict with what James said. It is in direct conflict with Heb 11.OK, It doesn't imply faith alone. It says it outright. Salvation is through faith, and not by works. That means faith alone. To any English speaking person it has no other persosn. I hope you understand English. You say the passage is in direct conflict with with James and Hebrews 11. However, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. That just means one thing. You have forced your theology into these verses, and they contradict each other because of your heretical theology doesn't harmonize with the rest of the Bible.
Using your definition of faith YOU CANNOT explain how "by faith the walls of Jericho fell"? You say faith is belief or trust and it is the one thing that is not a work. This is a red herring and has nothing to do with salvation. By faith they trusted in the promises of Godas believers. As believers they obeyed God. Just like in the New Testament, believers obey God in baptism. Baptism is not part of salvation. Neither was the conquering of Jericho. They were already God's people before they even reached the promised land.

John 6:29, "Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

The funny thing is, I can show you where belief is a work, yet you say it isn't, and I can show you where baptism is a part of faith, and you call it a "work", yet have NO SCRIPTURE TO BACK UP THIS STATEMENT.This was a play on words. Salvation is not of works. The Bible plainly says that in Eph.2:9. The Bible does not contradict itself, and neither does Christ. What Christ said is that the only "work" that could get a person to heaven was faith. That, by default, excluded baptism and all other works. Obviously baptism could not fit into this paradigm if faith is the only work whereby one can get to Heaven. Reread the verse and understand it.

By your definition, confession is a work, because it is something an individual must do. It takes effort to perform. By your logic, you think you are earning or working your way to heaven by making a confession.
"This is the work of God that you believe" This is the ONLY work of God that you BELIEVE. The plain statement here is that salvation is by faith and faith alone. That teaching by Christ is very plain.
DHK

DHK

05-18-2005, 01:37 AM

#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. # 3 - Using your faulty logic, confession, repentance, or calling on the name of the Lord is unessential. You could plug any of these into your statement.There you go again, bottling up theological concepts into packages of works: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, etc. How many works do you have to do to enter into heaven? The Bible mentions faith, and faith alone. However faith is not a work.

"And that not of yourselves" This makes it even more emphatic that confession could not possibly involved in salvation. Salvation(I think you meant baptism, so insert confession here) is a work of man. Man does it; man receives it (confession is before men). It is of "yourself." Every work you do is "of yourself." Salvation 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 GodFirst, confession and baptism have nothing to do with one another. Why you substitute one for another is beyond me. You accuse me of faulty logic, when you have only proved yourself to have the faulty logic. Baptism is symbolic. It is not necessarily a confession of anything. Yes, salvation is all of God, all of grace. There is nothing you can do but accept that gift by faith, and faith alone.

#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. #4. Again, with your faulty logic, you could say the same about confession, repentance, Calling on the name of the Lord, thus making them unessental.No, one cannot say the same about confession and repentance, etc. Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph.2:8,9) What is wrong? Don't you believe the Bible? It is plain that baptism is a work, but salvation is "not of works" as verse 9 plainly says. Your arguement with God, not with me.

Again, by your faulty definition and logic, you've just excluded confession, repentance, and calling on the name of the Lord. Let use confession again.
Are you hung up on accusing people of "faulty logic" when you cannot harmonize the Scripture for yourself? The Bible says that salvation is by faith. Why do you deny this? Why do you reject the teaching of Eph.2:8,9? Repentance and calling on the name of the Lord, are all included in true Biblical faith. This is what you fail to understand. When Paul had called on the name of the Lord, at the same time he had repented and put his faith in Christ. What was the result of his salvation experience that took place on the road to Damascus. He obeyed the Lord, as a believer in Christ, and was later baptized, and then testified of Christ. He was obedient to Christ. Obedience didn't earn him salvation. Putting his faith in Christ gave him salvation. It was a gift of God.
Again your faulty logic and definitions have excluded confession, repentance, and calling on the name of the Lord."faulty logic" You really need a bigger vocabulary!
"ave excluded confession, repentance, and calling on the name of the Lord."
This redundancy is getting boring. I have already explained this, I don't know how many times now.

To believe that salvation is by confession is a pagan supersition. Confession doesn't wash away sins. It simply gets you hoarse.And baptism just gets you wet! That is why neither one gets you to heaven. By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is faith in the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. You still don't believe Eph.2:8,9 do you? When will you start believing the Bible?
All your baptism may have made you was wet, but mine was for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), washed my sins away (Acts 22:16), put me into the death of Christ and put me INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27), added me to the Church of which Christ is savior (Acts 2:41,47, I Cor 12:13) and was by faith (Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12).What you think happened and what actually happened, according to the Bible, are two completely different things. The water that you were baptized in got you wet. It did no more good for you than the waters of the Ganges River did for the Hindus in India. Your faith is misplaced and I feel sorry for you, that you have such a misplaced misguided pagan belief. Others have misled you into a non-Biblical doctrine--the doctrine of a cult. The only thing that washes away sin is the blood of Christ.

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.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
DHK

mman

05-18-2005, 08:18 AM

Since God’s grace has appeared to all men and it is all from God and nothing from man, then all men would be saved, if this were really true. I presume from you comments that neither you nor I believe that, so something IS required from man, else all men would be saved.

The question is, what is required from man.

“To say that baptism is a part of salvation is the equivalent of spitting in the face of God; for it is saying that God was unable to atone for your sins on the cross; he had to have your help in baptism. How arrogant!!” I am only repeating what God said through his word. Why do you not believe Jesus when he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be condemned.”? Again, you could substitute, confession, repentance, or calling on the name of the Lord where you wrote baptism.

“If you will accept the Scriputres, salvation is by faith, faith alone. I exhort you to study this Scripture that I have expounded for you (Eph.2:8,9). It is impossible for you to reconcile its teachings with yours.”[QUOTE/]

I have already done that time and time again. What you cannot reconcile is your definition of faith and James’. What you describe as “faith”, James describes as dead, useless, and incomplete. Even the demons believe, according to James. More on this later.

[QUOTE]“Confession does not provide salvation. Christ provides salvation. The Bible says If we call upon the name of the Lord we shall be saved. That assumes that we call on him in faith.”The bible also says “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” That assumes that we are baptized in faith. Your definition of a work is something man does. By your very definition, “Calling on the name of the Lord” is also something man does, but you say that is done in faith. God says baptism is something we do in faith, according to Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12.

“OK, It doesn't imply faith alone. It says it outright. Salvation is through faith, and not by works. That means faith alone. To any English speaking person it has no other persosn. I hope you understand English. You say the passage is in direct conflict with with James and Hebrews 11. However, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. That just means one thing. You have forced your theology into these verses, and they contradict each other because of your heretical theology doesn't harmonize with the rest of the Bible.” AND DHK said” This is a red herring and has nothing to do with salvation. By faith they trusted in the promises of Godas believers. As believers they obeyed God. Just like in the New Testament, believers obey God in baptism. Baptism is not part of salvation. Neither was the conquering of Jericho. They were already God's people before they even reached the promised land. “I understand English, but I don’t understand the word “persosn”??? Let me get this straight, because your definition of faith is in direct conflict with Heb 11 and James 2, I have forced my theology?

My understanding of faith fits perfectly with Heb 11 and James 2. My understanding of faith is believing, trusting and doing what God said. Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m sure you will, but your understanding of faith if belief and trust, but no work is involved.

The walls of Jericho falling by faith is not a red herring and here’s why. In the same chapter, all of which deals with what biblical faith is, it is said that without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. What kind of faith? There is example after example of biblical faith in Heb 11. I could have chosen any number of them because they show the biblical definition of faith, believing, trusting and doing what God has said. I chose by faith the walls of Jericho fell. Was any action required? YES. Did they “work”? Yes, by your definition. Did they earn it? No. Did that action “cause” the walls to fall. No. By your definition of faith, the walls would still be standing. By God’s definition, the wall of Jericho fell.

Yes, God had given them the city along will all the land of Canaan. Yet, sadly they did not obey God and conquer all the land.

I agree with you 100 percent when you say, “By faith they trusted in the promises of God as believers. As believers they obeyed God. Just like in the New Testament, believers obey God in baptism.” That is the difference between obedient believers and those who were not obedient that we read about in John 12:42 “Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;” John 1:12 states, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” Notice he DID NOT say those who received him ARE the sons of God but gave them power to BECOME sons of God. What has God done for the believers who trust him according to this verse? He gave them the power to BECOME sons of God. (Read Gal 3:26-27).

Now on to James, 2, You believe … Even the demons believe… that faith without works is dead? … Abraham our father justified by works when he offered … faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." … 24You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Whose definition of faith fits here, your “faith only” , belief and trust and no works or my belief, trust, and obedience? You have described a dead faith, I have described a “perfect” faith or complete faith.

You said Eph 2:8-9 not only implied faith only, it says it outright? Really, where? James 2:24 is the only place in the New Testament that says outright “faith only” and it says a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith only? Does this mean we earn it? NO WAY!!! Impossible!!! WE CANNOT EARN OUR SALVATION, NOT EVEN ONE OUNCE OF IT!!! If I could earn it, then I could boast, but I cannot, therefore I have no reason to boast.

My understanding of biblical faith fits in perfect harmony with Eph 2:8-9, Heb 11, and James 2.

“Repentance and calling on the name of the Lord, are all included in true Biblical faith. This is what you fail to understand. When Paul had called on the name of the Lord, at the same time he had repented and put his faith in Christ. What was the result of his salvation experience that took place on the road to Damascus. He obeyed the Lord, as a believer in Christ, and was later baptized, and then testified of Christ. He was obedient to Christ.”Repentance and calling on the name of the Lord are included in true biblical faith and baptism isn’t? Gal 3:26-27 says it is, and I know you believe the bible. Calling on the name of the Lord is something you do. It takes effort. God does not do it for you. How can this be part of faith and baptism isn’t. You said Paul called on the name of the Lord on the road to Damascus, yet Acts 22:16 says he called on the name of the Lord 3 days later in the city of Damascus. You said his salvation occurred on the road to Damascus, yet his sins had not been washed away some 3 days later according to Acts 22:16. He was told to go into the city and it would be told to him what he MUST do (Acts 9:6). The first thing Ananias told him to do was “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

“What you think happened and what actually happened, according to the Bible, are two completely different things. The water that you were baptized in got you wet.”Oh really. Would you mind using the passages dealing with baptism to explain what happens in baptism, how the bible says that all the water did was “got you wet”. You are not going to discover the purpose of baptism by going to passages where it's not mentioned. You'll have to go to what the Bible says about baptism to determine the Bible doctrine of baptism.

Thank you.

BobRyan

05-18-2005, 09:35 AM

#3 - Baptism is only for believers. This is made clear in Acts 8:36-37. Baptism for the wrong reason is invalid. Acts 19:1-6 shows that. Out of curiousity, when do you think these people in Acts 19 were saved? What about Saul as recorded in Acts 22:16? When were his sins washed away?In Acts 11 it is on the UNBAPTIZED person that the Holy Spirit falls AND GIFTS are given.

In 1John 1:9 it is when we CONFESS that we are forgiven.

In Romans 10 it is when we BELIEVE with the heart and CONFESS with the mouth that we are "saved".

The point is clear in scripture - Baptism is the act of the saved, repentant, born-again believer in following Christ - in obedience.

It is an outward sign of an already existing - inward change.

It is evidence that the NEW CREATION (2Cor 5) already exists - and that having already been "justified" you HAVE "peace with God" Romans 5 and in that fellowship you are choosing to follow in obedience and undergo Baptism.

In Christ,

Bob

mman

05-18-2005, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />#3 - Baptism is only for believers. This is made clear in Acts 8:36-37. Baptism for the wrong reason is invalid. Acts 19:1-6 shows that. Out of curiousity, when do you think these people in Acts 19 were saved? What about Saul as recorded in Acts 22:16? When were his sins washed away?In Acts 11 it is on the UNBAPTIZED person that the Holy Spirit falls AND GIFTS are given.

In 1John 1:9 it is when we CONFESS that we are forgiven.

In Romans 10 it is when we BELIEVE with the heart and CONFESS with the mouth that we are "saved".

The point is clear in scripture - Baptism is the act of the saved, repentant, born-again believer in following Christ - in obedience.

It is an outward sign of an already existing - inward change.

It is evidence that the NEW CREATION (2Cor 5) already exists - and that having already been "justified" you HAVE "peace with God" Romans 5 and in that fellowship you are choosing to follow in obedience and undergo Baptism.

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]Bob - I am still curious at what point were the people in Acts 19 saved? What was their purpose of being re-baptized?

Also, at what point did the people on the day of Pentecost (as only recorded in Acts 2)receive remission of sins?

Finally, when did Saul of Tarsus have his sins washed away (Acts 9, Act 22, Act 26)?

I John 1:9 is for those who are already in the light, not those in darkness trying to get into the light.

In Romans 10 it is when we BELIEVE with the heart and CONFESS with the mouth that we are "saved". - This is not all that God has said on this subject. If it were, I would agree 100 percent with you. For example, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Was Jesus giving conflicting instructions? No. Was Jesus kidding? No. Was Jesus mistaken? No. The truth never contradicts itself. These passages are in complete harmony with each other.

I appreciate your kind attitude and sincerity, attributes that we all need.

As I asked DHK, would you mind using the passages dealing with baptism to explain what happens in baptism. You are not going to discover the purpose of baptism by going to passages where it's not mentioned. You'll have to go to what the Bible says about baptism to determine the Bible doctrine of baptism. I have done this and nowhere is it described as an outward sign of an already existing inward change.

When I list them, there is no explaination necessary.

To list a few:

Mark 16:16 -He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (No commentary necessary)

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.
(No commentary necessary).

Rom 6:3-4 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore 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. (No commentary necessary)

Gal 3:26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (No commentary necessary)

Acts 22:16And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' (No commentary necessary)

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. (No commentary necessary)

I Pet 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, (no commentary necessary)

Acts 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." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (No commentary necessary)

Any other verse that deals with salvation does not negate these verses, it only compliments them. No doubt we are children of God through faith. That is exactly what the bible teaches in Gal 3:26-27, listed above.

Eric B

05-18-2005, 01:38 PM

You talk of two baptism. Eph 4:5 says there is just one. Yes, there have been many, but there is now just one? Which one? I encourage you to study I Cor 12:13 with Acts 2. Are you saying these people entered the church in two different ways?
Today, there is just one baptism. Accept one and reject the other. And I explained this somewhere already. "Baptism INTO Christ" is a SPIRITUAL concept with a PHYSICAL application to show the spiritual. So it is ONE baptism, not TWO. You are confusing two different MODES for separate acts called baptism. They were originally to be the same. But you still have to separate the spiritual aspect from the physical in dealing with what actually saves us. "REJECT" the "other"? You seem to make it all about the water, in which case a person could just be dunked without the ["second" baptism of] the spirit, and they would still be in Christ.
Acts 19:1-7. When did these men receive what you call "spiritual baptism". When they received the Spirit (v.6). Many had heard of Jesus, and "believed" what they heard, but still were not yet born again (note the Jews in John 8, who "believed"; yet He goes on to call them children of the devil). Especially now, that the Holy Spirit was first starting to be given out to people.
Baptism is a greek word transliterated into english. It means to dip or plunge. Acts 8 says that Philip preached Jesus and the next thing out of the Eunuch mouth is "Here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized". We know baptism is in water from this and other passages (I Pet 3:20-21, John 3:5, Eph 5:26).
New Testament baptism always means in water, unless otherwise clarified by the text or context.
We're also "immersed" into the Body of Christ.
BY one Spirit means something totally different than WITH one Spirit. We discussd that already too. IT is both BY the Spirit, and WITH the Spirit. The Spirit is both initiator of spiritual baptism, as well as agent.
Once we are in the light, the blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing us. The question is how do we get into the light or into Christ or come in contact with his blood? Through faith.
Baptism is not a work. How would that obligate God to save me? Frankly, it makes no sense to me how going into the water and coming out of it will wash away my sins. By faith, I accept what God has said on the subject. By faith I obey (Read all of Heb 11 for God's definition and examples of faith - without which it is IMPOSSIBLE to please him (Heb 11:6)).

By faith I am a child of God because I have been baptized (Gal 3:26-27).

I challenge anyone to show how baptism is a work when the bible calls it faith. This "it makes no sense to me but I believe it by faith" proves nothing. You're having faith in the wrong thing, and it does seem to make a lot of sense to you (all the examples you have given that you think prove your view). It makes A LOT of sense to man that "I do this, and then God gives me that (salvation)". That is one of man's lifelong problems, as we see in the Israelistes, and many cults and religions today.
What makes no sense to you is how baptism is spiritual and the water ceremony is a public sign of it that does not in itself save, but this is what the NT teaches, and you should believe in by faith.

Once again, the examples you gave, including from Heb.11 are all from the OT, which was more works oriented (because part of it was that God was writing the lesson in history that works were not what saves; though some --and only relatively a few-- were faithful). You even try to deny that there was any "earning" involved in those examples, but the way God set those things up, they were still in a sense earning something, and this is CONTRASTED with faith for today!
Just look at what is the point Heb.11 is making for us: how this "faith" translates to us, ther eaders. v3: "through faith, we UNDERSTAND (believe) the worlds were framed by the Word of God). Then, carrying on in the next chapter, we are told how all of this is to motivate us to "run the race" set before us, looking to Jesus. Nothing about baptism. While running the race would be manifest in works, still, it is faith that is the subject here; not the individual works that may manifest it, like those in the OT examples. We could never do works consistently enough to measure your definition of "faith", and thus salvation by. IT is faith that justifies WHEN (not even if) we fail.
John 1:12 states, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” Notice he DID NOT say those who received him ARE the sons of God but gave them power to BECOME sons of God. What has God done for the believers who trust him according to this verse? He gave them the power to BECOME sons of God. (Read Gal 3:26-27). You're interpreting "become" mechanically, to mean that He gives us some "power" that enables us to work our way to becoming a Son of God. But once again, do you do everything perfectly? Yes, this would make sense, if we saw people who actually became literally perfect (NEVER committing a single sin again, and this includes false doctrine!) through some power. But actually, "power" is misinterpreted as well, as the Greek word really means "privilege". Becoming declared a son of God is a right that is given to a person instantly upon faith, not some title we work our way up to.

mman

05-18-2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
And I explained this somewhere already. "Baptism INTO Christ" is a SPIRITUAL concept with a PHYSICAL application to show the spiritual. So it is ONE baptism, not TWO. You are confusing two different MODES for separate acts called baptism. They were originally to be the same.Wow, talk about mental gymnastics. 2 different modes of the same baptism? They were originally to be the same? What happened? Are they the same or different? Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise from Jesus, not a command. Water baptism was instructed to be carried out by man for the remission of sins.

In Acts 8:12But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. 13Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. 14Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

What was the purpose of water baptism in this case?

Acts 19:1-7. When did these men receive what you call "spiritual baptism". When they received the Spirit (v.6). Many had heard of Jesus, and "believed" what they heard, but still were not yet born again (note the Jews in John 8, who "believed"; yet He goes on to call them children of the devil). Especially now, that the Holy Spirit was first starting to be given out to people.So they received water baptism first then spriritual baptism? 2 Modes of the same baptism? Do you have any scripture to back up what you think concerning this? Right now, I am just trying to understand your position.

We're also "immersed" into the Body of Christ.No arguements here. The scripture does teach this. I Cor 12:13, Acts 2:38, 41, 47.

We discussd that already too. IT is both BY the Spirit, and WITH the Spirit. The Spirit is both initiator of spiritual baptism, as well as agent.Interesting concept. Any scriptures? When did this occur in Acts 2? How about Acts 8? How about Acts 16? When does this occur? When you accept Christ? Before water baptism? After Water baptism? Again, I am trying to understand what your position.

The question is how do we get into the light or into Christ or come in contact with his blood? Your answer was, "Through faith." I have laid out how the scriptures say we come in contact with the blood. I accept your answer based on God's definition of faith, doing what he said.

This "it makes no sense to me but I believe it by faith" proves nothing. You're having faith in the wrong thing, and it does seem to make a lot of sense to you (all the examples you have given that you think prove your view). It makes A LOT of sense to man that "I do this, and then God gives me that (salvation)". That is one of man's lifelong problems, as we see in the Israelistes, and many cults and religions today.God's word is truth. The truth is what makes us free. Whether I accept it or reject it has no bearing on what is truth. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16. Regardless of what anyone thinks or believes, this statement is still true. No, this is not all that the bible says about being saved, but it is certainly included. No other verse negates this verse. If you were in the crowd in Acts 2, even asking the question in verse 37, what would you have done to receive the remission of your sins? If asked the question in Acts 2:37, what would your answer be?

What makes no sense to you is how baptism is spiritual and the water ceremony is a public sign of it that does not in itself save, but this is what the NT teaches, and you should believe in by faith.So what you are saying is that one is spiritually baptized and following that there is a water ceremony as a public sign. Is that correct? Do they occur at the same time or does the spiritual baptism preceed the water baptism. You said, in Acts 19, the spiritual baptism occurred in verse 6. They were baptized in water (for a second time) in verse 5. What was their water baptism a public sign of?

Once again, the examples you gave, including from Heb.11 are all from the OT, which was more works oriented (because part of it was that God was writing the lesson in history that works were not what saves; though some --and only relatively a few-- were faithful). You even try to deny that there was any "earning" involved in those examples, but the way God set those things up, they were still in a sense earning something, and this is CONTRASTED with faith for today!
Just look at what is the point Heb.11 is making for us: how this "faith" translates to us, ther eaders. v3: "through faith, we UNDERSTAND (believe) the worlds were framed by the Word of God). Then, carrying on in the next chapter, we are told how all of this is to motivate us to "run the race" set before us, looking to Jesus. Nothing about baptism. While running the race would be manifest in works, still, it is faith that is the subject here; not the individual works that may manifest it, like those in the OT examples. We could never do works consistently enough to measure your definition of "faith", and thus salvation by. IT is faith that justifies WHEN (not even if) we fail.First of all, they are not my examples, they are God's. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. What kind of faith? Obedient faith as demonstrated in Heb 11. Yes, God has revealed things and I accept them through faith. In 6 days, the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I accept that by faith. I accept that I have a human spirit, by faith. I also accept his instructions on how to have the remission of my sins. I do this by faith. By faith, I confessed his name (Matt 10:32), by faith I repented of my sins (Acts 17:30, Acts 2:38), by faith I was buried with Christ in baptism, (Col 2:12, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16) by By faith I become a child of God, by doing what he said to do. This is clear in Gal 3:26-27. According to the scriptures, I can only find one way INTO Christ. Once I'm a child of God, with my sins washed away by the Savior's blood, I begin my new life (Rom 6:3-4). I walk by faith. Will I walk perfectly? NO! I John 1:7-8. Will I earn any part of my salvaiton? NO!!! Will I sin? Yes. Am I continually covered by the blood as long as I walk in the light? Yes - I Jn 1:7.

BobRyan

05-18-2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#3 - Baptism is only for believers. This is made clear in Acts 8:36-37. Baptism for the wrong reason is invalid. Acts 19:1-6 shows that. Out of curiousity, when do you think these people in Acts 19 were saved? What about Saul as recorded in Acts 22:16? When were his sins washed away?In Acts 11 it is on the UNBAPTIZED person that the Holy Spirit falls AND GIFTS are given.

In 1John 1:9 it is when we CONFESS that we are forgiven.

In Romans 10 it is when we BELIEVE with the heart and CONFESS with the mouth that we are "saved".

The point is clear in scripture - Baptism is the act of the saved, repentant, born-again believer in following Christ - in obedience.

It is an outward sign of an already existing - inward change.

It is evidence that the NEW CREATION (2Cor 5) already exists - and that having already been "justified" you HAVE "peace with God" Romans 5 and in that fellowship you are choosing to follow in obedience and undergo Baptism.

[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by mman:

Bob - I am still curious at what point were the people in Acts 19 saved? What was their purpose of being re-baptized?
They were saved at the same time Christ's OWN disciples were saved - pre-cross when they "believed". They then were "Baptized" just as the Apostles James and John -- by John the baptizer.

But in Acts 19 they "receive the special outpouring" of the Holy Spirit - including the gift of tongues.

So in terms of salvation it is the SAME as the Acts 1l event AND the Romans 10 teaching showing without question - it is at the point of "BELIEF" that one is born-again, justified 'saved'. And then the BELIEVER follows on in the obedience of baptism.

Also, at what point did the people on the day of Pentecost (as only recorded in Acts 2)receive remission of sins? Here again the instruction is to hear, REPENT and believe - and then be baptized AS a born-again saved believer.

snipping the text out of the Bible to "Stand alone" will not work.

I notice you are avoiding Acts 11.

In Romans 10 it is when we BELIEVE with the heart and CONFESS with the mouth that we are "saved".

- This is not all that God has said on this subject. Lets take a look "At the details".

Whosoever Believes – is saved.

Romans 10

Rom 10:8 but what does it say? “the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved;
saved - salvation to those who believe. The fact that one who believes and is saved will continue to read and study and obey - does not abolish the fact of salvation just as stated above - at the time we believe.

10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 for the scripture says, “whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.”
Salvation comes to the one who confesses and believes. Then we go on to follow in the works of obedience – including water Baptism

As I asked DHK, would you mind using the passages dealing with baptism to explain what happens in baptism. You are not going to discover the purpose of baptism by going to passages where it's not mentioned.
In Acts 11 the entire subject is about the validity of Baptism -- for non-Jews.

It can hardly be claimed that "this is not a passage that mentions baptism".

In Romans 10 the entire section is about the subject of "WHEN is a person saved". Ignoring the chapter as if it "had nothing to say about that" is not a valid approach to scripture.

You'll have to go to what the Bible says about baptism to determine the Bible doctrine of baptism. I have done this and nowhere is it described as an outward sign of an already existing inward change.
In Romans 6:1-10 it most certainly IS described as an outward symbol of our being WITH Christ in HIS death and HIS resurrection.

(assuming of course you did not go back in time "literally" at your baptism).

The argument you are using tries to wrap a somewhat myopic view of scripture (selecting some texts while avoiding others) into a wooden definition that is unsupportable. Everyone (at least those who accept believer's baptism) agree to the point that in Baptism we identify with Christ's work on the cross for us - and it is in that work (and our identification in His death and resurrection) that accomplishes the removal of sin.

But you "take it to extremes" claiming that we are not born-again, not justified, not saved, not a new creation, still in the old wicked "flesh" at the time of belief, repentance and baptism.

Nothing could be farther from the truth of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

chadman

05-18-2005, 06:10 PM

DHK said

Do you have a problem in believing the Bible?

I never suggested that we are saved through the sinners prayer. Where did you get that idea? We are not saved through the sinner's prayer.
Oh, 'Cmon, Give me a little break here DHK. I could ask you or anybody else the same thing. Wouldn't you agree you are just a tad inflamatory, even to Evangelicals like yourself?

The sinners prayer? It saves those who ask Jesus to save them, calling on His name, just as the Bible teaches. Yes I know ultimately under the theological covers, by Grace through Faith not of works. I know that. It is a rite of passage.

Where did I get that idea? Billy Graham and Bob Ryan,your brother in arms, both say the sinner's prayer (sincere) will save you. Look at Bob's post point number 2. Is Bob Ryan wrong?

you said

Prayer is from the heart. It does not have to heard.It does not you are correct, but it CAN be, and is Biblical to state the obvious.

No --- the Sinner Prayer, it is not in the Bible explicitly, you know that and we all know that. It is the manifested act of faith that fullfils the offer to 'believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord', or to 'call upone His name'. See that? Confess with your MOUTH? There is nothing wrong with that, it is Biblical. If you ask Jesus to save you, come into your life, He promises that He will not turn away anyone who comes to Him. So if you call on Jesus, He will save you. You say it so well, I think I'll quote you to yourself now...

"If you care not to believe it you put yourself in direct contradiction to the Bible, and have started to believe a false gospel as well.If you don't believe that, then you are in danger of believing a false gospel. This is why many are not really saved when they think they are."

Is that not an absolutely edifying statement? I know it made ME feel good when you said it. :)

Anyways, you never answer many of my questions so I had antother one for you that I was personally curious about in agreement with you on, so I'll make another post, so it does not get overlooked.

In fact I have noticed on this board, that maybe 90% of peoples questions are skimmed over, and never addressed? Are we asking each other questions as debate points, or are we actually trying to learn something from each other? I don't get it.

chadman

05-18-2005, 06:31 PM

Ok, I have not studied the use of 'eis', so I am out on this discussion but found it very interesting. I think MMAN asked the question in response to DHK (I think). Hehe, and this is the one that caught my real attention, but I don't remember a response.

The greeks had a word for because, "hoti". This word was NOT used in Acts 2:38. The greek word "eis" was used which never is translated as "because", since is does not mean "because". Just because our english word "for" can sometimes be used for "because" doesn't mean the greek word "eis" can.

If you can easily understand "eis" in Matt 26:28, why is it so hard to understand in Acts 2:38. Not only is the same word used but the SAME PHRASE. Every example showing how our english word "for" can mean "because" to attempt to show that baptism is because we have remission of sin (Acts 2:38) can also be used in Matt 26:28 to show that Jesus blood was shed because mankind had already received remission of sins. It is a very incosistent position unsupported by the greek language.

I guess this confuses me too. Anyone care to tackle this one? He makes a good point, and a linguist might agree with him here, based on an established pattern of usage and context. Why is this the case? For my own comfort please? The only thing I can think is you have two differnt authors, maybe two different usages?

DHK

05-18-2005, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by chadman:
DHK said
[QUOTE]
Do you have a problem in believing the Bible?

I never suggested that we are saved through the sinners prayer. Where did you get that idea? We are not saved through the sinner's prayer.
Oh, 'Cmon, Give me a little break here DHK. I could ask you or anybody else the same thing. Wouldn't you agree you are just a tad inflamatory, even to Evangelicals like yourself?No, not at all. My reference was to Eph.2:8,9 which mman by his own definition is unable to reconcile with his view of Scripture. Does he believe this passage (the Scripture) or not. I would say that he does not. Salvation is not of works.
The sinners prayer? It saves those who ask Jesus to save them, calling on His name, just as the Bible teaches. Yes I know ultimately under the theological covers, by Grace through Faith not of works. I know that. It is a rite of passage. Many people may get saved "in spite" of the sinners prayer. That is not the point. It is not the prayer that saves. It is faith in the sacrificial work of Christ that saves. Repetion of words means nothing. If your faith is not expressed from your heart while you are praying that prayer, then that prayer is meaningless to God. There are many false professions for this very reason.

Where did I get that idea? Billy Graham and Bob Ryan,your brother in arms, both say the sinner's prayer (sincere) will save you. Look at Bob's post point number 2. Is Bob Ryan wrong?I don't know where you got your ideas. I made mine perfectly clear. I have not deviated one iota from the Biblical concept that it is faith that saves--faith in the finished work of Christ. If your prayer is an expression of that faith, then so be it. If your prayer is not an expression of that faith, then you may be damned for all eternity.

Prayer is from the heart. It does not have to heard. It does not you are correct, but it CAN be, and is Biblical to state the obvious.

No --- the Sinner Prayer, it is not in the Bible explicitly, you know that and we all know that. It is the manifested act of faith that fullfils the offer to 'believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord', or to 'call upone His name'. See that? Confess with your MOUTH? There is nothing wrong with that, it is Biblical. If you ask Jesus to save you, come into your life, He promises that He will not turn away anyone who comes to Him. So if you call on Jesus, He will save you. You say it so well, I think I'll quote you to yourself now...I never disagreed with that.

"If you care not to believe it you put yourself in direct contradiction to the Bible, and have started to believe a false gospel as well.If you don't believe that, then you are in danger of believing a false gospel. This is why many are not really saved when they think they are." Is that not an absolutely edifying statement? I know it made ME feel good when you said it. :)Remember that mman, whose post I was anwering is COC, and believes in a works salvation. If he cares not to believe that salvation is by faith, then so be it. He will face the consequences some day. There is only one gospel. The gospel is an offence to many people. It doesn't matter if makes you feel good or not.

Anyways, you never answer many of my questions so I had antother one for you that I was personally curious about in agreement with you on, so I'll make another post, so it does not get overlooked.

In fact I have noticed on this board, that maybe 90% of peoples questions are skimmed over, and never addressed? Are we asking each other questions as debate points, or are we actually trying to learn something from each other? I don't get it. Sorry, I can't always answer everyone's questions. It is inevitable that some people's posts will get overlooked.
DHK

ituttut

05-18-2005, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by mman:
ituttut

Paul said there was just one gospel. The same gospel was preached to the Jews first and also to the Greeks (Rom 1:16).

mman, you are right. However you misapply the Word. It is Paul’s gospel you refer to. Who is it that has the gospel of Christ. Israel had the “covenant”, the Law of Moses, and the gospel of John the Baptist, as did Jesus, and the Apostles. The “Gospel of Christ” is from heaven, and He gave that to Paul. Verse 16, ” For I am not ashamed of the “gospel of Christ”: for it is the power of God unto salvation to “every one that believeth”; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Paul went to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile’s with the “Gospel of Christ”, that of reconciling the world. Can we agree that God is today reconciling the world unto Himself? It is so, and it had never been so in the past, and will not be after our rapture.

"... It was necessary that the Word of God should FIRST have been spoken
to you..." (Acts 13:46). Scripture tells us why it was necessary for Paul to preach the Grace gospel first to the Jew. The Bible affirms through the ages, the fact that is always the Jew first. Even after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, and rejecting the Holy Spirit of Pentecost, the house of Israel refused their King. Only then do we find “the gospel of the grace of God” to all is revealed to Paul.

So the one gospel for today is the gospel of Paul, revealed to him by Christ Jesus from Heaven. Find before Damascus Road, where any gospel for Israel was preached to and at a Gentile. So the gospel for the Jew, cannot be for we Gentile’s of today, or for those of the seed of Abraham, for God does not recognize the Jew today. When you dismiss Christ in heaven with His revelation to Paul, you then have no gospel at all, and we are all destined to hell; But not if we believe the gospel of Paul.

Eph 4:5 says there is one faith.

Again you are right for the wrong reason. The Jew is saved by faith, and the Gentile is saved through faith. So today none are being saved by faith for God threw them in again with we Gentiles.

More evidence that the Old gospel way of salvation is no more. 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.” Prove this was so during the time that Jesus was on this earth, and we will know that God was not telling the truth when He said until Saul/Paul, He (God) had a hidden treasure in His mysteries that He had not told from the beginning of the world.

The Bible is not worth much, if we cannot believe His Word.

Jude 3 says contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Jude 1:3, ”Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude is the gospel of the circumcision. The “common salvation” for Jesus is Israel’s Messiah, their King. The “common” here is those that belonged to community as a whole. We see the “common” in Mark 12:37, for Jesus says He only came for His own. We then see in Acts 2:44, that all that believed the “common salvation” preached by Peter in Acts 2:37-38, had all things in common.

There was no dissension at all in their “common community” for a year of which we have a preview of the kingdom to come of the Jew on the earth. No Gentile was ever preached to until God sent Peter to Cornelius, shortly after Damascus Road. But with the stoning of Steven, that all ended, i.e. the “bliss” of the community. But the “common salvation” of the Jew remained. This is what Jude is referring to in “faith which was once delivered unto the saints". The Jew of the Pentecostal church did not consider a Gentile to be a saint.

Acts 4:32 sums it up nicely. ”And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. They believe the gospel of John the Baptist, the “common salvation” of the Jew. Those Jews were “all of One Heart”, and had all things in common.

Doesn’t James, Jude’s half brother also “contend for the faith” of the Jew, viz. of works, sacrifices, feasts, and Holy Days? Is that the “faith you contend for”? The Christian “contends for no such thing”.

We also see Jude was saved differently than we Christians. Are you sanctified by God the Father, or sanctified through God the Holy Spirit? Salvation of the Jew is always in relation with “their Father”. The Jew can go directly to “their Father”, witness ”Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10. Thy kingdom come………” We today cannot do that. We come to the Father Through Jesus Christ. He makes intercession for us, and the Holy Spirit reads our heart so God can understand, as we don’t know what to pray for. All those people had to do was "Ask".

I did not preach two gospels, but one gospel. I Cor 15:1-4 tells us that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection.

I believe this, but do you? Do you believe in “good Friday”? Was Jesus in the earth for three full days? I say yes. There are not many that agree with Jesus on this. I hope that you do.

I base your preaching on two gospels by what you posted. Quote “”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.”Unquote. This is the gospel of John the Baptist, and not the gospel of Christ Jesus from Heaven. We, the Christians (were based in Antioch, and not Jerusalem) have remission of sins through Jesus Christ when we believe in our hearts that it is He that makes it possible for us to receive remission of sins.

Then after you teach that salvation is by repenting and then being baptized for remission of sins, you close by saying, ”We are saved by grace through faith…”Unquote. That is two separate gospels that you are preaching. You must choose one or the other. Is Christ divided? No! But God is a God of division. God the Father separated out His own nation, Israel. Today it is the kingdom of Christ that we will be in, and not looking for the saint’s to come marching into the kingdom of God. The rapture first, then the kingdom of God.

Rom 6:17 says, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered."

Christ appointed Paul the Apostle to the Gentile, and to the Jew. We see here that Paul is addressing both those that were saved under the doctrine of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”, and those of Grace Through faith in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Paul says to “that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. The Jew and the Gentile did not have the same “gospel”, or the same “doctrine.

Obeyed what form of doctrine? What he had just told them in Rom 6:3-4. Since we can't literally die, be buried, and raised again for our sins, we obey a form of that in baptism. We are baptized INTO His death (that is where the blood flowed)and buried with him in baptism, raised to walk in a new life.

”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” Romans 6:3-4. Again, is this “water baptism” required of the Jew for remission of sins, or the One Spiritual baptism of the Christian? It pertains to both.

I believe Jesus' blood is also in heaven, and today that is where our spitiual baptism takes place into His death, being made dead to the Law of ordinances, and He is the living waters.

Paul was the only one given authority to preach to “both”. The covenant people must in the flesh be water baptized as they all will be a priesthood, and in the “flesh” committed adultery in their idol worship, as taught throughout the Old Testament. Not so with the Christian, for we are Christ’s inheritance, and sons of God, not being of a two way covenant with God.

No longer slaves to sin since you obeyed the gospel.

It is the same gospel preached on the day of Pentecost and through the epistles.

Amen! But, but why do you completely ignore our salvation today that only comes from the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, given to us through Paul, Christ’s only heavenly Apostle? How can you equate and unite the Pentecostal gospel of John the Baptist of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” to the nation Israel, with “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” with the gospel of Paul, reconciling the world unto God?

Again, it is summed up in Gal 3:26-29 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Therefore, everyone that is in Christ got there the same way. Amen again. This is the Christian message, of which was not known until after Damascus Road. Since God had hidden this information from the beginning until Saul/Paul, how can you justify saying Moses, David, or any of the Law and the prophets came to the Father through faith in Jesus Christ? They didn’t even know His name, and Jesus had not shed His blood, so it was impossible for them to come as we today. Those all had to endure until the end. We today are saved immediately upon believing on name of the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation.

Our dispensation, or generation from the gospel of Paul is the only one that is not required to do a work. Noah had to do a work; Abraham had to get away from His idol worshipping people, and had to be circumcised as did every male Israelite, and proselyte from then on. They had to live under the law and do as it said, or at least try. And when prophesy picks up where it left off, works will again be required of Gods national Israel, and any that tag along on their coattails.

In this dispensation, why are we not required to do one thing? Jesus Christ did all of the work for us, and offers us the free gift, if we will only take it. The kingdom of Christ must be getting close to what He has been promised by His Father. When it is full, we will be caught up to Him in the air, to be with Him forever, and will be as He, and then will the Jew earnestly and fervently be praying, Our Father, Which Art in Heaven……….give us our daily bread………deliver us from evil.Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

mman

05-19-2005, 07:50 AM

Reply to ituttut

Jesus said in Mark 16:15-16, "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Notice, it was one gospel. Notice it was to be preached to the whole world (would include Gentiles). Notice, the person who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Notice, those who do not believe will be condemned.

This began on the day of Pentecost. It is the gospel of Christ, not John the Baptist. Where did that come from??? Not from scripture.

Matthew records in Matt 28:18-20, "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen"

They were to go to all nations (this would include Gentiles) and teach the same thing (teach, baptize, teach) to everyone who then were taught to go and teach what they had been taught (to go teach, baptize, and teach). These instructions began to be carried out on the day of Pentecost, in Acts 2.

In Acts 1:8, Jesus said, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (to the end of the earth would include Gentiles).

Acts 2:38-39 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. 39For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

This promise was for the Jews and Gentiles.

Paul makes it plain that the law was what seperated the Jews and the Gentiles.

Eph 2:14-18 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

The middle law was put to death, no longer valid, upon the death of Jesus on the Cross. No longer two different ways, but the SAME way to Christ.

Eph 3:3-6 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

It had been revealed also the the other apostles and prophets how God would make the Gentiles fellow heirs by the same gospel.

Paul then goes on to say in Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" Not two faiths, one for the Jew and one for the Gentiles, not 2 baptisms one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Jesus had taken away what separated them when he died on the cross.

