Distortion of Scripture [Archive]

D28guy

07-03-2005, 09:35 PM

Sirach,

You quoted...

"Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.A wonderful passage of scripture, and we see these things happening, just as God said it would be.

Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc.

"2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."A great passage of scripture.

"How do you think we can know that we are not distorting the Scriptures?"By trusting fully in God...through the Holy Spirit...to open our understanding to truth. And to always seek to allow scripture to interpret scripture. And its always good to consult the wisdom of others who are wiser.

The following is EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT!!!:

Its wise to consult wiser ones as long as they understand justification through faith alone, and the principle known as "sola scriptura". Meaning, those wiser ones hold to those same priciples themselves, and they NEVER expect you to take anything they say to be the truth simply because of who they are, but rather they encourage you to go to the scriptures yourself, TRUSTING only the Holy Spirit to teach you truth.

And...in the same vien...we are to never, under any circustances allow any religious organisation to take the place of the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth.

Rather, the believer should flee any organisation as that like the plague.

"I've heard many people accuse others of twisting or distorting scriptures, how can we really know who is distorting them?"If we have a teachable heart, and we are trusting only Gods Holy Spirit to teach us, it will become clear who is and who isnt distorting scripture.

"I read the scriptures and there are many other people that do also and yet we all read something different... how is this what Christ wanted?"Because He has told us to expect it, regarding any number of non-foundational areas...

"Why do you judge your brother...let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind...to his own master he will stand or fall, and God will make him stand"

(And many times there will be wonderful truth to be found in both views.)

"Why are we divided when the Scriptures tell us not to be?"1st...the body of Christ is not divided. The body of Christ consists of all the born again people who are alive on earth. Period. The name of their particular organisation...if they have one...is 100% irelavent.

Regarding how we intereact with members of the one body of Christ who are part of different earthly groups...we can sometimes do better with that.

Why? Because we are not in heaven yet, so imperfections will be a part of life until we are.

"1 Corin. 1:10-15 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."I LOVE THOSE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE! Those are among my favorite passages of Gods word. They are a GREAT encouragment to all of us who are NOT a part of unscriptural cult groups like the JW's, Mormons, and Catholicism to remember that we are part of Christs ONE BODY, and we should always be loving towards our brothers and sisters when we are contending for truth with them.

God bless,

Mike

[ July 03, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: D28guy ]

Marcia

07-03-2005, 10:20 PM

How Not to Distort Scripture:

Let the text speak for itself.

Always read passages in context of surrounding passages, then in context of the chapter, then in context of the book the passage is in, then in the context of the OT or NT, and then of the whole Bible.

Don't read meaning into the text.

Take into account the grammatical-historical-literary factors.

Compare scripture with scripture.

Books that will help:
How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart

Scripture Twisting, by James Sire.

D28guy

07-04-2005, 12:04 AM

Marcia,

"How Not to Distort Scripture:

Let the text speak for itself.

Always read passages in context of surrounding passages, then in context of the chapter, then in context of the book the passage is in, then in the context of the OT or NT, and then of the whole Bible.

Don't read meaning into the text.

Take into account the grammatical-historical-literary factors.

Compare scripture with scripture."GREAT advice!

Blessings,

Mike

Sirach

07-04-2005, 01:00 AM

Mike,

God Bless and thank you for your reply. Please bare with me as I try to fully understand what you are saying...

By trusting fully in God...through the Holy Spirit...to open our understanding to truth. And to always seek to allow scripture to interpret scripture. And its always good to consult the wisdom of others who are wiser. How is this biblical?

Its wise to consult wiser ones as long as they understand justification through faith alone, and the principle known as "sola scriptura". Meaning, those wiser ones hold to those same priciples themselves, and they NEVER expect you to take anything they say to be the truth simply because of who they are, but rather they encourage you to go to the scriptures yourself, TRUSTING only the Holy Spirit to teach you truth.Where is this in the bible? You say faith alone, but be honest with me... What does James 2 have to say about that?

If I trust the Holy Spirit to teach me the truth, you do the same, and others do the same, and we all end up with a different interpretation, then how is that biblical? How is it what Jesus wanted?

John 17:21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one

And...in the same vien...we are to never, under any circustances allow any religious organisation to take the place of the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth.Again, where is this in Scripture? The question that I get from the Scriptures is which Church is the Church of Scripture because Christ is quite clear and the Apostles are clear that the Church has the teaching authority.

In John 14 Christ promises to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will guide them in all Truth, and in Matt 16, Christ promises that the Church will never be overcome, In Matt 18, Christ says take disagreements to the Church, In Matt 5, Christ tells the Apostles that they are like a city on a mountain which cannot be hidden, that they are the light of the World, This tells me that the Church will always be visible yet so many claim to be the bible Church... In 1 Tim. 3:15, Paul calls the Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

If we have a teachable heart, and we are trusting only Gods Holy Spirit to teach us, it will become clear who is and who isnt distorting scripture.

That's not what Scripture says... If trusting only God is trusting Scripture, and Scripture shows that the Church is the authority, then it seems like to me what it comes down to is which Church?

Because He has told us to expect it, regarding any number of non-foundational areas...

"Why do you judge your brother...let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind...to his own master he will stand or fall, and God will make him stand" Who is to decide what the non-foundational areas are?

1st...the body of Christ is not divided. The body of Christ consists of all the born again people who are alive on earth. Period. The name of their particular organisation...if they have one...is 100% irelavent.

Regarding how we intereact with members of the one body of Christ who are part of different earthly groups...we can sometimes do better with that.

Why? Because we are not in heaven yet, so imperfections will be a part of life until we are. There are many of us divided. "Different earthly groups" = divided.

There are many people who love Christ disagree with many things you say...

Are you right or are they right?

How do we know?

Are you infallible, in other words, can you ever be wrong about interpretation of Scripture?

God Bless,
Sirach

Sirach

07-04-2005, 01:02 AM

BobRyan

07-04-2005, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Marcia:
How Not to Distort Scripture:

Let the text speak for itself.

Always read passages in context of surrounding passages, then in context of the chapter, then in context of the book the passage is in, then in the context of the OT or NT, and then of the whole Bible.

Don't read meaning into the text.

Take into account the grammatical-historical-literary factors.

Compare scripture with scripture.

Books that will help:
How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart

Scripture Twisting, by James Sire. These are good rules for exegesis. The objective method for reading scripture. But you will see in your OWN study "incentives" to toss some of these out the window. TO The EXTENT that each Christian church DOES THAT - there are DIFFERENCES between them.

The LESS objective you allow yourself to be with scripture the more of a truth VOID you create and the MORE of man's traditions and biased ideas that will insert themselves into that void.

The disciples had this "blinders on" approach to the idea that the Gospel would go to the gentiles. The Holy Spirit worked directly against that part of man's tradition and showed them their error over time in the NT church.

Simply "mindlessly following their upbringing or church leadership" like faithful drones was not going to get them out of the rut of error.

In Christ,

Bob

D28guy

07-05-2005, 12:30 AM

Sirach,

I said...

By trusting fully in God...through the Holy Spirit...to open our understanding to truth. And to always seek to allow scripture to interpret scripture. And its always good to consult the wisdom of others who are wiser.And you said...

How is this biblical?Trusting God to open our understanding?...

"However, when He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth"

And...

"These things we speak, not in the wisdom that mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comaring spiritual things with spiritual things"

As well as multitudes of other passages.

I said...

Its wise to consult wiser ones as long as they understand justification through faith alone, and the principle known as "sola scriptura". Meaning, those wiser ones hold to those same priciples themselves, and they NEVER expect you to take anything they say to be the truth simply because of who they are, but rather they encourage you to go to the scriptures yourself, TRUSTING only the Holy Spirit to teach you truth'And you said...

Where is this in the bible?1 Corinthians 2:6-16
John 14:26 and 14:26-27

As well as scores of other passages.