Paul also said in Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight-- 23if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

THE gospel was preached to every creature under heaven (Jews and Gentiles). The same gospel. Not two different ways for the Jews and Gentiles to be saved. Jews and Gentiles were reconciled by the blood of His Cross since the law that separated them was removed.

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. 13And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Again, the law was taken out of the way at the cross, it was nailed to the cross. Baptism is described as a burial and being raised. Baptism is done through faith, whether Jew or Gentile.

Or as Paul told the Galatians, "22But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Notice verse 26, that we might be justified by faith. Verse 27, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Who are the "we" and the "many" who entered into Chirst? Vs 28, Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, males, females - I think that covers all mankind.

This ties back to Acts 2:38-39 and also compliments Eph 2:8-9.

mman

05-19-2005, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In Acts 11 it is on the UNBAPTIZED person that the Holy Spirit falls AND GIFTS are given.There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit was given to those in Acts 10 and as retold in Acts 11, prior to their baptism in water. Let's look at the circumstances. I think everyone understands these were the first Gentile converts. Until this point, the gospel had been preached to the Jews.

Notice what God told Cornelius, Acts 11:14 "and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household."

When Peter began to speak (vs 15), the Holy Spirit fell on them. This baptism of the Holy Spirit reminded Peter of what had happened to the Apostles in Acts 2 (verse 16). Does this occur today or was it to let Peter and more importantly those with Peter know for certain that the Gospel was for the Gentiles also (Acts 10:45-47). If water baptism is an outward sign of something inward, why would water baptism be given to those who had outward signs? Surely nobody today recieves the Holy Spirit like Cornelius and his household. Can people today speak in foreign languages that they have not previously known when some start to tell them the gospel? Acts 2 and Acts 10 are the only recorded places that specifically mention people being baptized with the Holy Spirit. The first time, the Jews were added to the Church, the second time, the Gentiles.

Why did those believers in Acts 19 not receive it the same way as Cornelius? If you read Acts 18, Apollos most likely taught them concerning Jesus, but he only knew John's baptism (which was no longer valid). Therefore, these believers were asked if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed (Acts 19:2). What a strange question if it happens automatically. Did the inspired Apostle not understand about baptism of the Holy Spirit? They were baptized again in water, because their first baptism was not valid. Obviously, their baptism was more than just getting wet.

When they answered they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit, Paul asked, "And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" Notice, he did ask if they were baptized? Paul understood that baptism is part of belief or as he later stated a part of faith (Gal 3:26-27). Their baptism was not an outward "sign" of anything.

Paul then laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

it is at the point of "BELIEF" that one is born-again, justified 'saved'....Here again the instruction is to hear, REPENT and believe - and then be baptized AS a born-again saved believer.The rulers in John 12:42 who believed but would not confess would be saved under the new law, right?

On the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2:37) these people believed. If they didn't believe they would have gone about their business, continuing to think the Apostles were drunk, and paid them no mind. It was obvious from their question that they believed, hence it would have been pointless to tell them to believe.

If they were saved when they believed, why did Peter tell them to do anything? Why didn't he instruct them in the "sinners prayer"? Why do you suppose he gave them instructions to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins if their sins were already remitted? If at the point of belief one is saved, then repentance is not required, because that was instructions given to them past their point of belief. Clearly, their baptism was "for the remission of sins" just the same as Jesus blood being shed for many "for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28)

Later in Acts 2:44, it describes those who had believed, repented and been baptized, simply as "those who had believed". Now substitute these believers (and what they did that is summed up as believed) into a verse like John 3:16 and John 3:36, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (NASV)

The same is true for those in Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Summary, told to believe, spoke the word of the Lord to them, baptized, rejoiced having believed.

In Romans 10 the entire section is about the subject of "WHEN is a person saved". Ignoring the chapter as if it "had nothing to say about that" is not a valid approach to scripture. I am not ignoring anything. Romans 10 fits perfectly with everything I have described. When you have the proper understanding of belief and faith, it all fits perfectly. Romans 10 does not negate the conversion examples in Acts, it only compliments them.

If you say a person is saved at the point of belief (mental assent), then that is in direct contradiction with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved..." Yet if you understand "believed" in Acts 2:44 and Acts 16:34, then it all fits.

But you "take it to extremes" claiming that we are not born-again, not justified, not saved, not a new creation, still in the old wicked "flesh" at the time of belief, repentance and baptism.

Nothing could be farther from the truth of scripture.I'm not sure I understand what you are accusing me of. The bible teaches that we are a new creation at the time of our belief, repentance and baptism.

II Cor 5:17 says, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

How do we get into Christ? The waters of baptism. Why are we baptized? Faith.

You can search the bible, cover to cover, and you can only find one way INTO Christ, and that is baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27). When do we have newness of life? Romans 6:4 says,"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Spirit baptism is not a burial and resurrection, but our baptism in water is. When does the new life begin? When we are raised from our watery grave.

I do not need to repeat that the power is in the blood and not the water. Read my original message for a further discussion on that.

mman

05-19-2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by chadman:
Ok, I have not studied the use of 'eis', so I am out on this discussion but found it very interesting. I think MMAN asked the question in response to DHK (I think). Hehe, and this is the one that caught my real attention, but I don't remember a response.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
The greeks had a word for because, "hoti". This word was NOT used in Acts 2:38. The greek word "eis" was used which never is translated as "because", since is does not mean "because". Just because our english word "for" can sometimes be used for "because" doesn't mean the greek word "eis" can.

If you can easily understand "eis" in Matt 26:28, why is it so hard to understand in Acts 2:38. Not only is the same word used but the SAME PHRASE. Every example showing how our english word "for" can mean "because" to attempt to show that baptism is because we have remission of sin (Acts 2:38) can also be used in Matt 26:28 to show that Jesus blood was shed because mankind had already received remission of sins. It is a very incosistent position unsupported by the greek language.

I guess this confuses me too. Anyone care to tackle this one? He makes a good point, and a linguist might agree with him here, based on an established pattern of usage and context. Why is this the case? For my own comfort please? The only thing I can think is you have two differnt authors, maybe two different usages? [/QUOTE]You are a mystery to me. You are a very intriguing individual.

A question we all need to ask ourselves, is do I study God’s word to get the truth or to prove what I already believe? People should NOT believe what I say, just because I said it. We need to be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who, were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I encourage people to study it for themselves, not to prove what you already believe, but to take God at his word. There is no one passage that is exhaustive, telling all a person must do to be saved. It has to be studied and rightly divided.

Jesus’ statement in Mark 16:16 is so plain a child can understand it, yet it has been twisted and re-arranged by people trying to make it fit everything else they believe. Some will say the same thing about me not believing Eph 2:8-9, which is an outright lie. I have explained time and time again how perfectly this fits together with the rest of the scripture. No, it will not fit if you use your own definitions of faith, but when you use what the scripture has provided, it fits perfectly, no twisting required.

I don’t expect any answer to the Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28 question. I can assure you, any attempt will require some serious mental gymnastics.

You know, I think baptism is the ultimate act of faith. You look at how much resistance there is to it. People belittle it’s importance, change it’s meaning, say it’s spiritual and not in water, call people names and label them with titles who believe it, accuse them of works salvation, accuse them of believing the power is in the water and not in the blood, and so on.

When done in faith, wash and be clean – what could be simpler?

Eric B

05-19-2005, 12:33 PM

Wow, talk about mental gymnastics. 2 different modes of the same baptism? They were originally to be the same? What happened? Are they the same or different? So they received water baptism first then spriritual baptism? 2 Modes of the same baptism? Do you have any scripture to back up what you think concerning this? Right now, I am just trying to understand your position.
"modes" was a bad word. But for lack of better terminoliogy at the moment. Still; there is one spiritual baptism evidenced by water baptism. No "two' baptisms.
Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise from Jesus, not a command. Water baptism was instructed to be carried out by man for the remission of sins. You can argue that that promise was based on a command to keep commandments (John 14:15-17). And Jesus' "spirit baptism was contrasted with John's water baptism. If we are to take your "this is two baptisms logic" then that would show that the one baptism of the NT is spirit only, and water ("for the remission of sins" Mk.1:4) has been superseded. But that is not true; is it? This shows that the two forms are one baptism.
In Acts 8:12But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. 13Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. 14Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

What was the purpose of water baptism in this case? Better yet; what was the purpose of them receiving the Spirit after being baptized; since it's the baptism that puts them in Christ and saves them? I think this makes it pretty clear that baptism is not efficacious in itself.
As you yourself just elaborated, the Holy Spirit was just being given out to gentiles. So they went ahead and obeyed and were baptized, but the spirit still did not come to them until then. Afterwards, the Spirit would comedurung baptism. But we can see here that when they are separated; which one it is that regenerates.
Interesting concept. Any scriptures? When did this [spirit baptism] occur in Acts 2? How about Acts 8? How about Acts 16? When does this occur? When you accept Christ? Before water baptism? After Water baptism? Again, I am trying to understand what your position. So what you are saying is that one is spiritually baptized and following that there is a water ceremony as a public sign. Is that correct? Do they occur at the same time or does the spiritual baptism preceed the water baptism. You said, in Acts 19, the spiritual baptism occurred in verse 6. They were baptized in water (for a second time) in verse 5. What was their water baptism a public sign of? 2 baptism & repentance at same time

8(mid) as was just said; when the Spirit fell on them after baptism

8(end) baptism & repentance at same time

19 baptism & repentance at same time. It's purpose was because they had only been baptized by John "for remissions of sins". But the ministry of John was only until Christ; just as the animal sacrifices. these things would not be recognized in the NT. So they had to be baptized into Christ; spiritually, and shown through water baptism in Jesus' name (not John's).

16 he was saved when he believed, as Paul said; the he was baptized at the same time as his family, after they were preached to. (IT doesn't say he wasn't saved until then).

So we see in all of these cases; it is not the dunking in water that saves. It was to be done at the same time one preofessed Christ, if possible. But it was clearly faith that saved, and baptism would only be a PART of faith; not the very dfeinition of faith itself, as you have been using it!
The question is how do we get into the light or into Christ or come in contact with his blood? Your answer was, "Through faith." I have laid out how the scriptures say we come in contact with the blood. I accept your answer based on God's definition of faith, doing what he said.
But it's still the faith that saves, not the works done to show tht faith.
God's word is truth. The truth is what makes us free. Whether I accept it or reject it has no bearing on what is truth. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16. Regardless of what anyone thinks or believes, this statement is still true. No, this is not all that the bible says about being saved, but it is certainly included. No other verse negates this verse. If you were in the crowd in Acts 2, even asking the question in verse 37, what would you have done to receive the remission of your sins? If asked the question in Acts 2:37, what would your answer be? They were given a test of faith. If you believe in Jesus now, you must show it somehow. If you don't believe; it doesn't matter what you do. "Believe" is clearly the subject in Mk, not the showing of it. Remember, Jesus said "whoever confesses me before men, him shall the Son of man confess before the angels of God. But whoever denies me before men shall be denied before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8,9)
So for them to refuse baptism would be seen as a denial of Christ "before men". That is why salvation seems so tied to baptism in those passages. But it clearly is not, even as your own example in Acts 8 shows.
First of all, they are not my examples, they are God's. But you're using them for your argument, and they don't match.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God. What kind of faith? Obedient faith as demonstrated in Heb 11. Yes, God has revealed things and I accept them through faith. In 6 days, the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I accept that by faith. I accept that I have a human spirit, by faith. I also accept his instructions on how to have the remission of my sins. I do this by faith. By faith, I confessed his name (Matt 10:32), by faith I repented of my sins (Acts 17:30, Acts 2:38), by faith I was buried with Christ in baptism, (Col 2:12, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16) by By faith I become a child of God, by doing what he said to do. This is clear in Gal 3:26-27. According to the scriptures, I can only find one way INTO Christ. Once I'm a child of God, with my sins washed away by the Savior's blood, I begin my new life (Rom 6:3-4). I walk by faith. To repeat, baptism is to be apart of faith, not the very definition of "saving faith" itself!
Will I walk perfectly? NO! I John 1:7-8. Will I earn any part of my salvaiton? NO!!! Will I sin? Yes. Am I continually covered by the blood as long as I walk in the light? Yes - I Jn 1:7.
And what is "walking in the light"? Just "trying"? Failing, but God only covers you as long as you "keep trying"? This is what all of you works-righteousness advocates do not understand. Noe of us even walks in the light perfectly. Where does God draw the line? Or do we get to draw it for Him? Just be baptized and join the true Church, and try to live good, then God will overlook your flaws. This is basically what Jews and Muslims believe (minus the baptism; --or is that the only reason they are lost?)
How do we get into Christ? The waters of baptism. Why are we baptized? Faith. So if faith is "why"; that is WHY we are saved. (and the waters only symbolize whatis going on in the spirit; they do not equal faith or bring salvation or a person into Christ themselves.
You can search the bible, cover to cover, and you can only find one way INTO Christ, and that is baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27). When do we have newness of life? Romans 6:4 says,"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Spirit baptism is not a burial and resurrection, but our baptism in water is. When does the new life begin? When we are raised from our watery grave. So we are right back to where we started. This "burial and resurrection" is SPIRITUAL, and only SYMBOLized with water. You claim this makes two baptisms, but that was disproven above.
A question we all need to ask ourselves, is do I study God’s word to get the truth or to prove what I already believe? People should NOT believe what I say, just because I said it. We need to be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 who, were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I encourage people to study it for themselves, not to prove what you already believe, but to take God at his word. There is no one passage that is exhaustive, telling all a person must do to be saved. It has to be studied and rightly divided.

Jesus’ statement in Mark 16:16 is so plain a child can understand it, yet it has been twisted and re-arranged by people trying to make it fit everything else they believe. Some will say the same thing about me not believing Eph 2:8-9, which is an outright lie. I have explained time and time again how perfectly this fits together with the rest of the scripture. No, it will not fit if you use your own definitions of faith, but when you use what the scripture has provided, it fits perfectly, no twisting required.

I don’t expect any answer to the Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28 question. I can assure you, any attempt will require some serious mental gymnastics.And you're quoting these passage to prove what you believe, and not to get the truth. You start with the assumption that your CofC teaching IS the truth, so how could you do otherwise? Once again, "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved" is based on thepremise that baptism would be a public confession (Lk.12) of Christ. Without belief, it would not matter whether you were baptized or not. There is no twisting on our side. You twist it to make BAPTISM the subject, and means of salvation, but clearly it is not.
You know, I think baptism is the ultimate act of faith. You look at how much resistance there is to it. People belittle it’s importance, change it’s meaning, say it’s spiritual and not in water, call people names and label them with titles who believe it, accuse them of works salvation, accuse them of believing the power is in the water and not in the blood, and so on.

When done in faith, wash and be clean – what could be simpler? The washing is spiritual, so the agent of the actual washing would be the Spirit! What could be simpler?
Once again, it's not like we all are too lazy to go and be baptized; or we are rationalistic skeptics who think it is some stupid little thing that makes no sense. Most of us here have been baptized. So we have no reason to resist it-- unless it is being made into something that contradicts the Gospel: a work that brings salvation!

chadman

05-19-2005, 01:02 PM

MMAN you said -

People belittle it’s importance, change it’s meaning, say it’s spiritual and not in water, call people names and label them with titles who believe it, accuse them of works salvation, accuse them of believing the power is in the water and not in the blood, and so on.
Well I agree most people, those on this forum more than normal, break all the pieces of the Bible up to get it to fit the 'gospel' theology they have been taught. I won't disagree here, just read any of these posts carefully.

Here is one sincere observation above all others I have seen on this board.

Many of us Evangelicals simply refuse to believe what our non-evangelical brothers are saying that they believe. Then we pound them with the same ol arguments hoping it will somehow 'sink in' without 'dealing' with what they have told us they really believe. It is simply to traumatic to our frail confidence in our interpretations, to believe that anyobdy could possibly know what we know, and honestly have a different interpretation. A ghastly thought!

This is an objective raw observation that surely others would agree to if they were honest.

Another observation I see here, is a complete arrogance in some, not personally distinguishing or acknowledging between their Interpretation and the Bible as it stands apart from their interpretation. They speak as if their Interpretation IS the Bible.

There is simply, from a educated intellectual standpoint, no credibility to such folks who make these type of assumptions, even if they are blind to them. They come across as hard, inflexible, unreasonable, and frankly inept, hopefully by intentional design, and not by sheer ignorance to the situation. Because unfortunately, if the latter case, then apptitude can be impossible to penetrate with sound reason.

I am really not here to hack on my own brothers in Christ. But folks, there is somewhat of a serious problem here, when we cannot acknowledge even that our own sytematic theologies are based on subjective interpretation. Unless Jesus or the twelve Apostles themselves handed it to us in person and tutored us on every book, then what we have now, is a subjective interpretation. No matter how true or pure that interpretation may be, it is that very thing. An interpretation. Which when coupled with our current splintered versions of what the gospel really is, makes our intpretations ultimately a probablity among many instances of the same.

chadman

05-19-2005, 01:18 PM

EricB said to mman

So we are right back to where we started. This "burial and resurrection" is SPIRITUAL, and only SYMBOLized with water. You claim this makes two baptisms, but that was disproven above.
Hey Eric, they guy is COC, so is it possible he believes that during the commanded act to be baptized (in his view baptism is not man work but Gods work), Being taken into the water in obedience, that at that moment, and having faith in Christ, that he is spiritually baptized while in the water, the two being perhaps inextricably linked? This would make every verse of baptism, faith, works, and all the texts fit together without trying to use 'eis' in multiple modes in his view.

Just an overservation and thought...Isn't that sort of what Catholics believe?

It has always been hard for me as a Baptist to explain deeply what is happening, but I like the work recapitulation when describing a person recieveing Christ, being reborn. We say it happens in the very midst of a prayer of faith, calling on Jesus in an instant in time.

So then, the COC or RCC, they believe this very same thing happens during the very act of water baptism? This does not seem difficult to comprehend what they are saying they believe. If that is in fact, what they are saying, I don't fully know.

mman

05-19-2005, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by chadman:
EricB said to mman
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
So we are right back to where we started. This "burial and resurrection" is SPIRITUAL, and only SYMBOLized with water. You claim this makes two baptisms, but that was disproven above.
Hey Eric, they guy is COC, so is it possible he believes that during the commanded act to be baptized (in his view baptism is not man work but Gods work), Being taken into the water in obedience, that at that moment, and having faith in Christ, that he is spiritually baptized while in the water, the two being perhaps inextricably linked? This would make every verse of baptism, faith, works, and all the texts fit together without trying to use 'eis' in multiple modes in his view.

Just an overservation and thought...Isn't that sort of what Catholics believe?

It has always been hard for me as a Baptist to explain deeply what is happening, but I like the work recapitulation when describing a person recieveing Christ, being reborn. We say it happens in the very midst of a prayer of faith, calling on Jesus in an instant in time.

So then, the COC or RCC, they believe this very same thing happens during the very act of water baptism? This does not seem difficult to comprehend what they are saying they believe. If that is in fact, what they are saying, I don't fully know. [/QUOTE]I have no idea what the RCC teaches concerning baptism. I know they baptize infants, who can not believe, repent, or confess which is certainly contrary to examples and instruction in scripture.

Chadman, I would not have used those words, but that is not too far off. For clarificaiton, the power is in the blood, not in the water. Jesus said in John 3:5, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Also stated in I Cor 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,". The body is the Church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18).

When we go back to Act 2 to see how people entered the church, lets start with a verse I'm sure everyone is familiar with by now, Acts 2:38 which states, "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."

Verse 41 states, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them."

Verse 47 says "praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."

When looked in total, those that received his word were baptized for the remission of sins and the Lord added the saved to the church.

mman

05-19-2005, 11:24 PM

Reply to Eric B:

Is there anything I could really say or show you to change your mind?

You say you've proved it was not water baptism. I'm sorry, I have missed the proof.

I Pet 3:21 is clearly water baptism. If it is not water baptism, then his whole example of Noah is meaningless. The last word in verse 20 is water.

I Pet 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,"

Antitype of what? His example he just gave how Noah was saved through water.

What is an antitype? If you walk in the sand, how does you foot compare to the footprint left in the sand? One is the type, the other is the antitype.

Noah was saved though water (How?, By faith he did what God said and was saved (Heb 11:7)) His was a physical saving. There is an antitype that saves us, immersion. There is no cleansing power of the water itself, it is knowing that you are obeying God.

Rom 6 is talking about immersion also. It is a burial and resurrection. One cannot be buried in the spirit then raised out of the spirit in which they were immersed. In verse 17, they had obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine. What form? As described in vs 3-4, the death burial and resurrection and this was done in baptism.

Acts 8:35, the Philip preached Jesus. In the very next verse, the eunuch was asking about water baptism. Preaching Jesus includes water baptism.

OK, since I will be accused of believing in works salvation, water regeneration, and believing in some ancient Hindu practice, etc. - Let me state, none of these are true. Anyone who would assign beliefs to me that I do not have does not understand what I am saying. I fully believe in Eph 2:8-9. I am a child of God by faith (Gal 3:26-27). Baptism is not a work of merit but an action of faith, the same as confession and repentance, all things you "do".

chadman

05-20-2005, 11:45 AM

mman said:

Chadman, I would not have used those words, but that is not too far off. For clarificaiton, the power is in the blood, not in the water. Jesus said in John 3:5, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Also stated in I Cor 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,". The body is the Church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18).
Logistics, logistics...what I mean, is that you are baptized in water not blood. You know, the actual Rite of Baptism. In that act of faith, you are saying you are born again right? Not by the work, but rather, the act of faith in baptism, and the rebirth is the work of God during the immediate act? BTW, what words would you use to clarify?

I have no idea what the RCC teaches concerning baptism. I know they baptize infants, who can not believe, repent, or confess which is certainly contrary to examples and instruction in scripture.
Well now, they also baptize adults, just like you guys do, when a lost person wants to be a Christian. And how can you have NO IDEA what they teach? This stuff is all over this forum?!? You haven't seen some of their posts? Surely, a COC person would check out what they teach regarding baptism, since what you guys teach seems pretty darn close, at least regarding adults. Why not go to the source? You guys didn't come up with this interpretation in a vaccum certainly. Don't you COC guys and RCC guys say the same things when looking at Scriptures on Baptism? (hint...'yes')

You guys may be Protestant, but you sound Catholic on baptism.

chadman

05-20-2005, 11:47 AM

Hey DHK,

I am really curious about the usage of 'EIS' as you and mman were discussing it. How do we reconcile what he was saying?

Eric B

05-20-2005, 11:56 AM

Well I agree most people, those on this forum more than normal, break all the pieces of the Bible up to get it to fit the 'gospel' theology they have been taught. I won't disagree here, just read any of these posts carefully.

Here is one sincere observation above all others I have seen on this board.

Many of us Evangelicals simply refuse to believe what our non-evangelical brothers are saying that they believe. Then we pound them with the same ol arguments hoping it will somehow 'sink in' without 'dealing' with what they have told us they really believe. It is simply to traumatic to our frail confidence in our interpretations, to believe that anyobdy could possibly know what we know, and honestly have a different interpretation. A ghastly thought!

This is an objective raw observation that surely others would agree to if they were honest.

Another observation I see here, is a complete arrogance in some, not personally distinguishing or acknowledging between their Interpretation and the Bible as it stands apart from their interpretation. They speak as if their Interpretation IS the Bible.

There is simply, from a educated intellectual standpoint, no credibility to such folks who make these type of assumptions, even if they are blind to them. They come across as hard, inflexible, unreasonable, and frankly inept, hopefully by intentional design, and not by sheer ignorance to the situation. Because unfortunately, if the latter case, then apptitude can be impossible to penetrate with sound reason.

I am really not here to hack on my own brothers in Christ. But folks, there is somewhat of a serious problem here, when we cannot acknowledge even that our own sytematic theologies are based on subjective interpretation. Unless Jesus or the twelve Apostles themselves handed it to us in person and tutored us on every book, then what we have now, is a subjective interpretation. No matter how true or pure that interpretation may be, it is that very thing. An interpretation. Which when coupled with our current splintered versions of what the gospel really is, makes our intpretations ultimately a probablity among many instances of the same. I'm open to reexamining widely held beliefs, but in a case like this, I'm sorry, but salvation can not be granted or denied based on a work. If we accept that, it opens up a whole pandora's box. As I said above, where is the line drawn then? Nobody obeys perfectly, and God's standard is perfection. So then there is no mroe assurance of salvation, and then no good news. Who then knows who will finally "make it"? (this is the way many Catholics live, and then many give up and go the opposite direction of living how they please and just hoping their good outweighs their bad.) Or, we have to be presumptuous, and think we are doing good enough. Just be baptized, join the true Church, and focus on a few other "commands". But even still, man always misses things. We end up bringing God's standard of perfection down.
Sorry, but works-salvation (including renaming "works" as "faith") just does not fit the Gospel.
Hey Eric, they guy is COC, so is it possible he believes that during the commanded act to be baptized (in his view baptism is not man work but Gods work), Being taken into the water in obedience, that at that moment, and having faith in Christ, that he is spiritually baptized while in the water, the two being perhaps inextricably linked? This would make every verse of baptism, faith, works, and all the texts fit together without trying to use 'eis' in multiple modes in his view. they were closely linked, but I showed above where someone was baptized without yet receiving the Spirit, and today, most people are not baptized ont he spot. CofC member Frank is the only one who says he does (and I don't see how he is able to always do it). So we cannot hold salvation off for a convert until they are able to he baptized, or until they are fully taught all the doctrines. The act of going into the water is man's work, and it's the spiritual immersing into Christ that is God's work. God does not lift anyone up and dunk them into the water.
Just an overservation and thought...Isn't that sort of what Catholics believe?

It has always been hard for me as a Baptist to explain deeply what is happening, but I like the work recapitulation when describing a person recieveing Christ, being reborn. We say it happens in the very midst of a prayer of faith, calling on Jesus in an instant in time.

So then, the COC or RCC, they believe this very same thing happens during the very act of water baptism? This does not seem difficult to comprehend what they are saying they believe. If that is in fact, what they are saying, I don't fully know. I have no idea what the RCC teaches concerning baptism. I know they baptize infants, who can not believe, repent, or confess which is certainly contrary to examples and instruction in scripture.
With the exception of infant baptism, it is exactly what the RCC teaches. They go to the next logical step and do the same type of thing with Communion.
Is there anything I could really say or show you to change your mind?

You say you've proved it was not water baptism. I'm sorry, I have missed the proof.
I don't remember saying "it was not water baptism". What I did prove was that water baptism plus spirit baptism did not equal TWO separate "baptisms", supposedly proving your idea that water baptism and not spirit baptism is what saves. If that was true, then once again, in Acts 8, the Spirit would not have been necessary.
I Pet 3:21 is clearly water baptism. If it is not water baptism, then his whole example of Noah is meaningless. The last word in verse 20 is water.

I Pet 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,"

Antitype of what? His example he just gave how Noah was saved through water.

What is an antitype? If you walk in the sand, how does you foot compare to the footprint left in the sand? One is the type, the other is the antitype.

Noah was saved though water (How?, By faith he did what God said and was saved (Heb 11:7)) His was a physical saving. There is an antitype that saves us, immersion. There is no cleansing power of the water itself, it is knowing that you are obeying God. Obedience comes from the heart. We are to do whatever God tells us, whether it is baptism or anything else. So He told them to be baptized and they were, just as He told Noah to build an ark, and he did. It is not the work done that saves, as we still do not do anything perfectly or consistently. With all these counter accusations of people just being stubborn or whatever, no one is addressing this point. So in whatever means God tells us to obey, it is the faith in God that leads us to obey in the first place, that saves, not whatever we may do. So the altar call has sort of taken place of baptism as the public confession of Christ. I know God did not authorize that, but then we do not go and say people are not saved because they weren't baptized to make up for it.
The antitype of a physical act of salvation is not going to be another physical act. IT is the spiritual immersion into Christ, and water was retained to symbolize it.
Rom 6 is talking about immersion also. It is a burial and resurrection. One cannot be buried in the spirit then raised out of the spirit in which they were immersed. In verse 17, they had obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine. What form? As described in vs 3-4, the death burial and resurrection and this was done in baptism. I already explained this a few times. A person is immersed into the Body of Christ. At the same time, the old man dies, and a new man (regenerate) arises. The water was to symbolize this. You are trying to force the analogies to be completely exact (there must be a literal "going down" and "rising up" of the person), but this is multifaceted. While immersion into Christ is one way, still, there is at the same time a death of the old person and rise of the new. Two separate analogies; ONE baptism!

chadman

05-20-2005, 01:02 PM

ERICB said

I'm open to reexamining widely held beliefs, but in a case like this, I'm sorry, but salvation can not be granted or denied based on a work. If we accept that, it opens up a whole pandora's box.
I can understand that postition. But I think you are missing one key thing here. LISTEN to what they are saying. They don't believe in a works salvation. You may ask, "Then what pray tell, if they are sincere, could they possibly believe regarding works???" Right? They are saying it over and over.

I have have argued until blue in the face with very well versed Catholics (at least on Salvaiton, not other stuff). I am convinced they absolutely in their theology do not believe that works save them. Hey hear me out. They believe the same thing we believe. That GRACE saves you.

The divergence is pretty clear once we understand what they are saying. How do we get to that saveing GRACE? Ah...FAITH of course.

And hence, the REAL difference. The very definition of FAITH. And this is what I, through HOURS of intense discussions with some of these folks, have come to understand that they believe regarding salvation of works. (Note - And when in person, it is so much easier than on these board, because you can keep asking about one aspect without others banging in on your line of thought. Something that could takes weeks on a forum, or maybe never.)

They believe that Faith is a muti-component thing. That saving faith contains, both mental ascent, and action. Much like James 2 talks about. They believe work are a component of faith. See that is key to beginning to understand HOW they THINK.

Their own theology states, that Works, DO NOT have saving *MERIT*. This is not a play on words, they really believe this stuff.

It is WE Evangelicals, that all too often, refuse to believe that they believe this. And rather than accepting this, and simply agreeing to disagree, we CHARGE them with a doctrine they themselves don't actually teach. Namely, that a man can be saved by works. They just don't teach it that way, when you break down their theology.

This, in and of itself is not so bad, but just hampers true, comprehensive, and clear communication with others of differing theologies.

Remember, we Evangelicals are so very much more black and white in our usage and definition of terms. You have to understand what they MEAN when they say certain phrases or words.

We want to understnad the essence of what they are saying, which takes very careful discussion and listening.

Before you guys hack me to death now...one more thing. We have all met the unlearned Catholic, who seem to think if they do good works, they will go to heaven. That is entirely another issue. Because I have discovered that the Catholics, in their teaching to the masses, focus on HOW to live a Christian life, over the deeper theology.

This brings up other questions of course, namely, can a person be saved if they have faith in Christ, but think about the theology of it incorrectly. Think about that question a while. It also applies to us Fundamentalists too. Too much to cover here.

I'll close with a summary. We at times, simply refuse to acknowledge what these guys tell us they believe. And hense, we will never deal with the real issues that divide us all. We will listen for a key word or phrase, and then dump our version with verses to back it all up, and then tell them what they REALLY believe.

Eric B

05-20-2005, 01:32 PM

Basically, they all SAY they believe in salvation by grace through faith. Problem is, they REDEFINE "faith" as works ("Baptism IS faith"), and then, "grace" becomes simply the providing of a set of intructions on works that we are to do to be saved. That would fit--IF we could actually carry out God's instructions perfect enough to merit salvation. The entire OT record shows that no one can. So the "grace" we need is not a new set of laws, but rather salvation by faith in what Christ did for us. Any works of obedience are a reaction of love (1 John 4:9-5:3), not to be saved. They are done done in faith, (and therefore can be called "Acts of faith") but they do not themselves BECOME the faith that saves.

DHK

05-20-2005, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by chadman:
Hey DHK,

I am really curious about the usage of 'EIS' as you and mman were discussing it. How do we reconcile what he was saying? The greeks had a word for because, "hoti". This word was NOT used in Acts 2:38. The greek word "eis" was used which never is translated as "because", since is does not mean "because". Just because our english word "for" can sometimes be used for "because" doesn't mean the greek word "eis" can.Because the Holy Spirit chose to use the word "eis" and I don't argue with the Holy Spirit. The word "eis" is the word used in the manuscripts and that is the one in contention, thus that is the one we must deal with, not "hoti." As has already been noted, eis has is a very common preposition, has been used to mean "on account of" or "because of" as well as a variety of other meanings. It is more commonly used than "hoti."

If you can easily understand "eis" in Matt 26:28, why is it so hard to understand in Acts 2:38. Not only is the same word used but the SAME PHRASE. Every example showing how our english word "for" can mean "because" to attempt to show that baptism is because we have remission of sin (Acts 2:38) can also be used in Matt 26:28 to show that Jesus blood was shed because mankind had already received remission of sins. It is a very incosistent position unsupported by the greek language. Water and baptism are very different.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
--The most common meaning of eis is into or unto. Does eis make sense here with that interpretation? Was his blood shed for mnay intothe remission of sins? You can't have it both ways. You want specific definitions for your theology, only to fit when it fits your theology and not the rest of the Bible. The Bible harmonizes together, not contradicts each other.
Scripture must harmonize:
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.
--Water does not wash away sin, but the blood of Jesus does. The preposition eis, therefore means "in order that"

Let's look at the verse carefully, this time involving the Greek.

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.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The words "for" in Acts 2:38, and "unto" in Mat.3:11 are the same Greek word, "eis." They have the same meaning.
So, tell me: Did John baptize in order that the Pharisees might have repentance, or did he baptize because they had already repented? You tell me.

The same is true in Acts 2:38. The same word is used: "eis" The baptism was "because of" as it is in Mat.3:11. They had already repented therefore they were baptized. It was an accomplished fact. This line of reasining I gave you before. It should be evident that eis has more than one meaning; that it is used in the sense of "because of" in Mat.3:11, and in other places. That is exactly what the word "fur" means--because of. John baptized because they had repented of their sins, and for no other reason.

John's baptism was a baptism unto the remission of sins.You say that John baptized people because of repentance. But Thayer on page 94 in his lexicon says, 'That the phrase 'eis metonoia', for repentance or unto repentance, is to mark the end, to bind one to repentance'. John's baptism was into the kind of life to which the people were obligated by their repentance. That's why he commanded them to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Once again the eis points forward and not backwards. You never did make much sense with this point.
--for repentance, unto repentance, because of their repentance. It all meant the same thing didn't it. The end result was that John would not baptize them until they brought proof that they had repented. The same is true in Acts 2:38. Peter would no baptize an unregenerated person. They would have had to be saved first. Or do you believe that Peter was baptizing unsaved individuals? No. Their sins had already been washed away.
So exactly what did John mean when he said: "Bring forth fruits meet for repentance." Are you still suggesting that John's baptism (as Peter's baptism) would give them remisssion of sins). Why then did they have to bring forth the evidence of their repentance? Their fruit of repentance was brought forth because they had already repented. How much more obvious can it be.Point already made.

:With regards to the preposition eis,it is used about 1,600 times in the New Testament. It's rendered "into" 571 times, "to" 282 times, "toward" 32 times, "for" 91 times, "unto" 208 times, "in" 131 times and never once "because" or "with reference to". No, the word "for" is used instead. The translators avoided all the verbose language that you would use. They used a simple three letter word, and hoped that you would understand the English language.

Go to the store and buy some ice cream for supper.
Does for = "because of supper"
"on account of supper"
or "in order to receive supper"

Your option would be the latter, and yet I don't have to buy ice cream in order to receive supper. That is ridiculous. We use the word "for" "eis" in this way all the time. You are simply forcing your odd definition of it into this verse to fit your theology. :Now if you wish to deny that the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 expresses the purpose of the baptism or that it should read, 'Be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven' or something like that, please show me a single translation to prove it. Acts 2:38 as it stands in your Bible is backed by the responsible scholarship of the centuries and the meaning is so plain that I believe that a child could understand it. "for the remission of sins"
:This does not mean in order that sins might be remitted, for everywhere in the New Testament sins are forgiven as a result of faith in Christ, not as a result of baptism. It means be baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek preposition eis, for, has the meaning "because of" not only here but also in such a passage as Mat.12:41 where the meaning can only be "they repented because of (not in order to) the preaching of Jonah." Repentance brought the remission of sins for this Pentecostal crowd, and because of the remission of sins they were asked to be baptized.Ryrie
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.

This has been all of the discussion on this subject that I could find in this thread Chadman.
I do not find that mman has much to stand on.
DHK

chadman

05-20-2005, 02:14 PM

Thanks DHK, good points. Although you are correct, I think mman has a very sound reasoning for believing what he does based on the text, especially in the Greek now that you guys broke it down. A linguist would have a hard time buying our story, but we are after the 'meanings', not the words used.

But like I said before, you can't take everything literally or some things just don't make sense.

I am not sure how people have a hard time understanding why these guys believe what they do? They are taking the Bible too literally. Simple.

LOL, but I'll admit, I take it literally too, when it supports my view. Did I actually admit that? :) Hey man, literary honesty.

ituttut

05-23-2005, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by mman:
Reply to ituttut

Jesus said in Mark 16:15-16, "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Notice, it was one gospel. Notice it was to be preached to the whole world (would include Gentiles). Notice, the person who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Notice, those who do not believe will be condemned.

But you ignore Christ has not spoken to Paul from heaven. You are basing your information on yesterday’s newspaper (gospel). Damascus Road is a few years down the road. I believe scripture and it says God had hidden in His mysteries, something else to be told.

This began on the day of Pentecost. It is the gospel of Christ, not John the Baptist. Where did that come from??? Not from scripture.

I believe all scripture, and we must be able to correct divide His Word.

[/b]Agree that gospel of John the Baptist of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” began on the day of Pentecostal, and that is the Pentecostal message. It is not the “Christian” gospel of the “Body of Christ”.

Here is the Pentecostal (today Catholic – and her children churches )“great commission” gospel of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the earthly Apostles. But some of the children churches don’t really believe what they say, for they contradict themselves, believing they are really saved by Grace after all.

Acts 2:36-39. ”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.” Notice that Peter is speaking only to the “house of Israel”. There was no Gentile around, and if they were, it did not apply to them, at this time, for Israel had not accepted their King.

Now let's look at the “grace commission” gospel of Paul, given to him by Christ Jesus in heaven. Acts 16:28-31, ”But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

Are these the same gospels? There were two gospels during the time of all of the Apostles; One gospel for only the house of Israel, and one gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself.

Please also notice one other differentiation, for Peter’s gospel is to we of the house of Israel, and Paul’s gospel is to I the individual and his house. We today, even the Jew are not of the house of Israel. God says He knows those that claim to be of the Jewish faith, and are not. I don’t want to be in their shoes.

Matthew records in Matt 28:18-20, "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen"

They were to go to all nations (this would include Gentiles) and teach the same thing (teach, baptize, teach) to everyone who then were taught to go and teach what they had been taught (to go teach, baptize, and teach). These instructions began to be carried out on the day of Pentecost, in Acts 2.

In Acts 1:8, Jesus said, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (to the end of the earth would include Gentiles).

But we are to realize this did not happen. The Apostles never got out of Jerusalem within the time frame given. Jesus gave the nation Israel a parable saying what could happen if they did not accept Messiah, and it happened. At the stoning of Steven, Israel was cut-off. They will have to be grafted in again, and that will be in the tribulation.

Acts 2:38-39 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. 39For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

This promise was for the Jews and Gentiles.

It was, but that gospel never got spread to all, to the Jew first, and then to the Gentle. It was never preached to the heathen. And since it wasn’t, it was superceded by the “gospel of the Grace of God that came through Jesus Christ”, reconciling the world unto himself.

Paul makes it plain that the law was what seperated the Jews and the Gentiles.

Eph 2:14-18 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

You are now running all of this together, i.e. the Old to the New. But the Old Covenant has been laid aside for now. You are bringing works of the Jew over into Christianity. This what the Catholics teach. You are denying Paul’s personal conversation with Christ from heaven, appointed Paul the Apostles to the Gentile, and to the Jew. It is now the Gentile that proclaims the Cross of salvation. Acts 2:38 did not do this. This verse is for the kingdom people, the nation of Israel that is looking for their King. There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth.

Who knew this before Paul? Did Jesus say this on earth, or any of the His Apostles before Paul? You cannot find where Jesus while on this earth said any such thing, nor Peter, nor John, or anyone else until Christ from heaven revealed it to Paul. This (Paul’s gospel) is the first time you hear about the Body of Christ, and the Gentiles being in the Temple.

Forget Paul’s gospel, and what do you have? The “great commission” that never reached outside of Judah, and Israel before being cut-off, Messiah exiled to heaven, and the Gentile with no way to be with their Savior Jesus Christ forever. We must have to believe Christ spoke to Paul on Damascus Road, face to face, and thereafter, in order for the Gentile to be included, and a way for the Jew to be grafted back in.

The middle law was put to death, no longer valid, upon the death of Jesus on the Cross. No longer two different ways, but the SAME way to Christ.

Eph 3:3-6 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

But you ignore it is now that this became known, and not when Christ was on earth. Now salvation is by the Grace of God, through faith of Jesus Christ that we are saved, and not that of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”.