You say faith alone, but be honest with me... What does James 2 have to say about that?James clearly teaches that when one is born of the Spirit, through faith alone. there will inevitably be fruit that makes evident that the profession of faith in Christ is legitimate and not merely paying lip servce for any number of reasons. However, it goes without saying that the "works" have no part whatsoever in attaining justification.

God does not contradict Himself.

"If I trust the Holy Spirit to teach me the truth, you do the same, and others do the same, and we all end up with a different interpretation, then how is that biblical? How is it what Jesus wanted?"The reason it as Jesus wanted is because Jesus tells us through the scriptures to...

Let you brother be fully convinced in his own mind...who are you to judge anothers servant? To his own master he will stand or fall, and God will make him stand."

Notice God says "your brother". This of course does not apply to those proclaiming false gospels or damnable heresies.

(And the scriptures identify those)

I said...

And...in the same vien...we are to never, under any circustances allow any religious organisation to take the place of the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth.And you said...

Again, where is this in Scripture?"However, when He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth"

And...

"These things we speak, not in the wisdom that mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things"

And...

"These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but there heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

And of course common sense will tell you that if a *professing* christian group keeps their people in bondage to them, using the identical fear tactics and control mechanisms as cults like David Koresh, the Jehovahs Witnesses, Jim Jones, and the Mormons, something is very very VERY wrong.

Particularly in light of the fact that God tells us...

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entagled again in the yoke of bondage"

The question that I get from the Scriptures is which Church is the Church of Scripture because Christ is quite clear and the Apostles are clear that the Church has the teaching authority.All organised religious bodies are subject to the AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, and not the other way around.

WE, the church...(all born again people)...are to hold denominational bodies accountable by means of the scriptures.

That is incredibly important and so very healthy.

Paul Himself traveled through the lands in the 1st century, and the Bereans were commended because they did not accept what he taught because of who he was, but rather they were commended because they...

"searched the scriptures daily, to see whether these things are so."

God even alludes to this in Isaiah...

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because their is no light in them"

In John 14 Christ promises to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will guide them in all Truth,..."And He did do that. He lead them to inscripturate every word that he wanted written to complete Gods written revelation to mankind, and His people..the church. And He continues to do that...in a different sense...by opening the understanding of every christian alive to His wonderful truth.

"...and in Matt 16, Christ promises that the Church will never be overcome,"Praise God thats true.

In Matt 18, Christ says take disagreements to the Church,Of course. If two brothers or sisters cant resolve the issue, then we gather with other brothers and sisters to finally resolve things.

In Matt 5, Christ tells the Apostles that they are like a city on a mountain which cannot be hidden, that they are the light of the World,Thats whet we born again people are, and praise God for it!

"This tells me that the Church will always be visible..."Of course it will always be visible. Do we...christians...suddenly become invisible after we are born again?

"...yet so many claim to be the bible Church... In 1 Tim. 3:15, Paul calls the Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth."The church...all born again people...is indeed the pillar and foundation of truth.

Why? We are in possesion of...

The Lord Jesus Christ, who is alive in each of our hearts, and He is "the way, the truth and the life".

The Holy Spirit, who is the "Spirit of Truth".

And Gods scriptures, which of course is Gods written revelation of truth to us...

"Forever Oh Lord your word is settled in heaven"..."Thy word is truth".

Hope this helps,

Mike

Marcia

07-05-2005, 01:58 AM

Marcia,

God Bless and thank you for your reply.

How are books by men going to help me, they are not Scripture?

Please help me understand with a Scripture basis of how we are to know who distorts scripture.

God Bless,
Sirach The Bible has been studied for about 2,000 years and during that time the church has held a historic faith that has not changed in the essentials. When someone suddenly has a new way to interpret something or makes a claim never made, then red flags should be raised. If it was already in the text, then it would not suddenly be discovered.

Books by men can help when what they teach is in line with this historic faith and with God's word. God's word is not a puzzle; it is plain and God wrote it for us to understand. Therefore, we can use books by men as long as we are discerning. It does not mean we have to accept everything they say.

BobRyan

07-05-2005, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Marcia:
<Outlines Exegesis>

Let the text speak for itself.

...
Books that will help:
How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart

Scripture Twisting, by James Sire. [/qb] Originally posted by Sirach:
Marcia,

God Bless and thank you for your reply.

How are books by men going to help me, they are not Scripture?
Here is the true "blinders on" approach from Sirach. AFTER complaining that the ECFs should be READ as our "interpreters" because THEY are much better understood than actually "picking up any Bible today" -- Sirach THEN Argues that NO author today speaking on something so simple and obvious as exegesis should be read!!!

Please help me understand with a Scripture basis of how we are to know who distorts scripture.
Since the answer to this was just posted I will not respond to that part - but it will be interesting to see if Sirach follows this with "WOW! Directly from scripture itself! That was so clear and obvious -- I will start practicing exegesis starting from today intead of looking for some LATER author to spin Paul around in some effort to prop up the errors of Catholicism"

I am just curious as to whether that post will be seen.

In Christ,

Bob

bmerr

07-05-2005, 12:59 PM

Sirach,

bmer here. Well, you've got quite a bit of advice so far. Some has been good, some has not. Some have told you to let the Holy Spirit teach you, some have recommended uninspired authors. D28guy said to trust only the Holy Spirit, and then advocated "sola scriptura", or "only Scripture". What would the Spirit say that the Bible wouldn't?

My council is worth two cents like anyone elses' (though some say the price is too high!), so here's my advice.

First, I'm surprised that nobody has referenced 2 Tim 2:15, which reads,

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God,a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

You may have noticed that the apostle Paul didn't tell Timothy to "let the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth". The reason for this is that the promise of the Holy Spirit for the guiding into all truth was given to the apostles, not to Christians of all time (John 16:13). He was also promised to "...bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have spoken unto you" (John 14:26).

Jesus was speaking to His apostles, not to all of mankind. If the Holy Spirit was still guiding men into all truth, there would be no need to study, and there would be no divisions (denominations). Sadly, there are myriad denominations, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, and teaching different doctrines. This is contrary to Christ's prayer in John 17.

So we need to study.

Second, we need to be objective in our study. What I mean by that is that we need to let the Bible speak, and have the final word. What happens often (and I've been guilty of this, too) is that people approach the Bible with preconceived ideas about what it has to say.

For example, someone mentioned the doctrine of "faith only" earlier. In the past, I have held to this doctrine, myself. As a result, many passages of Scripture just didn't make sense. One of them was Mark 16:16, which says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

That verse conflicted with my "faith only" idea, which I had been taught, and quite frankly, was avoided like the plague in the religious organization I was a part of. Yet, for all of our avoidance, the verse stayed in the Bible.

That conflict between evidence and belief is called "cognitive dissonance". Evolutionists are afflicted with it all the time, and to compensate, they keep changing their theory.

You see, there are only two ways to deal with cognitive dissonance. One is to discard the evidence in favor of the held belief. The other is to discard the held belief in favor of the evidence. MANY PEOPLE choose the first option, but the evidence remains. I chose the second, myself.

So we must study with objectivity, and be willing to make changes as the evidence requires.

Third, we must seek the whole council of God on any given topic. The Bible is not an encyclopedia, and is not set up as one. I can't think of a single Bible topic that one could turn to one verse of scripture and have found everything God has said about it.

For example, many rely almost exclusively on Eph 2:8,9 to teach concerning salvation. As a result, many teach salvation by "grace alone through faith alone". Strangely enough, neither the word "alone" or "only" is found in the text. (You mentioned the only place in the Bible that has the phrase "faith only", James 2:24). But that doesn't matter, since they've already decided that that is what the text MUST mean.

Fourth, and last for now, is that we must understand how the Bible teaches us. The Bible teaches us using commands, examples, and implication. Examples are:

Commands - When the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper, He gave the command, "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19, 20). Here we have a direct command to observe the Lord's Supper.