Is this the way you were saved, just like the Pentecostal faith, carried on today by the Catholic church, and most of her children? You are saying what? You are saved by the same gospel as the Catholic church of “repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins”. I’ve never heard of a Baptist really believing this, even though they may feel close to it as most Baptist’s believe in the “great commission”, but then denounce it. Confusion reigns amongst us.

It had been revealed also the the other apostles and prophets how God would make the Gentiles fellow heirs by the same gospel.

But not until Paul is it revealed, and that revelation was explained to the other Apostles and prophets of that time by Paul personally, or by letter. How could David or John the Baptist be saved like you and I? David could not because he did not know by whose name he was to believe on, and Jesus had not come to the Cross to shed His blood. John the Baptist knew Jesus’ name, but Jesus had not come to the Cross to shed His blood. These are those people of God promised the earth, in the kingdom of God, and these are those people that will be in the kingdom of Christ. We are not all promised the same thing, and we were not all offered the same thing from the beginning.

Paul then goes on to say in Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;" Not two faiths, one for the Jew and one for the Gentiles, not 2 baptisms one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Jesus had taken away what separated them when he died on the cross.

Your dispensation is showing. What you just wrote now agrees with what Paul says. The law and ordinances are no more. The Temple is now gone; the circumcision, blood sacrifices, Holy Days, feast, and all of it. Until the Temple was destroyed, Israel worshipped as before, as did the Pentecostal church under the leadership of James.

Paul also said in Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight-- 23if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

THE gospel was preached to every creature under heaven (Jews and Gentiles). The same gospel. Not two different ways for the Jews and Gentiles to be saved. Jews and Gentiles were reconciled by the blood of His Cross since the law that separated them was removed.

But don’t you see whose gospel was preached to every creature? It is the gospel of Paul, and it is the gospel of the Cross of Grace through faith through Jesus Christ, not of works of circumcision, baptisms, laying on of hands as pointed out to those of the kingdom gospel in Hebrews 6. We see there they had to endure until the end, just like all the Old Testaments Saints had to do. The gospel to the kingdom people is not the gospel of the Christian of Once Saved Always Saved, by Grace through faith.

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. 13And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Again, the law was taken out of the way at the cross, it was nailed to the cross. Baptism is described as a burial and being raised. Baptism is done through faith, whether Jew or Gentile.

Yes, the One spiritual baptism. The law of ordinances, which includes “water baptism” was nailed to the Cross, but the Pentecostal church did not preach the salvation of the Cross, for they still had to obey the commands in the “great commission”. This is not the Christian message.

Or as Paul told the Galatians, "22But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Notice verse 26, that we might be justified by faith. Verse 27, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Who are the "we" and the "many" who entered into Chirst? Vs 28, Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, males, females - I think that covers all mankind.

Sure sounds like Paul’s gospel to me. And Paul is trying to get across to the Jew, and to you the Jew was promised by faith, but before it came we the Jew (Paul was a Jew) were under the law, the tutor to bring the Jew to Messiah byfaith–your verses 22-24.

You want to see what God could not tell before? Here it is, in the next verse. That Old Covenant with His people is being set aside now, as Israel has been cut-off. It is dying and God is now going to reconcile the world unto himself, of whosoever will.

In verse 25 Paul explains they (Jews that were under the curse of the law) now are sons of God through faith. These are Christian Jews Paul is talking to, and not that other gospel of the circumcision that preached you must “repent and be baptized for the remission of sin”. The Christian church was headquartered in Antioch. The gospel of the circumcision was based in Jerusalem. This Pentecostal church is where the Judaizers came from, telling the Christians they had to be circucised to be saved.

This ties back to Acts 2:38-39 and also compliments Eph 2:8-9. You can’t merge works into Grace for the Christian, for Christian faith is of Paul’s gospel. The Gentile under Acts 2 salvation can only be a proselyte, going with those that have the promise of inheriting the earth. Ephesians 2 is the gift from God to those today that come through the Cross of Jesus, and not [/b]by it, as the Jew must.

There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth. You are mixing works with the Grace of God that comes through the Cross of Jesus Christ. You have just made the case for the Catholic Pentecostal church giving great credence to the Papal Throne, and its infallibility, that they claim comes from Peter as he proclaimed the "great commission" of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

mman

05-23-2005, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by ituttut:
Acts 2:36-39. ”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.” Notice that Peter is speaking only to the “house of Israel”. There was no Gentile around, and if they were, it did not apply to them, at this time, for Israel had not accepted their King.

Now let's look at the “grace commission” gospel of Paul, given to him by Christ Jesus in heaven. Acts 16:28-31, ”But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

Are these the same gospels? There were two gospels during the time of all of the Apostles; One gospel for only the house of Israel, and one gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself. Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;

What had those who are described as having believed done? According to Acts 2:38,41 they had repented and been baptized, and later in verse 44 this entire process is described and "those who had believed".

Acts 8:35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Preaching the good news about Jesus, we call it the gospel, contains water baptism.

Baptism is not a work but an act of faith, Gal 3:26-27. The work is of God, not man (Col 2:12). You cannot show from the scripture where baptism is a work. Any definition of a work that you can come up with would certainly include confession. It is something that requires effort and something man does. Will this work negate grace?

There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth. You are mixing works with the Grace of God that comes through the Cross of Jesus Christ. You have just made the case for the Catholic Pentecostal church giving great credence to the Papal Throne, and its infallibility, that they claim comes from Peter as he proclaimed the "great commission" of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12 I have no idea what you are trying to claim. Neither the Catholic church nor the Papal Throne are scriptural.

Read and understand Gal 3:26-27

mman

05-23-2005, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.

This has been all of the discussion on this subject that I could find in this thread Chadman.
I do not find that mman has much to stand on.
DHK [/QB]Who is Ryrie? Since we are quoting others, here are some excerpts from debates and from J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 2:38.

J. W. McGarvy wrote, "If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed."

And some more quotes from a debate:

Furthermore, with regards to this preposition, John Batey, in the book published by John Clifford, The English Baptist says, 'that into is the true meaning of eis will appear from the following text' and he gives various texts. Let me quote the other Baptist scholars of equal eminence with A. T. Robertson who has been quoted. Professor A. C. Axtell, professor of Greek Language and Literature wrote, 'The preposition eis in Acts 2:38 may be rendered by several prepositions or prepositional phrases as for instance unto, for, in order to, with a view to. The noun which governs denotes the object or end toward which the action expressed in the predicate verbs was to be directed. Or to state it from the other point of view the result which he would obtain who should repent and be baptised'.

Professor Albert Harkness, professor of Greek at Brown University, another eminent Baptist, the author of numerous textbooks on Latin and Greek, says, 'In my opinion eis in Acts 2:38 denotes purpose and may be rendered in order to or with a purpose of receiving or, as in the English versions, for, eis aphesin hamartion suggests the motive or object contemplated in the action of the two preceding verbs'. Professor Beasley-Murray when I asked him in my correspondence with him, could the preposition ever be translated on account of or because of he says, 'I do not know of any contemporary scholar, in the sense of a living scholar, who would translate the phrase eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38 in the sense of because of or on account of I do seem to recall that A. T. Robertson, the well known Baptist grammarian, maintained that some such meaning was possible in Acts 2:38. What is more to the point I do not see how he could maintain it. It seems to me to be quite incompatible with the context to suggest that Peter meant repent and be baptised because you have been forgiven'.

Professor F. F. Bruce is not a Baptist but the eminence and scholarship of this man would be denied by nobody. He is the Rylands professor of Theology at Manchester University and an Oxford scholar. He says, 'in Acts 2:38 the preposition eis may mean for or with a view to. I remember seeing the suggestion that it might have retrospective force', that's referring to something already taken place, causal of eis as our friend introduced it. But he says, 'this is such an extraordinary interpretation of this preposition that one can only think that the man in question came to the text with his interpretation ready-made instead of deriving it from the context'. I. F. Morgan Wynne, of the Baptist College in Oxford, already quoted, he says, 'It must mean be baptised in order to receive the forgiveness of sins that the purpose of the baptism is to receive the forgiveness of sins'.

Now the preposition is a linear word. It invariably indicates movement towards an end in view. It is never retrospective and it never looks back to something already taken place.

Liddell and Scott in their lexicon say, 'the radical sense of eis is into'. Then into denotes penetration beyond the outside. A new state into which anything is brought by an agency or cause. Now this being so you could render Acts 2:38 'Repent and be baptised into the remission of sins'. But if you did that all you would say would be simply that before baptism you were outside of remission of sins and the act of baptism brought you into the sin remitted state. Thayer says, 'That eis is a preposition denoting entrance into, to, towards, for, among. It indicates the end which one has in view, that is the object or purpose'. Professor Stewart says, 'eis indicates the object or end for which anything is done'. Dr. Wilmart, the Baptist scholar says, 'Suppose we force eis in Acts 2:38 to bear the unnatural and unauthorised meaning of on account of after all we've gained nothing.

Other passages there are which cannot be explained away. Thus our Saviour said before be ascended into heaven, `He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved'. We should hardly dare tamper with His royal word and make it run, He that believeth is saved and shall be baptised. And unless you do change that saying you have by the highest authority an importance attributed to baptism certainly not less than that given in Acts 2:38 translated according to its obvious meaning', says this Baptist scholar. Now what's the sense he says of torturing eis, the construction and the context.

Is the Bible in the English as you have it adequate or if it's necessary to have the course in Koine Greek to understand the plain meaning of Peter's words?

mman

05-23-2005, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
Basically, they all SAY they believe in salvation by grace through faith. Problem is, they REDEFINE "faith" as works ("Baptism IS faith"), and then, "grace" becomes simply the providing of a set of intructions on works that we are to do to be saved. That would fit--IF we could actually carry out God's instructions perfect enough to merit salvation. The entire OT record shows that no one can. So the "grace" we need is not a new set of laws, but rather salvation by faith in what Christ did for us. Any works of obedience are a reaction of love (1 John 4:9-5:3), not to be saved. They are done done in faith, (and therefore can be called "Acts of faith") but they do not themselves BECOME the faith that saves. I am in no way saying that man earns one iota of his salvation.

As an example, please allow me to twist what you have said (in other posts) in the same way that some have twisted my words.

You defined baptism as a work...

"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!AND

We call on the Lord and are saved by faith. You SAY you believe that salvation is by faith, yet you said we, "call on the Lord", which by your own definition is a work, something you did.
IT is still, something you DID. It IS just semantics. Admit it, confession is a work.

You believe in works salvation, but salvation is by faith.

One cannot earn his way to heaven, even though you teach we must work for our salvation by confessing Jesus or calling on his name.

O.K., I am though twisting what you have said. You believe confession is an act of faith, right? It is something you do. It requires effort. The same can be said of baptism, and has been by an inspired writer in Gal 3:26-27. Neither of these acts are acts of merit toward salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, no question.

Is confession required? Jesus said it was in Matt 10:32. Is baptism required? Jesus said it was in Mark 16:16. Both, acts of faith.

Eric B

05-23-2005, 10:34 PM

Sorry, but the analogy does not hold. You are speaking technically ("confess is somethign you do, it's effort; therefore, it's a work") But coming out of the OC system, with its hundreds of physical laborious rituals commanded, there was a clear contrast between "works" abd a simple confession. You could not tell Paul or anyone one else back then that it was the same thing! Sorry; work is work, and faith is faith. Faith is to be evidenced by works, but they are not one in the same! I do not emphasize "confession" as something you get up and do, though this has unofficially taken the place baptism originally held. You are saved the minute you receive Christ into your heart. Public confession and baptism should follow; but I never said salvation depended on that.
Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; they believes AND were baptized. They did BOTH; so in the next verse, you can mention one or the other, and it is true. But it doesn;t mean that ONE or the other BY ITSELF then EQUALS both. Sorry, this method of twisting scripture is just insulting to the intelligence. With this method, you can prove anything is "scriptural".

mman

05-24-2005, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
Sorry, but the analogy does not hold. You are speaking technically ("confess is somethign you do, it's effort; therefore, it's a work") But coming out of the OC system, with its hundreds of physical laborious rituals commanded, there was a clear contrast between "works" abd a simple confession. You could not tell Paul or anyone one else back then that it was the same thing! Sorry; work is work, and faith is faith. Faith is to be evidenced by works, but they are not one in the same! I do not emphasize "confession" as something you get up and do, though this has unofficially taken the place baptism originally held. You are saved the minute you receive Christ into your heart. Public confession and baptism should follow; but I never said salvation depended on that.
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; they believes AND were baptized. They did BOTH; so in the next verse, you can mention one or the other, and it is true. But it doesn;t mean that ONE or the other BY ITSELF then EQUALS both. Sorry, this method of twisting scripture is just insulting to the intelligence. With this method, you can prove anything is "scriptural". [/QUOTE]I'm sorry you feel as though your intelligence has somehow been insulted, but I have not twisted the scripture. I simply stated what the bible said and you must have come to a conclusion that is contrary to what you "believe". I agree that confession is not a work and by the same logic, neither is baptism. The bible shows that baptism is a part of faith in Gal 3:26-27. I BEG you to show me even one passage that even hints that it is a work of man. When you do your search, you will find it to be the working of God, not man (Col 2:12).

1. Belief can be used - and frequently is - in the full sense of being obedient. Jesus taught: “He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

[Note: The King James translators did not do us any favors when they translated two different Greek words by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.

Let's see how the verb pisteuo is used in the book of Acts.

Pisteuo is found thirty-nine times in Acts. In the ASV, it is translated as believe, believed, and believers (a present participle in Acts 5:14, i.e., believing ones).

A careful study of the use of this verb in the book of Acts will reveal that in many cases “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.

1)Following Peter’s sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2, certain Jews asked, "What shall we do?" Peter commanded them to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remission thereof (2:38). Those who "received his word were baptized" (v. 41).
Luke then says: "And all that believed were together" (v. 44). "Believed" sums up the obedience described previously.

2) On the initial day of its existence, the church consisted of at least 3,000 souls according to Acts 2:41. Later in the book of Acts, it records that many others heard the word and "believed; and the number of men came to be about five thousand" (4:4). It is obvious that the 5,000 mentioned here included the 3,000 in Acts 2:41, and that the "believed" of this passage means precisely what it did in 2:44.

3)Paul and Barnabas, went to the city of Iconium. They entered into a synagogue of the Jews and taught the gospel of Christ.
Acts 14:1 states, "a great multitude both of Jews and Greeks believed"

Please notice Acts 14:2 which states, "But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren” (ASV)."

The word rendered “disobedient” is apeitheo, which carries the idea of refusing to be persuaded, a failure to comply.

4) The example I have already refered to, the Philippian Jailer. Look at how the inspired writer describes the whole process, "... having believed in God" (16:34). The perfect participle depicts the state at which they arrived as a consequence of their obedience.

5) When Paul came to Ephesus, as recorded in Acts 19, he met about 12 disciples who had been immersed with the baptism that was a part of the teaching of John, the forerunner of Christ.

Paul asked the group, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They replied that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit.

Paul then asked, "Into what then were you baptized?" He did not asked them if they had been baptized. He was not framing a new question on an entirely different subject. Paul knew and understood that baptism was a part of the belief process, concerning which he had just inquired.

DHK

05-24-2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.
DHK Who is Ryrie? Since we are quoting others, here are some excerpts from debates and from J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 2:38.
[/QB][/QUOTE]You still evade the question. We all admit that there dozens of different uses of the word eis. It is a very flexible pronoun. Your problem is that you want to confine it to what your theology restricts you to believe. As Ryrie point out in so many words--Context is everything. If the context of the verse says that your interpretation is going against the grain of the rest of the Bible then you have a problem. The problem, being that you are wrong. The heresy of baptismal regeneration is obviously not taught in the Scriptures. It takes some heavy duty twisting of Scripture to come up with that doctrine.

Stop acting like the typical J.W. and quckly going to another passage, another author, saying "But what about this?' Every cult uses those tactics.

Address the points the Ryrie brought up. What Scripture did he use and why? Why is "eis" used in some passages with the meaning of "on account of" when you say it cannot? You have failed to adress this question, and the Scripture assciated with it.
DHK

mman

05-24-2005, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.
DHK Who is Ryrie? Since we are quoting others, here are some excerpts from debates and from J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 2:38.
[/QUOTE]You still evade the question. We all admit that there dozens of different uses of the word eis. It is a very flexible pronoun. Your problem is that you want to confine it to what your theology restricts you to believe. As Ryrie point out in so many words--Context is everything. If the context of the verse says that your interpretation is going against the grain of the rest of the Bible then you have a problem. The problem, being that you are wrong. The heresy of baptismal regeneration is obviously not taught in the Scriptures. It takes some heavy duty twisting of Scripture to come up with that doctrine.

Stop acting like the typical J.W. and quckly going to another passage, another author, saying "But what about this?' Every cult uses those tactics.

Address the points the Ryrie brought up. What Scripture did he use and why? Why is "eis" used in some passages with the meaning of "on account of" when you say it cannot? You have failed to adress this question, and the Scripture assciated with it.
DHK [/QB][/QUOTE]First of all, eis is not a pronoun.

Actually I thought Ryrie's points were so weak that they didn't need addressing any further. Basically his argument is that it can't mean that because I don't believe it and I can find ONE time of the 1600 times it is used that it might possibly mean because of therefore it HAS to mean because of in Acts 2:38 since we already know that baptism is not for the remission of sins and it can't mean what it says.

It has to mean the opposite of what it meant in Matt 26:28 even though the EXACT same phrase is used.

Anyway, to address the one time of 1600 where you think eis means because of. Now on to Jonah and the Ninevites. Jonah preached and the people believed says Jonah 3:4-5. And their faith was followed by repentance because Matthew 12:41 says, as rendered by Goodspeed, the Baptist scholar, 'When Jonah preached they repented'. The faith came first and then the repentance. What was the evidence of the repentance? Jonah 3:10 says, 'God saw their works that they turned from their evil ways'. Now this is what happened: when the people believed Jonah's preaching they repented and turned into the kind of life required by their repentance. 'God saw their works that they turned' and the word turned is synonymous with repentance in Matthew 12:41. Which way did they turn? Did they turn backwards? Was it retrospective or did they turn forwards? Here you see once again the preposition points forward and is never retrospective.

Now your turn, if you dare.

J. W. McGarvy wrote, "If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words "eis aphesin hamartion", for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed."

In other words, "for the remission of sins" is always tied to immersion (either John's baptism or that on the day of Pentecost). To understand the real meaning, is it ever used and not tied to immersion? Yes in Matt 26:28. Does anyone have trouble understanding it there? Then understand it has the same meaning in Acts 2:38.

Again, when you argue that baptism is because your sins have already been forgiven, you are arguing that Jesus blood was shed because peoples sins were already forgiven. You cannot find one translation to support the error you are teaching that we are baptized because our sins are already forgiven.

The Baptists scholars listed previously agree that the phase "eis aphesin hamartion", mean in order to obtain the remission of sins, though I am certain they did not want to come to that conclusion.

DHK

05-24-2005, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by mman:
First of all, eis is not a pronoun.Yes I fully realize that. It was a slip of the keyboard, you might say. smile.gif
Actually I thought Ryrie's points were so weak that they didn't need addressing any further. Basically his argument is that it can't mean that because I don't believe it and I can find ONE time of the 1600 times it is used that it might possibly mean because of therefore it HAS to mean because of in Acts 2:38 since we already know that baptism is not for the remission of sins and it can't mean what it says. The argument is: It can't mean what YOU THINK it says for that would contradict the rest of Scripture, and the Scripture does not contradict itself.
It has to mean the opposite of what it meant in Matt 26:28 even though the EXACT same phrase is used. I already answered you on Mat.26:28. Eis is a "preposition," having differeent meanings in different contexts. The context is key. It is not translated the same way every single time.

Anyway, to address the one time of 1600 where you think eis means because of. Now on to Jonah and the Ninevites. Jonah preached and the people believed says Jonah 3:4-5. And their faith was followed by repentance because Matthew 12:41 says, as rendered by Goodspeed, the Baptist scholar, 'When Jonah preached they repented'. The faith came first and then the repentance. What was the evidence of the repentance? Jonah 3:10 says, 'God saw their works that they turned from their evil ways'. Now this is what happened: when the people believed Jonah's preaching they repented and turned into the kind of life required by their repentance. 'God saw their works that they turned' and the word turned is synonymous with repentance in Matthew 12:41. Which way did they turn? Did they turn backwards? Was it retrospective or did they turn forwards? Here you see once again the preposition points forward and is never retrospective. Your point made no sense. It was self-defeating. Jonah preached. The people had faith, i.e. believed. What did they do? They put on sackcloth and ashes. Why? Because they believed the preaching . Because they repented.
"They repented because of (not in order to) the preaching of Jonah."
Matthew 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. (KJV)

Now your turn, if you dare.

J. W. McGarvy wrote, "If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words "eis aphesin hamartion", for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed."

In other words, "for the remission of sins" is always tied to immersion (either John's baptism or that on the day of Pentecost). To understand the real meaning, is it ever used and not tied to immersion? Yes in Matt 26:28. Does anyone have trouble understanding it there? Then understand it has the same meaning in Acts 2:38.

Again, when you argue that baptism is because your sins have already been forgiven, you are arguing that Jesus blood was shed because peoples sins were already forgiven. You cannot find one translation to support the error you are teaching that we are baptized because our sins are already forgiven.

The Baptists scholars listed previously agree that the phase "eis aphesin hamartion", mean in order to obtain the remission of sins, though I am certain they did not want to come to that conclusion. McGarvey can write what he will. He was a member of the Restoration Movement and primary influence in the Church of Christ. When you already have your mind made up as to what you want to prove, you can make the Greek work for you as well. He doesn't impress me one way or the other. The Jehovah Witnesses use the Greek as well. If the espoused doctrine goes contrary to the Word of God, is still heresy no matter how much Greek you use.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The word eis (unto) obviuosly means "because of" just as it does in Mat.12:41. There is more than one place that it is translated as such. John did not baptize in order that they would repent, did he??
DHK

Eric B

05-24-2005, 11:24 PM

I'm sorry you feel as though your intelligence has somehow been insulted, but I have not twisted the scripture. I simply stated what the bible said and you must have come to a conclusion that is contrary to what you "believe". No;you didn't "state" what the Bible stated. You quoted it, and then read your own interpretation ("Belief IS baptism") into it; when it says no such thing. Once again, there were TWO acts mentioned in those passages; not one act with two names!
I agree that confession is not a work and by the same logic, neither is baptism. That is not by the same logic. Especially not Biblical logic. I explained it before: "work" is physical deeds; "faith" is the opposite; though it is to be evidenced by works. Two totally separate thigns that ACCOMPANY each other!
The bible shows that baptism is a part of faith in Gal 3:26-27. I BEG you to show me even one passage that even hints that it is a work of man. When you do your search, you will find it to be the working of God, not man (Col 2:12). Where does this verse say that? There is not verse saying "baptism is a work". It was automaticallyt understood that work was physical deeds, such as "works of the Law". Spiritual baptism "into Christ" is the work of God. Water baptism is a work we do to show our faith and baptism into Christ. "a part of faith" is a more acceptable statement. But you seem to be making it equate faith.
1. Belief can be used - and frequently is - in the full sense of being obedient. Jesus taught: “He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

[Note: The King James translators did not do us any favors when they translated two different Greek words by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.

Let's see how the verb pisteuo is used in the book of Acts.

Pisteuo is found thirty-nine times in Acts. In the ASV, it is translated as believe, believed, and believers (a present participle in Acts 5:14, i.e., believing ones).

A careful study of the use of this verb in the book of Acts will reveal that in many cases “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.

1)Following Peter’s sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2, certain Jews asked, "What shall we do?" Peter commanded them to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remission thereof (2:38). Those who "received his word were baptized" (v. 41).
Luke then says: "And all that believed were together" (v. 44). "Believed" sums up the obedience described previously.

2) On the initial day of its existence, the church consisted of at least 3,000 souls according to Acts 2:41. Later in the book of Acts, it records that many others heard the word and "believed; and the number of men came to be about five thousand" (4:4). It is obvious that the 5,000 mentioned here included the 3,000 in Acts 2:41, and that the "believed" of this passage means precisely what it did in 2:44.

3)Paul and Barnabas, went to the city of Iconium. They entered into a synagogue of the Jews and taught the gospel of Christ.
Acts 14:1 states, "a great multitude both of Jews and Greeks believed"

Please notice Acts 14:2 which states, "But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren” (ASV)."

The word rendered “disobedient” is apeitheo, which carries the idea of refusing to be persuaded, a failure to comply.

4) The example I have already refered to, the Philippian Jailer. Look at how the inspired writer describes the whole process, "... having believed in God" (16:34). The perfect participle depicts the state at which they arrived as a consequence of their obedience. all all of this shows is that "believing" is manifest by obedience. Nobody here disputes that. But once again, the works of obedience do not EQUATE "faith", and thus earn salvation! None of this proves that idea.
5) When Paul came to Ephesus, as recorded in Acts 19, he met about 12 disciples who had been immersed with the baptism that was a part of the teaching of John, the forerunner of Christ.

Paul asked the group, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They replied that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit.

Paul then asked, "Into what then were you baptized?" He did not asked them if they had been baptized. He was not framing a new question on an entirely different subject. Paul knew and understood that baptism was a part of the belief process, concerning which he had just inquired. Not so fast! So now; ANY "baptism" is "believing"? Even if it was not into Christ? No, that is not what you are trying to prove. Of course, if a person is going to go through this ritual of baptism; they must be doing it for a reason, and thus "believing" in something. Once again here, just like all the other examples, baptism was a sign of a belief in something. In that case; John's message of repentance. So they needed to be in Christ, and thus a baptism in the name of Christ would mark their acceptance of Christ.

ituttut

05-26-2005, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ituttut:
Acts 2:36-39. ”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.” Notice that Peter is speaking only to the “house of Israel”. There was no Gentile around, and if they were, it did not apply to them, at this time, for Israel had not accepted their King.

Now let's look at the “grace commission” gospel of Paul, given to him by Christ Jesus in heaven. Acts 16:28-31, ”But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

Are these the same gospels? There were two gospels during the time of all of the Apostles; One gospel for only the house of Israel, and one gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself. Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

But I believe you will find what they believed at this time is not what they believed earlier. If you won’t take Paul’s word, then perhaps you will believe Peter. Acts 11:16. ”Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost .

You will not find Peter again, or any other preaching the “great commission” of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” This is a ritual that was to die a slow death, along with the Pentecostal church. John writing his books approximately 30 years after the destruction of the Temple will not even mention repentance other than prophecy, or water baptism unless in connection with Jesus on the earth. But man doesn't want to let go of the Jewish baptism, so they all brought it with them when they came out of the Catholic church.

Ask yourself, why would John not mention the “great commission”. It was laid aside, for today there is neither Jew nor Gentile. He will come in His wrath and again deal with His people. Today is a new dispensation. This is baptism into the Body of Christ of Once Saved Always Saved, and not having to endure until the end of the earthly baptism of those promised to inherit the earth by “repenting and water baptism for the remission of sins”. They can only become “righteous” at death.

We Christians upon belief are immediately baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, and buried with Him. We are dead to the Law and it Ordinances which are for the King’s people. He is our Lord and Savior today. There is no King, for they (the house of Israel) exiled Him to heaven. He is today filling His church in heaven, the Body of Christ, His kingdom, and will come and be Israel’s King after the tribulation, and those looking for the kingdom to come.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Acts 16:34, ”And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” They now had peace in their hearts for they believe the Word of God which is just as Paul and Silas proclaimed, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” It doesn’t say you will be saved if you do this or that. Baptism was changing, and at this time it didn’t hurt to do it, for this is all very new and confusing. What Paul and Silas said had no works tied to salvation. This is now the work of man, of which Paul acknowledges, in saying he is happy he didn’t baptize more, as in the confusing, people would be saying they were baptized in the name of “Paul” (I Corinthians 1:14-31).

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;

What had those who are described as having believed done? According to Acts 2:38,41 they had repented and been baptized, and later in verse 44 this entire process is described and "those who had believed".

Acts 8:35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

You are back to what Peter later says is no longer valid, as shown above.

Peter was still preaching the “great commission” in Acts 8:25, ”And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.” How do we know this is what Peter preached to the house of Israel. That is all he knew, at that time. Damascus Road, and Cornelius had not yet occurred.

Peter and John come to believe as Paul as found in I 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.”[qb]

Preaching the good news about Jesus, we call it the gospel, contains water baptism.

The “latest good news”, came by the preaching of the “Cross”, which came by Paul, and it is a heavenly gospel. Where do you find the Body of Christ, and our Spiritual Baptism in Acts 2? That is the “gospel of the kingdom” for those saints that will go marching in, not those that will be there to meet them in the Body of Christ.

Our Baptism is up there now with our circumcision. It is the gospel of Grace, without works of the hands, through faith of Jesus Christ, and it is a gift when we believe. Colossians 2:11-13, ”In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses”.

Baptism is not a work but an act of faith, Gal 3:26-27. The work is of God, not man (Col 2:12). You cannot show from the scripture where baptism is a work. Any definition of a work that you can come up with would certainly include confession. It is something that requires effort and something man does. Will this work negate grace?

Then if the “work is of God, and not of man” as you say, then why should we do it? It won’t “unsave” us, but it won't do any good either. What is its purpose, other than for one endeavoring to prove their faith. You are saved, so you are now saying we will prove our faith to God by acting out our faith in a dead work? What’s next, blood sacrifices? All connected with the Old Covenant is DEAD, and water baptism associated with Israel is Dead, as God cut them off as Christ warned them in a parable, and it happened at the stoning of Steven.

There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth. You are mixing works with the Grace of God that comes through the Cross of Jesus Christ. You have just made the case for the Catholic Pentecostal church giving great credence to the Papal Throne, and its infallibility, that they claim comes from Peter as he proclaimed the "great commission" of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. I have no idea what you are trying to claim. Neither the Catholic church nor the Papal Throne are scriptural.

That’s what I just explained to you, and you believe as do the Catholic church. They believe the “great commission”, and what Peter says in Acts 2, of which you keep coming back to. This is what the Catholic church believes. You are, as are almost all of the other churches, still tied to the “mother church”, yet deny.

Read and understand Gal 3:26-27 [/QUOTE]Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians warning against that other gospel of Judaizers from Jerusalem and Judah. We see in chapter 1:6-7 the urgency of this letter. Paul can’t believe a Gentile going under the law, or a Jew going back under the law. Paul says that other church of Jesus Christ perverts the gospel of grace. Galatians is scripture of Law Vs. Grace.

”26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” By faith in Christ Jesus, we are all children of God. This agrees with Paul’s gospel “as it does not say by faith in Christ plus water Baptism, circumcision, or any thing done by mans hands before or after. We can’t add words to Paul’s gospel. In Galatians 4:9 through 11 Paul tells the Galatians, the Gentiles they were idol worshipers, and why do they want to go back, losing their freedom in Christ. They are going back where they must do certain things in that other gospel that is a religion with works that also believe in Jesus Christ, but when they do, they will be placed under the law and will be expected to keep the laws.

Paul is giving a lesson to the Jew and the Gentile how all were under the law to bring us to Christ, before faith came so that we could be justified by that faith. And faith did come, the curse of the law being removed of the justified - (verses 22-25). The Judaizers from the Jerusalem church were trying to tell the Gentile they must do as the Jew to be justified.

” 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” This of course is our one spiritual baptism.

”28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” For understanding go to chapter 4:22-31, where in verse 31, I claim to be free in Christ, and not of the bondwoman. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

mman

05-31-2005, 02:58 PM

Of course, in Mark 16:16, the believe and baptized are two different things. But when both are accomplished, the person could be classified as a believer or one of those who believe, as in Acts 2:44 or Acts 16:34 or in any of the other places already listed in previous posts.

Heb 3:18-19 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

Now did all these people (maybe more than an million) stop believing in God? They had just witnessed the 10 plagues, complied with the instructions of the passover, walked on dry ground through the Red Sea with a wall of water on each side, witnessed the drowning of the persuing Egyptians, while being led by the cloud and pillar of fire.

Ex 14:31 states, "And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses."

Numbers 13 and 14 tell the sad story. Numbers 14:3 "Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become plunder; would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?"

They knew the Lord had brought them to where they were. Yet in Numbers 14:11, The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them?

These people believed in God, yet they did not believe God. They were not obedient.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Many people believe in Jesus, yet do not believe Jesus. Many believe in him but are not obedient.

When Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Was Jesus kidding? Mistaken? Incorrect?

The bible tells us that in Matt 15:9, "BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN."

People worshiping Jesus in vain. They believe in Jesus, they just don't believe Jesus. I suppose most, if not all, these vain worshippers are sincere in what they believe and teach. Why would someone knowingly waste their time and effort in vain worship?

Jesus said in Matt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, "'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that say, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Believing in Jesus as Lord is not the problem with these MANY people, it is practicing lawlessness and not doing the will of the Father. These are obviously sincere since they are disputing their sentence.

Jesus said in John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Worship must be according to truth. What is truth? John 17:17 says God's word is truth. How do we know what God wants? He has revealed it in His word.

Jesus said the way is narrow in Matt 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

His next admonition is to beware of false prophets. I think there is an incorrect notion that the false prophets know they are false prophets, just as the vain worshipers know they are worshiping Jesus in vain.

I am not looking for a rebuttal to every point I make, but based on previous posts, would not be surprised to receive such. Quite frankly, most amount to not much more than, "Your wrong".

In the original post on this thread, I laid out how we get INTO Christ, into the Church, and in contact with the blood that washes away our sins. So far, all I have received is a bunch of rocks thrown at what I stated, while no one as of yet, has shown through the scriptures any other way we can get INTO Christ, into the church or in contact with the blood. Yes, some have quoted verses that do not tell us how to get INTO Christ saying that is the way, while ignoring verses that deal directly with that very subject.

Just suppose for a minute that I am right (I know, heresy to some). I believe in Jesus and he is my Lord and Savior. I believed him when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Just suppose that Gal 3:26-27 really does mean that we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized into Christ. Let's just suppose that baptism is for the remission of sins and the same phase means the same thing in both Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28. Let's just suppose that we are saved by grace through faith, just like it is described above. Lets just suppose that I am right when I say we are not saved by any works of man, that we cannot merit one microsecond of our eternal salvation. Let's just suppose that baptism is not a work since the bible nowhere calls it a work, but an act of faith. Let's suppose that after one gets into Christ, he will not live perfectly or a sinless life, but as long as he remains in the light, Jesus' blood will cleanse us of all sin (I John 1:7). Let's just suppose that worship must be according to truth and not what man likes or dislikes. Let's just suppose that many people will be lost who call Jesus Lord, and that the way really is narrow. Let's just suppose that there is such a thing as vain worship, that God really did tell us how to worship him and did not leave it up to man. Let's just suppose that there is only one way INTO Christ. If I were right, what would it take to change your mind?

Eric B

05-31-2005, 10:46 PM

the scriptures would support it, for one thing.
Just what is "in the light", then? You have not yet told us. Since it is all a works-based system (whether you call baptism a "work" or not, because obviously that is really not enough anyway), then there must either be a limit to the amount of works that place us "in the light", or, perfection is required. So all we are getting from you is a bunch of "supposes". The ones who aren't in the light and will call Jesus Lord, but be lost are the ones who think they are justifying themselves by works. Why else do you think that Jesus told those religious leaders that harlots and robbers (people truly practicing "lawnessness") would enter before they did. Accusations of "what man likes or dislikes", or "leave it up to man" mean nothing, when you change the gospel to something man earns (which is truly what man "likes", and is "up to man"!)
You yourself said how we et into Christ: we are "baptized" into Christ; but this is the spiritual baptism into the body; symbolized by the water, but not equating a water ceremony.

mman

06-01-2005, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
the scriptures would support it, for one thing.
Just what is "in the light", then? You have not yet told us. Since it is all a works-based system (whether you call baptism a "work" or not, because obviously that is really not enough anyway), then there must either be a limit to the amount of works that place us "in the light", or, perfection is required. So all we are getting from you is a bunch of "supposes". The ones who aren't in the light and will call Jesus Lord, but be lost are the ones who think they are justifying themselves by works. Why else do you think that Jesus told those religious leaders that harlots and robbers (people truly practicing "lawnessness") would enter before they did. Accusations of "what man likes or dislikes", or "leave it up to man" mean nothing, when you change the gospel to something man earns (which is truly what man "likes", and is "up to man"!)
You yourself said how we et into Christ: we are "baptized" into Christ; but this is the spiritual baptism into the body; symbolized by the water, but not equating a water ceremony. No wonder you don't agree. You don't understand what I'm saying. First, it is NOT a works based system. It is a faith based system. No one can work or earn any part of salvation. You cannot obligate God to save you by any amount of good works.

Works do not place us in the light. We cannot earn our place in the light.

What does it mean to walk in the light? I John 1:7 simply says "If we walk in the light...".

Lets back up a little to verse 5, "This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

First, God is light. Next, if we do not practice the truth, we are walking in darkness. Walking in the light is practicing the truth.

Later in Chapter 2 starting in verse 3, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Will we walk perfectly? Of course not. Verse 7 says that along with verses 8-10, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

You yourself said how we (g)et into Christ: we are "baptized" into Christ; but this is the spiritual baptism into the body; symbolized by the water, but not equating a water ceremony. I think you are alluding to I Cor 12:13 which states, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."

We are immersed into one body. We know the body is the Church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). How was this done in Acts 2?

The apostles were the ones who were baptized with the Holy Spirit, speaking as the spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4, 11:15-16). It came upon them, not because of anything they did, but to fulfill a promise. It was manifest by them speaking in a language that they had not learned.

The believers in Acts 2:37 asked what they needed to do. If you had been in the crowd that day and you wanted to receive the remission of sins, what would you have done.

I would have done what those 3000 did in Acts 2:41 in response to what they were told to do in Acts 2:38. Verse 41 says they were added, to what? Verse 47 says the church.

They were added to the church at baptism. It is generally accepted that this is water baptism. Who was added to the church? Those who were being saved? Who added them? The Lord.

To think that one is saved outside the blood bought church would make the church unnecessary for salvation. Yet, Christ is savior of the body (Church) according to Eph 5:23 and is adding those who are being saved to the Church, as already stated.

but this is the spiritual baptism into the body; symbolized by the water, but not equating a water ceremony. Interesting concept. Where did it come from?

Eric B

06-01-2005, 12:22 PM

So it's not by works; It's just "walking in the light". Well, what is walking in the light? Not walking in darkness, but "practicing truth" and "keeping His commandments". What is practicing truth and eeping commandments? Doing good works!
Of course, this only shows that the good works (walking in truth/commandments) is evidence of us being in the light. If you would acknowledge that, then we would have agreement; but you keep denying that; insisting on deeds themselves as if they determined salvation. But once you go there, then perfection is required (Gal.3:10), because there is no other line between "light" and "darkness".
How was this done in Acts 2?
Once again; water was the symbol of this; not what washed or saved them in itself.
To think that one is saved outside the blood bought church would make the church unnecessary for salvation. Yet, Christ is savior of the body (Church) according to Eph 5:23 and is adding those who are being saved to the Church, as already stated. Who said anything about salvation outside the church/body?
Interesting concept. Where did it come from? Because since it is Christ we are actually baptized INTO, and Christ is not a pool of water; therefore; that can only be a symbol.

mman

06-01-2005, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
So it's not by works; It's just "walking in the light". Well, what is walking in the light? Not walking in darkness, but "practicing truth" and "keeping His commandments". What is practicing truth and eeping commandments? Doing good works!Those are not my words, but God's words. Can someone not practice the truth and still be in the light? Can someone know God and not keep his commandments? Is faith without works dead?

Do those works save us or earn us anything? Of course not. When the children of Israel marched around the walls of Jericho as instructed, did that earn them anything? No, God didn't owe them for their works and pay them what they earned?

The walls of Jericho fell by faith.

Of course, this only shows that the good works (walking in truth/commandments) is evidence of us being in the light. If you would acknowledge that, then we would have agreement; but you keep denying that; insisting on deeds themselves as if they determined salvation. But once you go there, then perfection is required (Gal.3:10), because there is no other line between "light" and "darkness".I don't have a problem with your first statement. But good works alone are not evidence of being in the light. In Matt 7:21, many people will have good works, yet be denied. Those folks were not walking in the light.

At the same time, good works don't earn salvation, or any part of it. We are saved by grace and you can't earn grace.

But, if we do not practice the truth or keep his commands we cannot be walking in the light or "know" God.

Does this mean we are earning our salvation? NO!!! It means we have faith, a complete faith that is not dead.

Your reference to Gal 3:10 is a reference to keeping the old law that was nailed to the cross. The old law that brought us to Christ. The old law that was not perfect, could not provide justification. Justification is by faith. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (the old law) 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

As far as the baptism, I'm not quite sure I understand what you believe? Do the spirit baptism and water baptism (the one baptism in Eph 4:5) occur at the same time, in your view?

Eric B

06-01-2005, 09:06 PM

Those are not my words, but God's words. Can someone not practice the truth and still be in the light? Can someone know God and not keep his commandments? Is faith without works dead?
Yes, those are God's words. And they don't contradict. "practicing the truth" there is clearly an evidence of walking in the light. But once again, we cannot make one particular work the dividing line between light and darkness.
Do those works save us or earn us anything? Of course not. When the children of Israel marched around the walls of Jericho as instructed, did that earn them anything? No, God didn't owe them for their works and pay them what they earned?

The walls of Jericho fell by faith.
Walls don't have faith. It was the Israelites' faith that led them to follow God's command, and since the wall falling was conditional on that, it was sort of a reward. Salvation draws upon those examples as far as the principle of "faith" is concerned, but the analogy only goes but so far. Dalvation today is clearly contrasted with those earthly forms of "salvation" (military victory, etc) that were based on works. It is all spiritual now.
But good works alone are not evidence of being in the light. In Matt 7:21, many people will have good works, yet be denied. Those folks were not walking in the light. At the same time, good works don't earn salvation, or any part of it. We are saved by grace and you can't earn grace.

But, if we do not practice the truth or keep his commands we cannot be walking in the light or "know" God.

Does this mean we are earning our salvation? NO!!! It means we have faith, a complete faith that is not dead.
Then what is? You're not really telling us. You keep saying faith aloone is not enough, works are required, and now you're saying it is not works, but grace, and then redefinig it as works ("practice truth"/keeping commands") again.
Your reference to Gal 3:10 is a reference to keeping the old law that was nailed to the cross. The old law that brought us to Christ. The old law that was not perfect, could not provide justification. Justification is by faith. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (the old law) 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. And all you have done is changed days of worship, and thrown out one set of rituals, and substitute another (baptism); but otherwise, it is completely "the Law of commandments" you are focused on.
As far as the baptism, I'm not quite sure I understand what you believe? Do the spirit baptism and water baptism (the one baptism in Eph 4:5) occur at the same time, in your view? They were supposed to, but as I have been explaining; t became separated when baptism became associated with Church membership. (The altar call sort of took its place). This may not have been authorized by the NT, but then I am not going to deny someone I lead to Christ salvation because I was not able to dunk him on the spot.

mman

06-02-2005, 07:00 AM

They were supposed to, but as I have been explaining; t became separated when baptism became associated with Church membership. (The altar call sort of took its place). This may not have been authorized by the NT, but then I am not going to deny someone I lead to Christ salvation because I was not able to dunk him on the spot.So are you saying a person is saved before he is in the church?

They were suppose to?

Why are they now seperated?

Who separated it?

Not authorized? Then this originates from man?

You are not going to deny salvation??? Are you making the determination based on things not authorized?

Wow, this really catches me by surprise that someone would admit all this!

Eric B

06-02-2005, 10:18 AM

He is in the church as soon as he receives Christ. By one spirit are we baptized into the body, and that is what is important. While Frank says that he baptizes on the spot; do you? Or do you make them wait until they officially "join the Church" after teaching tham all the doctrines and practices? Do not get "official church membership" confused with becoming a mamber of "the Body".

mman

06-05-2005, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
He is in the church as soon as he receives Christ. By one spirit are we baptized into the body, and that is what is important. While Frank says that he baptizes on the spot; do you? Or do you make them wait until they officially "join the Church" after teaching tham all the doctrines and practices? Do not get "official church membership" confused with becoming a mamber of "the Body". Of course I baptize on the spot. Never is there any example or instruction to wait. In the New Testament, people were baptized immediately. Christ adds to the Church. Never is anyone instructed to join anything. This concept that you are speaking of, seems foreign to the New Testament teaching.

The Body is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). Christ adds those being saved to the Chruch (Acts 2:47).

How can you say church membership is different than becoming a member of the body when the church is the body????

ituttut

06-05-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by mman:
Of course, in Mark 16:16, the believe and baptized are two different things. But when both are accomplished, the person could be classified as a believer or one of those who believe, as in Acts 2:44 or Acts 16:34 or in any of the other places already listed in previous posts.

Hello mman. Been on another board, also another Forum on this board, and have gotten way behind.

Then are you saying you adhere to works tied to grace, both before and after salvation? 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.” Regardless what people say, James does not agree with Paul.

You Acts 2:44, ”And all that believed were together, and had all things common.” What did all believe? ”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.” This is what the Catholic church believes. Is this what you believe?

I don’t accept the “great commission” to be part of my salvation. Many do say they believe the “great commission”, but so many have no idea what the “great commission” includes, and the others in someway twist Mark 16:16 to say Jesus Christ really could not mean this, for they know they must believe the gospel of Paul which gospel says we are saved by Grace, through faith, the free gift that cannot be accepted if we believe we must do a work.

The Acts 2:44 of the Jewish believers speaks of all things common daily in the Temple (that Temple was destroyed), and the Christian later had to help out those of the Pentecostal faith of the “great commission”, for that was the “kingdom gospel” of John the Baptist to the Jew, and then to the Gentile after the house of Israel accepted Messiah. That has not happened to date, as God today sees the Israelite just as we idol worshippers, of which Israel had become. Can you prove otherwise by scripture?

Heb 3:18-19 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

Amen! And the same happened in the dispensation of Jesus when He warned the house of Israel in a parable that they could be cut-off in their unbelief, and that is what happened when they killed Stephen. But a few years later came Damascus Road as God began the process of reconciling of the world unto himself, and we Gentiles were then included. Any scripture to disprove?

However please note what book you have just quoted. It is the book to the Hebrews, and not the Gentiles. The Temple was still standing, and there were two gospels going on at this time. Take a look at Hebrews 3:14, which was in the dispensation of the author of Hebrews. ”For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end”. The Temple was still standing, and these Jews were not saved as the Gentiles, of being sealed on believing, but they were to endure until the end, just as in the dispensation you address below. Do you believe the writer here in Hebrews 3:14?

Now did all these people (maybe more than an million) stop believing in God? They had just witnessed the 10 plagues, complied with the instructions of the passover, walked on dry ground through the Red Sea with a wall of water on each side, witnessed the drowning of the persuing Egyptians, while being led by the cloud and pillar of fire.

See above. Christianity was not known at that time.

Ex 14:31 states, "And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses."

Old Testament written only to God’s own nation.

Numbers 13 and 14 tell the sad story. Numbers 14:3 "Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become plunder; would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?"

Old Testament.

They knew the Lord had brought them to where they were. Yet in Numbers 14:11, The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them?

His people are “stiff necked people”.

These people believed in God, yet they did not believe God. They were not obedient.

Amen!

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Those of the house of Israel must endure until the end as John says here. If they believe and obey, they will have eternal life. His people made covenant with God. They are the only one’s God has a two way covenant with, and that covenant has always been, You do this, and I will do that; or If you don’t do this, I will do that. This is what they agreed to. That is not the gospel of Paul to the Gentile.

Do you agree or disagree with the covenant God made with His own nation He made for himself?

Many people believe in Jesus, yet do not believe Jesus. Many believe in him but are not obedient.

This is not the gospel of Paul revealed to him by Christ Jesus from heaven. You are speaking of Lordship salvation, as you are speaking of having to be obedient after salvation. That is hanging onto works for you must obey. What kind of “free gift” is that?

Are you of the Lordship salvation, such as Calvinism, or Arminianism?

When Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Was Jesus kidding? Mistaken? Incorrect?

I believe the Word of God, and Jesus speaks very plainly here. Jesus while on this earth preached his message only to His own, for He says He did not come for the heathen Gentile dogs. That’s me. So then in the “great commission” I am included, after the Jew; after the House of Israel accepts Christ Jesus as Messiah and their King. This did not happen. The Apostles never got out of Jerusalem, until sometime after the stoning of Israel, and that was when the house of Israel sealed their fate.

This “great commission”, regardless of translation used, all says the same thing to the Jew to enter the Kingdom. One must repent (believing is synonymous with repenting), and that one must be baptized to be saved. If one disbelieves, they can be baptized but they are condemned. And this may be what you believe. But for this Gentile, I believe Christ spoke the last words from heaven to Paul on how, in this dispensation, we are to be saved, and that is by the Grace of God, Through faith, without works, and this is not the gospel of the “kingdom” as taught by John the Baptist, Jesus on earth, or Peter to the Jew in Acts 2:36-40. Those that are far off are Jews in other countries, and that generation of Jew is unacceptable in their present state.

In other words I do not believe I must be “water” baptized for the remission of sins as Peter preaches. Scripture will not support this view in this dispensation of Grace. I don’t believe the “great commission” as that is not Paul what preached.

Those that came through the 12 Patriots lead to Moses, and Moses’ Law and the Jew believe Moses’ Law for God had given it to him for the nation Israel. The say thing happened to Paul, thus becoming Paul’s gospel as He received it from God.

Can you agree with this?

The bible tells us that in Matt 15:9, "BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN."

People worshiping Jesus in vain. They believe in Jesus, they just don't believe Jesus. I suppose most, if not all, these vain worshippers are sincere in what they believe and teach. Why would someone knowingly waste their time and effort in vain worship?

Good question, but that is what those Jews did that Jesus was addressing.

Do you believe Jesus was speaking to the heathen at this time?

Jesus said in Matt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, "'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that say, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

I believe what Jesus says on this earth, and what He says from heaven. I understand the verse following, and also the gospel of Paul. Jesus and the Apostles, and all Jew’s avoided the Gentile whenever possible. We also see this in understanding the following. ”But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, Matthew 15:24. I’ll not believe what man believes, but only what His Word says.

Do you believe what Christ says here?

Believing in Jesus as Lord is not the problem with these MANY people, it is practicing lawlessness and not doing the will of the Father. These are obviously sincere since they are disputing their sentence.

Amen. Israel is under the Law of God, which is in their belief.

Jesus said in John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Amen, and Jesus tells this “half-breed” those at Pentecost will worship God the Spirit, in spirit and truth.

Worship must be according to truth. What is truth? John 17:17 says God's word is truth. How do we know what God wants? He has revealed it in His word.

Right on! Jesus while on earth told all known truth. Christ from heaven reveals to Paul that today the truth of God is to ”…, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”, Acts 16:31.

Which truth do you believe? That only known while Jesus walked this earth as man, or spiritual heavenly truth for today revealed later to Saul/Paul?

Jesus said the way is narrow in Matt 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

And Peter follows up with this gospel in I Peter 4:18, ”And if the [b]righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Peter does not preach to the Gentile, other than that one time God commanded he go to the first Gentile to be saved, and that was without “repentance or water baptism” to receive the Holy Ghost. Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem church shook hands with Paul that they would only go to those of the circumcision. Matt. 7:13 above, and I Peter 4:18 have nothing to do with salvation of the Gentile.

Not much solace or sealing when believing we are only scarily saved, and just hanging by a thread. Is this what you believe?

His next admonition is to beware of false prophets. I think there is an incorrect notion that the false prophets know they are false prophets, just as the vain worshipers know they are worshiping Jesus in vain.

Yes the Jew is to be very careful of this, especially in the coming tribulation period.

If we look to, or for prophets today, are we saved? If so what business have we to look for prophets today, for all are false prophets. I believe we may agree on this matter.[qb]

I am not looking for a rebuttal to every point I make, but based on previous posts, would not be surprised to receive such. Quite frankly, most amount to not much more than, "Your wrong".

When I read this paragraph of yours, I went back on my answers above, asking you for an answer. That will show you are reading and endeavoring to see where I am coming from. I am beginning to see where you are coming from, works + faith, and faith + works. This is because I am interested to see what you have to say, and to see if I can help you see more clearly the gospel of Christ Jesus from Heaven, and also to see if you may enlighten me where I could be wrong. I enjoy discussing with knowledgeable people in their Christian belief, hoping either to learn more, or to teach others more than they now know about the gospel of Paul to the Gentile.

Over the years I have changed from a “babe in Christ” to one that can now “stand”, getting the soles of my feet dirty combating tradition of man. Not only bringing some to salvation in teaching the gospel of Paul, but also moving people to see more clearly that today the only gospel we have is that from Christ as he sits beside His Father in heaven.

I see I have not disappointed you, trying to answer every question you raise, or statement made. When we bring works with our faith, I do say it is wrong, for it is not the gospel of Paul.

Do I sometime sound hoarse, and perhaps dogmatic? Yes, I have been accused of that. Is Jesus viewed in this manner, Peter, Paul, Billy Graham, the Pope, Rick Warren, all those some call the “fathers”, and do the teachers thinking they are right, leave any doubt they are right? I can’t help what I believe, and that is what I teach in my personality.

Are you right? You are in your belief, or we would not be conversing. I believe as I believe for I finally decided to believe the Word, and not mans. We Gentiles had no hope. At least that is what the Bible says, and if any disagree with that, I can’t help it.

Is it I saying you are wrong in understanding Paul? I say no for all I put forth is His Word, and if His Word is not believed, who is in the wrong? I on my own have no authority to tell you “your wrong”. If the Word tells you that you are wrong, will you believe it? That is up to you. I quote scripture of Paul, but most refuse to believe Paul has the dispensational gospel that Christ revealed to him. Ephesians 3:1-5, ”For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2. If ye have heard of the Dispensation of the Grace of God which is given Me to you-ward: 3. How that By Revelation he made known unto Me the Mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand My knowledge in the Mystery of Christ) 5. Which in Other Ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is Now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit”.

As Paul writes these verses, it is Now revealed, but not before to others. If one disbelieves these five verses, then yes, I say they are wrong, as they refuse to believe the gospel of Paul given to him personally by Christ Jesus as He sits on the right hand of His beloved Father. Paul says He is the Apostle to the Gentile, so I make sure I understand my own personal Apostle, and I read what the Holy Spirit had him write to me. Got some chores to do. Also the continuing you may which to answer separately that which follows pertaining to your original post. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

[ June 05, 2005, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: ituttut ]

ituttut

06-05-2005, 09:02 PM

Continued to mman from ituttut:

imman is in bold.

In the original post on this thread, I laid out how we get INTO Christ, into the Church, and in contact with the blood that washes away our sins. So far, all I have received is a bunch of rocks thrown at what I stated, while no one as of yet, has shown through the scriptures any other way we can get INTO Christ, into the church or in contact with the blood. Yes, some have quoted verses that do not tell us how to get INTO Christ saying that is the way, while ignoring verses that deal directly with that very subject.

ituttut: I gave answer to your original of which you refuse, so let me explain another way and see if you will agree.

This seems to be your main trust, of which is quoted here from your original. Quote “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.” Unquote.

Then you immediately say, Quote “We are saved by grace through faith, how wonderful.” Unquote. Where did you find this information of “Through Faith”? Not while Jesus was on earth, and not after Pentecost with the “great commission” gospel. To find the truth that you speak of how wonderful, you first must wait until you hear Paul inform you of this.

It is wonderful what Christ Jesus revealed to Paul some few years after Pentecost. You have just entered into the Gospel of Paul without realizing you just moved from one dispensation to another. Pentecost came with water, and blood, with the Holy Ghost as promised to the 120 at Pentecost. Isn’t it amazing of all the thousands, and most likely millions of Jews in Judah and Israel, a measly 120 showed up. Many talked the good game, but stayed away for the price to high to pay.

There was not one Gentile among them, and was not until Cornelius some few years later was the first Gentile to be preached at, or to, by an Earthly disciple of Jesus.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find salvation throughfaith of Jesus Christ, until it is revealed to Paul. I can see where I might agree with your assessment within your quote above for Israel, but no Gentile is included. They could not be for salvation today of the Gentile, for it was not known until Paul. Search the scriptures, and you will see this is so. Christ from heaven revealed a new dispensational gospel to His only heavenly appointed Apostle. When we come to see this division, it rids the teaching of man of the contradictions they make, for the Word does not contradict.

Just suppose for a minute that I am right (I know, heresy to some). I believe in Jesus and he is my Lord and Savior. I believed him when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Just suppose that Gal 3:26-27 really does mean that we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized into Christ. Let's just suppose that baptism is for the remission of sins and the same phase means the same thing in both Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28.

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.” I believe Peter as he speaks to the children of Israel as he informs in Acts 2:36, ” Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,….”

Matt. 26:28,and then also verse 29: ”For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 - But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

Is it YOU that Jesus is talking to? It is not me, but those he is talking to. Do we presume to invite ourselves to His Table? We must understand things in the kingdom of God. Christ has His kingdom, and Christ gives to His earthly Apostles their own kingdom, and these will sit at His, Christ Jesus table as we see in Luke 22:29-30., ”And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30. That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Is that ME? Is that YOU? Is there anyone other than whom Christ says will sit at His Table? Perhaps somewhere in eternity we may be invited, and it is not an impossibility, but we certainly must think we are “hot stuff” thinking Jesus is going to include us with those that went “through temptations” with him from the beginning of His ministry – ”Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations”, Luke 22:28.

Let's just suppose that we are saved by grace through faith, just like it is described above.

Not supposing here, for this is given us by the Grace of God, through Jesus Christ

Lets just suppose that I am right when I say we are not saved by any works of man, that we cannot merit one microsecond of our eternal salvation. Let's just suppose that baptism is not a work since the bible nowhere calls it a work, but an act of faith. Let's suppose that after one gets into Christ, he will not live perfectly or a sinless life, but as long as he remains in the light, Jesus' blood will cleanse us of all sin (I John 1:7).

I believe I said in my previous post, you are of “Lordship salvation”, and that automatically puts you into the “works” camp, for you must work to continue to be saved, and that is those saved as the Pentecostal church, which is just the same as the Catholic church, if I am not mistaken. The gospel of Paul to the Gentile is of eternal salvation at our believing in our heart that Jesus Christ saves, and we are sealed. Are you not saying someone is stronger than God, and the Spirit of God cannot hold we that are in the Body of Christ. If anybody can do that then they are strong enough to take Christ Jesus, the Son of God from God the Father.

We accept the gift, and one can believe someone, or thing can nullify the Word of God?

Let's just suppose that worship must be according to truth and not what man likes or dislikes. Let's just suppose that many people will be lost who call Jesus Lord, and that the way really is narrow. Let's just suppose that there is such a thing as vain worship, that God really did tell us how to worship him and did not leave it up to man. Let's just suppose that there is only one way INTO Christ. If I were right, what would it take to change your mind?

Prove to me that You are God.

I will then believe you, and not Christ Jesus, the only begotten Son of God that told Paul to tell me, ituttut, you heathen dog, I love you, for this was my purpose from the beginning. From the beginning you went after other idols. I sat you aside, and I then created my own people, and they did just as you. But I, God so loved the world that whosever believes in me shall never perish. I, God as the Word/Son wish you to be like me, and be with me in heaven. You are now part of me and will be with me forever. It was not so from the beginning, for you turned me down, and then my own people did also, I chose Saul/Paul as my only heavenly Apostle, and gave him his own gospel for those in your dispensation, if only they will believe, for ”.. 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”, Romans 4:4-8.

I really believe you and I are that man.

Oh yes, the blood and water. I believe you will find that Christ Jesus, the Word of God is the Water of life, and we believe this, coming through His blood at the Cross with Him, becoming dead to sin and the Law, and will bodily arise to meet Him in the air to be with Him forever, and being as He is, yet not knowing what we shall be. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

mman

06-06-2005, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by ituttut:
It is wonderful what Christ Jesus revealed to Paul some few years after Pentecost. You have just entered into the Gospel of Paul without realizing you just moved from one dispensation to another. Pentecost came with water, and blood, with the Holy Ghost as promised to the 120 at Pentecost. Isn’t it amazing of all the thousands, and most likely millions of Jews in Judah and Israel, a measly 120 showed up. Many talked the good game, but stayed away for the price to high to pay.

There was not one Gentile among them, and was not until Cornelius some few years later was the first Gentile to be preached at, or to, by an Earthly disciple of Jesus.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find salvation throughfaith of Jesus Christ, until it is revealed to Paul. I can see where I might agree with your assessment within your quote above for Israel, but no Gentile is included. They could not be for salvation today of the Gentile, for it was not known until Paul. Search the scriptures, and you will see this is so. Christ from heaven revealed a new dispensational gospel to His only heavenly appointed Apostle. When we come to see this division, it rids the teaching of man of the contradictions they make, for the Word does not contradict. You speak of different gospels, the gospel of Paul or Paul's own gospel, different dispensations. These concepts are foreign to the New Testament.

First, there is but one gospel and that gospel is for all. Here are some proof texts.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

What is the difference in "the gospel" and "a gospel". This one gospel, or the gospel, was preached to the Jews first then to the Greeks (Gentiles). Not two gospels but one gospel, for all man kind, or as stated in vs 16, EVERYONE.

This agrees with Jesus commission to his Apostles in Mark 16:15-16, "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Notice this is for "all the world" (every nation) and every creature (all mankind). Yes, it was preached to the Jews first then the Greeks.

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Notice, they were to go to every nation, teaching the same thing, not differnt messages. They were to teach, baptize and then to teach those disciples to go teach, baptize, then those were taught to go teach and baptize, and so on. This does not end but continues and this message was to be taught to every nation, not just Jews.

Paul makes this plain in Gal 3:26-29, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

It's the same way for Jews, Greeks, males, females, slaves, free, all mankind.

Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

His testament was binding after his death. Once a testament is binding, no one can add to it or take away from it (Gal 3).

Acts 15:7, "And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe"

This is the same Gospel Peter preached everywhere he went. It was not a different Gospel than Paul preached, but it was THE gospel. Your story would be more credible if Paul had preached to Cornelius. But Peter taught him the gospel witch took place after the conversion of Paul.

Acts 16:10 Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Notice, this is THE gospel. Not Paul's gospel.

Paul, in Gal 2:7 states, But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

Was this the same gospel, with Paul primarily preaching to the Gentiles and Peter primarily preaching to the Jews or was this two different messages.

Paul answered this question in Chapter 1 of Galatians when he stated starting in verse 6, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

When Paul states, in II Thes 1:7-8 "and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." which gospel is he talking about?

There is only one Gospel. The Gospel is defined in I Cor 15:1-4 as the death burial and resurrection. How do we obey the gospel? Do we die, then we are burried and resurrected. How can you obey that? We can't, but we can obey a form of this as stated in Rom 6:17. But how do we obey a form of that doctrine? He told us in Rom 6:3-4. We die, we are buried, and we are raised. How? In baptism. Our baptism in water is how we obey a form of the death, burial and resurrection, or the gospel. It's that simple.

The same way they obeyed the gospel in Acts 2 and every other conversion listed.

Also, you mentioned the kingdom. The Church is the kingdom. Matt 16:18-19, Jesus uses the church and kingdom interchangebly. The kingdom would be seen by those alive who were standing in Jesus' presence in Mark 9:1. The kingdom would come with power. Luke 24:49, the Apostles were told to remain in Jerusalem until they were endued with power. Acts 1:8 state, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." Notice, their commission was to the end of the earth (everywhere). Acts 2 is the fulfillment of when they received power, or the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:47 says Jesus added those being saved to the church. Here is the first time we know that the church was established. It came with power just as he had said. Acts 2:41 says those being baptized were added? To what? Verse 47, the Church or the kingdom, since they are the same.

This is the same message for Jews and Gentiles, males and females, slaves or free. The Gospel is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE who believes, to the Jew first and ALSO to the Greek - Rom 1:16.

dean198

06-06-2005, 09:02 PM

The great Baptist scholar Beasley-Murray has already demonstrated that eis here means 'for'. Even Robertson acknowledged that it could mean 'for' here and that is was only his carnal enlightenment philosophy that made him go with a less likely meaning.“For it is his will that all who have believed, be baptized for the remission of sins.” Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:1.
"Christ by baptism has made us partakers of his death, engrafting us into it. And as the twig derives substance and nourishment from the root to which it is attached, so those who receive baptism with true faith truly feel the efficacy of Christ’s death in the mortification of their flesh, and the efficacy of his resurrection in the quickening of the Spirit." Ibid. 4:15:5-6.

One more thing ... The Church is NOT the kingdom! The kingdom was had come to earth when Jesus came. It was in the midst of them. It was preached from the time of John. The Kingdom had come upon them. The Church did not begin until the day of pentecost, which was the 'day of the assembly'. The Church is to live in the kingdom realm, and is to bear witness to the kingdom, but it is not the kingdom.

Eric B

06-06-2005, 10:45 PM

Of course I baptize on the spot. Never is there any example or instruction to wait. In the New Testament, people were baptized immediately. Christ adds to the Church. Never is anyone instructed to join anything. This concept that you are speaking of, seems foreign to the New Testament teaching. So you do not take them to join the church of Christ, and indoctrinaste them about instruments, communion every week, etc? You baptize them and just let them go fellowship wherever they want?

How can you say church membership is different than becoming a member of the body when the church is the body???? I don't.
What you have describd is the ideal I believe in; but it's just that every group, including the Church of Christ as far as I have seen, wants to take the convert into their own organization. This is why baptism and salvation became separated; because it was put off until indoctrination was complete. This may not have been authorized by God; but it is what organized Christianity does, and none of us by ourselves can change it.

dean198

06-06-2005, 10:54 PM

It amazes me that people cannot give praise where praise is due. The so called Church of Christ does alot of things right, and it should be acknowledged. Of course they have no position to claim the exclusive position they do. They have not returned to the NT pattern, and therefore they cannot unchurch everyone else without unchurching themselves. But weekly communion, baptising on the spot, not using instruments, is the practice of the first century church (and for a long time after). Every church used to believe that baptism enrolled a person in the Church ... even the early baptists and the anabaptists before them. the idea of a local church as a covenanted association is puritan in origin - nothing to do with teh apostles.

mman

06-07-2005, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by dean198:
One more thing ... The Church is NOT the kingdom! The kingdom was had come to earth when Jesus came. It was in the midst of them. It was preached from the time of John. The Kingdom had come upon them. The Church did not begin until the day of pentecost, which was the 'day of the assembly'. The Church is to live in the kingdom realm, and is to bear witness to the kingdom, but it is not the kingdom. [/QB]Mark 9:1, clearly indicates the kingdom had not yet come but would come within the lifetime of some who were listening to him. I have shown how it came with power. What scriptures make you think the church is not the kingdom?

What does it take for a kingdom? A king and subjects. Is there a king? Is Jesus reigning now? I Pet 3:22, as well as other places say YES. What is Christ in charge of? The Church according to Eph 5:23.

Col 1:13 says, "13For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son"

The "transferred" is past tense, therefore, those who he was talking to were already in the kingdom.

Again, Matt 16:18-19, Jesus used the word Church and Kingdom interchangeably. Peter preached the first gospel sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and the kingdom or Church was established. Those people of Mark 9:1 did see the kingdom come with power as promised (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:47).

Christ is head and the church is subject to the head.

Yes, there is also an eternal kingdom which is promised to the faithful - II Pet 1:11.

mman

06-07-2005, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
So you do not take them to join the church of Christ, and indoctrinaste them about instruments, communion every week, etc? You baptize them and just let them go fellowship wherever they want? The Lord adds them to the Church (Acts 2:47). Which Church? His Church. The one he died for and bought with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Which church were those in Acts 2 added? Did they have to be "indoctrinated"?

In Acts 2, were they mature christians? No. They were babes in Christ that needed the word to grow (I Pet 2:2). Today, they study God's word and grow.

That is the same plan that Jesus set forth in Matt 28:18-20, teach, baptize, teach.

Nowhere is anyone ever instucted to "join" anything. Nowhere is anyone ever "voted" on or in.

I don't.
What you have describd is the ideal I believe in; but it's just that every group, including the Church of Christ as far as I have seen, wants to take the convert into their own organization. This is why baptism and salvation became separated; because it was put off until indoctrination was complete. This may not have been authorized by God; but it is what organized Christianity does, and none of us by ourselves can change it. If God connected baptism and salvation, there is nothing man can do to separate it.

If you believe one is saved, then later baptized into the church, then the church in not necessary for salvation. Yet Jesus adds those being saved to the church (Acts 2:47).

So, what makes one a baptist? Being saved plus baptist doctrine? That would make Baptist doctrine unnecessary and unessential to salvation.

The same could be said for Methodist doctrine. One is saved and then "indoctrinated" to become a Methodist. Therefore, Methodist doctrine is unnecessary and unessential for salvation.

Are you saying that salvation plus doctrine make you a member of a denomination?

Does Jesus condon all denominations. Is he a "member" of all denominations? Does he condon immersion and once saved always saved with the baptist and at the same time condon sprinkling and the possibility of apostacy with the Methodists? Is Christ divided? Are all worshipping according to truth? Are all teaching the truth? How can they be.

Here is what I read in the New Testament. When a believer repents and confesses his belief in Christ, he is baptized for the remission of sins and is added to The Church by Christ, just as in the many examples as recorded in the book of Acts.

What if a group of baptized believers meets and doesn't join any group. Of what church would they be a member? They study the New Testament pattern of worship and try to do bible things in bible ways, calling bible things by bible names and speaking where the bible speaks and remaining silent where the bible is silent.

That is the plea of the Chruch of Christ.

dean198

06-07-2005, 07:29 PM

mark 9:1 speaks of those standing there, that they would not see death till the kingdom came in power. This is speaking of a coming of the kingdom - a consumating coming, though not the end of the age consumation. The fact that Jesus said that some would not die, indicates that this coming was not soon after. It was, I believe, the kingdom coming in power manifesting itself in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation in 70 AD. But Jesus said that the kingdom was already in their midst. John said the kingdom was near at hand. Jesus said that if demons are cast out, than is the kingdom already here. The church is the community of the kingdom, whose job is to make known the kingdom through the works of the kingdom.

dean198

06-07-2005, 07:36 PM

What if a group of baptized believers meets and doesn't join any group. Of what church would they be a member? They study the New Testament pattern of worship and try to do bible things in bible ways, calling bible things by bible names and speaking where the bible speaks and remaining silent where the bible is silent. I suppose that they would be a body of believers, though possibly not a church in the NT sense, unless they had a new testament ministry to guide them. Where is this ministry? The 'restoration movement' never addressed this. There are areas where the RM never did restore the NT pattern of the laying on of the hands for the Holy Spirit, or the Timothy ministry, or widows, or elders properly ordained and disciplined. The RM was another movement, along with many others, who thought that they alone had returned to the NT. Some have certainly been more consistent and closer to the NT than the RM.

DHK

06-07-2005, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by dean198:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> What if a group of baptized believers meets and doesn't join any group. Of what church would they be a member? They study the New Testament pattern of worship and try to do bible things in bible ways, calling bible things by bible names and speaking where the bible speaks and remaining silent where the bible is silent. [/QUOTE]Are you speaking of IFB churches? smile.gif

dean198

06-07-2005, 07:51 PM

I don't know what an IFB church is, but if it has anything to do with you than definately not!

DHK

06-07-2005, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by dean198:
I don't know what an IFB church is, but if it has anything to do with you than definately not! This is a debate forum, not a personal attack forum. Further remarks will be deleted. I would advise you to get an education about IFB churches if you don't know what one is before posting such.
DHK

dean198

06-07-2005, 08:04 PM

I am definately NOT talking about Independent Fundamentalist 'Churches' that follow a whole cocktail of man-made doctrines. At least the RM was an effort to return to the NT pattern as they saw it.

dean198

06-07-2005, 08:07 PM

Are you speaking of IFB churches? If you don't like answers in the negative, please refrain from asking me questions.

DHK

06-07-2005, 08:22 PM

No doubt you are very unfamiliar with IFB churches, as your post does indicate. Most of them differ one from another in one way or another. I would like to hear from you what you determine as their "man-made" doctrines, whatever they may be.
Our church was started by an American preacher who came and went house to house preaching the gospel to those who would hear. Those who did hear were saved. They were then baptized. And from them a local church was established. That is the Biblical pattern of a local church. It is also carrying out the command of the Great Commission. We do not belong to any denomination, unlike the COC, and did not have any starting point in history unlike the RM. Most IFB churches are startec by an individual going and starting a church on his own.
The Bible then becomes our only foundation, and source of authority. All that we preach is based on the Bible. All of our doctrine comes from the Bible. We have no man-made doctrine. If we do, I challenge you to name them. We have a Biblical precendent for all that we believe. We are a New Testament Biblical Church.
DHK

DHK

06-07-2005, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by dean198:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Are you speaking of IFB churches? If you don't like answers in the negative, please refrain from asking me questions. [/QUOTE]If you don't like debate on a Baptist Board, then go somewhere else.
Grow up!

mman

06-07-2005, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
No doubt you are very unfamiliar with IFB churches, as your post does indicate. Most of them differ one from another in one way or another. I would like to hear from you what you determine as their "man-made" doctrines, whatever they may be.
Our church was started by an American preacher who came and went house to house preaching the gospel to those who would hear. Those who did hear were saved. They were then baptized. And from them a local church was established. That is the Biblical pattern of a local church. It is also carrying out the command of the Great Commission. We do not belong to any denomination, unlike the COC, and did not have any starting point in history unlike the RM. Most IFB churches are startec by an individual going and starting a church on his own.
The Bible then becomes our only foundation, and source of authority. All that we preach is based on the Bible. All of our doctrine comes from the Bible. We have no man-made doctrine. If we do, I challenge you to name them. We have a Biblical precendent for all that we believe. We are a New Testament Biblical Church.
DHK I am unfamiliar with the IFB. I admire your quest to be a New Testament Biblical Church. That is the plea of the Church of Christ.I am sincerely asking what you practice, since I have no idea. Since most differ in one way or another, tell me about what you practice.

From your short description, I can tell you something that you do not have a biblical precent for, and that is a biblical name. There may be a reason, but if you are trying to be a New Testament Church, why wasn't a biblical name used?

From your description, you stated having a biblical precedent for all you believe. Please address the following plus any others you would like. Or if you have a website you could point me to, that would be fine also.

Do you use instrumental music in your worship or is there only singing?
Do you partake of the Lord's supper on the first day of every week?
Do you baptize for the remission of sins? (I know the answer to this one, but there is a biblical precedent).

On a side note, I have followed somewhat your discussion of "speaking in tongues" on another thread. I am in agreement with you in all your posts that I've read (I may not have read them all, but I'm certain I've read most of them). I wish you would use that same logic in our discussion on baptism smile.gif

Eric B

06-07-2005, 10:06 PM

The Lord adds them to the Church (Acts 2:47). Which Church? His Church. The one he died for and bought with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Which church were those in Acts 2 added? Did they have to be "indoctrinated"?

In Acts 2, were they mature christians? No. They were babes in Christ that needed the word to grow (I Pet 2:2). Today, they study God's word and grow.

That is the same plan that Jesus set forth in Matt 28:18-20, teach, baptize, teach.

Nowhere is anyone ever instucted to "join" anything. Nowhere is anyone ever "voted" on or in.
OK. But there are many churches out there. He has to fellowship somewhere. How does he know "which one" was the one Chrust "founded"?
Or does he just wander without any fellowship, since there is not "joining" anything once he is baptized?
If God connected baptism and salvation, there is nothing man can do to separate it.
So receiving Christ means nothing, and a whole bunch of people are lost just because they have not been immersed in a pool of water?
If you believe one is saved, then later baptized into the church, then the church in not necessary for salvation. Yet Jesus adds those being saved to the church (Acts 2:47). No; "the church" meaning visible congregations, is not necessary for salvation. One is in the Body spiritually, and he is to obey by fellowshipping (Heb.10:25), but that is not what saves him. But we're not even talking about people who don't go to church. We're talking about those who do go to church, but haven't been baptized yet. Because even though there is the ideal of being baptized into Christ immediately upon confessing Christ; still, there are a bunch of different church groups out there (and CofC is just another one out of all the others), and a person is not sure which one to join, and nearly all of them don't baptize right away anyway. So we say these people are walking around lost until they decide which to join, and then be baptized? No; it's until they are lucky enough to run into you, and you baptize them without requiring they join anything, right?
So, what makes one a baptist? Being saved plus baptist doctrine? That would make Baptist doctrine unnecessary and unessential to salvation.

The same could be said for Methodist doctrine. One is saved and then "indoctrinated" to become a Methodist. Therefore, Methodist doctrine is unnecessary and unessential for salvation.
No Baptist or Methodist I know of says that being in their denomination is necessary for salvation. That's the whole point. They may have their particular doctrines that they think are right; but they know that it is Christ alone that saves, whether they are in their denomination or not. It is the CofC that says only the CofC is the true church, and baptism into it is necessary for salvation.
Does Jesus condon all denominations. Is he a "member" of all denominations? Does he condon immersion and once saved always saved with the baptist and at the same time condon sprinkling and the possibility of apostacy with the Methodists? Is Christ divided? Are all worshipping according to truth? Are all teaching the truth? How can they be.
Are you saying that salvation plus doctrine make you a member of a denomination?
Basically. Once again, the ideal is one single body of Christ; but men did form these organizations around lesser doctrinal differences. But at least they know that faith in Christ takes precedence over all of those other issues and the groups formed around them. But we are not discussing how to have doctrine; we are discussing how to be saved.
What if a group of baptized believers meets and doesn't join any group. Of what church would they be a member? They study the New Testament pattern of worship and try to do bible things in bible ways, calling bible things by bible names and speaking where the bible speaks and remaining silent where the bible is silent.
Great! That is what I believe in. And all "plea" for that, but all still have their doctrines and interpretations, and the Church of Christ is just another one among the rest, and some things you are just as wrong as the others. If the Bible is so silent on instruments; it does not condemn them, yet for you to condemn them is speaking where the Bible has not spoken. The same thing as taking a passing reference in acts 20:7 and saying "the Church had communion the first day of every week". That is NOT what that says! Once again; at least most of the other groups admit they could be wrong, or at least sumbit their peculiar doctrine to the greater cause of the basic Gospel by accepting those from other denominations who have accepted Christ, regardless of what denomination they are.

dean198

06-07-2005, 11:08 PM

There is no difference. In the early church, you were baptised into the Church. The Puritan congregational idea of local church membership of a covenanted community hadn't been invented. But joining the RM churches is absolutely no different from joining a Baptist or any other church. The Plymouth Brethren attempted to restore a kind of ancient universalism of the church by practicing letters of recommendation, but as far as I know, the RM churches are just localised fellowships the same as the Baptists.

dean198

06-07-2005, 11:09 PM

"If you don't like debate on a Baptist Board, then go somewhere else.
Grow up!"

Sorry, I was very tired earlier.

dean198

06-07-2005, 11:16 PM

Our church was started by an American preacher who came and went house to house preaching the gospel to those who would hear. Those who did hear were saved. They were then baptized. And from them a local church was established. That is the Biblical pattern of a local church. It is also carrying out the command of the Great Commission. We do not belong to any denomination, unlike the COC, and did not have any starting point in history unlike the RM. Most IFB churches are startec by an individual going and starting a church on his own.
The Bible then becomes our only foundation, and source of authority. All that we preach is based on the Bible. All of our doctrine comes from the Bible. We have no man-made doctrine. If we do, I challenge you to name them. We have a Biblical precendent for all that we believe. We are a New Testament Biblical Church.
DHK That is certainly a good way to begin a church. I do think that there is a general deficiency among us evangelicals when it comes to the New Testament Ministry. Our church government is simply not biblical. I think the early seventeenth century Baptists had a clearer grasp of these things. I disagree with the whole concept of a local church. Darby was right when he said that in NT times a believer was part of the whole church, not just a localised expression of it, and each local expression of it acted in the name of the whole. Hence letters of recommendation. Again, as the early Plymouth Brethren pointed out, Indepedency as an idea and system cannot be found in the NT, and is an invention of Puritanism.
As for man-made doctrines, I would cite Independency and Calvinism. Generally speaking, dispensationalism (another child of Darby) and cessationism are other man-made teachings.

dean198

06-07-2005, 11:25 PM

From your short description, I can tell you something that you do not have a biblical precent for, and that is a biblical name. There may be a reason, but if you are trying to be a New Testament Church, why wasn't a biblical name used?

The 'we are of Christ' party was just as sectarian as the 'we are of Paul' party at Corinth. The fact is no one descriptive noun is taken in the NT as an absolute title, as though it were a denomination, in the pages of the NT. The NT congregations were the churches of Christ, yes! But they were not 'The Church of Christ' to the exclusion of all other descriptive names. They were also collectively 'the Church of God'. Does that mean we should take that one name and post it on all our (unbiblical) church buildings to the exclusion of everything else? No! To call yourself 'the church of the firstborn' or 'the church of Christ' or 'the church of God', or the 'assemblies of God' as though these were titles to divide by is just as carnal as glorying in the name Methodist or Baptist. These were not tags, these names were who the early christians were.

Do you use instrumental music in your worship or is there only singing?
Do you partake of the Lord's supper on the first day of every week?
Do you baptize for the remission of sins? (I know the answer to this one, but there is a biblical precedent).

On a side note, I have followed somewhat your discussion of "speaking in tongues" on another thread. I am in agreement with you in all your posts that I've read (I may not have read them all, but I'm certain I've read most of them). I wish you would use that same logic in our discussion on baptism Do you meet in houses?
Do you have a love feast at your eucharist?
Do you have widows enrolled over sixty years old?
Do you practice the laying on of hands on the newly baptised?
Do you have an external New Testament ministry, as borne witness in the epistles to Titus and Timothy?
Do you have the gifts of the Spirit that are here, according to scripture, until the second coming? 1 Cor. 1: 4-8?
Do you have interactive sermons?