Example - Keeping with the Lord's Supper example, there is no direct command as to when to observe it. However, we have the example of the early church in Acts 20:7, where we find that it was "...the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..." This is widely accepted as referring to the communion. So by example, we are taught to observe the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. "But weekly, as in every week" one might ask? I'd say so, since every week has a first day. Strange how there's no confusion when it comes to taking up a collection every Sunday (1 Cor 16:2)!

Implication - In Acts 8:35, 36 we find Phillip preaching to the Ethiopian Eunuch. The text says that Phillip "preached unto him Jesus", but the first thing the eunuch wanted to do was to be baptized. By implication, the Bible teaches that to preach Jesus correctly is to include teaching on baptism.

Like I said, that's my two cents worth. I hope it helps.

In Christ,

bmerr

D28guy

07-05-2005, 01:27 PM

bmerr,

You said...

"First, I'm surprised that nobody has referenced 2 Tim 2:15, which reads,

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God,a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

You may have noticed that the apostle Paul didn't tell Timothy to "let the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth"."I mentioned the truth that the Holy Spirit will guide the believer into all truth...without specific mention of "studying"...because of course the studying part is a given. Doesnt really need to be said.

I never advocated sitting in a room all alone in a lotus position and waiting for the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth.

The Holy Spirits ministry of opening our understanding to truth goes hand in hand with regular feeding on..(or studying).. the scriptures.

The very fact that one is advocating "sola scriptura" clearly assumes spending regular time in the scriptures studying them.

God bless!

Mike

bmerr

07-07-2005, 04:27 PM

D28guy,

bmerr here. I'd have to disagree, sir. If the command to study was not needed, Scripture would not contain it. The significance of the command to study, coming from Paul, (who had the guidance of the Holy Spirit), to Timothy (and the rest of us), indicates that we would not have the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

The Spirit of God works through the word of God to convict men of sin, and convince men to become Christians. The word of God is the sword (tool)of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).

The promise of the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles, not to Christians of all time (John 14:25, 26).

2 Tim 3:16, 17 tells us that the scriptures are all that is needed for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and are able to throughly furnish us unto all good works.

The only thing required for our understanding of the Scriptures is an honest and good heart (Luke 8:15). Those with an honest and good heart are there identified as those who hear the word, and keep it, bringing forth fruit with patience.

God's word does not require divine intervention for us to understand it. Never has, never will.

In Christ,

bmerr

RTG

07-07-2005, 09:27 PM

bmerr,A few ?'s if you don't mind.Since you believe that baptism is needed for salvation what of the thief on the cross?To earn salvation by works would be to put God in mans dept would it not.God some how owe's someone salvation,for the works they've done or the fact that they have been baptised?What need of grace?To me it seems many twists come from those that create a beleif or doctrine out of a book or verse in the bible.We need to study the whole book.

bmerr

07-08-2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by RTG:
bmerr,A few ?'s if you don't mind.RTG,

bmerr here. I don't mind at all. I don't have all the answers, but I'll do my best.

Since you believe that baptism is needed for salvation what of the thief on the cross?The thief on the cross (ttoc) was unquestionably saved, but under what Testament? Under the NT, men are saved when they believe and obey the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Since ttoc was speaking to a still living Christ, he was still under the OT. There were no NT conversions until Acts 2:41.

To earn salvation by works would be to put God in mans dept would it not.If man could earn salvation by doing good works, then yes, God would be indebted to him. However, we both understand that God is debtor to no man.

God some how owe's someone salvation,for the works they've done or the fact that they have been baptised?There's a difference between earning something and meeting prescribed conditions to receive something. As we've already determined, man cannot earn salvation from God.

However, God has given conditions which man must meet in order to be saved. If salvation were unconditional, then all would be saved, would they not?

What need of grace?Why without grace, man cannot be saved! But what is grace? "God's riches at Christ's expense" some might say, and I would not disagree. But how is the grace of God manifested to Man?

Titus 2:11, 12 reads,

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Titus tells us that it is the grace of God that teaches men how to live. It is the grace of God that instructs man in what to do.

For example, in Gen 6:8, we find that Noah found grace in the eyes of God. Immediately following this statement, we find God instructing Noah on how to escape the coming judgement. Noah believed God's gracious instruction, and obeyed by building the ark. As a result, he was saved.

Is there more to the grace of God than instruction on how to be saved? Probably, but even if that was all there was to it, that would still be more than Man deserves.

To me it seems many twists come from those that create a beleif or doctrine out of a book or verse in the bible.We need to study the whole book. I agree. We also need to remember that one verse concerning salvation does not "trump" another, but that each is complemented by the others.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

07-08-2005, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Since you believe that baptism is needed for salvation what of the thief on the cross?The thief on the cross (ttoc) was unquestionably saved, but under what Testament? Under the NT, men are saved when they believe and obey the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Since ttoc was speaking to a still living Christ, he was still under the OT. There were no NT conversions until Acts 2:41.
[/QUOTE]Baptism in not needed for salvation. That is one of the oldest heresies known to Christendom. To believe so is to believe a pagan superstition borrowed from Hinduism that water can wash away sins. It is a pagan superstition. Here is an exposition of Eph.2:8,9 that shows how it is impossibe for baptism to be part of salvation. I posted it in another thread. But instead of explaining the whole thing all over again, thought that I would just paste it in here.

I am honest, and quite frankly this is one of the lamest arguments I have ever encountered. By using it you align yourself with occult and witchcraft. You suggest that certain words have certain powers just like incantations, curses, spells, and so on. In other words you don't believe that the English language has synonyms and can use other words to exress the same thing. You readliy admit that the word Trinity is not in the Bible, but you believe in it anyway. But somehow you want the Baptist, the Protestant to find the magical incantation "Faith Alone...Faith Alone...Faith Alone...Faith Alone..." as if the phrase itself must be found in the Bible in order to be true. That, my friend, is a teaching of the occult. We don't believe in spells and incantations. We believe what the Bible teaches. Here is what the Bible teaches. I will be honewst. Will you?

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.

"By grace are ye saved"
This has nothing to do with baptism, sacraments, man's works, or any other similar thing. It is one way of saying: faith alone. Let's see how many ways Paul emphasizes this point in these two verses.
The grace referred to is God's grace. Grace literally means "the free unmerited gift of God." It is an undeserved gift; that which we do not deserve. Those things like sunshine and rain are a result of God's grace to mankind. We don't deserve the sunshine and rain. We haven't worked for them. We have done nothing to merit them, but God gives us the sunshine and rain in spite of our sinfulness and rebellion against him. And not just to us, but to the whole world--to the most sinful and rebellious creatures you can think of--he graciously gives sunshine and rain. That is the grace of God. It is Him giving even when we don't deserve it. Here is a good definition given by Paul:

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.

Paul states if there is any amount of work done; then it is not grace. Grace is wholly of God. There is no work on man's behalf. It is all of God. If it is all of God, and a gift of God, it can only be accepted by faith and faith alone, for any work (like baptism) would negate the very fact it is grace. It wouldn't be grace if there were works involved, like baptism. That is what Paul is stating in Rom.11:6. Therefore if salvation is by grace, it must be by faith alone.

The grace referred to in Eph.2:8 is specifically speaking of the grace of God in reference to salvation, that is when Christ died on the cross for our sins, and paid the penalty with his blood through his death. He did this out of grace. We didn't deserve it; but he died for us anyway. It was out of his grace; God's grace. We are saved through the grace of God, because Christ paid the penalty for our sins, when nothing else could do. Man cannot pay the penalty for sin. Not through praying the rosary, not through spending time in purgatory, not through baptism, not through any of the sacraments, not through keeping the Ten Commandments, not through anything that you do. Christ paid it all. John 10:30, He uttered the words:
It is finished.
There is nothing that man can do. The work of salvation is finished. Christ paid the entire penalty Himself. It is left to man to accept His work of grace by faith and by faith alone. For by grace are ye saved. By grace he provided a way of salvation--through the blood of Christ--the blood that was shed for us on Calvary--the blood that paid the penalty for our sins. Faith and faith alone in that sacrifice will save a person. For by grace are ye saved.