DHK

06-08-2005, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by mman:
I am unfamiliar with the IFB. I admire your quest to be a New Testament Biblical Church. That is the plea of the Church of Christ.I am sincerely asking what you practice, since I have no idea. Since most differ in one way or another, tell me about what you practice.Our services are informal, non-liturgical, center around the preaching of the Word of God. Most of the service is taken up with the preaching (an expository sermon), but there is some singing (with or without instruments), and always some prayer. There are usually some announcements and then an offering taken up.
We do have the Lord's Table but not at every service, and not at the first Sunday of every month. The Bible doesn't specifiy when. It says "as oft as you do this," so in order not to fall into a traditional rut, we vary the times of the Lord's Supper, or how often we have it.
From your short description, I can tell you something that you do not have a biblical precent for, and that is a biblical name. There may be a reason, but if you are trying to be a New Testament Church, why wasn't a biblical name used?I don't believe the church of Christ is a Biblical name either. First of all, with the influx of denominations and cults, etc., it becomes necessary for one to associate themselves with a name of some kind. You have associated yourselves (in most people's minds) with the Cambellites or the Restoration Movement--hardly a Biblical name.
The body of doctrine a Baptist believes, is for the most part the most Biblical, when compared to all others. Thus we are Baptist. First and foremost a Baptist has the Bible as its only rule of faith and order (sola scriptura). It is the basis of all that we believe.

As for a name, look at the various churches in the New Testament. In Jerusalem, we might call that first church (Acts 2 and 15) The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. smile.gif
All the churches had a name.
To the church at Ephesus.
To the church at Corinth.
There are seven churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation, all identified by name--the location is the name. The name of our locality is in the name of our church as well. Does that make it Biblical enough?
It is a Baptist Church because of doctrine. Baptist doctrine is Biblical doctrine.

From your description, you stated having a biblical precedent for all you believe. Please address the following plus any others you would like. Or if you have a website you could point me to, that would be fine also.

Do you use instrumental music in your worship or is there only singing?To be frank, historically there were no musical instruments in the New Testament churches until about 300 A.D. I recognize that from history. I also know that great preachers like C.H. Spurgeon thought that musical instruments were a distraction to "true worship." But as I personally study the Bible, (and that is what each one of us are responsible to do), I do not see a prohibition against musical instruments. Right or wrong this is one of the biggest differences between IFB churches and COC's. There may be an occasionl IFB church that agrees with your position. They are at liberty to take that position. That is why we are independent Baptists. We do not belong to any denomination, just like the New Testament churches. But the COC is a denomination in itself. You must adhere to what the denomination of the COC teaches even if you believe it is wrong. That goes for its teaching on baptism, musical instruments, etc. As a Catholic must defend the catechism and has no soul liberty, you must defend the doctrine of the denomination of the COC, and have no soul liberty to believe what you think is right. There may be some Baptist churches that do not use musical instruments (C.H. Spurgeon), and there are those that do. It is a matter of soul liberty, not right and wrong issue; because the Bible does not specifically prohibit them. The decision to use or not to use is up to the leadership of the pastor who is accountable to God. Again, each New Testament church is independent of the other, and accountable only to Christ and the Word of God--not to any denominational headquarters or their creed.
We do use a piano, and sometimes others have musical instruments as well.
Do you partake of the Lord's supper on the first day of every week?That would be every Sunday. No, the Bible isn't specific on that. The early church met every day. We don't do that either. They first met in the temple, and then in the synagogues. We don't meet in the synagogue either. Things change. The Bible specifically says: "as oft as ye do this." So whenever we celebrate the Lord's Supper we remember the Lord's death. And that is as often as we do it--whenever--not tied down to tradition.
Do you baptize for the remission of sins? (I know the answer to this one, but there is a biblical precedent).The true interpretation of that verse is baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek gives that sense, or allows for it. If it allows for it, then we must take it for Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

On a side note, I have followed somewhat your discussion of "speaking in tongues" on another thread. I am in agreement with you in all your posts that I've read (I may not have read them all, but I'm certain I've read most of them). I wish you would use that same logic in our discussion on baptism smile.gif I try. I just think you don't want to see it.
DHK

ituttut

06-08-2005, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ituttut:
It is wonderful what Christ Jesus revealed to Paul some few years after Pentecost. You have just entered into the Gospel of Paul without realizing you just moved from one dispensation to another. Pentecost came with water, and blood, with the Holy Ghost as promised to the 120 at Pentecost. Isn’t it amazing of all the thousands, and most likely millions of Jews in Judah and Israel, a measly 120 showed up. Many talked the good game, but stayed away for the price to high to pay.

There was not one Gentile among them, and was not until Cornelius some few years later was the first Gentile to be preached at, or to, by an Earthly disciple of Jesus.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find salvation throughfaith of Jesus Christ, until it is revealed to Paul. I can see where I might agree with your assessment within your quote above for Israel, but no Gentile is included. They could not be for salvation today of the Gentile, for it was not known until Paul. Search the scriptures, and you will see this is so. Christ from heaven revealed a new dispensational gospel to His only heavenly appointed Apostle. When we come to see this division, it rids the teaching of man of the contradictions they make, for the Word does not contradict. mman: You speak of different gospels, the gospel of Paul or Paul's own gospel, different dispensations. These concepts are foreign to the New Testament.

I notice you don’t attempt to explain how you got from over there on the Jewish side to over here on the Christian side. It can be done by using the bridge beginning in Acts and watch the scenery and message change by the time you finish Acts having entered into the Grace of God through Jesus Christ as you begin to read the Epistles of Christ’s only heavenly appointed Apostle. Please take a look at this and you will see it is impossible to make that leap of Faith to Faith, without the intervention of God.

But until you do see God is a God of division, I’ll keep plugging away. Somewhere along the line you are going to have to admit Christ did personally speak to Paul, giving Paul his own gospel for the Gentle, saying build on My foundation also, but start a new foundation, and not on the foundation of Peter.tell him not to build his gospel on the same foundation as Peter’s.

If we don’t believe Paul then let’s never again refer to anything he says. What would we then have? Just as so very many say, “Hey, it’s all the same don’t you know”, for nothing really happened when Christ spoke to Paul. It didn’t take. It failed. Forget about Paul and let’s keep trudging toward that earthly kingdom that will be here right after we make it through the tribulation.

No thanks, for I’d probably not be able to make it on my own. I like being “sealed” into His Body. It is a “free guarantee” that lasts forever.

First, there is but one gospel and that gospel is for all. Here are some proof texts.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

Amen! The gospel of Christ today is the gospel of Paul for in the blood is forgiveness through which we come, believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What is the difference in "the gospel" and "a gospel". This one gospel, or the gospel, was preached to the Jews first then to the Greeks (Gentiles). Not two gospels but one gospel, for all man kind, or as stated in vs 16, EVERYONE.

Paul went to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. The gospel of Paul is to EVERYONE, for Paul was given a dispensational gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself, by offering man the free gift of salvation without works. Nowhere in scripture after God slaughtered and animal to cover Adam and his wife, do you ever find God dealing with man, without demanding a work. God required a blood sacrifice from the beginning, until Christianity became known. The Hebrew Pentecostal church sacrificed until the destruction of the Temple.

I don’t know of one Christian church that offers a blood sacrifice. There were two gospels, one coming by and one coming through. Christ Jesus is our sacrifice, and He did it once for all.

This agrees with Jesus commission to his Apostles in Mark 16:15-16, "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

If you are referring to “water baptism”, I don’t believe as the Catholic, or the church of Christ, or any that believes “water baptism by man” saves. If one today believes and is not “water” baptized then that person is condemned, they believing in the “great commandment”.

Notice this is for "all the world" (every nation) and every creature (all mankind). Yes, it was preached to the Jews first then the Greeks.

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Notice, they were to go to every nation, teaching the same thing, not differnt messages. They were to teach, baptize and then to teach those disciples to go teach, baptize, then those were taught to go teach and baptize, and so on. This does not end but continues and this message was to be taught to every nation, not just Jews.

We have gone over this before. I believe the scripture you quote, and what you say in your second paragraph, but Israel was cut-off a year after Pentecost. The “great commission” was given to His Apostles, and with the help of the Holy Ghost, they and the house of Israel were to be the one’s to carry that gospel to the whole world. The Apostles never got out of Jerusalem until some time after the death of Stephen. Is the Jew today teaching you the “great commission”, or is it someone else that does not have that authority? The Hebrew church did not make it. That message was taken from the Jew, a new message of Grace, through faith, without a work was given to One Apostle, he being Paul.

It is Paul’s gospel, just as was Moses’ Law and ordinances, and John the Baptist’s preaching the kingdom is at hand. It was at hand, and it came, and Israel refused it. That kingdom came but they thrust that King aside, and then they refused the Holy Ghost. Can’t you now see why we Gentiles so Love our Savior Jesus Christ? He says He didn’t come for us, but He made a place for us. God had kept to himself a gospel never before known. Oh, how we should love Jesus, for He didn’t have to love us but He did, for we left he long before His own did. God knew His people would fall, and become again as the heathen, and by that fall, we are now allowed in the Temple. Not the outer court, but also the inner court, and in the Body of Christ, the only saving sacrifice forever, we are in the Holy of Holies.

Paul makes this plain in Gal 3:26-29, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

It's the same way for Jews, Greeks, males, females, slaves, free, all mankind.

I believe this. I believe it all, but no mortal man from the beginning knew this. Knew what? Through faith in Christ Jesus. This was not known until after Damascus Road.

Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

His testament was binding after his death. Once a testament is binding, no one can add to it or take away from it (Gal 3).

I always agree with scripture, rightly divided and understood. Jesus Christ spilled His precious blood, which saves to the utmost. But how, and when is that blood applied? Was it applied to Moses; Sampson, David, Prophets, or any of the others while they lived? They didn’t even know His name. Jesus had not shed His blood so it could not be applied to them, but their sins were covered, not forgiven, by the blood of sacrificed animals. As it was impossible for them to come Through faith, they came By faith in God the Father, that they made covenant with.

Those of the generation from John the Baptist through John the Apostle, were either saved by faith or through faith.

Acts 15:7, "And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe"

This is the same Gospel Peter preached everywhere he went. It was not a different Gospel than Paul preached, but it was THE gospel. Your story would be more credible if Paul had preached to Cornelius. But Peter taught him the gospel witch took place after the conversion of Paul.

I believe you will find Peter did not preach the “great commission” to Cornelius. In chapter 9 of Acts, Christ confronts Saul on Damascus Road, and Saul is told he is to bear the name of Jesus to the Gentile, and to the Jew. The wording is not “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”, but to bear the name of Jesus Christ, namely “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”.

Then some time later Christ sends Peter to Cornelius, with what message? It is a message Peter had never before heard, and a message he did not understand. He was astonished, shocked, amazed; He was stunned beyond belief, as were those Jews with him – ”To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44. While Peter Yet Spake These Words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

So we can see it is Paul that first knew before Peter of the Gentile way of salvation. This is the only place you will find where Peter preached to a heathen Gentile. He tells us just a few verses upward in Acts chapter 10, they were to have nothing to do with heathens. They knew this even before they met Jesus, and Jesus was a Jew and did not associate, preach to or at them while on earth. Also, Acts and Galatians advises the Hebrew church in Jerusalem would only go to the “circumcised” with their message of the “great commission”, and believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and also be circumcised, keep the Sabbath, the feasts, the blood sacrifices and all the rest. They all shook hands as Barnabas and Paul (who had already told James, Peter, John and all the rest about Damascus Road and His commission from Christ as the Apostle to the Gentiles) would concentrate on the “uncircumcised” with their message of believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Peter was given this honor, one, so that the Gospel of Paul would be accepted by the Hebrew Pentecostal church, as the One appointed by Christ Jesus to go to the Gentile. They were not going to do it. God would not humiliate them in forcing them to go to the Gentile, and after Paul, they no longer had the authority to preach the “Hebrew” message of “repent and be baptized”, as it was not necessary any longer, for that Jewish gospel was going out, and the New gospel of the New dispensation was the reconciling of the whole world unto himself.

The New message is “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. And in this connection who in their right mind would believe Saul, as he was the one who first scattered the Saints from Jerusalem to other towns. Saul had papers in hand from the Sanhedrin to go to Damascus and persecute, bind, and bring back to Jerusalem to be punished or even killed, those of Pentecostal belief. They were running out of members to be found in Jerusalem. Saul is a mean, determined defender of the powerful dead Jewish religion of the Law and ordinances, and has in mind of wiping them off the face of the earth. This guy was a Holy Terror. Christ knew what He was getting when He chose Saul/Paul. This man was quick learner and would die for Him, and give it his all, until death.

The second reason I believe was for Peter, the leader of the dying Pentecostal church, to allow James to take over that dying church of the kingdom that Israel had refused, for that foundation was just about full, and would not gain any more members after the destruction of the Temple in 70A.D. Peter would lose his ability, with John and the rest of asking a mountain to be moved, and it would, as with the other signs that followed at first. I believe the apostolic church, those with the Power of the Holy Ghost, lost that power around Acts 15 or 16. We know Paul still had the Power of the Holy Spirit until he reached Rome. The Holy Spirit was needed by the Christians, especially Paul, to help the fledgling Christian belief to get started and thrive.

Acts 16:10 Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Notice, this is THE gospel. Not Paul's gospel.

But it is Paul’s gospel of the kingdom of God, for Paul was commission by Christ Jesus from heaven to preach not only to the Gentile, but also to the Jew, or a proselyte to the Jewish faith, of the Sabbath, and the “great commission”. There were two gospels running simultaneously. You think God didn’t know what He was doing when He chose Paul to be the one to preach the “gospel that had been hidden from the beginning”, but also to accommodate the Jewish religion that had not yet be sat aside?

Why is Paul so hard to understand in his knowledge and wisdom given to him by Christ Jesus? Christ gave Paul the authority to preach both gospels. Jesus Christ never gave his earthly Apostles the authority to preach but One Gospel, and that was the “great commission”. But then the house of Israel was cut-off. They no longer had the authority, unless by divine intervention, to preach to the heathen, as long as the “great commission” gospel was also in force.

God sent Peter to Cornelius that One time for a purpose of showing the Hebrew Pentecostal church, that the Gentile was now in the plan of God, and Gentile salvation was not on the same order as those in covenant with God. And to acknowledge that Paul was the One Apostle to go to the Gentile, and they to the circumcised, at least until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

Paul, in Gal 2:7 states, But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

Was this the same gospel, with Paul primarily preaching to the Gentiles and Peter primarily preaching to the Jews or was this two different messages.

Galatians 2:7 has nothing to do with your reference Acts 16:10. You can’t just pick one verse up and apply it anywhere you wish. This is where contradictions come from.

Paul was informed in Damascus that he had the authority to represent Christ to the Gentile, and to the Jew, as well as kings. Paul was given authority to do it all. The essence of what we are to understand is that Paul was given the dispensational gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself, and Paul was given authority to preach to all, the gospel of Pentecost to the Jew, and the gospel of Grace to the Gentile, and also to the Jew that comes as the Gentile.

In the ‘great commission” gospel the earthly Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to carry that message to the whole world. But after Israel was cut-off, this was no longer true. They tell you themselves, they go only to the Hebrew that came through Jacob. Then until the Temple fell no Apostle was allowed to preach to the Gentile, with the exception of the one time event concerning Cornelius. This was done for the purpose of assisting in acceptance of the Christian gospel of salvation by Grace, Through Faith, without works, when the Hebrew Pentecostal church acknowledged as they gave hands to Paul, and Barnabas.

All through Acts, and the Epistles of Paul we see him preaching to both groups, and many times, in mixed audience. You do not see this with the earthly Apostles, or James the half brother of Jesus. They didn’t for they did not have the authority to preach that other gospel of grace through faith, without a work, to the heathen. Paul did have the authority.

Paul answered this question in Chapter 1 of Galatians when he stated starting in verse 6, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

I believe the whole Bible, knowing the covenant people have a different gospel than we Gentiles, and today, there is not that Old Covenant, or the gospel of John the Baptist of the kingdom is at hand, or the “great commission” command, but there were two gospel’s during the lives of the earthly Apostle’s, with exception of John for we know John lived for approx. 30 years after the destruction of the Temple, and John wrote his books a good number of years after that destruction. That gospel of the circumcision today is no longer valid, after that generation from John the Baptist to the destruction in A.D. 70.

Your Galatians 1 reference to those teachers that was corrupting the Christians of the Gentile faith by telling them they had to become as the Jew and must be circumcised, keeping all the laws and ordinances. These are the Judaizers, or the “troublers”, which the Apostles and James tells Paul, they did not send. We know the leaders of the Pentecostal church did not want this for they were not to teach the Gentiles to follow their (Jewish) gospel of the circumcision. Paul warns also in other scripture of trying to mix works with grace.

This different gospel of the “great commission” is built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ is not unlike our gospel of grace, but it is not our gospel. The preacher, teacher, or whoever encourages a Christian to believe in works to add to grace is to be detested. The Gentile needs to stand apart from rituals (works) done by the circumcision gospel.

When Paul states, in II Thes 1:7-8 "and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." which gospel is he talking about?

As Paul preaches to me a Gentile, I accept his message to the Christian of “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. I accepted the gift of salvation, but Christ did not tell me to “obey” any law, ordinance, or what some men preach, and that is “works” being connected with grace, for this is what the “troubles” were doing.

Tell me mman, what gospel do you think he is talking about, and why do you believe it.

There is only one Gospel. The Gospel is defined in I Cor 15:1-4 as the death burial and resurrection. How do we obey the gospel? Do we die, then we are burried and resurrected. How can you obey that? We can't, but we can obey a form of this as stated in Rom 6:17. But how do we obey a form of that doctrine? He told us in Rom 6:3-4. We die, we are buried, and we are raised. How? In baptism. Our baptism in water is how we obey a form of the death, burial and resurrection, or the gospel. It's that simple.

We died with Christ at the time He died. We came through the water and the saving blood of Christ. He bore my sins that day, so I died with Him. How did this happen? I believed on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I was saved. I cannot find where Paul tells me I must be water baptized to be saved, and I cannot find where John said I must be baptized by hands of man to be saved. There is One Baptism for the Christian and that is done by the Holy Spirit, into the death of Jesus Christ.

You are adhering to the Catholic belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, and if not then a work that is necessary after you believe. Am I understanding you correctly?

The same way they obeyed the gospel in Acts 2 and every other conversion listed.

And that gospel is you must “repent and be water baptized to be saved”. But I do not believe that gospel, for it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathen Gentile.

Also, you mentioned the kingdom. The Church is the kingdom. Matt 16:18-19, Jesus uses the church and kingdom interchangebly. The kingdom would be seen by those alive who were standing in Jesus' presence in Mark 9:1. The kingdom would come with power. Luke 24:49, the Apostles were told to remain in Jerusalem until they were endued with power. Acts 1:8 state, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." Notice, their commission was to the end of the earth (everywhere). Acts 2 is the fulfillment of when they received power, or the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:47 says Jesus added those being saved to the church. Here is the first time we know that the church was established. It came with power just as he had said. Acts 2:41 says those being baptized were added? To what? Verse 47, the Church or the kingdom, since they are the same.

The kingdom promised to God’s nation was refused, for they refused their King of the kingdom that was at hand preached by John the Baptist. Things have changed, and now the Gentile and those of Jewish blood today can be raptured before the coming of the King in His power, and He will rule the world for 1000 years. I do not want to be around when the tribulation comes. We didn’t know about being caught up into the air, even some as they live, until Paul. This was hidden in the mysteries of God, until Christ Jesus talked and taught Paul.

As stated before, within the church are two foundations laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ. I am not on that foundation (house) of Peter’s, but on that of Paul’s. Will I a Gentile be in the kingdom of the Apostle’s that was with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry, and stuck with Him through His temptations? These will judge the tribes of Israel. I am not of Israel. I am in the kingdom of Christ.[qb]

This is the same message for Jews and Gentiles, males and females, slaves or free. The Gospel is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE who believes, to the Jew first and ALSO to the Greek - Rom 1:16. [/QUOTE]Amen, for today there is no distinction, as in times past. This is the gospel of Paul of grace through faith, which came only with the gospel of Paul, for before the Jew was saved byfaith. Christian faith, ituttut Galatains 1:11-12

mman

06-08-2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:

OK. But there are many churches out there. He has to fellowship somewhere. How does he know "which one" was the one Chrust "founded"?
Or does he just wander without any fellowship, since there is not "joining" anything once he is baptized?There is but one church according to scriptures. Yes there are local congregations of that one church. Which one? Excellent question.

Here are some things I would look for? Do they have a biblical name? Do they have a creed or other similar instructions or do they only rely on the bible? Do they follow the New Testament pattern of worship? Do they endorse division (denominations) or say that division is wrong? If someone is truly seeking the truth, they will find it.

So receiving Christ means nothing, and a whole bunch of people are lost just because they have not been immersed in a pool of water?
What does the bible say?

John 3:36"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Is obedience important?

When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", (Mark 16:16) that is either a true statement or it isn't.

Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". Did Peter give them faulty instructions? The Lord added them to the Church (Acts 2:47).

When Philip preached Jesus to the Eunuch in Acts 8:35, the very next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth is ""Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Saul, a believer who had been praying for 3 days was told to, "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)

Peter said, "eight souls, were saved through water. 21There 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, (I Pet 3:20-21).

Peter said something saves us. What? Baptism.

Paul said in Rom 6 "1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore 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.
5For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

When does the new life begin? How do we get into Christ? Can one be saved outside of Christ when all spriritual blessings are in Christ (Eph 1:3). What if one has not "been united together in the likeness of His death"? How are we united in the likeness of His death?

Paul also said in Gal 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

Can one be saved who is not a child of God? Who were childern? Who had put on or been clothed with Christ? Can one be saved and not clothed with Christ?

Here are the two choices.

1) Baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins. If this is the case, then all of these verses make perfect sense. There is no need to twist or explain away anything. The natural conclusion one gets from reading each verse is the actual meaning.

2) Baptism is not for the remission of sins. If this is the case, then these verses must somehow be twisted or explained away. The natural conclusion one gets from reading each verse dealing with baptism is NOT the actual meaning and the real meaning is obscure.

No; "the church" meaning visible congregations, is not necessary for salvation. One is in the Body spiritually, and he is to obey by fellowshipping (Heb.10:25), but that is not what saves him. But we're not even talking about people who don't go to church. We're talking about those who do go to church, but haven't been baptized yet. Because even though there is the ideal of being baptized into Christ immediately upon confessing Christ; still, there are a bunch of different church groups out there (and CofC is just another one out of all the others), and a person is not sure which one to join, and nearly all of them don't baptize right away anyway. So we say these people are walking around lost until they decide which to join, and then be baptized? No; it's until they are lucky enough to run into you, and you baptize them without requiring they join anything, right?
I don't read about a visible church (as opposed to an invisible church). I read about The Church which was comprised of various congregations who were to believe the same thing, be of the same mind and judgment, with no divisons (denominations) among them. They were not perfect and were rebuked.

I understand that the relious world typically sees the CofC as just another "denominaiton". I understand why people do this.

No Baptist or Methodist I know of says that being in their denomination is necessary for salvation. That's the whole point. They may have their particular doctrines that they think are right; but they know that it is Christ alone that saves, whether they are in their denomination or not. It is the CofC that says only the CofC is the true church, and baptism into it is necessary for salvation.There is but one faith, one body, one baptism (Eph 4:4-5). Why do you think there are many faiths (doctrines)?

Basically. Once again, the ideal is one single body of Christ; but men did form these organizations around lesser doctrinal differences. But at least they know that faith in Christ takes precedence over all of those other issues and the groups formed around them. But we are not discussing how to have doctrine; we are discussing how to be saved.What are all the verses that deal with being saved, or having the remission of our sins, or having our sins washed away? All of them are important and must be followed.

Great! That is what I believe in. And all "plea" for that, but all still have their doctrines and interpretations, and the Church of Christ is just another one among the rest, and some things you are just as wrong as the others.I beg to differ. Show me from the scriptures where I am wrong, and I'll change. Will you be as honest?

If the Bible is so silent on instruments; it does not condemn them, yet for you to condemn them is speaking where the Bible has not spoken. The bible is not silent on music. Singing is authorized. Silence is not permission. We are not governed by what God didn't say, but by what he did say.

For example, the Lord's supper consists of unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. I think we all agree on that. God did not say we couldn't add to it, did he? No, he said what he wanted, but since it isn't prohibited, lets add some things.

If someone says, "I want some grape jelly on the unleavened bread because I like it and it would help me partake of it", by your reasoning, you would have to say fine. The bible nowhere condemns that, so it must be fine. Not only that, but he puts grape jelly on all the unleavened bread so all who are in attendance must have grape jelly on their bread also. But the grape jelly is a little messy so he adds a piece of leavened bread to contain the jelly. Likewise, he takes the fruit of the vine and adds some other fruit juices to it, because he likes the taste of that better. Again, he does this for the entire congregation. You are still eating unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine, it just has some other things added. This is not a meal, just a small portion that is more pleasing to the tongue. God didn't say not to, so it must be alright. I know the early church didn't do this, but they didn't have good grape jelly back then.

If we can't do this with the Lord's supper, what makes anyone think we can do it to our singing?

The silence in the scriptures concerning instrumental music in worship is deafening.

The same thing as taking a passing reference in acts 20:7 and saying "the Church had communion the first day of every week". That is NOT what that says! Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

Why had they come together? When did they come together? How many weeks have a first day?

The primary design of the meeting was to break bread. In the grammar in the Greek Testament, reflects the prime purpose of the Lord’s day meeting was to observe the supper.

When God said to the Israelites, Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy, He did not say, every Sabbath, yet it was clearly understood.

Question. Is it wrong to take it every first day of the week? The absolute 100% sure answer is no. Why would anyone want to do something that might be wrong?

mman

06-08-2005, 09:18 AM

ituttut - The simple fact is that Jesus told his apostles to, "Go into the all the world and preach the Gospel to every nation. Not just the Jews but to everyone.

It is the gospel, not a gospel. Paul's gospel is the same as Peter's gospel. Yes Paul received teaching directly from Christ, but it was not another gospel, but the same gospel.

Paul said there is one baptism or immersion (Eph 4:5). He called it a washing of water in Eph 5:26. He called it a burial in Col 2:12. In Titus 3:5 he called it a washing of regeneration. In Romans 6 he described it a representing the death burial and resurrection. In no way would any type of "spririt" baptism be representative of that.

If someone tries to claim that Romans 6 isn't dealing with water, that would be to claim that you are immersed in the spirit then raised up out of the spirit, from which you were just immersed. The analogy to the death, burial, and resurrection is completely obscured. The reference in verse 17 about obeying a form of that doctrine would also make no sense, because baptism with the spirit just happens, right?

We obey the Gospel? What does that mean to you? Paul said God would take vengence on those who don't obey the Gospel (II Thes 1:8).

I Cor 15:1-4 says the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How can you obey that? You can't literally, but you can obey a form of that. How? In the waters baptism as Paul describes in Rom 6. You cannot show how one obeys the gospel, unless you talk about water baptism.

The Gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philip preached Jesus in Acts 8:35 and then the Eunuch is asking about water baptism, which is in perfect harmony with Rom 6.

As Paul asked the Galatians, "Who hath bewitched you?"

mman

06-08-2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
It says "as oft as you do this," so in order not to fall into a traditional rut, we vary the times of the Lord's Supper, or how often we have it.First, thank you very much for you description. I am also committed to worshiping according the only the scriptures. I did have some more questions/comments. I am not attacking your positions, I am truly trying to understand your thought process and logic.

It also says when you meet together in I Cor 11:20, but they had so perverted it, they were not partaking of the Lord's Supper, but had changed it to a common meal.

I Cor 16:2 (NAS) tells us when the came together was "On the first day of every week ".

The logic of the "traditional rut" escapes me. I tell my wife and kids I love them every day. I am not afraid that I will get into a tradional rut. I pray to God daily, thanking Him for his blessings.

Could not the same be said for every other act of worship. We will only sing once a month, so that we don't get in a rut. We will only meet occassionally so that it doesn't become a rut. We will only pray occasionally so it doesn't become a tradional rut and we use vain repetitions. We will only take up an offering once in a while so it doesn't become a rut. People are not concerned about getting into a rut with any part of the worship, except with the Lord's supper. I think from history, we can see that the early Church took it on the first day of every week.

I don't believe the church of Christ is a Biblical name either.Rom 16:16, "...All the churches of Christ greet you."

I nowhere read of any Baptist church.

First of all, with the influx of denominations and cults, etc., it becomes necessary for one to associate themselves with a name of some kind. You have associated yourselves (in most people's minds) with the Cambellites or the Restoration Movement--hardly a Biblical name. What's in most people's mind and the truth are not always the same. I have not associated with the Campbellites or Restoration Movement. There were churches of Christ prior to the Restoration Movement. Furthermore, there is a huge difference in Restoring the original Church and establishing a new one.

The body of doctrine a Baptist believes, is for the most part the most Biblical, when compared to all others. Thus we are Baptist. First and foremost a Baptist has the Bible as its only rule of faith and order (sola scriptura). It is the basis of all that we believe.No creeds? That's great. I've seen some Baptist Creeds. Do you reject them?

To be frank, historically there were no musical instruments in the New Testament churches until about 300 A.D. I recognize that from history. I also know that great preachers like C.H. Spurgeon thought that musical instruments were a distraction to "true worship." But as I personally study the Bible, (and that is what each one of us are responsible to do), I do not see a prohibition against musical instruments. Right or wrong this is one of the biggest differences between IFB churches and COC's.Again the logic escapes me. If you claim to be a New Testament Church and admit the New Testament Church didn't use instrumental music, why do you? I'm sorry, but I see this as a very inconsistent position. We are not governed by what God didn't say but by what he did say, "sola scriptura".

As stated in another post, the Lord's supper is unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. We are not at liberty to add to these (grape jelly and other fruit juices) just to please our tongues, because it is not prohibited.

What makes someone think that they can add other form of music to the singing to please our ears?

Anyway, I have never heard an explaination to justify instrumental music that did not center around pleasing man.

There may be an occasionl IFB church that agrees with your position. They are at liberty to take that position. That is why we are independent Baptists. So you see nothing wrong with only using vocal music. In fact, you would have to say that is certainly the "safe" position, since that is how the New Testament church worshipped.

We do not belong to any denomination, just like the New Testament churches. But the COC is a denomination in itself. You must adhere to what the denomination of the COC teaches even if you believe it is wrong. That goes for its teaching on baptism, musical instruments, etc. As a Catholic must defend the catechism and has no soul liberty, you must defend the doctrine of the denomination of the COC, and have no soul liberty to believe what you think is right.The Church of Christ is not a denomination. There is no creed to follow. Only the scriptures. There is not a list of what you must believe and not. We follow the scriptures, we defend the scriptures.

I have a good friend. He used to be a baptist. He started studying his bible. He realized the doctrine of once saved always saved was wrong. He put together a large list of verses that dealt with the subject. He talked to his "pastor" about it, but after reading all the verses, his "pastor" didn't want to discuss it with him. He then began to study more, to see if anything else he believed was wrong. Through his own study he learned the truth. He found that others believed like he did. Through his own study he knew he needed to be baptized into Christ. He is now a member of the Church and we are of the same mind and same judgment.

There may be some Baptist churches that do not use musical instruments (C.H. Spurgeon), and there are those that do. It is a matter of soul liberty, not right and wrong issue; because the Bible does not specifically prohibit them. The bible doesn't forbid a lot of things, but I don't think that gives us liberty. I guess it comes down to our attitude toward the scriptures.

The decision to use or not to use is up to the leadership of the pastor who is accountable to God."the pastor"? This is not how the New Testament church was governed. Each church was overseen by a plurality of elders (or as they are sometimes called, bishops, pastors, shepherds, or overseers). The elders had qualifitions that had to be met (I Tim 3, Titus 1). Pastors and evangelist are different (Eph 4:11).

Again, each New Testament church is independent of the other, and accountable only to Christ and the Word of God--not to any denominational headquarters or their creed.Finally, something I agree 100%. Each congregation is autonomous. The only headquarters is in heaven since Jesus is the head. No creeds are needed since the scriptures thoroughly furnish us and we have all we need that pertains to life and godliness (II Tim 3:16-17, II Pet 1:3).

The true interpretation of that verse is baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek gives that sense, or allows for it. If it allows for it, then we must take it for Scripture does not contradict Scripture.If it meant because of, he sure had a better word to use than "eis". You cannot find one credible translation that ever translates "eis" in Acts 2:38 as "because of". The bible translaters are/were much better greek scholars than I am (and probably better than you), and not a single translation is "because of". Why, the context wouldn't allow it. As we have previously discussed, if there were any question as to the meaning of "for the remission of sins", the exact same phase is used in Matt 26:28, but you don't have any problem understanding the meaning of "eis" there, do you?

You say it cannot mean "in order to obtain" because that would contradict other scripture. I say that is false. I hold this view and I can not find one contradiction to other scripture. In your mind there is a conflict, yet you are only willing to adjust one side of the equation.

Eric B

06-08-2005, 02:37 PM

There is but one church according to scriptures. Yes there are local congregations of that one church. Which one? Excellent question.

Here are some things I would look for? Do they have a biblical name? Do they have a creed or other similar instructions or do they only rely on the bible? Do they follow the New Testament pattern of worship? Do they endorse division (denominations) or say that division is wrong? If someone is truly seeking the truth, they will find it. "Biblical name". Some form of "church of God" is used 12 times (a significant number too), while "churches of Christ" is used once.

"creeds vs. Bible alone". All ultimately claim that. Creeds are simply the outlines of doctrines that they believe are taught by the Bible alone. You basically have made a small creed by listing "biblical name", "no instruments", "communion every Sunday"; etc. Every Church of Christ ascribes to this list, and reads it into the Bible, rather than clearly getting it from the Bible

"New Testament worship pattern"? Same thing. Everyone reads their traditions into it. The sabbathkeepers will point to the passages where the church met and heard the apostles preach in the Temple on the Sabbath as proof that they met on the 7th day. Some point to the 12 apostles, 70 evangelists, and the 7 sent to widows, and claim this should continue.

So a 7th Day Church of God (including Armstrongism) has a much stronger case as being the "true NT Church" than does the CofC. (And this is what I was led to believe when I first came to Christ). So once again, how can a person not be saved until he first finds this true group, and then is baptized into it? They are all claiming the same thing, and all have ready proof-texts. Who can be saved, then?

"Denominations and division". You have a bunch of divisions no matter what. They fall into two classes. Those who recognize others who hold to the essentials on Christ. And those who claim to be the only true Church, rejecting all others. Both are still just as much "division" as the others. Only the former recognizes the "divisions" as superficial, with only the one body encompassing them all. As much as you put down "divisions"/"denominations"; you are the one who makes them more than what they really are, as true "divisions" of separate "churches". No, they are not in the ideal of the NT pattern, but that is what man does, and none of us can seem to stop it. We can either join it, or create a new group, which is just yet another division, as much as we may protest divisions.

What does the bible say?

John 3:36"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Is obedience important?
That's NOT what it says! It says "He who believes not". This is not to argue whether obedience is necessary, but it shows you have to edit the text to get the emphasis you are seeking, else, you obviously do not have a strong enough case.
When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", (Mark 16:16) that is either a true statement or it isn't.

Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". Did Peter give them faulty instructions? The Lord added them to the Church (Acts 2:47).

When Philip preached Jesus to the Eunuch in Acts 8:35, the very next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth is ""Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Saul, a believer who had been praying for 3 days was told to, "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)

Peter said, "eight souls, were saved through water. 21There 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, (I Pet 3:20-21).

Peter said something saves us. What? Baptism.

Paul said in Rom 6 "1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore 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.
5For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

When does the new life begin? How do we get into Christ? Can one be saved outside of Christ when all spriritual blessings are in Christ (Eph 1:3). What if one has not "been united together in the likeness of His death"? How are we united in the likeness of His death?

Paul also said in Gal 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

Can one be saved who is not a child of God? Who were childern? Who had put on or been clothed with Christ? Can one be saved and not clothed with Christ?

Here are the two choices.

1) Baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins. If this is the case, then all of these verses make perfect sense. There is no need to twist or explain away anything. The natural conclusion one gets from reading each verse is the actual meaning.

2) Baptism is not for the remission of sins. If this is the case, then these verses must somehow be twisted or explained away. The natural conclusion one gets from reading each verse dealing with baptism is NOT the actual meaning and the real meaning is obscure. No, there is 3) baptism into the Body, by which our sins are remitted is SPIRITUAL, and the water ceremony was an "ANSWER of a good conscience", not the CAUSE of the good (i.e. washed clean) conscience. There is nothing twisted about that. You simply get hung up on the physical ceremony, and ignore its spiritual intent. This just recreates the Old Covenant all over again, only replacing one set of rituals for another. Then, you are the one who has to twist the passages on "calling on the name" to equal the act of baptism, and then change the meaning of "work' to exclude baptism.
I don't read about a visible church (as opposed to an invisible church). I read about The Church which was comprised of various congregations who were to believe the same thing, be of the same mind and judgment, with no divisons (denominations) among them. "visible church" means a VISIBLE body of people you can SEE (either a congregation, or even a bunch of them together, such as the 3000 in Acts before they broke up into congregations. The invisible church is the whole spiritual body, which one is apart of even if he is not yet apart of a ongregation, or when the congregation is not meeting. No; the NT doesn't "mention" it; but it is obvious that both senses exist. You're problem is that you do not make the this distinction. You identify "the Church" as a particular visible body called "the Church of Christ", with its physical rite of baptism as the entry to it.
There is but one faith, one body, one baptism (Eph 4:4-5). Why do you think there are many faiths (doctrines)? And this is a perfect illustration. It is not "many" faiths! You identify "faith" in terms of a visible organization. So many organizations are necessarily "many faiths". But they are not.
I beg to differ. Show me from the scriptures where I am wrong, and I'll change. Will you be as honest? OK, right below:
The bible is not silent on music. I did not say it was silent on music. It is silent on instruments. Singing is authorized. Silence is not permission.You should say it is not necessarily permission. Because even you have this loophole called "expediency", where some things that were not mentioned are allowed, because it "gets the job done".
We are not governed by what God didn't say, but by what he did say. To make a general all-encompassing rule that "whatever is not mentioned is automatically forbidden" IS precisely being GOVERNED by what it it DID NOT SAY!
For example, the Lord's supper consists of unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. I think we all agree on that. God did not say we couldn't add to it, did he? No, he said what he wanted, but since it isn't prohibited, lets add some things.

If someone says, "I want some grape jelly on the unleavened bread because I like it and it would help me partake of it", by your reasoning, you would have to say fine. The bible nowhere condemns that, so it must be fine. Not only that, but he puts grape jelly on all the unleavened bread so all who are in attendance must have grape jelly on their bread also. But the grape jelly is a little messy so he adds a piece of leavened bread to contain the jelly. Likewise, he takes the fruit of the vine and adds some other fruit juices to it, because he likes the taste of that better. Again, he does this for the entire congregation. You are still eating unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine, it just has some other things added. This is not a meal, just a small portion that is more pleasing to the tongue. God didn't say not to, so it must be alright. I know the early church didn't do this, but they didn't have good grape jelly back then.

If we can't do this with the Lord's supper, what makes anyone think we can do it to our singing?
Once again, I believe that it's possible that this may have been a gernal meal that was begun with the Passover seder (bread and wine) as its first example, so it could have had other food. Once again, it is very unlikely that people in 1 Cor. could be "gluttonous" with just tiny portions of unleavened crackers and wine vials. But that is a totally different argument, and I am bringing it up to show that that is not the best example to use. If "bread and wine" were meant exclusively, then once again, they are physical items that are by nature exclusive of others. Not the same with "sing" and "play instruments" (which is an accompaniment; not a totally supplementary act in opposition to singing).
The silence in the scriptures concerning instrumental music in worship is deafening.
Which should deafen us to any "ban" attempted to be extracted from this.
Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

Why had they come together? When did they come together? How many weeks have a first day?

The primary design of the meeting was to break bread. In the grammar in the Greek Testament, reflects the prime purpose of the Lord’s day meeting was to observe the supper. They met and "broke bread" EVERY day! So in this narrative, on this particular day, [what did they do?] they met. Now, WHEN they met [to do what?] to break bread [as they do every other day]... Nothing here about setting aside the first day of the week as some new weekly holy day.
When God said to the Israelites, Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy, He did not say, every Sabbath, yet it was clearly understood.
That was a COMMAND. Not a passing reference in a narrative. If we had an instruction "You shall come together on the first day of the week...", then it would be the same. Of course, this is attempted in 1 Cor.16:2, and that ius a stronger argument, except that it does not mention either "breaking bread" or even "a church meeting". It is just telling people to begin storing their gifts that day, to be picked up at some time.
Question. Is it wrong to take it every first day of the week? The absolute 100% sure answer is no. Why would anyone want to do something that might be wrong? No, it would not be wrong. But then iyou do not have enough scriptural evidence to say it would be wrong not to, either.
Paul said there is one baptism or immersion (Eph 4:5). He called it a washing of water in Eph 5:26. That's "washing of water BY THE WORD", and notice, this is speaking of "the church" (prev. verse), meaning the WHOLE BODY, not an individual being immersed in water! (It is good to quote the WHOLE verse!). This clearly shows the spiritual aspect of Baptism!
In Titus 3:5 he called it a washing of regeneration. So likewise, this is describing the same thing.
In Romans 6 he described it a representing the death burial and resurrection. In no way would any type of "spririt" baptism be representative of that.

If someone tries to claim that Romans 6 isn't dealing with water, that would be to claim that you are immersed in the spirit then raised up out of the spirit, from which you were just immersed. The analogy to the death, burial, and resurrection is completely obscured. The reference in verse 17 about obeying a form of that doctrine would also make no sense, because baptism with the spirit just happens, right?
I've explained this several times now. No one here has ever said anything about being immersed "INTO the Spirit" The spirit immerses us into the BODY, by the Word and at the same time, our "old man" goes into the grave (into Christ's death, which corresponds to us going into the Body. The body puts the old man to death), and a new man rises. (see 1 Pet.3:18) Here is your whole "death, burial and resurrection" analogy, and the water ceremony was just a visible figure of it. No need at all to make the physical immersion and arising out of a pool of water the entire reality in itself. In fact; it is that which obscures or obliterates the true spiritual reality.
We obey the Gospel? What does that mean to you? Paul said God would take vengence on those who don't obey the Gospel (II Thes 1:8).

I Cor 15:1-4 says the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How can you obey that? You can't literally, but you can obey a form of that. How? In the waters baptism as Paul describes in Rom 6. You cannot show how one obeys the gospel, unless you talk about water baptism.
To obey the Gospel is to believe in Christ, and trust in Him alone for salvation. In fact, from my debates with preterism, I have learned more about the pressing issues in the NT, and the temptation, with the Old Covenant system still breathing down the Church's back, was to compromise and add works of the Law. THIS was the "disobedience" to the Gospel, that would render Christ's work null, as we see in places. (Gentiles going back to pagnism would count as well). It is all about going BACK to the old life under condemnation; not about not doing enough works, (as if the new life in Christ was nothing more than a rehashing of Judaism or paganism anyway). A one time act of baptism would not help there, and thus there would be no reason to make such a warning based on that alone. Anyone could be dunked. Simon the sorcerer was (Acts).

mman

06-08-2005, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:

That's NOT what it says! It says "He who believes not". This is not to argue whether obedience is necessary, but it shows you have to edit the text to get the emphasis you are seeking, else, you obviously do not have a strong enough case. Before you ridicule me, maybe you better go back and dig a little deeper.

"He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

The King James translators did not favor us by rendering two different Greek terms by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.

Again in Heb 3:18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient[apeitho]?

This same word is used in I Pet 2:7-8, 3:1,20, 4:17.

When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", (Mark 16:16) that is either a true statement or it isn't. Which is it?

Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". Did Peter give them faulty instructions?

Then, you are the one who has to twist the passages on "calling on the name" to equal the act of baptism, and then change the meaning of "work' to exclude baptism.Not true. I'll let the bible speak for itself since these passages clearly teach that we call on the name of the Lord in baptism, the only one working is God, and baptism is an act of faith.

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

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

You should say it is not necessarily permission. Because even you have this loophole called "expediency", where some things that were not mentioned are allowed, because it "gets the job done". Surely you understand the difference in carrying out instructions and adding to instructions.

If you give your child $10 and send them to the store for milk and bread and they come home with milk and bread and candy, did they carry out your instructions even though you did not expressly forbid them to buy candy?

How did they get to the store? You didn't specify. It is up to their discrection. They could have walked, ridden a bike, driven a car or any other way as long as you had not given other instructions prohibiting a form of transportation. It didn't matter how they got to the store as long as it didn't conflict with prior guidance and that the came home with the milk and bread.

How we carry out a command is left the the discretion of man if it is not expressly covered.

We have no authority to add to or change any command. I guess it boils down to our attitude toward scripture.

Every arguement in favor of instruments centers around man wanting to please HIMSELF, not God.

If "bread and wine" were meant exclusively, then once again, they are physical items that are by nature exclusive of others. Not the same with "sing" and "play instruments" (which is an accompaniment; not a totally supplementary act in opposition to singing). Are you reading what you are writing? It is EXACTLY the same thing! It is an accompaniment not a supplementary act??? I'm sorry, my mental gymnastics are not that great.

Singing - Music authorized by God
Instrumental Music - Additional music ADDED to the singing.

When you are finished you have 2 types of music, one authorized and one added by man.

If you added leavened bread to the unleavened bread.

Unleavened Bread - Bread authorized by God
Leavened Bread - Additional bread added to the unleavened bread.

When you are finished you have two types of bread, one authorized and one added by man.

Anyone could be dunked. Simon the sorcerer was (Acts). No, Simon was NOT dunked, he was baptized. There is a difference. The inspired word plainly says in Acts 8:13, "Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip,"

The inspired scriptures say he believed and was baptized, not dunked.

Did he really believe? If you believe the scriptures, you have to say yes. Was he really baptized? If you believe the scriptures, you have to say yes.

Yet, just a few verses later, Peter told him he was going to perish, his heart was not right in the sight of God, and that he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. How could this believer find himself in this situation?

His attitude and his actions had put him in that situation. Had he suddenly stopped believing in Jesus? No, he thought he could purchase the ability to pass on the Holy Spirit, just like the Apostles.

What was the remedy for this baptized believer? Repent and pray (Acts 8:22). This is proof positive that belief alone cannot save. It also shows that after a person has received forgiveness of sin, they can still perish.

I'm glad you brought that up.

ituttut

06-09-2005, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by mman:
ituttut - The simple fact is that Jesus told his apostles to, "Go into the all the world and preach the Gospel to every nation. Not just the Jews but to everyone.

True. But something happened. Christ warned His people in a parable that something could happen, so it did not come about. The Apostles never got out Jerusalem.

It is the gospel, not a gospel. Paul's gospel is the same as Peter's gospel. Yes Paul received teaching directly from Christ, but it was not another gospel, but the same gospel.

True it is the gospel to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. The gospel was never preached to or at a Gentile, if we believe Peter in Acts 10, which was some years after Pentecost.

Paul said there is one baptism or immersion (Eph 4:5). He called it a washing of water in Eph 5:26. He called it a burial in Col 2:12. In Titus 3:5 he called it a washing of regeneration. In Romans 6 he described it a representing the death burial and resurrection. In no way would any type of "spririt" baptism be representative of that.

Don’t you feel you perhaps are adding words to scripture? I don’t find a “water” baptism in verse 5. When you make that incorrect assessment you are then forced to reject another baptism that is done without hands. That is the one that saves, not by one baptizing another. If the Power comes with water baptism, why is everybody hiding that power that came to those in the times of the Apostles. They, on demand and command could heal the sick, eat or drink anything without untoward effects, move mountains, determine those that lied, and kill them on the spot. I would believe what you say if those things would happen today.

I don’t believe you have yet acceded to one verse that alludes to the One saving Spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit that saves and seals. Perhaps I wrongly accuse. Do you have such a verse in mind that you can show this One baptism? If not, then you must believe “water baptism” saves, or at least is necessary to your belief in the way salvation is obtained today.

If someone tries to claim that Romans 6 isn't dealing with water, that would be to claim that you are immersed in the spirit then raised up out of the spirit, from which you were just immersed. The analogy to the death, burial, and resurrection is completely obscured. The reference in verse 17 about obeying a form of that doctrine would also make no sense, because baptism with the spirit just happens, right?

I never said we were immersed in the Spirit. We were buried with Jesus Christ in His death by the Holy Spirit, thus all sins are forgiven by the Power of the blood, and we are dead to the law and sin, as God already sees us in the Body of Christ. By the Spirit we will raptured, in our new bodies whether dead or alive.

We obey the Gospel? What does that mean to you? Paul said God would take vengence on those who don't obey the Gospel (II Thes 1:8).

True. We are to obey the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, for Christ gave to Paul his dispensational gospel, not before know in time past, and that is the Christian gospel of the Gentile that is saved by the Grace of God, through the faith of Jesus Christ. This gospel cannot be found before Damascus Road. From whom do we find the rapture; the Body of Christ, an Apostle to the Gentile. Not until Saul/Paul. God did just opposite with Paul as He did with Abraham. Abram was a Gentile, and God changed his name from Gentile to Hebrew. With Paul God changed the Hebrew name Saul to Paul, a Gentile name. There is a story there.

I Cor 15:1-4 says the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How can you obey that? You can't literally, but you can obey a form of that. How? In the waters baptism as Paul describes in Rom 6. You cannot show how one obeys the gospel, unless you talk about water baptism.

Yes I agree that is the gospel we are to believe, that Jesus was crucified, spilled His blood, buried and resurrected after three full nights and days in the earth. But what has this to do with being saved by “water baptism”? I believe the Word as presented, and when correctly divided.

Do you believe what I wrote above? Or do you believe as the Catholic. You seem to me to be saying you believe “water baptism” saves, and with that would come your belief of what the Catholic believes and just about every church member of all the churches these days. And what is that? That Christ was crucified on a Friday. When we believe that we say Jesus had no idea of what He was talking about. Did He make a mistake and mean 36 hours in the earth? If He did we may as well do away the Bible, for either He didn’t know what He was talking about, or He was a lair.

I believe many churches and their member listen to the father of all liars, unknowingly perverting the words Jesus spoke while on this earth. Most all, if not all denominations came out of the “mother” church, and will come to believe what that church deems appropriate for believers to believe.

The Gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philip preached Jesus in Acts 8:35 and then the Eunuch is asking about water baptism, which is in perfect harmony with Rom 6.

This Eunuch was baptized, but did not receive the Holy Ghost, and he was preached the same message as that of the Samaritans, viz. ”But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” What gospel were they preached? The gospel of the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, and they were baptized, not receiving the Holy Ghost.

Is this the same gospel that Christ revealed to Paul, of believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved? This is salvation into the Body of Christ, we receiving the One spiritual baptism of salvation. Philip preached the Kingdom of God, and not the Kingdom of Christ, of coming through Jesus Christ on the Cross. This is still the kingdom gospel of Pentecost.

As Paul asked the Galatians, "Who hath bewitched you?" He tells us that in chapter 1. It was the “troublers” from the Jews in Judah. They were telling those saved by the Grace of God, through faith, that they had to be circumcised just as they, for the Gentile must come as the Jew, with their law, ordinances, Holy Days, blood sacrifices, and all the rest. The Galatians are weak in the faith, but it is those that teach Works of the flesh of any sort, that are to be detested. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

mman

06-09-2005, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by ituttut:
He tells us that in chapter 1. It was the “troublers” from the Jews in Judah. They were telling those saved by the Grace of God, through faith, that they had to be circumcised just as they, for the Gentile must come as the Jew, with their law, ordinances, Holy Days, blood sacrifices, and all the rest. The Galatians are weak in the faith, but it is those that teach Works of the flesh of any sort, that are to be detested. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12Exactly. The old law was nailed to the cross taken out of the way (Col 2:14) and by work of the old law can no one be justified (Gal 2:16).

They were childern by faith because they had been baptized and Paul makes that clear in Gal 3:26-27.

mman

06-09-2005, 06:39 AM

mman

06-09-2005, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by ituttut:
True. But something happened. Christ warned His people in a parable that something could happen, so it did not come about. The Apostles never got out Jerusalem.In what part of Jerusalem is Joppa? Peter did (Acts 9) and it is not recorded about the others.

Don’t you feel you perhaps are adding words to scripture? I don’t find a “water” baptism in verse 5. When you make that incorrect assessment you are then forced to reject another baptism that is done without hands.Baptism or immersion was always in water, unless modifed by something in the text to show otherwise.

If I say it is raining outside, you don't have to ask what kind of rain? Water or pinecones? Rain means water falling from the sky unless modified by the context. I could say it is raining pinecones under that pine tree and you would understand that it is pinecones, not water, falling from the tree.

Baptism means immersion in water. Baptism is a greek word that was not translated but transliterated. Translated means immersion. Immersion in what? The scriptures clearly indicate water as in Acts 8:36, see here is water, what hinders me from being baptized.

You have to show that it is not water, since water is the common everyday meaning. What from the context makes you think it is not water?

Lets test your theory. Spirit baptism. One is buried then raised. How were you buried in the spirit and raised out of the spirit. If you are still buried, you never were raised. His analogy to the death burial and resurrection doesn't make sense. You didn't obey a form of that (Rom 6:17).

With water baptism, the analogy of how our water baptism is how we obey the death, burial, and resurrection makes perfect sense.

No, I don't have to put the water in Rom 6, you have to take it out.

That is the one that saves, not by one baptizing another.So, you do not have a new life until you are raised out of the spirit in which you were baptized? That makes no sense.

I Pet 3:21 - Baptism saves us. What kind of baptism Peter? Water. How do I know? Read verse 20. Here it is, "eight souls, were saved through water. 21There 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"

There is just one baptism (Eph 4:5). Peter plainly tells us it is water baptism. What could be more plain. He goes on to say that the power is not in the water, all it can do is remove the filth of the flesh, but in God.

If the Power comes with water baptism, why is everybody hiding that power that came to those in the times of the Apostles. They, on demand and command could heal the sick, eat or drink anything without untoward effects, move mountains, determine those that lied, and kill them on the spot. I would believe what you say if those things would happen today. What are you talking about? Who ever claimed that? The purpose of miracles was to confirm the word (Mark 16:20). According to the Hebrew writer, the word was confirmed (Heb 2:3-4). Once confirmed, it doesn't need to be re-confirmed.

The power was never in the water but in God. Col 2:12 shows it is God who is working. Water alone can no more wash aways sins than it can cure leprosy. Yet God has used it to do both.

I don’t believe you have yet acceded to one verse that alludes to the One saving Spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit that saves and seals. Perhaps I wrongly accuse. Do you have such a verse in mind that you can show this One baptism? If not, then you must believe “water baptism” saves, or at least is necessary to your belief in the way salvation is obtained today. I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. I think I may have answered it above???

I never said we were immersed in the Spirit. We were buried with Jesus Christ in His death by the Holy Spirit, thus all sins are forgiven by the Power of the blood, and we are dead to the law and sin, as God already sees us in the Body of Christ. By the Spirit we will raptured, in our new bodies whether dead or alive.What were we immersed with? Whatever it was, we were raised up from it. So, with what were we immersed? Baptism is a burial (Col 2:12 and Rom 6) and then we are raised. How did you obey a form of that doctrine (death, burial, and resurrection) in Rom 6:17? Again, the context does not allude to anything that would expect the reader to think that baptism meant anything other than it's common usage of being immersed in water. It is easy to understand how one is raised from the water, but to change the meaning of baptism from it's ordinary usage would then make that not make sense.

True. We are to obey the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, for Christ gave to Paul his dispensational gospel, not before know in time past, and that is the Christian gospel of the Gentile that is saved by the Grace of God, through the faith of Jesus Christ. This gospel cannot be found before Damascus Road. From whom do we find the rapture; the Body of Christ, an Apostle to the Gentile. Not until Saul/Paul. God did just opposite with Paul as He did with Abraham. Abram was a Gentile, and God changed his name from Gentile to Hebrew. With Paul God changed the Hebrew name Saul to Paul, a Gentile name. There is a story there.I have shown time and time again, it is the same gospel. The people did the same thing to have their sins washed away, the same message was preached. I'm sure you have a good explaination as to why Saul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, but you say he did not preach that same message. You never read about two gospels, only one. I say he preached that exact same message. Acts 19, he asked some followers of Jesus if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. They said, "No", they hadn't heard of the Holy Spirit. Then he asked, Into what were you baptized? They answered into John's baptism. He then baptized them (in Water) in the name of Jesus. (Being baptized for the wrong reason is inadequate). Then he laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Why in the world would Paul baptize them in water? He baptized some of the Corinthians, but his main purpose was to preach and let others do the baptizing. Why were the Corinthians baptized in water at the preaching of Paul?

The same reason the Eunuch was. Preaching JESUS means preaching WATER BAPTISM (Acts 8:35-36).

Paul said there was only one baptism. Again, the common usage must be applied, unless context shows otherwise. It doesn't.

Yes I agree that is the gospel we are to believe, that Jesus was crucified, spilled His blood, buried and resurrected after three full nights and days in the earth. But what has this to do with being saved by “water baptism”? I believe the Word as presented, and when correctly divided. Simple preaching Jesus means preaching water baptism (Acts 8:35-36)

Do you believe what I wrote above? Or do you believe as the Catholic. You seem to me to be saying you believe “water baptism” saves, and with that would come your belief of what the Catholic believes and just about every church member of all the churches these days. And what is that? That Christ was crucified on a Friday. When we believe that we say Jesus had no idea of what He was talking about. Did He make a mistake and mean 36 hours in the earth? If He did we may as well do away the Bible, for either He didn’t know what He was talking about, or He was a lair. I believe God uses water to wash away my sins, the same way he used water to cure leprosy. The water, in and of itself, it just water. If water could wash aways sins, then everyone who ever went swimming would have had their sins washed away or every leper who ever dipped in the Jordan river would be cured from their leprosy. Baptism is an act of faith, Gal 3:26-27 and Col 2:12.

I'm not sure what brought this up, but actually, I don't believe Jesus was crucified on Friday. I know I step away from the traditional viewpoint, but the Holy Days were also counted as Sabbath days and there were two Sabbaths that week, one a holy day and one was Saturday. I have alot more on this, but I question the real benefit. I accept that Jesus died, was buried and raised again.

I believe many churches and their member listen to the father of all liars, unknowingly perverting the words Jesus spoke while on this earth. Most all, if not all denominations came out of the “mother” church, and will come to believe what that church deems appropriate for believers to believe.I'm not sure I disagree very much with that statement at all.

This Eunuch was baptized, but did not receive the Holy Ghost, and he was preached the same message as that of the Samaritans, viz. ”But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” What gospel were they preached? The gospel of the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, and they were baptized, not receiving the Holy Ghost.

Is this the same gospel that Christ revealed to Paul, of believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved? This is salvation into the Body of Christ, we receiving the One spiritual baptism of salvation. Philip preached the Kingdom of God, and not the Kingdom of Christ, of coming through Jesus Christ on the Cross. This is still the kingdom gospel of Pentecost.Sounds exactly the same as Acts 19. People were baptized and they did not receive the "Holy Spirit" until an apostle laid their hands on them. In Acts 8, Simon tried to buy this ability. Obviously this was miraculous gifts that were being distributed, because Simon could "see" that the Holy Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostle's hands.

Philip preached Jesus which included water baptism (Acts 8:35-36)

Eric B

06-09-2005, 10:19 AM

Before you ridicule me, maybe you better go back and dig a little deeper.

"He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

The King James translators did not favor us by rendering two different Greek terms by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.

Again in Heb 3:18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient[apeitho]?

This same word is used in I Pet 2:7-8, 3:1,20, 4:17. What you have here is a case of the KJV rendering it both "believe not", and ""disobedient" elsewhere, and newer versions making it more "consistent" by using "disobedient" everywhere it is used. They went the wrong way! The Greek definition of the word is simply to disbelieve (willfully and perversely). IT is derived from apeithes "unpersuad[e]able (i.e. contumacious). There is nothing there about "obeying" except for how it was translated in some places.
This all the more proves what we are saying, and eliminates many of your own prooftexts! It all the more shows "Obey the Gospel" means "faith"; NOT WORKS!
When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", (Mark 16:16) that is either a true statement or it isn't. Which is it?

Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". Did Peter give them faulty instructions?
So these are all about "believing", and the physical act of baptism is tied to belief, not salvific in itself.
Not true. I'll let the bible speak for itself since these passages clearly teach that we call on the name of the Lord in baptism, the only one working is God, and baptism is an act of faith.

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

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 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Calling on the name is something they did while being baptized. You cannot make the synonymous. Tow acts together. Like people today will call on the name when coming down to the altar (which is what has basically replaced baptism today). No one will say walking down to the altar in itself is "calling on the name", or that it saves.
Surely you understand the difference in carrying out instructions and adding to instructions.

If you give your child $10 and send them to the store for milk and bread and they come home with milk and bread and candy, did they carry out your instructions even though you did not expressly forbid them to buy candy? If they were allowed to buy something for themseves. Usually, my parents would specify "bring back all the change" when they needed all the money for themselves. How did they get to the store? You didn't specify. It is up to their discrection. They could have walked, ridden a bike, driven a car or any other way as long as you had not given other instructions prohibiting a form of transportation. It didn't matter how they got to the store as long as it didn't conflict with prior guidance and that the came home with the milk and bread. That's not completely true either. They could expect you to get there and back the fastest way possible (like "go straight to the store").
It depends on other factors such as the overall relationship (whether certain disctretions in different areas are usually allowed). Likewise, we can look elsewhere to see if God allowed instruments, and we see He did. You have never been able to prove that this was rescinded because of the change of the covenants (i.e. that instruments were somehow like sacrifices, and superseded by singing only, like some [platonism-influenced] Church leaders claimed).
How we carry out a command is left the the discretion of man if it is not expressly covered.

We have no authority to add to or change any command. I guess it boils down to our attitude toward scripture.

Every arguement in favor of instruments centers around man wanting to please HIMSELF, not God.
And man pleases himself by making issues wth which to exalt himself over others by claiming they are pleasing God, while others are only pleasing themselves. Most of us grew up in churches with instruments, and never even though of this issue until coming in contact with Campbellists. So we did not just fashion this according to what we want. No one ever saw any principle banning instruments in the New Testament. So once again, it was certain men who rose up making an issue of it, (always connected with some previous bias against others who they saw as sliding into worldliness) with the CofC being the latest group. This is more carnal than anything you accuse us of!

Are you reading what you are writing? It is EXACTLY the same thing! It is an accompaniment not a supplementary act??? I'm sorry, my mental gymnastics are not that great.

Singing - Music authorized by God
Instrumental Music - Additional music ADDED to the singing.

When you are finished you have 2 types of music, one authorized and one added by man.
"supplement" means "replacement", not "addition". IT is not really two types of music, because the iinstruments carry the same melody the singers are singing. (in fact, it helps them keep in tune and in step; which is probably why they were added in the first place).

If you added leavened bread to the unleavened bread.

Unleavened Bread - Bread authorized by God
Leavened Bread - Additional bread added to the unleavened bread.

When you are finished you have two types of bread, one authorized and one added by man.
"Leavened" and "unleavened" are diametric opposites. To specify one excludes the other completely. The whole concept of "leaven" originally, in the Law was that it was to be put away during the Passover, so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven. These are two totally different analogies.

No, Simon was NOT dunked, he was baptized. There is a difference. The inspired word plainly says in Acts 8:13, "Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip,"

The inspired scriptures say he believed and was baptized, not dunked. I was using "dunked" for "baptized". It obviously didn;t save him, so all he did was get wet.
Did he really believe? If you believe the scriptures, you have to say yes. Was he really baptized? If you believe the scriptures, you have to say yes.

Yet, just a few verses later, Peter told him he was going to perish, his heart was not right in the sight of God, and that he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. How could this believer find himself in this situation?

His attitude and his actions had put him in that situation. Had he suddenly stopped believing in Jesus? No, he thought he could purchase the ability to pass on the Holy Spirit, just like the Apostles. So his motives were never right to begin with. "Believe" was sometimes used to mean "profess", even though they do not completely understand it, and are operating on a false presumption on what it is. We see this with the Jews in John 8, who Jesus goes on to call "children of their father, the Devil". This does not mean they were briefly saved and then lost it because of works. They believed "in vain", with the wrong motives.
What was the remedy for this baptized believer? Repent and pray (Acts 8:22). This is proof positive that belief alone cannot save. It also shows that after a person has received forgiveness of sin, they can still perish.
No, that was the ultimate proof that BAPTISM was *NOT* what saved, and REPENTANCE was an entirely separate (mental) act that had the final effectiveness in salvation.

mman

06-09-2005, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
[QUOTE]What you have here is a case of the KJV rendering it both "believe not", and ""disobedient" elsewhere, and newer versions making it more "consistent" by using "disobedient" everywhere it is used. So now you are in opposition to the translators also. I agree that translators don't always pick the right word or sometimes words change through the years, but when several sets of consistently translate [apeitho] as obey not, I trust their knowledge and not yours.

Look at Heb 3:18-19.

NIV -Heb 3:18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

NKJV - did not obey? 19So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief

NAS - who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

ESV - who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

They went the wrong way! I'm sure you think they did. Why, because it does not support your position.

So these are all about "believing", and the physical act of baptism is tied to belief, not salvific in itself.Oh really? When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" he meant to say "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized"? If it were worded this way, you might have a leg to stand on.

When Peter told them to repent and be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins, he should have told them to repent for the remission of sins and then be baptized?

Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, not (hoti) because of. Baptism is for (eis) the same reason that Jesus' blood was shed. Compare Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28 and be sure and check the Greek, since it is the EXACT PHRASE used in both places.

Calling on the name is something they did while being baptized. You cannot make the synonymous. Tow acts together. Like people today will call on the name when coming down to the altar (which is what has basically replaced baptism today). No one will say walking down to the altar in itself is "calling on the name", or that it saves.So, why did Saul still have his sins? He believed and prayed for 3 days? You might have replaced baptism in your practices, but God never did. In Saul's case, he called on the name of the Lord after baptism (right? since it was two separate acts, it had to be before or after and it is listed after. I say he did it during baptism), but you say you call on the name of the Lord before baptism or in place of baptism, contrary to the biblical example.

Likewise, we can look elsewhere to see if God allowed instruments, and we see He did. You have never been able to prove that this was rescinded because of the change of the covenants (i.e. that instruments were somehow like sacrifices, and superseded by singing only, like some [platonism-influenced] Church leaders claimed).First of all, God did not allow instruments in the Old Testament, he COMMANDED them. Look at 2 Chronicles 29:25 - He then stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with harps and with lyres, according to the command of David and of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the LORD through His prophets.

So, it was a command from the Lord. Either all the commandments were nailed to the cross or none of them were. That requirement was removed, Col 2:14, "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

OLD TESTAMENT
Animal sacrifices
Human high priest
Physical temple
Fleshly circumcision
Instrumental music (II Chron 29:25, Psa. 150)
Tithing (Heb. 7:5)
Sabbath & holy days

NEW TESTAMENT
Sacrifice of Jesus (Heb. 10:9ff)
Jesus is high priest (Heb. 9:11f)
Spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16)
Heart circumcision (Rom. 2:28f)
Singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)
Give as prospered (1 Cor. 16:1f)
First day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2)

The commands and instructions of the old law are replaced in many cases with those on a higher spriritual plane. In addition to those listed above, a couple more examples are:

Old Law - Don't Murder
New Law - Don't Hate your brother

Old Law - Don't commit adultry
New Law - Don't lust

And man pleases himself by making issues wth which to exalt himself over others by claiming they are pleasing God, while others are only pleasing themselves. Most of us grew up in churches with instruments, and never even though of this issue until coming in contact with Campbellists. So we did not just fashion this according to what we want. No one ever saw any principle banning instruments in the New Testament. So once again, it was certain men who rose up making an issue of it, (always connected with some previous bias against others who they saw as sliding into worldliness) with the CofC being the latest group. This is more carnal than anything you accuse us of!Just because you grew up doing something doesn't make it right. Why don't you give them up? You don't want to. Again, it comes down to will worship.
"supplement" means "replacement", not "addition". IT is not really two types of music, because the iinstruments carry the same melody the singers are singing. (in fact, it helps them keep in tune and in step; which is probably why they were added in the first place).Thank you for admitting why they were probably added, to please man.

Supplement does not mean replacement. If you do something to supplement your income, you are "adding" to your income, not replacing it.

It is two types of music. Have you ever heard of accapella music? Is that the same as a symphony if they follow the same tune? Of course not. That is the weakest argument I've EVER heard in support of instrumental music.

One is made by God, the other is made by man.

"Leavened" and "unleavened" are diametric opposites. To specify one excludes the other completely. The whole concept of "leaven" originally, in the Law was that it was to be put away during the Passover, so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven. These are two totally different analogies. No they are not. One has yeast added and the other does not. All other ingredients are the same, not opposites. If you can see the principle of "so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven", why can't you see the command to sing would exclude the instrumental music. It is the same concept.

I was using "dunked" for "baptized". It obviously didn;t save him, so all he did was get wet.Why do you say that? He believed and was baptized. Do you not think he really believed? The bible says he believed. Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

I absolutely believe Jesus and that Simon's sins were washed away. Simon also fell quickly into the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness.

So his motives were never right to begin with. "Believe" was sometimes used to mean "profess", even though they do not completely understand it, and are operating on a false presumption on what it is. We see this with the Jews in John 8, who Jesus goes on to call "children of their father, the Devil". This does not mean they were briefly saved and then lost it because of works. They believed "in vain", with the wrong motives.The bible plainly states he believed. Either he didn't really believe and the bible says he did which would be deceiving, or he believed.

John 8:45 "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me." Jesus made it plain that they did not believe in Jesus. What do people living under the old law have to do with Simon who lived under the new law?

No, that was the ultimate proof that BAPTISM was *NOT* what saved, and REPENTANCE was an entirely separate (mental) act that had the final effectiveness in salvation. [/QB]Simon was already a Christian, he had believed and was baptized. He was told to repent and pray, so this is the way Christians receive forgiveness, not alien sinners.

Eric B

06-09-2005, 10:41 PM

So now you are in opposition to the translators also. I agree that translators don't always pick the right word or sometimes words change through the years, but when several sets of consistently translate [apeitho] as obey not, I trust their knowledge and not yours.

Look at Heb 3:18-19.

NIV -Heb 3:18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

NKJV - did not obey? 19So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief

NAS - who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

ESV - who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They went the wrong way!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure you think they did. Why, because it does not support your position. The word means "disbelieve". It doesn't matter how anyone translates it. That is what the Greek word was. They can't change that; I can't change that and you can't change that. (You argue over "NT worship", and "man's additions", but trust man's translational additions because it supports your position!)
"Beliveing" is a form of "obeying". If you're told to "believe" something, and you believe it; you have OBEYed! The trasnlators probaly realized this, and didn't count on legalists coming and taking it to support their ideas. Sorry, but you cannot get physical works into this.
Oh really? When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" he meant to say "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized"? If it were worded this way, you might have a leg to stand on.

When Peter told them to repent and be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins, he should have told them to repent for the remission of sins and then be baptized?

Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, not (hoti) because of. Baptism is for (eis) the same reason that Jesus' blood was shed. Compare Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28 and be sure and check the Greek, since it is the EXACT PHRASE used in both places. It doesn't matter which ORDER it was said in. (That only comes up now with people trying to prove baptism as saving in itself). They were simultaneous. But clearly, it was the faith that saved; not the physical act.
So, why did Saul still have his sins? He believed and prayed for 3 days? You might have replaced baptism in your practices, but God never did. In Saul's case, he called on the name of the Lord after baptism (right? since it was two separate acts, it had to be before or after and it is listed after. I say he did it during baptism), but you say you call on the name of the Lord before baptism or in place of baptism, contrary to the biblical example.
Why do you say that? He believed and was baptized. Do you not think he really believed? The bible says he believed. Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

I absolutely believe Jesus and that Simon's sins were washed away. Simon also fell quickly into the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness.
Then he was never "Saved" to begin with. If his sins were "washed away", be would still be condemned for sin. We do not fall in and out of "salvation", based on works (which nobody does enough of anyway). Else, we are no better off than in the OT, only we have changed the works. That is NO GOSPEL (good news) at all! The bible plainly states he believed. Either he didn't really believe and the bible says he did which would be deceiving, or he believed.
Simon was already a Christian, he had believed and was baptized. He was told to repent and pray, so this is the way Christians receive forgiveness, not alien sinners. I just explained to you above that "believing" was "in vain", meaning they were never saved. For Simon, the bapotism did NOT A THING for him, and when he was told to repent; he was not told to be baptized again. They "Accepted" and "professed" Christ on a false premise --the Jews, that He was bringing in a physical kingdom, and not saving them from their sins, which they were completely ignorant of; and Simon, that he could buy the power of the Spirit for his own misuse. He was plotting this ulterior motive from the beginning. You think that was GENUINE faith?!

John 8:45 "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me." Jesus made it plain that they did not believe in Jesus. What do people living under the old law have to do with Simon who lived under the new law?OH NO? Look at v. 30, and 31, and afterwards. They "believed" in one sense, but it was not real belief.

ituttut

06-10-2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ituttut:
He tells us that in chapter 1. It was the “troublers” from the Jews in Judah. They were telling those saved by the Grace of God, through faith, that they had to be circumcised just as they, for the Gentile must come as the Jew, with their law, ordinances, Holy Days, blood sacrifices, and all the rest. The Galatians are weak in the faith, but it is those that teach Works of the flesh of any sort, that are to be detested. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12Exactly. The old law was nailed to the cross taken out of the way (Col 2:14) and by work of the old law can no one be justified (Gal 2:16).

They were childern by faith because they had been baptized and Paul makes that clear in Gal 3:26-27. [/QUOTE]The “troublers” are of the kingdom gospel, as they believe only those to enter must be circumcised. So that is that other gospel that is the same, but different than we that have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.

Your Gal. 3:26-27 reference is to us, and not to them, for their salvation is different entering into the kingdom other than throughJesus Christ.
Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

Eric B

06-10-2005, 07:09 PM

Correction:
If his sins were "washed away", be would still be condemned for sin. If his sins were "washed away", he would NOT still be condemned for sin.
Continuing:
First of all, God did not allow instruments in the Old Testament, he COMMANDED them. Look at 2 Chronicles 29:25 - He then stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with harps and with lyres, according to the command of David and of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the LORD through His prophets.

So, it was a command from the Lord. Either all the commandments were nailed to the cross or none of them were. That requirement was removed, Col 2:14, "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." Yes, it was nailed to the Cross as a COMMANDMENT. We're not arguing if it is commanded or not; but whether it is forbidden simply because it is not commanded. Since you want to go this way, perhaps the whole principle in the examples your side keeps mentioning of what is not commanded is forbidden was "nailed to the Cross" as well!
OLD TESTAMENT
Animal sacrifices
Human high priest
Physical temple
Fleshly circumcision
Instrumental music (II Chron 29:25, Psa. 150)
Tithing (Heb. 7:5)
Sabbath & holy days

NEW TESTAMENT
Sacrifice of Jesus (Heb. 10:9ff)
Jesus is high priest (Heb. 9:11f)
Spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16)
Heart circumcision (Rom. 2:28f)
Singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)
Give as prospered (1 Cor. 16:1f)
First day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2)

The commands and instructions of the old law are replaced in many cases with those on a higher spriritual plane. In addition to those listed above, a couple more examples are:

Old Law - Don't Murder
New Law - Don't Hate your brother

Old Law - Don't commit adultry
New Law - Don't lust
Scriptures plainly teach that 5 of the 7 things in that first list were replaced by the second list. With giving, it doesn;t explicitly say that a tenth is replaced, but the principle of "as propspered" would supersede the command for a tenth. They are contradictory. One is a definite amount, and the other is variable.
But your side has shown no scriptural correlation at all that instruments were a shadow of a-capella singing.
And here's something else I just realized. Since "singing" and "instruments" are supposed to be so contradictory or diametrically opposite; like leavened vs. unleavened; then if they used instruments in the OT; they must not have sang! Are you willing to argue that there was no singing of the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in the OT, but only playing of melodies? If not; then we see right there that "sing" and "instruments" are not mutually exclusive.
Just because you grew up doing something doesn't make it right. Why don't you give them up? You don't want to. Again, it comes down to will worship. You are talking what you do not know. It's not about what I want. I could care less about having instruments in service. I could care less about the standard organized "service". I have told you this about 3 times already. My point was not what people want, but the fact that it was already that way for us, so it was not like the Churches were all a-capella, and we decided we liked instruments, and brought them in.
We don't give them up because we seen no scriptural reason to. It's just an issue that some rise up (1 John 2:19, Acts 20:30) and argue over, for no other reason than pride (1 Tim.6:4). So why don't you give up this time-wasting, unfruitful argument? You don't want to. It's your will worship! (Ha, Ha, we worship this way; we are better than all of you!)
Thank you for admitting why they were probably added, to please man. That's not to please man; rather that was for an "expedient" reason (To help people keep the notes and rhythm).
Supplement does not mean replacement. If you do something to supplement your income, you are "adding" to your income, not replacing it.
The way I was thinking of it, it is an "addition" that CHANGES the original thing completely. When we work on a supplement train schedule; it changes everyone's normal leaving times, and often route, etc.)
It is two types of music. Have you ever heard of accapella music? Is that the same as a symphony if they follow the same tune? Of course not. That is the weakest argument I've EVER heard in support of instrumental music. Still, the instruments are an accompaniment. It doesn't in any way take away from or change the singing. In fact, it can possibly help it!
One is made by God, the other is made by man. Now that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. We write songs and sing them; how is that "made by God", any more than an instrument? (any material we make them with is also made by God).
No they are not. One has yeast added and the other does not. All other ingredients are the same, not opposites. If you can see the principle of "so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven", why can't you see the command to sing would exclude the instrumental music. It is the same concept. But the distinction between them is solely that one ingredient. Therefore, they are opposite. Leaven CHANGES the other ingredients. Instruments do not change the singing.

mman

06-11-2005, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
The word means "disbelieve". It doesn't matter how anyone translates it. That is what the Greek word was. They can't change that; I can't change that and you can't change that. (You argue over "NT worship", and "man's additions", but trust man's translational additions because it supports your position!) Language changes. I'm sure you understand that. I am not a greek scholar and never claimed to be one. To get the intended meaning, I will often consult several translations, some new and some old. They don't just get people off the street with a greek bible dictionary to do the translations. It's unfortunate that some translated 2 different greek words into the same english word. A distinction was obscured. There is so much more evidence for what I believe, that of course it does not hinge on this one verse.

Ok, what about Acts 2:44, what had those believers?

What is your definition of physical works?

It doesn't matter which ORDER it was said in. (That only comes up now with people trying to prove baptism as saving in itself). They were simultaneous. But clearly, it was the faith that saved; not the physical act.What? It doesn't matter which order? Maybe baptism is for the remission of sins. Why did Peter say baptism was for (eis) the remission of sins?

Compare Acts 3:19 to Acts 2:38
Repent=Repent
Be Converted=Be Baptized
That your sins may be blotted out=For the remission of sins

Being baptized and being converted are the same.

Then he was never "Saved" to begin with. If his sins were "washed away", be would still be condemned for sin. We do not fall in and out of "salvation", based on works (which nobody does enough of anyway). Else, we are no better off than in the OT, only we have changed the works. That is NO GOSPEL (good news) at all! [/QUOTE]

So you are saying he didn't really believe when the bible says he did?

The bible plainly states he believed. Either he didn't really believe and the bible says he did which would be deceiving, or he believed.

[/QUOTE]I just explained to you above that "believing" was "in vain", meaning they were never saved. For Simon, the bapotism did NOT A THING for him, and when he was told to repent; he was not told to be baptized again. [/quote]

Exactly, he was not told to be baptized again, because he already had been baptized. If he had not really been baptized, then there would have been instructions for him to be baptized just like the rest of those in Samaria.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Simon was not told to believe again or be baptized again because he had already done these. He was told to repent and pray, instructions never given to an alien sinner.

Yes people can believe in vain, because belief alone cannot save, otherwise it would be IMPOSSIBLE to believe in vain.

mman

06-11-2005, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
Yes, it was nailed to the Cross as a COMMANDMENT. We're not arguing if it is commanded or not; but whether it is forbidden simply because it is not commanded. Since you want to go this way, perhaps the whole principle in the examples your side keeps mentioning of what is not commanded is forbidden was "nailed to the Cross" as well!I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, but I think I understand.

Worship is to be according to truth (John 4:24). God's word is truth (John 17:17). Man cannot teach his doctrine or precepts as truth (Matt 15:9), because that would result in vain worship. That principle is throughout the bible, not an Old Testament principle only.

Scriptures plainly teach that 5 of the 7 things in that first list were replaced by the second list. With giving, it doesn;t explicitly say that a tenth is replaced, but the principle of "as propspered" would supersede the command for a tenth. They are contradictory. One is a definite amount, and the other is variable.
But your side has shown no scriptural correlation at all that instruments were a shadow of a-capella singing.
And here's something else I just realized. Since "singing" and "instruments" are supposed to be so contradictory or diametrically opposite; like leavened vs. unleavened; then if they used instruments in the OT; they must not have sang! Are you willing to argue that there was no singing of the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in the OT, but only playing of melodies? If not; then we see right there that "sing" and "instruments" are not mutually exclusive.No it doesn't mean that at all. The passover meal was a shadow of the Lord's supper. That doesn't mean that the two are opposites. Unleavened bread is included in both. So was the fruit of the vine because that was present when Jesus instituted the Lord's supper. They also had roast lamb, but Jesus is our passover lamb.

In the old law, they had singing, no doubt, and instrumental music. Under the new law we have singing and the only strings that are plucked are the heart strings.

You are talking what you do not know. It's not about what I want. I could care less about having instruments in service. I could care less about the standard organized "service". I have told you this about 3 times already. My point was not what people want, but the fact that it was already that way for us, so it was not like the Churches were all a-capella, and we decided we liked instruments, and brought them in. It doesn't sound like you could care less. The simple fact is that SOMEBODY introduced them. It may not have been you or your parents, but somebody did, because they were not present in the early church and they are where you worship, so SOMEBODY did.

Those that came after, accepted them, for the same reason they were introduced. They like them and don't see anything wrong with it. However, when they were initially introduced, it caused much division, and is still a point of division today.