"through faith This is the next part of the verse in Eph.2:8. We are saved through faith. It is faith in the sacrifice provided by the grace of God. It is faith and faith alone. This is understood. Faith alone is an expression understood, and understood by the most simplest of readers. It doesn't have to say "alone." It is implied and any reader understands that. It does nto say: "faith and baptism," or "faith and sacraments." It says "through faith," with an obvious meaning of "faith alone." This is especially true after stating that we are saved by grace. Paul didn't have to be redundant and state "faith alone" because the very fact that it is through grace tells us that it is by faith alone. If it wasn't by faith alone, then it wouldn't be of grace. Any work involved would negate the definition of grace, therefore it must be by faith alone. Logic demands this. Read again Romans 11:6.

Faith is confidence in the word of another. It has absolutely nothing to do with works. It is trust. So Jesus said you must have faith as a little child. A little child has implicit faith in his parents that they will provide for him. That is what Christ was referring to--the faith.
Do you have faith and faith alone in the sacrifice of Christ, that it is sufficient, in and of itself, to save you and forve your sins? That is salvation by grace through faith. Savation is provided by the grace of God. It is accepted by faith in order to be saved. It is a gift.

"and that not of yourselves" What does this say? It says "Faith alone." Not of yourselves. That means, not of any work that you can do including baptism and any other sacrament or keeping the law or the Ten Commandments. It means doing nothing. "That not of yourself." There is absolutely nothing you can do to merit salvation. It is to be accepted by faith alone; not by baptism or any other work; but by faith alone. "Not of yourself," but by faith, because it is of the grace of God. This is really very simple theology. Paul states over and over again how that salvation is by faith alone. It can be no other way.

Romans 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

"it is not of yourselves."

It is the gift of God
This is the next part of the verse in Eph.2:8, and goes along well with the first part
Salvation is a gift. A gift cannot be earned. It cannot be worked for. It can only be accepted by faith and faith alone. That is what makes it a gift by very definition. Here again Paul emphasizes that it is by faith alone. If salvation is the gift of God, it can only be accepted by faith alone. There is no other way a gift can be accepted. How can one work for a gift. If you work for a gift, then the gift is no longer a gift. It is a debt to be owed for the work that is done.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Verse nine starts out by saying
Not of works another phrase emphasizing "Faith alone." For the very fact that it is not of works it must be by faith alone. How many times has Paul emphasized this now? It is not of works. It is by faith; it is by faith alone. How direct does Paul have to be here. Not Of Works!! It can't be any plainer can it? Those works include baptism, sacraments, Ten Commandments, etc. Any good work that you can think of, it includes.

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

That is what God thinks of your good works, your righteousnesses--filthy rags. That is all they are good for. They won't help get you to heaven. The only way to heaven is by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ provided by the grace of God. It is not of works. Put your works away. They are only filthy rags in the sight of God anyway, baptism included. Salvation is not of works; but by faith alone.

Then finally Paul states
lest any man should boast
He says that because if you could get to heaven by baptism or any other religious rite or good work, you would be in Heaven boasting about it: "See what I have done, See what I have done." It wouldn't matter that Jesus Christ paid 99.9999999999999999% of the penalty of your sins. You boast in that little part that you had done to get entrance into heaven. And you would do it for all eternity. You would be sure to remind Christ about it too.
No Christ paid the penalty in full. You have nothing to boast about. He paid the full penalty of the burden of our sins, and not only ours, but of the sins of the whole world. It is by faith and faith alone that we must accept the payment of that penalty--His blood that was shed for us. If we do we will trust him as our Saviuor, admitting that we are guilty sinners deserving only of Hell, and ask his forgiveness on the basis of his sacrifice, once and for all. He paid the penalty of our sins. Will you accept what he has done on the cross as payment for your sins, accepting it by faith and faith alone. That is the teaching here.
DHK

bmerr

07-08-2005, 01:43 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. Hey look! I just figured out how to copy and paste! Seriously, I did. Watch this:

We also need to remember that one verse concerning salvation does not "trump" another, but that each is complemented by the others.