We don't give them up because we seen no scriptural reason to. It's just an issue that some rise up (1 John 2:19, Acts 20:30) and argue over, for no other reason than pride (1 Tim.6:4). So why don't you give up this time-wasting, unfruitful argument? You don't want to. It's your will worship! (Ha, Ha, we worship this way; we are better than all of you!)I'll tell you why I don't give up. Because I love you and I am concerned. If I didn't think you were important and this was important, do you think I would waste my time?

That's not to please man; rather that was for an "expedient" reason (To help people keep the notes and rhythm).The early church didn't need them for that reason, why do you? It is not an "expedient" it is an addition. You end up with 2 types of music when only vocal is authorized.

Still, the instruments are an accompaniment. It doesn't in any way take away from or change the singing. In fact, it can possibly help it! Help it? In whose eyes (or ears) would it be helped? Who are we trying to please, Man or God? God has authorized singing. Why do you feel you need to help God by adding other music that is not authorized?

Now that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. We write songs and sing them; how is that "made by God", any more than an instrument? (any material we make them with is also made by God).Maybe it's only the most ridiculous because you do not understand. Singing comes from the heart, not a sheet of paper. Our singing comes from us, not something made with hands.

Our voices are made by God. We use our voices to sing praises to his name, not with something made with hands, but from our heart.

Singing is not words on paper, but the words that come from our heart. It is the fruit of our lips.

But the distinction between them is solely that one ingredient. Therefore, they are opposite. Leaven CHANGES the other ingredients. Instruments do not change the singing. So again you make the argument that it would be ok to use grape jelly and other fruit juices in addition to the Lord's supper, because none of the ingedients are changed, just added to. Why would anyone want to add to the Lord's supper. To make it taste better? Why would anyone want to add instruments? To make the singing better?

Again, who are we trying to please? Ourselves or God.

Eric B

06-11-2005, 10:35 AM

Language changes. I'm sure you understand that. I am not a greek scholar and never claimed to be one. To get the intended meaning, I will often consult several translations, some new and some old. They don't just get people off the street with a greek bible dictionary to do the translations. It's unfortunate that some translated 2 different greek words into the same english word. A distinction was obscured. There is so much more evidence for what I believe, that of course it does not hinge on this one verse. I forgot to mention, that the "two words" are simply variations. one is "pisteuo", the other is a [without, non]+ pistos (trustful).
Ok, what about Acts 2:44, what had those believers? "All that believed had all things in common". What doies this have to do with anything. It is telling us something that those who "believed" did; but it does not say anythign about "obey"
What is your definition of physical works? Something that we physically DO, such as go down into a pool of water (even if you argue that it is done to us).
What? It doesn't matter which order? Maybe baptism is for the remission of sins. Why did Peter say baptism was for (eis) the remission of sins?

Compare Acts 3:19 to Acts 2:38
Repent=Repent
Be Converted=Be Baptized
That your sins may be blotted out=For the remission of sins

Being baptized and being converted are the same.
No; one represented the other; so they could be spoken of as the same thing.
So you are saying he didn't really believe when the bible says he did?

The bible plainly states he believed. Either he didn't really believe and the bible says he did which would be deceiving, or he believed. I explained what "believed" meant. Once again; do you really think his "believing" with it's ulterior motive was saving faith?
Simon was not told to believe again or be baptized again because he had already done these. He was told to repent and pray, instructions never given to an alien sinner.

Yes people can believe in vain, because belief alone cannot save, otherwise it would be IMPOSSIBLE to believe in vain. He was told to REPENT; which in that case, meant to believe for the right reason.

Will get back later.

mman

06-11-2005, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
"All that believed had all things in common". What doies this have to do with anything. It is telling us something that those who "believed" did; but it does not say anythign about "obey"What does that have to do with it? They had believed, repented and had been baptized (Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41), then refered to as "those who believed" in verse 44.

Look how the verb pisteuo is used in the book of Acts.

Pisteuo is found some thirty-nine times in Acts. In the ASV, it is rendered by such English terms as believe, believed, and believers.

A careful study of the use of this verb in Acts will show that in many instances “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.

On the question,"What is your definition of physical works?", you replied,

Something that we physically DO, such as go down into a pool of water (even if you argue that it is done to us).That would include confession, since that is something we physically "do".

By your definition, you might could slide repentance as a work.

Something you CANNOT do is show from the scriptures where baptism is a work. By your definition, you would have to say, By work, Noah prepared an ark. The bible say, by faith, Noah prepared an ark.

By faith, the walls of Jericho fell. You would have to say, by work, the walls of Jericho fell. That is wrong. They fell by faith. Was obedience required. Yes. Did they pound the walls down? No. Did their marching cause an earthquake? No. God did the work. You do not understand biblical faith.

Gal 3:26=27 Through faith we are the childern of God because we have been baptized.

Of course, Col 2:12 tells us it is God that is doing the work. No matter what you say, this does not change the clear teaching of this verse.

No; one represented the other; so they could be spoken of as the same thing.It's easy to say, "No", where's your proof. What scriptures do you have that back up what you say. Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19 are saying the same thing, just using different words.

Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins so that is why he could use the word converted in Acts 3:19.

You do not have one verse to show that baptism is NOT for the remission of sin.

I explained what "believed" meant. Once again; do you really think his "believing" with it's ulterior motive was saving faith?I think he believed just like the other people of Samaria. The bible says he believed and I believe the bible.

He was told to REPENT; which in that case, meant to believe for the right reason.

Will get back later. Repent means to believe or believe for the right reason? Where did that come from. No, repent means to change or turn towards God.

The believers in Acts 2 were told to repent (Acts 2:38). They had not believed for the wrong reason. They had believed for the right reason. They were told to repent because they had not done that yet. That was a prerequisite for baptism, which was for the remission of their sins.

Nothing in the text indicates that Simon did not really believe or that he was not a proper subject for baptism.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

Simon also believed. Also? Who else believed? The Samarians. Simon believed just like the Samarians. How long until the Apostles showed up and began bestowing the Holy Spirit by the laying on of their hands?

It doesn't say. It would have taken some time for word to travel back to Jerusalem. It was probably several weeks or months. That is beside the point. The scriptures say Simon ALSO believed and was baptized.

Eric B

06-12-2005, 10:07 AM

Worship is to be according to truth (John 4:24). God's word is truth (John 17:17). Man cannot teach his doctrine or precepts as truth (Matt 15:9), because that would result in vain worship. That principle is throughout the bible, not an Old Testament principle only.
Just remember that that was spoken before the Cross, at Jews who added their own precepts to the Law. Once again, when we come into the NT, we do not simply trade one Law for another, so the "rules" for worship are not as tight as it was back then. So your restrictions on instruments are more of "commandments of men" than us using them!
No it doesn't mean that at all. The passover meal was a shadow of the Lord's supper. That doesn't mean that the two are opposites. Unleavened bread is included in both. So was the fruit of the vine because that was present when Jesus instituted the Lord's supper. They also had roast lamb, but Jesus is our passover lamb.
Nobody suggested that the OC practices were "opposites" of the NC practices,. You had compared unleavened bread with leavened bread, in terms of substitutiong one for the other in the Lord's Supper. Those are opposites, not a "shadow" of one another. (both of which were used in both testaments).
In the old law, they had singing, no doubt, and instrumental music. Under the new law we have singing and the only strings that are plucked are the heart strings. But you have not proven this assertion. And now you make it sound like the singing ("no doubt") and "instrumental music was separate, or something, so that singing always means singing only, and instruments were always apart of some other production. No, the Bible can refer to music as singing and/or instruments with both being used in the same pieces.
It doesn't sound like you could care less. I don't respond because it is some personal issue with me; but because when men rise up in the Church with unbiblical issues read into scripture, we are to challenge it. If you're saying we're wrong, then we should either change if we are, or prove that we're not wrong. So us responding to you does not prove that we're only trying to protect our own selfish "wants", or whatever. But now you need to prove that your (CofC/Campbellism) whole raising of the issue is not your own carnal one-upmanship (using a ridiculous issue to put down other christians).
The simple fact is that SOMEBODY introduced them. It may not have been you or your parents, but somebody did, because they were not present in the early church and they are where you worship, so SOMEBODY did. Because there was no BAN on instruments, but probaly a variety of factors as to why they were not mentioned. If it is true that they weren't used; as it was said, it could have been because they were mostly hiding and on the run, and in people's homes, and didn't have many skilled musicians (and maybe instruments were costly for the average person back then), so they weren't needed. Then, when persecution ended, and the Church got its own buildings, and other signs of power, then some introduced them, seeing that the barrier to them had been removed. Others by that time had developed a Platonistic outlook on the world, (worship was to be somber and almost mournful, and joy/liveliness was carnal) and then took the former lack of instruments as some "rule" of the NT "spiritual worship", which they tried to read back into the NT (between the lines), and opposed them.
Whatever the case, there was no ban in the NT; no NT teaching that they were OT shadows of singing only-worship, and no issue made of it at all. Iw we really want to claim to follow the NT and "be silent where it is silent", then we will cease making such a ban, and following the paganized Medieval Church, which we reject on so many other issues developing then (Mary, real presence, infant baptism, monoepiscopacy, etc).
Those that came after, accepted them, for the same reason they were introduced. They like them and don't see anything wrong with it. However, when they were initially introduced, it caused much division, and is still a point of division today. You want to throw charges of man and their selfish preferences; this takes two sides. Men opposed it because they didn't like them, because they had gnostic ideas about worship and liveliness, an instead of turning to the Bible to see if their ideas were scriptural; they simply read them into the Scriptures, and then up came these "bans" from between the lines that one could nowhere find in them otherwise. Today, people take any issue to cause division and prove they are the true Church. You are appealing to every [human] other authority except the Bible for your rule. You need to just admit that this is YOUR preference, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.
I'll tell you why I don't give up. Because I love you and I am concerned. If I didn't think you were important and this was important, do you think I would waste my time?
If you are suggesting by this that I am lost (and hence you need to be "concerned" about me) just because of a doctrine of instruments (as well as being in "the true Church"), then you need to be concerned about yourself (as we are about you). You are trusting in a gospel of works--unbiblical ones at that--which is no gospel at all! It's not even like we're arguing over basic morality (adultery, killing, stealing, etc). This is what Jesus said the "vain worship" was.
No, this isn't for us, this is for you, because you get to see yourself as the lone preacher trying to "resue' all of us apostate Christians from all our false worship, and other things that have us condemned--just like every other cult leader. Since salvation is by faith in Christ, a person then must rraise up all of these other issues in irder to prove that he alone has the truth. I know; because I used to be into sabbatarianism (which has a much stronger case than this), and when I was shown how that was false, I realized how it was all about pride (being better than others); not God, nor concern for all those other souls.
The early church didn't need them for that reason, why do you? It is not an "expedient" it is an addition. You end up with 2 types of music when only vocal is authorized.

Help it? In whose eyes (or ears) would it be helped? Who are we trying to please, Man or God? God has authorized singing. Why do you feel you need to help God by adding other music that is not authorized?

Maybe it's only the most ridiculous because you do not understand. Singing comes from the heart, not a sheet of paper. Our singing comes from us, not something made with hands.

Our voices are made by God. We use our voices to sing praises to his name, not with something made with hands, but from our heart.

Singing is not words on paper, but the words that come from our heart. It is the fruit of our lips.
All of this has just implicated song books as well.
So again you make the argument that it would be ok to use grape jelly and other fruit juices in addition to the Lord's supper, because none of the ingedients are changed, just added to. Why would anyone want to add to the Lord's supper. To make it taste better? Once again; there is evidence in Cor. that that may have been a meal beyond just wine and crackers, (which themselves may have been used as an illustration of any food and drink) and while this is somewhat speculatory, it is still therefore not a good example. It would not be to taste better, but because it was simply a meal!
Why would anyone want to add instruments? To make the singing better?

Again, who are we trying to please? Ourselves or God. Why wouldn't that please God? If instruments were so displeasing to God; then you would have to take the argument (of some of those Church leaders who opposed them) that He simply "allowed" them in the OT, because of the "hardness of their hearts" like He did divorce, and other things. But there is no proof of that. So why assume that it only pleases man, and not God?

Eric B

06-12-2005, 10:29 AM

What does that have to do with it? They had believed, repented and had been baptized (Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41), then refered to as "those who believed" in verse 44.

Look how the verb pisteuo is used in the book of Acts.

Pisteuo is found some thirty-nine times in Acts. In the ASV, it is rendered by such English terms as believe, believed, and believers.

A careful study of the use of this verb in Acts will show that in many instances “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.
Ocea gain, "believing" is MANIFEST by works. But the works by themselves do not make the act of "believing".
That would include confession, since that is something we physically "do".Not really; because hypothetically, if comeone picks up the Gospel, and believes it without coming in contact with another person, bhe is saved even though he didn't "confess". So "confess" is a visible sign of faith, like baptism. (hence the altar call replacing it in modern evangelism). But ultimately, it is about what is received in the heart. Then, we would ask, why wouldn;t one then go and show it, through confession, baptism, etc.? But yet again, whatever visible sign is a manifestation of faith, not faith itself.

By your definition, you might could slide repentance as a work.NO; because this is done in the heart. The, like, or as apart of faith; it is to be manifest in a changed life.
Something you CANNOT do is show from the scriptures where baptism is a work. By your definition, you would have to say, By work, Noah prepared an ark. The bible say, by faith, Noah prepared an ark. That once again was "faith" MANIFEST in a work. If one of those wicked people in that day had buit their own ark, would they have been "saved by faith" as well?
By faith, the walls of Jericho fell. You would have to say, by work, the walls of Jericho fell. That is wrong. They fell by faith. Was obedience required. Yes. Did they pound the walls down? No. Did their marching cause an earthquake? No. God did the work. You do not understand biblical faith. No, YOU don't. You think it is something we DO, rather than something we RECEIVE; and THEN do things, out of gratitude, because we love Him. (John 14:15-21, 1 John 4:19)
Walls do not have faith. But the people did; and obeyed out of faith, and then God rewarded them with voctory. This is so simple, yet you have to try to make something else out of it!
Gal 3:26=27 Through faith we are the childern of God because we have been baptized.

Of course, Col 2:12 tells us it is God that is doing the work. No matter what you say, this does not change the clear teaching of this verse.
Once again, faith manifest through a work. And God does the spiritual "work" of saving us, or making us His children; something we cannot do ourselves.
It's easy to say, "No", where's your proof. What scriptures do you have that back up what you say. Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19 are saying the same thing, just using different words.

Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins so that is why he could use the word converted in Acts 3:19.

You do not have one verse to show that baptism is NOT for the remission of sin. You are just not getting it. Baptism was a SIGN of something that takes place in the heart. Once again, Simon should have been saved regardless of his heart ocndition, then, if it is just the water that saves.
I think he believed just like the other people of Samaria. The bible says he believed and I believe the bible. You don't believe it. It says his "belief" was of an ulterior motive. That's why all the baptismal water int he world could not save him. But you have to deny this, because your whole doctrine falls apart on it.
Repent means to believe or believe for the right reason? Where did that come from. No, repent means to change or turn towards God.
If a person PRETENDS to "believe" and change his lifestyle (which anyone can do), then he has not really REPENTED. His heart is stillt he same. there are such things as "tares", remember (i.e. those in the congregations who were false believers).
The believers in Acts 2 were told to repent (Acts 2:38). They had not believed for the wrong reason. They had believed for the right reason. They were told to repent because they had not done that yet. That was a prerequisite for baptism, which was for the remission of their sins.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

Simon also believed. Also? Who else believed? The Samarians. Simon believed just like the Samarians. How long until the Apostles showed up and began bestowing the Holy Spirit by the laying on of their hands?

It doesn't say. It would have taken some time for word to travel back to Jerusalem. It was probably several weeks or months. That is beside the point. The scriptures say Simon ALSO believed and was baptized.

Nothing in the text indicates that Simon did not really believe or that he was not a proper subject for baptism.
Not at the time of baptism. But later, his real motive became evident, and it was clear he had not repented, but was only trying to USE the power of the Holy Spirit for his own selfish gain. Like many false preachers today.

mman

06-13-2005, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
Just remember that that was spoken before the Cross, at Jews who added their own precepts to the Law. Once again, when we come into the NT, we do not simply trade one Law for another, so the "rules" for worship are not as tight as it was back then. So your restrictions on instruments are more of "commandments of men" than us using them! John 4:21Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Does this sound like it was for the Jews? He was talking to a Samaritan woman. Jesus said, “the hour is coming”, meaning that this would also apply in the future. He also said, “and now is” indicating that it was true when he said it. True worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

That implies there will be false worshipers, who do not worship in spirit and in truth?

What is truth? God’s word is truth (Jn 17:17). Since God authorized singing as the type of music in worship, and I sing, is that according to truth?

So, if I use the authorized music of the New Testament, I am more guilty of “teaching as doctrine the commandments of men” than if I use non authorized instrumental music that the early church did not use.

Quite frankly, I fail to see the logic in that.

You claim our rules for worship are not as tight as it was back then. That should be easy to show through the scriptures, if true.

This is way off the topic of this thread. I would like to return to the original intent of this thread. If you want to open another thread for this topic, I would be more than happy to participate.

mman

06-13-2005, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
You are just not getting it. Baptism was a SIGN of something that takes place in the heart. You're right, I don't get that. I read that baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) not a sign that they have already been forgiven. Where do you ever read that it was a "sign"?

mman

06-13-2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
No, YOU don't. You think it is something we DO, rather than something we RECEIVE; and THEN do things, out of gratitude, because we love Him. (John 14:15-21, 1 John 4:19) Walls do not have faith. But the people did; and obeyed out of faith, and then God rewarded them with voctory. This is so simple, yet you have to try to make something else out of it!Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days.

OK, you have correctly ruled out that it was not the wall's faith? So whose faith was it?

Those who obeyed.

I agree, this is simple. God gave them a command, they believed and obeyed. The bible calls this faith.

You say faith is something you receive and then actions result out of gratitude and love.

The bible says "by faith" the walls of Jericho fell. They could have "believed" all they wanted, but that would have NEVER resulted in the walls falling down.

Without the action, it is not faith, only belief. Without the obedience, it is a dead fatih (belief only) as James tells us.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". When we obey, we do it because we believe God. That is how we are , "all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

According to this, how does one get INTO Christ? When is one clothed with Christ? Before baptism? Is one saved before he puts on Christ?

and

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.

So, you see, we really are "saved through faith" as Eph 2:8-9 so plainly states.

Eric B

06-13-2005, 08:17 PM

Does this sound like it was for the Jews? He was talking to a Samaritan woman. Jesus said, “the hour is coming”, meaning that this would also apply in the future. He also said, “and now is” indicating that it was true when he said it. True worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

That implies there will be false worshipers, who do not worship in spirit and in truth?Like Simon. That's why I don't see why you didn't see that point. You think he was a true worshipper just because he wwent through the motion of being baptized.

What is truth? God’s word is truth (Jn 17:17). Since God authorized singing as the type of music in worship, and I sing, is that according to truth?

So, if I use the authorized music of the New Testament, I am more guilty of “teaching as doctrine the commandments of men” than if I use non authorized instrumental music that the early church did not use.

Quite frankly, I fail to see the logic in that.You are the one giving a command God never gave. He never commanded instruments, but we do not command them or say hHe commanded them. The issue is are they forbidden or commanded to be omitted. It is only MEN in the early church and afterwards who commanded that. Therefore it is a commandment of men.

You claim our rules for worship are not as tight as it was back then. That should be easy to show through the scriptures, if true. Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days.

OK, you have correctly ruled out that it was not the wall's faith? So whose faith was it?

Those who obeyed.

I agree, this is simple. God gave them a command, they believed and obeyed. The bible calls this faith.

You say faith is something you receive and then actions result out of gratitude and love.

The bible says "by faith" the walls of Jericho fell. They could have "believed" all they wanted, but that would have NEVER resulted in the walls falling down.

Without the action, it is not faith, only belief. Without the obedience, it is a dead fatih (belief only) as James tells us. Faith is believing God enough to do whatever He tells you. In the Old Testament, works were emphasized more, but while some were faithful and did what God said; especially in the particular one time commands we see illustrated in these examples, overall, men did not keep God's commands, and God really demanded perfection. Just like it may be possible to have dead "belief" without works; it is also possible to have "dead works" without faith. Peoplewent through the motions, thinking that doing those works saved them (like Simon), but their hearts still weren't right. Since no one was perfect; those who ended up justified were those who obeyed in faith (so we see they are still two separate items). Since no one does all the works God commands consistently or perfectly,then salvation cannot be tied to any one work; or ACT (since you try to challenge the designation of the word "works"). You yourself admit that we are not perfect, so it is about "faithfulness". So then it can't be by any particular work. It also can't be by an amount of works, else, you would have to have a "cutoff line, where "OK, that's one sin too many; salvation revoked until you repent again".
You're right, I don't get that. I read that baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) not a sign that they have already been forgiven. Where do you ever read that it was a "sign"? Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". When we obey, we do it because we believe God. That is how we are , "all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

According to this, how does one get INTO Christ? When is one clothed with Christ? Before baptism? Is one saved before he puts on Christ?
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.

So, you see, we really are "saved through faith" as Eph 2:8-9 so plainly states. He is in Christ when he believes. Believing back then was accompanied by baptism. In reality, he was saved as soon as he believed, before baptism. But nobody could really see that until he was actually baptized, so that was looked at as the actual act of getting into Christ. Nobody sat and picked it all apart arguing "was he saved by the water, or before?" To the watching world, he entered Christ when he went down into the water. But once again, there were tares (like Simon) who went through the motion, but did not really repent. Rather than them actually being saved, and then losing it when their true motives became evident (as if people's view of him was what made him saved or revoked it), he was never saved then.

mman

06-14-2005, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
Like Simon. That's why I don't see why you didn't see that point. You think he was a true worshipper just because he wwent through the motion of being baptized. No, I think he was a true worshipper because the BIBLE says he also believed and was baptized. He obviously repented from being a sorcerer, because in verse 9 of Acts 8 it plainly states, "who previously practiced sorcery". To say that he did not "really" believe, did not "really" repent, or was not "really" baptized is to oppose what is written. I understand the necessity of some to say that he didn't, but the scriptures say he did.

Going through the motions or for the wrong reason would not produce a valid baptism. What is the remedy? Being baptized properly or for the right reason. To show this point, in Acts 19, we have some followers of Jesus who were baptized under John's baptism (still immersed in water) and when Paul found out, he had them baptized again.

If Simon had not been "really" baptized, he would have been instructed to be baptized again, just as Paul did in Acts 19. However, that is not the case. To say otherwise, is to inject into the text, what is not there.

You are the one giving a command God never gave. He never commanded instruments, but we do not command them or say hHe commanded them. The issue is are they forbidden or commanded to be omitted. It is only MEN in the early church and afterwards who commanded that. Therefore it is a commandment of men.Your logic would allow for anything not prohibited, i.e., grape jelly with the unleavened bread. For anyone to say that is not acceptable is to give a command that God did not give us. Therefore it is a commandent of men. Therefore, the door is wide open and anything not expressly prohibited is acceptable, by your logic. Again, I would like to keep this about the "water and the blood". If you want to start another thread that is fine.

Faith is believing God enough to do whatever He tells you. In the Old Testament, works were emphasized more, but while some were faithful and did what God said; especially in the particular one time commands we see illustrated in these examples, overall, men did not keep God's commands, and God really demanded perfection. Just like it may be possible to have dead "belief" without works; it is also possible to have "dead works" without faith. Peoplewent through the motions, thinking that doing those works saved them (like Simon), but their hearts still weren't right. Since no one was perfect; those who ended up justified were those who obeyed in faith (so we see they are still two separate items). Since no one does all the works God commands consistently or perfectly,then salvation cannot be tied to any one work; or ACT (since you try to challenge the designation of the word "works"). You yourself admit that we are not perfect, so it is about "faithfulness". So then it can't be by any particular work. It also can't be by an amount of works, else, you would have to have a "cutoff line, where "OK, that's one sin too many; salvation revoked until you repent again".What I think you are confusing is the difference in getting into Christ and walking in Christ. There is only one way into Christ. The bible makes this clear. It is even simple. The instructions are easy to follow. Following the instructions do no earn you anything. Are the instructions optional? No. Unless you repent, you shall likewise perish (Lk 13:3). Does this sound optional? We know we can't obey perfectly, so it must be alright to miss a few things. Right? No, repentance is not optional. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Do either of these sound optional? No. How about repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Does that sound optional? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16). Does that sound optional if he wants his sins washed away? It doesn't to me.

He is in Christ when he believes.So you must have some scripture to back this statement. Lets look at a biblical example. In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to them and they were cut to the heart. If they did not believe, they would not have been cut to the heart. They would have gone about their business, thinking those men were crazy or really were drunk.

No, the people in Acts 2 believed. Were they saved at that point, before they even ask Peter what to do? According to your statement, the answer would have to be "YES". How about after they asked the question in Acts 2:37, "What shall we do?". Were those believers saved then? What would have been your answer to those people in Acts 2? Oh, you don't have to "DO" anything. You are believers and since you have already been saved, you need to be baptized to show that you are already saved. If Peter had given that answer, then your answer would have some merit.

However, Peter told them to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for (eis) the remission of sins". Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, not belief.

If one is really saved at the point of belief, then he is saved prior to repentance, for who would repent who did not believe. If one is saved at belief, then he is saved prior to confession, for who would confess in what he did not believe. If one is saved at the point of belief then he is saved prior to baptism, for who would be baptized if they did not believe. The bible teaches none of this.

Believing back then was accompanied by baptism. In reality, he was saved as soon as he believed, before baptism. But nobody could really see that until he was actually baptized, so that was looked at as the actual act of getting into Christ.I cannot get your statement to agree with Gal 3:26-27. It doesn't say it looks like we are baptized into Christ. It says we "have been baptized INTO Christ." It does not say that when we are baptized it looks like we are baptized INTO Christ, but you are really put INTO Christ when you believe.

Baptism is not for others to "SEE" to know that you believe or you are really saved. Nowhere is that concept even alluded to in the New Testament. If that were the case, then baptism would have taken place with many present to witness. However, baptism always took place immediately, even during the middle of the night, sometimes with only 2 present (Philip and the Eunuch). Philip and the Eunuch went their separate ways, therefore, those living around the Eunuch did not witness his baptism and it was not a sign for any person.

If a person is saved at belief, what does Peter really mean when he said baptism was for the remisison of sins in Acts 2:38? I know that it can't mean what it says. All 3000 who obeyed understood exactly what he said. For someone to attempt to twist the meaning of this passage would be to imply that all 3000 people who were baptized understood that Peter really meant "hoti" when he said "eis".

Nobody sat and picked it all apart arguing "was he saved by the water, or before?" I agree with that statement. They all understood baptism was for (eis) the remisison of sins and that is why it took place at the first available opportunity.

To the watching world, he entered Christ when he went down into the water. But once again, there were tares (like Simon) who went through the motion, but did not really repent. Rather than them actually being saved, and then losing it when their true motives became evident (as if people's view of him was what made him saved or revoked it), he was never saved then. I've already addressed this. Your statements do not agree with what is revealed in the circumstances surrounding Simon in Acts 8. He also believed (Acts 8:13). Does that mean the others didn't really believe?

You sure use a lot of words without any scripture. You say, were saved at belief, but do all the scriptures support this idea? You say belief puts us into Christ, but do all the scriptures support this idea. I can only find 2 passages that tell us how to get "INTO" Christ.

Eric B

06-14-2005, 05:39 PM

No, I think he was a true worshipper because the BIBLE says he also believed and was baptized. He obviously repented from being a sorcerer, because in verse 9 of Acts 8 it plainly states, "who previously practiced sorcery". To say that he did not "really" believe, did not "really" repent, or was not "really" baptized is to oppose what is written. I understand the necessity of some to say that he didn't, but the scriptures say he did. Let's take a step back. This was in response to your statement that there would be false worshippers. If people can "worship" falsely; they can "believe" falsely! If I took your line of reasoning; I would day, "no; I believe the Bible, when it says they worshipped, so they were not false. They simply turned from worshipping". But that is not what it says!
The context clearly shows; that while he may have "formerly" practiced sorcery (as if that alone proved he was saved); he now simply plotted to manipulate the power of the Holy Spirit in its place! Note v.13 18, 19, where he was watching Philip, and eveutally approacehd Peter, and was totally focused on "miracles and signs", just like he was using under sorcery. He smply wanted a greater, divine power to continue his old practice with! This was not genuie belief; but rather the same "belief" of those Jews in John 8, who Christ said were "f [their] father, the Devil". You are taking a word in our common use of it and refusing to see its full range of uses in the Bible!
Going through the motions or for the wrong reason would not produce a valid baptism. What is the remedy? Being baptized properly or for the right reason. To show this point, in Acts 19, we have some followers of Jesus who were baptized under John's baptism (still immersed in water) and when Paul found out, he had them baptized again.
If Simon had not been "really" baptized, he would have been instructed to be baptized again, just as Paul did in Acts 19. However, that is not the case. To say otherwise, is to inject into the text, what is not there.
You have it completely backwards! Those baptized under John were not baptized for a wrong reason or motive. They were baptized by an OT prohpet for a right reason; but the true Christ whom he pointed to was here, and has superseded John, as both Jesus and John himself had testified! So they needed to be baptized into Christ. On the other hand, we have a person who went through the motions of being baptized in Christ, but with an ulterior motive, which is exposed by the apostles. He has no need to be baptized again, but to repent of his evil plans (which would mean accepting Christ truly in his heart; and not as a genie to continue his bewitching of people) is what he now needs to do, thus proving baptism is not the key to salvation.
Your logic would allow for anything not prohibited, i.e., grape jelly with the unleavened bread. For anyone to say that is not acceptable is to give a command that God did not give us. Therefore it is a commandent of men. Therefore, the door is wide open and anything not expressly prohibited is acceptable, by your logic. And by your logic, we can't have song books either. Once again, you take the liberty for yourself to decide for us what is "expedient" or not. We really must look at the situation to determine what is a supplement, and what is a compliment (basically). And once again; I showed you a possible case (in which Communion is a general meal) where other foods could be allowed. It depends on how we understand it. If we assume that communion was a specific special ceremony of "unleavened bread and wine", then that would automatically exclude anything else. If we understand it as a meal, of which elements of the Passover Seder Christ and His apostles partook, were used as the first example of (and the fact that people could be glottonous of it is an evidence of this), then other things are allowed.
Again, I would like to keep this about the "water and the blood". If you want to start another thread that is fine. We were arguing both issues in the "Denominations" thread, and even a "baptism" thread, but one died down, and the other went on past that, so it is consolidated here. It is all the same methods of interpreting scripture your group uses anyway, so the issues are very much related.
What I think you are confusing is the difference in getting into Christ and walking in Christ. There is only one way into Christ. The bible makes this clear. It is even simple. The instructions are easy to follow. Following the instructions do no earn you anything. Are the instructions optional? Yes it does earn you. Be baptized; and then you are saved from Hell by being in Christ. That is earning, through an act we DO. Read Rom.4:4,5 on this.
To you "being in Christ" really doesn't mean anything, because you are quickly out of Him by not continuing to "walk in Him" through works. (as you claim with Simon!)
No. Unless you repent, you shall likewise perish (Lk 13:3). Does this sound optional? We know we can't obey perfectly, so it must be alright to miss a few things. Right? No, repentance is not optional. Repentance is a total change of our minds, that begins to change our acts. It is not about missing or not missing a few things. That only becomes a person's focus when he places his salvation on things he does.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Do either of these sound optional? No. How about repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Does that sound optional? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16). Does that sound optional if he wants his sins washed away? It doesn't to me. But you are so focused on the "baptism" part of it; you can't see that that is only something that accompanies "believe"/"repent". Never do we see baptism by itself. That is why, as DHK has always pointed out; Christ did not have to say "He sho does not believe, and is not baptized shall not be saved". Clearly, the focus is on believe with baptism being a [visble] accompaniment, and not the other way around! Remember, your favorite passage on "faith without works" says "I will show you my faith BY my works" (James 2:18), not "I will show you my works to prove they are gaining salvation for me".
So you must have some scripture to back this statement. Lets look at a biblical example. In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to them and they were cut to the heart. If they did not believe, they would not have been cut to the heart. They would have gone about their business, thinking those men were crazy or really were drunk. Not yet; because in 7:54, another group of people were also "cut to the heart"? Were they "believing"? No; quite the opposite; they gnash their teeth and then go on to stone Stephen! "cut to the heart" is the initial felling of conviction by the Spirit, and we can still react to it in one of two ways: believing, or resisting! Sorry, as much as you accuse me of not using scripture; all you are doing is picking out of them words and statements without even checking contexts and other uses of them, which completely disprove your points. The argument becomes basically on what scripture does not teach moreso than what it does, anyway.
No, the people in Acts 2 believed. Were they saved at that point, before they even ask Peter what to do? According to your statement, the answer would have to be "YES". How about after they asked the question in Acts 2:37, "What shall we do?". Were those believers saved then? What would have been your answer to those people in Acts 2? Oh, you don't have to "DO" anything. You are believers and since you have already been saved, you need to be baptized to show that you are already saved. If Peter had given that answer, then your answer would have some merit.

However, Peter told them to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for (eis) the remission of sins". Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, not belief.They needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved. The group in ch.7 DID something aftert their conviction; but that they did SHOWed that they were not converted. The same with Simon. And I would have to go partly along with the person who pointed out that this was different than today; because as we see in the account of Simon, people were baptized but still had not received the Spirit. That was accomplished by the laying on of hands. So in this initial period when the apostles were still alive, and the NT not yet written and circulated; we had this physical process of being baptized and having apostles and their helpers laying hands on people to bring them into Christ. But this would not continue on forever. It was a special instance in Acts. Just like Church of Christ does not believe any of the other spiritual "gifts" recorded then continue to the present.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody sat and picked it all apart arguing "was he saved by the water, or before?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with that statement. They all understood baptism was for (eis) the remisison of sins and that is why it took place at the first available opportunity.
If one is really saved at the point of belief, then he is saved prior to repentance, for who would repent who did not believe. If one is saved at belief, then he is saved prior to confession, for who would confess in what he did not believe. If one is saved at the point of belief then he is saved prior to baptism, for who would be baptized if they did not believe. The bible teaches none of this.

I cannot get your statement to agree with Gal 3:26-27. It doesn't say it looks like we are baptized into Christ. It says we "have been baptized INTO Christ." It does not say that when we are baptized it looks like we are baptized INTO Christ, but you are really put INTO Christ when you believe.
Once again, you are picking it apart to prove youir point. Don't forget, Christ said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is
in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Matt.10:32,3) If a person truly believes; he will confess. He is saved at the point he believes, and then he is to confess and obey by being baptized. If he refuses to confess and be baptized; he shows he must not have believed in any true sense.
Baptism is not for others to "SEE" to know that you believe or you are really saved. Nowhere is that concept even alluded to in the New Testament. If that were the case, then baptism would have taken place with many present to witness. However, baptism always took place immediately, even during the middle of the night, sometimes with only 2 present (Philip and the Eunuch). Philip and the Eunuch went their separate ways, therefore, those living around the Eunuch did not witness his baptism and it was not a sign for any person. He's showing (confessing Christ before) the person who is baptizing him. That is apparently enough. Otherwise; if it is all about water; a person should have been able to baptize himself.
If a person is saved at belief, what does Peter really mean when he said baptism was for the remisison of sins in Acts 2:38? Baptism was the approved sign of receiving Christ, which applied His blood to them, which is what paid for their sins.
I know that it can't mean what it says. All 3000 who obeyed understood exactly what he said. For someone to attempt to twist the meaning of this passage would be to imply that all 3000 people who were baptized understood that Peter really meant "hoti" when he said "eis". I have never argued between those two words. Still, even with "for", you can't contradict the rest of the Gospel by having the remission of sins tied to this single act IN ITSELF, istead of it simply accompanying the acceptance of Christ into one's life.why would one be baptized? Because it was to accompany believing, which placed him in Christ, and gained him remission of sins. So therefore, they can speak of "baptism for the remission of sins". But it was not simply a token act which BY ITSELF, or perhaps with "belief" accompanying it, gains you remission of sins. That is completely backwards.
I've already addressed this. Your statements do not agree with what is revealed in the circumstances surrounding Simon in Acts 8. He also believed (Acts 8:13). Does that mean the others didn't really believe? If they walked in Christ, they would have shown themselves to have truly believed! You, focusing on BAPTISM, are trying to take that whole instance of baptism down, with Simon, so that if he didn't really believe; then none of them baptized with him did. Salvation is purely an INDIVIDUAL matter. Their salvation depends on what each individual did with the truth they were given. This one person had an evil ulterior motive, and proved he was not really believing, but rather trying to gain power for himself; which he had already been doing (i.e. "his old life"). That has nothing to do with all of the others dipped into the same pool with him.
You sure use a lot of words without any scripture. You say, we're saved at belief, but do all the scriptures support this idea? You say belief puts us into Christ, but do all the scriptures support this idea. I can only find 2 passages that tell us how to get "INTO" Christ. On one hand, they are so basic they should be easily remembered; but then on the other hand, they get swept aside when we do give them to you; and you conter them with these other scripotures that you havge interpreted to prove your point. How about the basic "BELIEVE on the Lo9rd Jesus Christ; and you shall be saved"? (Acts 16:31). You jump right to the baptism in v.33, and then using v.34 try to redefine belief as "baptism" itself! (or if it wasn't you who did that, it was one of the others). But he didn;t say "be baptized into Christ and you shall be saved", so even though that may have accompanied belief; it still was not the FOCUS, or actual act that brought salvation. Then, we have all the other scriptures, such as "by grace are you saved, through faith...not of works", that do not even mention baptism. But all of these you somehow strech to bring back to baptism. (usually bt redefining "faith" and "works"). So as I said, it is more about what scriptures do not teach, so quoting them over and over to you does not even do any good! (Especially when I am often in a rush, and it takes a half hour or more to make one of these posts).

Eric B

06-14-2005, 05:41 PM

[double post due to initial incomplete load]

mman

06-20-2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by EricB
You have it completely backwards! Those baptized under John were not baptized for a wrong reason or motive. They were baptized by an OT prohpet for a right reason; but the true Christ whom he pointed to was here, and has superseded John, as both Jesus and John himself had testified! So they needed to be baptized into Christ. On the other hand, we have a person who went through the motions of being baptized in Christ, but with an ulterior motive, which is exposed by the apostles. He has no need to be baptized again, but to repent of his evil plans (which would mean accepting Christ truly in his heart; and not as a genie to continue his bewitching of people) is what he now needs to do, thus proving baptism is not the key to salvation. Those baptized under John’s baptism prior to the new law absolutely did it for the right reason, but those baptized under John’s baptism, after Pentecost, were not valid. Where did these men learn about John’s baptism? Most likely from Apollos (Acts 18:25).

And by your logic, we can't have song books either. Once again, you take the liberty for yourself to decide for us what is "expedient" or not. We really must look at the situation to determine what is a supplement, and what is a compliment (basically). And once again; I showed you a possible case (in which Communion is a general meal) where other foods could be allowed. It depends on how we understand it. If we assume that communion was a specific special ceremony of "unleavened bread and wine", then that would automatically exclude anything else. If we understand it as a meal, of which elements of the Passover Seder Christ and His apostles partook, were used as the first example of (and the fact that people could be glottonous of it is an evidence of this), then other things are allowed. Again, you cannot distinguish the difference between carrying out a command and adding to a command. The authorized music is singing. If I sing from memory, when I get through, the only music I have is singing. If I use a song book, when I get through, the only music I still have is singing. If I use an overhead projector so everyone can see the words, when I get through, I only have singing. If I use a piano, then the music I have is singing and unauthorized instrumental music. Using a song book and piano is not the same thing.

Again, I would like to keep this about the "water and the blood". If you want to start another thread that is fine.

Yes it does earn you. Be baptized; and then you are saved from Hell by being in Christ. That is earning, through an act we DO. Read Rom.4:4,5 on this.
To you "being in Christ" really doesn't mean anything, because you are quickly out of Him by not continuing to "walk in Him" through works. (as you claim with Simon!) NO IT DOESN’T!!! And you cannot show through the scriptures where baptism is a work of merit. It simply can’t be done, because it isn’t. People continue to make these baseless claims without even ONE scripture as a reference to support their statements.

Here’s what the bible says, “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.” – Col 2:12

“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.” – Gal 3:26-27

But you are so focused on the "baptism" part of it; you can't see that that is only something that accompanies "believe"/"repent". Never do we see baptism by itself. That is why, as DHK has always pointed out; Christ did not have to say "He sho does not believe, and is not baptized shall not be saved". Clearly, the focus is on believe with baptism being a [visble] accompaniment, and not the other way around! Remember, your favorite passage on "faith without works" says "I will show you my faith BY my works" (James 2:18), not "I will show you my works to prove they are gaining salvation for me".Baptism is always associated with something. In some cases it is belief (Mk 16:16), repentance (Acts 2:38), or confession (Acts 8:36-37). Never in any case does baptism come after salvation, remission of sins, or rejoicing.

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.” – Mark 16:16

This verse tells us plainly what is required for salvation and what is required of condemnation. So, basically, do you think Jesus meant “He that believeth is saved and shall be baptized”, when he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”???

Yes, there are other verses that deal with each of these subjects, and it all must be taken into account.

Not yet; because in 7:54, another group of people were also "cut to the heart"? Were they "believing"? No; quite the opposite; they gnash their teeth and then go on to stone Stephen! "cut to the heart" is the initial felling of conviction by the Spirit, and we can still react to it in one of two ways: believing, or resisting! Sorry, as much as you accuse me of not using scripture; all you are doing is picking out of them words and statements without even checking contexts and other uses of them, which completely disprove your points. The argument becomes basically on what scripture does not teach moreso than what it does, anyway.Ok, so the believers in Acts 2:37 were not saved, yet. We both agree.

They needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved. The group in ch.7 DID something aftert their conviction; but that they did SHOWed that they were not converted. The same with Simon. And I would have to go partly along with the person who pointed out that this was different than today; because as we see in the account of Simon, people were baptized but still had not received the Spirit. That was accomplished by the laying on of hands. So in this initial period when the apostles were still alive, and the NT not yet written and circulated; we had this physical process of being baptized and having apostles and their helpers laying hands on people to bring them into Christ. But this would not continue on forever. It was a special instance in Acts. Just like Church of Christ does not believe any of the other spiritual "gifts" recorded then continue to the present.What? The believers had to “show” their belief before they were saved. The only way to show something is by “doing” which would be works, according to your definitions. You are teaching salvation by works, right?

Only the Apostles could pass along the spiritual gifts as seen in Acts 8:18. Philip could not pass it along, if so, there would have been no need for the Apostles to show up and Acts 8:18, makes no sense. Philip then was called away and preached Jesus to the Eunuch and the Eunuch was baptized in water. Nobody laid their hands on him and he went on his way rejoicing. The two acts are separate. Just because one was done away doesn’t mean the other one was.

Once again, you are picking it apart to prove youir point. Don't forget, Christ said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is
in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Matt.10:32,3) If a person truly believes; he will confess. He is saved at the point he believes, and then he is to confess and obey by being baptized. If he refuses to confess and be baptized; he shows he must not have believed in any true sense.Here, you said a person is saved at the point of belief, but those believers in Acts 2:47, you said weren’t yet saved, because they “needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved.”

John 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

I know this was under the old law, but it clearly shows that one can believe without confession. Is that believer saved?

I have never argued between those two words. Still, even with "for", you can't contradict the rest of the Gospel by having the remission of sins tied to this single act IN ITSELF, istead of it simply accompanying the acceptance of Christ into one's life.why would one be baptized? Because it was to accompany believing, which placed him in Christ, and gained him remission of sins. So therefore, they can speak of "baptism for the remission of sins". But it was not simply a token act which BY ITSELF, or perhaps with "belief" accompanying it, gains you remission of sins. That is completely backwards. Repentance with Baptism is either for (eis) the remission of sins or because (hoti) the remission of sins. The bible says it is for (eis). In fact it says that repentance with baptism is for the same reason as the shedding of Jesus blood. Both were done “eis aphesin hamartion” – For the remission of sins.

Are you saying that you reject that repentance with baptism is “for” – (eis) the remission of sins because that contradicts your other beliefs? The other option is repentance and baptism is because your sins have already been forgiven. Surely nobody believes that one repents because their sins are already forgiven. To try and make it mean something else, let the mental gymnastics begin.

Repentance with baptism for the remission of sins does NOT contradict the rest of the Gospel. It is in complete harmony with the rest of the Gospel. It only conflicts when we try to make faith mean “believe”. When we understand faith as seen in Heb 11, it all fits perfectly. However, when we think we are saved by belief only, then it takes some major league mental gymnastics to try and explain away the clear verses dealing with baptism.

Repentance with Baptism is “for the remission of sins”.(Acts 2:38)
Baptism, a burial, is “through faith”. (Col 2:12, Gal 3:26-27)
Baptism puts us “into Christ”. (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)
Baptism puts us into the Church. (I Cor 12:13)
Baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16)
Baptism saves us (I Pet 3:21)
Baptism is how we obey the Gospel (Gospel is death, burial, and resurrection according to I Cor 15:1-4) as seen in Rom 6:3-4, 17.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16)
Baptism is a work of God not man (Col 2:12)

Of course, baptism must be accompanied by belief, repentance and confession; otherwise, you are not following God’s instructions or examples.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned. – Mark 16:16. Here is a verse so simple; one HAS to have help to MISUNDERSTAND it. There is not one verse in the New Testament that contradicts this verse or negates this verse.

Eric B

06-21-2005, 11:08 AM

Those baptized under John’s baptism prior to the new law absolutely did it for the right reason, but those baptized under John’s baptism, after Pentecost, were not valid. Where did these men learn about John’s baptism? Most likely from Apollos (Acts 18:25). So does this mean Apollos instructed them, and then they went to John to be baptized? There is a big problem with this. John was long dead by the time of that Pentecost! Sorry, but you are piecing together whatever you can to maintain your argument, and it doesn't fly. Many gentiles were baptized by John as well, and Apollos is the one who introduced them to Christ, but did not baptize them into Christ; because he too only knew of John's baptism.
If I use a song book, when I get through, the only music I still have is singing. If I use an overhead projector so everyone can see the words, when I get through, I only have singing. If I use a piano, then the music I have is singing and unauthorized instrumental music. Using a song book and piano is not the same thing.
No, with the song book and projector; you have written music. The piano adds its own sound, but this takes nothing away from singing. The people are not no longer singing just because an instrument is playing, any more than because they are reading the words. You are making an issue out of nothing.
NO IT DOESN’T!!! And you cannot show through the scriptures where baptism is a work of merit. It simply can’t be done, because it isn’t. People continue to make these baseless claims without even ONE scripture as a reference to support their statements. What is a "work of merit," then? Wand whatever you list, you have to find a scripture that CALLS it a "work".
The scripture doesn;t HAVE to say "such and such is a work". When "works" are mentioned; everyone understood what that means. The word is "ergon", meaning "to toil" (as an effort or occupation); an act, deed, doing, etc.
And it it gains you salvation, it is merit.
Here’s what the bible says, “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.” – Col 2:12

“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.” – Gal 3:26-27
Notice, these statements have 2 parts. buried in baptism; raisedthrough faith. I do not see how you can make faith and baptism EQUAL each other in this. And Gal. doesn;t even mention "water" baptism. Remember; "by ONE SPIRIT are we baptized into ONE BODY". So these verse prove what we have been saying: baptism "into Christ" is a spiritual occurrence; HERE is you "faith"; and it was marked by the water ceremony, but the water ceremony itself is not what put you into Christ; because some, like Simon went through with it and still were not saved!
Baptism is always associated with something. In some cases it is belief (Mk 16:16), repentance (Acts 2:38), or confession (Acts 8:36-37). Never in any case does baptism come after salvation, remission of sins, or rejoicing. And thus; never does it IN ITSELF cause salvation, remission of sins, or rejoicing.
Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.” – Mark 16:16

This verse tells us plainly what is required for salvation and what is required of condemnation. So, basically, do you think Jesus meant “He that believeth is saved and shall be baptized”, when he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”??? Baptism will only be an act that has meaning accompanying belief; but it's without the belief that one is condemned, no matter whether he is baptized or not.
Ok, so the believers in Acts 2:37 were not saved, yet. We both agree.But you were trying to say they already "believed" at that point, but belief didn't save them. they were convicted. But they had yet to act on that conviction.
What? The believers had to “show” their belief before they were saved. The only way to show something is by “doing” which would be works, according to your definitions. You are teaching salvation by works, right? No; because the "showing" was not what actually saved, but in order for the apostles and the rest of the church to accept them as saved, they had to show it (James 2:18). Now, you could go on and argue "so you believe they could not show it and still be saved"? But if they were saved; why wouldn't they show it? So for this reason, it appears that baptism in itself determined salvation, but that is really not the case.
The two acts are separate. Just because one was done away doesn’t mean the other one was.
Not done away, but after this period, when the apostles were there, and the NT not circulated; it would not have the same importance it did then. Of course, the post-apostolic church misunderstood this, and attributed regernration to baptism. But then they also began their teachings on Communion, Church leadership, and slowly, Mary (all of which justifies as "spiritua;", and "by faith, above man's reason"), so you can't go by what they said.
Here, you said a person is saved at the point of belief, but those believers in Acts 2:47, you said weren’t yet saved, because they “needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved.”

John 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

I know this was under the old law, but it clearly shows that one can believe without confession. Is that believer saved? Repentance with baptism for the remission of sins does NOT contradict the rest of the Gospel. It is in complete harmony with the rest of the Gospel. It only conflicts when we try to make faith mean “believe”. When we understand faith as seen in Heb 11, it all fits perfectly. However, when we think we are saved by belief only, then it takes some major league mental gymnastics to try and explain away the clear verses dealing with baptism. Once again; this was the shallow "belief" we discussed before, or "confession with the lips", similar to that of Simon. They accepted Him as Messiah, but showed that they had not truly received Him as Savior. The same people in ch.8 then begin arguing with him, and He calls them children of their father the devil. "Belief" has different aspects to it. No one is saying that just "mental/verbal acknowledgment" of Jesus as Messiah saves. (Muslims actually do that!) This is what you are criticizing in "belief only", but it is not what we mean by "faith, not works".
Repentance with Baptism is either for (eis) the remission of sins or because (hoti) the remission of sins. The bible says it is for (eis). In fact it says that repentance with baptism is for the same reason as the shedding of Jesus blood. Both were done “eis aphesin hamartion” – For the remission of sins.

Are you saying that you reject that repentance with baptism is “for” – (eis) the remission of sins because that contradicts your other beliefs? The other option is repentance and baptism is because your sins have already been forgiven. Surely nobody believes that one repents because their sins are already forgiven. To try and make it mean something else, let the mental gymnastics begin. Once again; you keep making it one after the other and nothing else. They were repenting as they were being baptized; not they repented months ago, and now decided to show it in baptism. That is what happens today, as unfortunaely, baptism eventually was no longer done at the point of conversion. But since it did change, and the two becaue separate, we have to tie salvation to one of them, and it cannot be the act of going down into water, but rather belief (once again, not the same type of "belief" of the people in John).
Of course, baptism must be accompanied by belief, repentance and confession; otherwise, you are not following God’s instructions or examples. Then once again, it in itself is not what actually saves. Most of us here both believe, repented and confessed (hopefully, anyway) and have been baptized; though probably not at the same time. What is the point of coming and arguing about baptism? You act as if that is what salvation is all about, but now you admit, later on, it must be "accompanied" by those things.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned. – Mark 16:16. Here is a verse so simple; one HAS to have help to MISUNDERSTAND it. There is not one verse in the New Testament that contradicts this verse or negates this verse. No, but you are just taking it and trying to build a doctrine that does contradict the rest of the New Testament. The emphasis is on "believe", bot "baptism". "baptism" here was not spoken of in isolation. This parallels the Matthew's account: "Go into the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". Anyone refusing that would not be believing, and thus not be saved. but the focus is clearly on believing.

mman

06-21-2005, 11:42 AM

Eric B.

I have never agrued baptism alone or baptism only. I agree that is contrary to scripture. Let me make it clear, that unless one believes, baptism will be of no benefit. We usually call that swimming. Unless one repents, baptism is of no value. Unless one confesses, of what value could baptism be?

But for the believer who confesses and repents, it is of great value. Baptism is that act of faith that puts us INTO Christ. Scripture backs this up, as I have shown time and time again.

In fact, the original post in this thread shows that it is in baptism that we come in contact with the blood.

I've been waiting this whole time for someone else to show any other way, through the scriptures, how we come in contact with the blood.

You made the comment that Gal 3:26-27 does not mention water. It doesn't have to. The word baptism was transliterated, not translated. It means immersion. Immersion in what? It is always understood to be water, unless the context dictates otherwise.

Both Rom 6 and Gal 3 tell us that we are immersed INTO Christ. Rom 6 shows the similarity between water baptism and "death, burial and resurrection."

Preaching Jesus means preaching water baptism (Acts 8:35-36).

There is but one immersion today (Eph 4:5). What is it? What is it for?

I Pet 3:21, no doubt talks about water baptism, else his previous example would make no sense whatsoever.

Immersion now saves you. Yes we have other passages that tell us what must accompany our immersion, such as belief.

Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

If they had translated the word baptism, it may read, "He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved" or "He that believeth and is immersed in water shall be saved."

Eric B

06-21-2005, 12:41 PM

I have never agrued baptism alone or baptism only. I agree that is contrary to scripture. Let me make it clear, that unless one believes, baptism will be of no benefit. We usually call that swimming. Unless one repents, baptism is of no value. Unless one confesses, of what value could baptism be?

But for the believer who confesses and repents, it is of great value. Baptism is that act of faith that puts us INTO Christ. Scripture backs this up, as I have shown time and time again.
In fact, the original post in this thread shows that it is in baptism that we come in contact with the blood.

I've been waiting this whole time for someone else to show any other way, through the scriptures, how we come in contact with the blood.
Immersion now saves you. Yes we have other passages that tell us what must accompany our immersion, such as belief.

Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

If they had translated the word baptism, it may read, "He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved" or "He that believeth and is immersed in water shall be saved." You're making it the decisive event that "puts us INTO Christ/the blood", as you say. It might as well stand alone, then. Else, you must admit that perhaps it is really confession and/or repentance that are decisive, or at least preeminent, and baptism accompanies it, rather than the other way around as you are making it sound.
You made the comment that Gal 3:26-27 does not mention water. It doesn't have to. The word baptism was transliterated, not translated. It means immersion. Immersion in what? It is always understood to be water, unless the context dictates otherwise.

Both Rom 6 and Gal 3 tell us that we are immersed INTO Christ. Rom 6 shows the similarity between water baptism and "death, burial and resurrection." And immersed into Christ is SPIRITUAL, thus setting the context. The water symbolized it. Once again, the old man is buried as he is immersed into the body, and becomes a new man. There is your death and resurrection. If you admit that baptism by itself is just "swimming", then there must be a spiritual dimension required to make it real. This spiritual event is what actually puts you into Christ!
Preaching Jesus means preaching water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). No it doesn't. Many of those people knew about baptism, from John, remember. Now that this person heard about
Christ, he knew he had to be baptized into Him. What do you think; that the entire message of Christ is all about baptism? That Jesus is equal to baptism, or something?
I Pet 3:21, no doubt talks about water baptism, else his previous example would make no sense whatsoever. The context (with Noah) is deliverance, not getting wet. In fact, Nah did not even get wet. They were in the ark, which floated in the water. Like today we are in Christ (whom we are baptized into). Peter made the analogy because water was present in both occasions; but it's not about the water; it's about the shelter. Christ is not the water, but rather the ark!

mman

06-21-2005, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
You're making it the decisive event that "puts us INTO Christ/the blood", as you say. It might as well stand alone, then. Else, you must admit that perhaps it is really confession and/or repentance that are decisive, or at least preeminent, and baptism accompanies it, rather than the other way around as you are making it sound.Hold on. I didn't make it anything. God said it, not me. No, it cannot stand alone, I have already shown that.

I can show where baptism puts us into Christ. You cannot show where anything else puts us into Christ. But it is through faith (Col 2:12, Gal 3:26-27), that we are baptized, hence, that necessitates belief(Mark 16:16), repentance(Acts 2:38) and confession(Acts 8:36-38), since all of these are linked to baptism in God's word, where faith originates (Rom 10:17).

And immersed into Christ is SPIRITUAL, thus setting the context. The water symbolized it. Once again, the old man is buried as he is immersed into the body, and becomes a new man. There is your death and resurrection. If you admit that baptism by itself is just "swimming", then there must be a spiritual dimension required to make it real. This spiritual event is what actually puts you into Christ!When Naaman was cleansed of his leprosy, what cleansed him. The water? Did the water symbolize anything? No, God used the water to cleanse his leprosy. God was the one who was working to cure his leprosy. Naaman did not earn a cure, else anyone who dipped 7 times would have been owed a cure. Was everyone with leprosy cured when they dipped in the Jordan river? No indication of that. The instructions were to Naaman. The instructions, wash and be clean.

That is very similar to baptism today. Saul was told to "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Is the power in the water or God? God is the one working as stated in Col 2:12. If our sins were as visible as leprosy, it wouldn't take faith to see the cleansing.

We are raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4), just like Naaman, clean.

Preaching Jesus means preaching water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). <blockquote>quote:<hr /> No it doesn't. Many of those people knew about baptism, from John, remember. Now that this person heard about
Christ, he knew he had to be baptized into Him. What do you think; that the entire message of Christ is all about baptism? That Jesus is equal to baptism, or something?[/QUOTE]Yes it does. For you to deny this fact. I have scripture to back this up, and quite frankly, you don't.

Lets look at Acts 2. Was the good news about Jesus preached. Were there instructions concerning water baptism? Yes, Acts 2:38.

Now, lets look at Acts 8:5, Philip "preached Christ". Acts 8:12, those who believed what he preached were baptized. The fact that instructions were given for baptism is obvious.

On to Acts 8:34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?" 35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

How did he know about being baptized? You think it was from prior teaching? He was from Ethiopia. There is a chance he never even heard of John. Surely you don't think after Philip preached Christ that the first words out of the Eunuch's mouth were concerning something Philip didn't even discuss? Certainly Philip would corrected that obivous error and asked the Eunuch "What are you talking about? Weren't you listening?". No, the Holy Spirit had sent Philip to talk to the Eunuch. Obviously, Philip was qualified to preach Christ. To deny that preaching Christ includes water baptism, is to deny the obvious. Every time I bring this up, your response is very similar, "No it doesn't", yet,without fail, no scriptural evidence is provided to the contrary.

OK, lets look at another case. Acts 16:32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Yes, I know there is more to this account and we have discussed it before. However, here again, we have preaching the word of the Lord and people being baptized as a result of that preaching.

The context (with Noah) is deliverance, not getting wet. In fact, Nah did not even get wet. They were in the ark, which floated in the water. Like today we are in Christ (whom we are baptized into). Peter made the analogy because water was present in both occasions; but it's not about the water; it's about the shelter. Christ is not the water, but rather the ark! Peter said there was an antitype which now saves us, baptism (I Pet 3:21).

God used water to cleanse the earth. God used water to cleanse us also. No, baptism is not about washing our flesh - there is no power in the water, but in God. Now, why are you waiting, arise and be immersed in water and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16).

Yes, we are immersed in water into Christ.

Eric B

06-21-2005, 10:34 PM

Hold on. I didn't make it anything. God said it, not me. No, it cannot stand alone, I have already shown that. God makes it the decisive issue, but it cannot stand alone.
Then it is not all-decisive then, but depends on something else. Or is God contradicting Himself? No, you must be reading things wrong, and trying to force one set of scriptures to fit your interpretation of another. Talk about "major league gymnastics"!
I can show where baptism puts us into Christ. You cannot show where anything else puts us into Christ. "by one SPIRIT" (1 Cor.12:13). The Spirit does not baptize us into a pool of water (even if you try to argue that it is "His work"), but He does baptize us into the BODY, which is Christ.
But it is through faith (Col 2:12, Gal 3:26-27), that we are baptized, hence, that necessitates belief(Mark 16:16), repentance(Acts 2:38) and confession(Acts 8:36-38), since all of these are linked to baptism in God's word, where faith originates Hence, faith is really preeminent, as I said!
When Naaman was cleansed of his leprosy, what cleansed him. The water? Did the water symbolize anything? No, God used the water to cleanse his leprosy. God was the one who was working to cure his leprosy. Naaman did not earn a cure, else anyone who dipped 7 times would have been owed a cure. Was everyone with leprosy cured when they dipped in the Jordan river? No indication of that. The instructions were to Naaman. The instructions, wash and be clean.
That is very similar to baptism today. Saul was told to "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Is the power in the water or God? God is the one working as stated in Col 2:12. If our sins were as visible as leprosy, it wouldn't take faith to see the cleansing.

We are raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4), just like Naaman, clean.
That's an Old Testament example of a physical act bringing a physical cure. All of that is a shadow of spiritual acts and spiritual cures. The physical water ceremony was retained as the symbol of the spiritual cleansing, but it does not have the same efficiency in the washing, since it is spiritual. So you cannot take the analogy like that without transferring from the physical to the spiritual.

Yes it does. For you to deny this fact. I have scripture to back this up, and quite frankly, you don't.

Lets look at Acts 2. Was the good news about Jesus preached. Were there instructions concerning water baptism? Yes, Acts 2:38.

Now, lets look at Acts 8:5, Philip "preached Christ". Acts 8:12, those who believed what he preached were baptized. The fact that instructions were given for baptism is obvious.

On to Acts 8:34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?" 35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

How did he know about being baptized? You think it was from prior teaching? He was from Ethiopia. There is a chance he never even heard of John. Surely you don't think after Philip preached Christ that the first words out of the Eunuch's mouth were concerning something Philip didn't even discuss? Certainly Philip would corrected that obivous error and asked the Eunuch "What are you talking about? Weren't you listening?". No, the Holy Spirit had sent Philip to talk to the Eunuch. Obviously, Philip was qualified to preach Christ. To deny that preaching Christ includes water baptism, is to deny the obvious. Every time I bring this up, your response is very similar, "No it doesn't", yet, without fail, no scriptural evidence is provided to the contrary.

OK, lets look at another case. Acts 16:32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Yes, I know there is more to this account and we have discussed it before. However, here again, we have preaching the word of the Lord and people being baptized as a result of that preaching.
No one is denying that you can preach Christ and mention baptism. I was reacting to the way you are subtly trying to EQUATE Christ=baptism, and going down a tangent. Because Christ is reached, and then a person asks about baptism doesn't mean that baptism is the central element of faith or of Christ. Like later this week, when Billy Graham preaches here in the city, and at the end, people are going down to the altar, does that prove that the altar is what we think saves? Of course not.
Taking all the proof-texts in the world and comparing them to how many I can come up with means nothing when you are reading your own meaning into them. The reason I don't come up with a whole other set of "scriptural proof", is because the proof lies in the correct interpretation of the proof-texts you are giving, so I deal with those. If I did give others, you would only reinterpret those also, anyway.
Peter said there was an antitype which now saves us, baptism (I Pet 3:21). The antitype was not the water, since that was present in both type and antitype. It is the nature of the "immersion" and what it accomplishes. Noah was saved from physical destruction through a type of physical baptism. We are saved from spiritual destruction through our spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ.
God used water to cleanse the earth. God used water to cleanse us also. No, baptism is not about washing our flesh - there is no power in the water, but in God. Now, why are you waiting, arise and be immersed in water and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16).
Yes, we are immersed in water into Christ.
So now, the earth is the object of "baptism"? We are talking about saving; not, essentially, destroying and replenishing. The antitype of that is the future fiery judgment of the earth, and our being in the ark of the Body of Christ is what saves us from that.

mman

06-22-2005, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
God makes it the decisive issue, but it cannot stand alone. Then it is not all-decisive then, but depends on something else. Or is God contradicting Himself? No, you must be reading things wrong, and trying to force one set of scriptures to fit your interpretation of another. Talk about "major league gymnastics"! Sorry, no mental gymnastics required here.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." - Read it, believe it. - Mark 16:16

Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins" - Read it, believe it - Acts 2:38

Saul was told, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins." - Read it, believe it. - Acts 22:16

Peter said, "Baptism now saves us". I Pet 3:21- Read it, believe it.

The mental gymnastics only come into play when you try to explain away these clear verses.

"by one SPIRIT" (1 Cor.12:13). The Spirit does not baptize us into a pool of water (even if you try to argue that it is "His work"), but He does baptize us into the BODY, which is Christ.Actually, the body is the church (Eph 1:22-23 and Col 1:18).

So, we are baptized into the Church. That is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. They believed, they repented, and were baptized in water for the remission of sins and the Lord added those being saved to the church. (Acts 2:38,41,47)

Hence, faith is really preeminent, as I said!Sure, faith is. I agree with that. Belief is not.

That's an Old Testament example of a physical act bringing a physical cure. All of that is a shadow of spiritual acts and spiritual cures. The physical water ceremony was retained as the symbol of the spiritual cleansing, but it does not have the same efficiency in the washing, since it is spiritual. So you cannot take the analogy like that without transferring from the physical to the spiritual.I think I agree with you on this. The spiritual cleansing takes place at the same time as our physical baptism, hence at water baptism our sins are washed away, but it is really God doing the spiritual washing and our physical baptism symbolizes that. Is that what you are saying?

No one is denying that you can preach Christ and mention baptism. I was reacting to the way you are subtly trying to EQUATE Christ=baptism, and going down a tangent. Because Christ is reached, and then a person asks about baptism doesn't mean that baptism is the central element of faith or of Christ. Like later this week, when Billy Graham preaches here in the city, and at the end, people are going down to the altar, does that prove that the altar is what we think saves? Of course not.
Taking all the proof-texts in the world and comparing them to how many I can come up with means nothing when you are reading your own meaning into them. The reason I don't come up with a whole other set of "scriptural proof", is because the proof lies in the correct interpretation of the proof-texts you are giving, so I deal with those. If I did give others, you would only reinterpret those also, anyway.I seriously doubt Billy Graham will utter the "baptism".

The alter call is foreign to the scriptures.

Philip preached Christ and the next words out of the Eunuch's mouth is dealing directly about baptism. Preaching Christ includes water baptism. If it doesn't then the whole message is not being preached.

If any respond to the "alter call" after the preaching of Billy Graham, I wonder how many will be asking to be baptized right there on the spot?

The antitype was not the water, since that was present in both type and antitype. It is the nature of the "immersion" and what it accomplishes. Noah was saved from physical destruction through a type of physical baptism. We are saved from spiritual destruction through our spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ.Let's look a little closer. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. - Gen 6:8.

That grace provided instructions Gen 6:14ff

Noah did all that God commanded - Gen 6:22. The bible calls that faith (Heb 11:7).

By faith, Noah prepared an ark. What is preeminent? Noah's faith? Yes, if you use the biblical definition of faith.

Why did Noah prepare an ark? For the saving of his household. - Heb 11:7

So, Noah was saved by faith. In fact, it can be easily seen that he was saved by grace through faith. Now, I Pet 3:20 tells us, that they were "saved through water". Are both of these true? Yes.

Then he says there is an antitype which saves us, baptism.

God's grace provided instruction (Titus 2:11-12)

Just like Noah, we have to get into the Ark (or INTO Christ).

We are told that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins

Acts 8:37-38 Confession and baptism

Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 show that baptism is what puts us INTO Christ (or on the ark), where salvation is (II Tim 2:10).

When we obey, just like Noah, that is biblical faith. God's grace provided the instructions. Just like Noah, we are saved by grace through faith. Yes, his was a physical saving and ours is a spiritual saving.

I Pet 3:21 says that antitype that saves us is baptism.

DHK

06-22-2005, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by mman:
Let's look a little closer. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. - Gen 6:8.Yes, lets. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Keep that in perspective throughout the whole narrative. That means that Noah is a saved man. No matter what he does from hereonin he is saved by grace. Not by baptism, but by grace. Note that baptism does not save. At this point in time Noah is already saved--before the flood even takes place, before Noah is "baptized." He is already saved. This very important for you to keep in mind. God is dealing with one of his children, not with an unsaved individual.

That grace provided instructions Gen 6:14ff

Noah did all that God commanded - Gen 6:22. The bible calls that faith (Heb 11:7).No it doesn't. Faith is confidence or trust. Noah obeyed as a result of his trust in the promises of God. Obedience does not equal faith. It never has. That is a fallacy on your part. Get a good dictionary and look up the two words. You will never find that obedience and faith mean the same thing. Noah obeyed as a result of his faith in God. The obedience was the result; not the faith. Another difference to be made is that Noah's faith was the faith of any normal Christians walk with God. It was not "saving faith." Every Christian exercises faith in God daily in his walk with God. We are commanded to trust him for all things. How is this unusual for Noah? It is normal. He walked by faith. He already was a Christian. It has nothing to do with "saving faith."
By faith, Noah prepared an ark. What is preeminent? Noah's faith? Yes, if you use the biblical definition of faith.Apparently you do not have a Biblical definition of faith. What was preeminent? Noah's obedience to God was preeminent. He obeyed because he had faith in God. Remember he was already a saved man. His salvation was not in question here.

Why did Noah prepare an ark? For the saving of his household. - Heb 11:7Noah was already a saved man. Remember? This is speaking of "physical deliverance" not "spiritual salvation." His household was saved from drowning in the flood because of the obedience of Noah. Noah obeyed by faith. It was not the faith, per se, it was the obedience that was the result of the faith.

So, Noah was saved by faith. In fact, it can be easily seen that he was saved by grace through faith. Now, I Pet 3:20 tells us, that they were "saved through water". Are both of these true? Yes.Noah was saved by grace through faith. He was saved long before God ever gave him any order to build an ark. That has already been established by Scripture. The water was a destructive force. It did not save Noah, and the Scripture does not say that it did. Noah was saved by the ark from the destructive forces of the waters of the flood. And that was a physical deliverance only, not spiritual. As Noah looked around him he could see the "filthiness of the flesh," rotting and dead bones of human and animal flesh floating in the water. He was saved from such a calamity by being in the Ark. It was the Ark that saved him from that destruction. Certainly the Ark was a picture of Christ. Noah was in Christ.

Then he says there is an antitype which saves us, baptism. Saves us from what? Nothing yet has been said about spiritual salvation. Noah was saved from the destruction of the world, from the filthiness of the flesh. He was in Christ. What does the verse say:
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:

If it is the antitype that saves, then it saves from physical destruction, not spiritual deliverance. The believer is immersed in Christ (the Ark) and all around is surrounded by the filth of the flesh (the world). It is Christ that does the saving. It is not even talking about spiritual salvation, but a daily cleansing from sin which result from the filth of the flesh which comes as a result of the world, and its filth. We need to come to Christ on a daily basis, be immersed in Him.
What saves is a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that has nothing to do with baptism. A clear conscience comes from abiding in Christ, and can only be found by the believer, the one who has already been saved, as Noah was.
God's grace provided instruction (Titus 2:11-12)No, it was God's grace that initially provided salvation for Noah.

Just like Noah, we have to get into the Ark (or INTO Christ).Not for salvation. Noah was already saved. He was simply a believer obeying God. This was his daily walk with God, which he lived by faith (not saving faith.)

We are told that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16So what! We are also told that "he that believes not shall be damned."

{qb] Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins[/qb]Otherwise tranlsated: "Repent and be baptized--because of the remission of sins."

Acts 8:37-38 Confession and baptismYour point? Baptism always follows salvation, when one confesses Christ as Saviour.
Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 show that baptism is what puts us INTO Christ (or on the ark), where salvation is (II Tim 2:10).You are not rightly dividing the word of truth.
Romans 6:3,4 shows nothing more than baptism is a symbolic act of a believer being dead to his old life of sin before salvation and a new life in Christ after salvation. Nothing more than that. It has nothing to do with salvation.

When we obey, just like Noah, that is biblical faith.Get a dictionary and learn how to use it. Obedience is not faith. Look these terms up for yourself.
God's grace provided the instructions. Just like Noah, we are saved by grace through faith. Yes, his was a physical saving and ours is a spiritual saving.You are not being consistent. Noah's was saved physically. That is what the passage was talking about. Don't make it say anything more than that. Don't read into it more than what it is saying just to fit your own preconceived ideas.
DHK

Eric B

06-22-2005, 07:17 PM

Sorry, no mental gymnastics required here.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." - Read it, believe it. - Mark 16:16

Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins" - Read it, believe it - Acts 2:38

Saul was told, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins." - Read it, believe it. - Acts 22:16

Peter said, "Baptism now saves us". I Pet 3:21- Read it, believe it.

The mental gymnastics only come into play when you try to explain away these clear verses.
In the first two of those cases, it is repent or believe AND be baptized. Baptism is a physical act that accompanies those things, not the other way around, so it's being mentioned there does not mean that it saves.
Next case, it is "arise and be baptized AND wash away your sins; not "FOR", this time. So once again, baptism is something that accompanies washing away of sins, not causes it.
In the last case, it is the spiritual aspect of baptism (by one Spirit into one body) that saves.
You are trying to read too much into these scriptures, and what you are reading into them contradicts the rest of the Gospel of salvation not by deeds of righteousness you have done.
Actually, the body is the church (Eph 1:22-23 and Col 1:18). And it's the Body of Christ.
So, we are baptized into the Church. That is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. They believed, they repented, and were baptized in water for the remission of sins and the Lord added those being saved to the church. (Acts 2:38,41,47) Once again, immersion into the Church is a spiritual act. A pool of water is not the Church. It is a symbol.
Sure, faith is. I agree with that. Belief is not. But belief can mean faith. Once again, there was false "belief", but when it is said "believe and be baptized", it means have faith, and then because of your faith you would go and be baptized.
I think I agree with you on this. The spiritual cleansing takes place at the same time as our physical baptism, hence at water baptism our sins are washed away, but it is really God doing the spiritual washing and our physical baptism symbolizes that. Is that what you are saying? Basically
I seriously doubt Billy Graham will utter the "baptism".

The alter call is foreign to the scriptures.

Philip preached Christ and the next words out of the Eunuch's mouth is dealing directly about baptism. Preaching Christ includes water baptism. If it doesn't then the whole message is not being preached.

If any respond to the "alter call" after the preaching of Billy Graham, I wonder how many will be asking to be baptized right there on the spot?
I didn't say Billy Graham would be using baptism. And I didn't say the altar call was from scripture. I have always said that the altar call is what has taken the place of baptism as the immediate on the spot visible response of faith and conversion. I always thought it would be more scriptural to baptize on the spot, but that has become associated with membership of a local congregation (or perhaps a particular denomination), so Graham's organization helps find them a tgood church to join. Frank may say he baptizes on the spot, but I never see the Campbellites standing outside the rallies with their "where is the altar call in scripture?" literature offering to baptize them into Christ. No, they want the people to come and be baptized into their organizations instead, so they once again are just as much apart of denominationalism or better yet sectarianism, though they claim otherwise. At least Graham doesn't say they are not saved until they reach the baptismal pool.
Then he says there is an antitype which saves us, baptism.

God's grace provided instruction (Titus 2:11-12)
The instruction there is not the "grace". It is what is "taught" by the grace, meaning that once we are saved, we should deny ungodliness, worldly lusts, live soberly, etc. Once again, as I keep saying, obedience is out of love, not to gain salvation.
And notice; nothing there about baptism!
Just like Noah, we have to get into the Ark (or INTO Christ). And then the water comes after that...
We are told that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins

Acts 8:37-38 Confession and baptism

Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 show that baptism is what puts us INTO Christ (or on the ark), where salvation is (II Tim 2:10).
...the water is not what puts him into the ark!
When we obey, just like Noah, that is biblical faith. God's grace provided the instructions. Just like Noah, we are saved by grace through faith. Yes, his was a physical saving and ours is a spiritual saving.

I Pet 3:21 says that antitype that saves us is baptism. And this spiritual saving is accomplished through a spiritual baptism.

mman

06-23-2005, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
Yes, lets. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Keep that in perspective throughout the whole narrative. That means that Noah is a saved man. No matter what he does from hereonin he is saved by grace. Not by baptism, but by grace. Note that baptism does not save. At this point in time Noah is already saved--before the flood even takes place, before Noah is "baptized." He is already saved. This very important for you to keep in mind. God is dealing with one of his children, not with an unsaved individual.If we are saved by grace alone, then all men would be saved according to Titus 2:11.

If Noah had ignored God's instructions he would have perished with the rest of the world. No, Noah prepared an ark for the saving of his household - Heb 11:7.

Noah did all that God commanded - Gen 6:22. The bible calls that faith (Heb 11:7). <blockquote>quote:<hr />No it doesn't. Faith is confidence or trust. Noah obeyed as a result of his trust in the promises of God. Obedience does not equal faith. It never has. That is a fallacy on your part. Get a good dictionary and look up the two words. You will never find that obedience and faith mean the same thing. Noah obeyed as a result of his faith in God. The obedience was the result; not the faith. Another difference to be made is that Noah's faith was the faith of any normal Christians walk with God. It was not "saving faith." Every Christian exercises faith in God daily in his walk with God. We are commanded to trust him for all things. How is this unusual for Noah? It is normal. He walked by faith. He already was a Christian. It has nothing to do with "saving faith." [/QUOTE]Uh, yes it does. Heb 11:7 - By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

By faith, Noah prepared an ark. What is preeminent? Noah's faith? Yes, if you use the biblical definition of faith. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Apparently you do not have a Biblical definition of faith. What was preeminent? Noah's obedience to God was preeminent. He obeyed because he had faith in God. Remember he was already a saved man. His salvation was not in question here.[/QUOTE]Biblical faith - I'll discuss this later in the post.

Then he says there is an antitype which saves us, baptism. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Saves us from what? Nothing yet has been said about spiritual salvation. Noah was saved from the destruction of the world, from the filthiness of the flesh. He was in Christ. What does the verse say:
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:

If it is the antitype that saves, then it saves from physical destruction, not spiritual deliverance. The believer is immersed in Christ (the Ark) and all around is surrounded by the filth of the flesh (the world). It is Christ that does the saving. It is not even talking about spiritual salvation, but a daily cleansing from sin which result from the filth of the flesh which comes as a result of the world, and its filth. We need to come to Christ on a daily basis, be immersed in Him.
What saves is a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that has nothing to do with baptism. A clear conscience comes from abiding in Christ, and can only be found by the believer, the one who has already been saved, as Noah was. [/QUOTE]First, baptism doesn't save us from physical destruction. To try and explain away water baptism from this passage is an obvious attempt not to accept the plain teaching of the passage.

I Pet 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

21Corresponding 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,

How can a non water baptism correspond to others who were safely brought "through the water"?

If this is not talking about water baptism, then his example makes absolutely no sense.

This is talking about water baptism and his example makes perfect sense and does not have to be twisted from it logical conclusion.

Just like Noah, we have to get into the Ark (or INTO Christ). <blockquote>quote:<hr />Not for salvation. Noah was already saved. He was simply a believer obeying God. This was his daily walk with God, which he lived by faith (not saving faith.)[/QUOTE]So, are you arguing that Noah would have been saved if he had ignored God's instructions? Remember, his was the "type" and baptism is the "antitype".

We are told that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16 <blockquote>quote:<hr />So what! We are also told that "he that believes not shall be damned."][/QUOTE]So What??? Is that your attitude toward scriptures? Jesus said something and you say, "So What". Yes, both parts of that verse are true, however, you have yet to say you believe the first part of it.

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins Otherwise tranlsated: "Repent and be baptized--because of the remission of sins."Oh really. Name one reputable translation that translates it that way.

Acts 8:37-38 Confession and baptism <blockquote>quote:<hr />Your point? Baptism always follows salvation, when one confesses Christ as Saviour.[/QUOTE]Really? If I can find even one place where it baptism preceeds salvation, then your statement is wrong. Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. So if baptism always follows salvation then Jesus got the wrong order.

Which comes first in this verse.?

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.

Which comes first?

Acts 22:16 - Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins. Which comes fisrt?

I Pet 3:21 - Baptism now saves us. Which comes first?

Rom 6:3-4 - baptized INTO Christ Jesus.

Can one be saved outside of Christ? Surely you don't think that.

Gal 3:27 - Baptized INTO Christ.

Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 show that baptism is what puts us INTO Christ (or on the ark), where salvation is (II Tim 2:10 <blockquote>quote:<hr />You are not rightly dividing the word of truth.
Romans 6:3,4 shows nothing more than baptism is a symbolic act of a believer being dead to his old life of sin before salvation and a new life in Christ after salvation. Nothing more than that. It has nothing to do with salvation.[/QUOTE]It is symbolic of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. IT NEVER ONCE SAYS IT IS SYMBOLIC OF OUR SALVATION. It is how we obey the Gospel (death, burial, and resurrections - I Cor 15) (Rom 6:17)

It clearly says that we are baptized into Christ. When I accept the clear meaning of this passage, you accuse me of not rightly dividing the word of truth.

It says we are baptized into Christ's death. That is where the blood flowed.

Gal 3:26-27 plainly teaches that we are children by faith because we have been baptized into Christ.

When we obey, just like Noah, that is biblical faith. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Get a dictionary and learn how to use it. Obedience is not faith. Look these terms up for yourself.[/QUOTE]Why do I need a man-made dictionary when God has not only defined it but given us examples of it in Heb 11? The only reason I would need man's dictionary is if God's definition didn't suit me.

For someone who obviously has a great deal of bible knowledge and obviously studies the scripture (said in all sincerity), I cannot understand why you don't want to accept the concept of biblical faith.

Heb 11:30 - By faith the walls of Jericho fell down.

OK lets substitute the different terms.

"By 'belief only' the walls of Jericho fell"

"By 'faithful obedience' the walls of Jericho fell.

One more: Heb 11:7 - "By 'belief only' Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household"

Or ""By 'faithful obedience' Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household"

Heb 11:6 - Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him (God).

This is the same impossible as it is for God to lie or for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin.

Then he gives us wonderful examples of pleasing faith.

Would Noah have been counted with the faithful if he only believed and was not obedient?

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned" - Mark 16:16

If I don't accept that and obey it, do you think I could be counted as faithful?

How many words would it take to try and explain away this clear passage that means exactly what it says?