That's the part I copied from my last post to RTG.

It applies to what you copied. If you keep that in mind, you won't have to avoid Mark 16:16 and other similar passages like the plague anymore. You'll be able to read them from the pulpit without having to explain them away as though they don't mean what they say.

You might even realize you're blaspheming the Holy Spirit by condemning baptism as a pagan ritual. You really need to stop doing that, sir.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

07-08-2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
DHK,

bmerr here. Hey look! I just figured out how to copy and paste! Seriously, I did. Watch this:

We also need to remember that one verse concerning salvation does not "trump" another, but that each is complemented by the others.Your right. In another thread I posted a couple dozen Scripture references which show that we are saved by faith alone. They were just from John, Acts, and the first five chapters of Romans. I got tired after the fifth chapter Romans. The fact is that the entire Bible thunders through and through with this one great truth that man is justified by faith alone. It is also true that cults use just a very few verses out of context to twist Scripture and create a new doctrine. They do just like the Mormons do. Let me give you a couple of examples:

Mormon justification of polygamy:
found in Proverbs:
"He that findeth a wife findeth a good thing"
Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Mormon justification for multiple baptisms of unsaved ancestors:
1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

This is exactly what you do with a vew isolated verses pertaining to baptism. Because you may not understand the context (like the above verse), you twist it to make it fit into your own theology. What, do you also baptize for the dead, just because you may not understand the verse or its contexts?? :rolleyes:

It applies to what you copied. If you keep that in mind, you won't have to avoid Mark 16:16 and other similar passages like the plague anymore. You'll be able to read them from the pulpit without having to explain them away as though they don't mean what they say.I don't have to avoid those passages at all. I know what they mean, and their proper explanations. Just because you don't, doesn't mean that the rest of the Bible is wrong. Now that's a joke.

You might even realize you're blaspheming the Holy Spirit by condemning baptism as a pagan ritual. You really need to stop doing that, sir.1. That is a serious charge that you had better refrain from making on this board.
2. I highly doubt if you know what you are saying.
3. In your own ignorance you have demonstrated to me that you have no understanding what that passage means. Here is what I want you to do. Quote the passage on this board. Then give the context of it, and explain what it means, and how it applies (in context) to the believer today.
DHK

bmerr

07-08-2005, 03:50 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. The requested passage is found in Matt 12:22-37 and Mark 3:22-30. For the sake of brevity, I will give the passage from Mark.

22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the pricne of the devils casteth he out devils.

23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

These scribes had attributed the work that Jesus had done in healing one who had been possessed by a blind and dumb spirit (Matt 12:22).

Jesus explains to them that attributing the work of God to Satan was blasphemy against the Spirit of God. For this, they were in danger of eternal damnation.

So how is it that I refer to this text when you say that baptism is a pagan ritual?

In 1 Cor 11, Paul speaks of the eating of meats that had been offered to devils in their pagan rituals. He basically says that there's nothing wrong with the meat itself, but for conscience' sake, one should not knowingly partake of meat so offered.

The thing that makes a false religion false is its teachings, or doctrines. These pagans in Corinth were doing sacrifice unto devils (1 Cor 11:20). Their pagan religions and doctrines were based upon devil worship. Behind every false doctrine is a devil.

On the other hand, the Holy Spirit inspired men to give us the Bible. Jesus Himself is recorded in the Bible commanding baptism as a requirement for salvation (Mark 16:16). This was to be a baptism performed by man (Matt 28:19), and was not Holy Spirit baptism as some suggest.

In Acts 2, Peter and the rest of the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4). Under this divine influence, Peter commanded baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

In Acts 22:16, we read that Ananias was sent by Christ to Saul of Tarsus. At this point, Saul had seen and believed in the resurrected Christ. He had repented of his former activities. He had been praying and fasting for three days (maybe it was the sinner's prayer)(Acts 9:9).

And yet, what did Ananias (who had been sent by Jesus Christ Himself) tell Saul, believing, repentant, praying Saul, that he must do (Acts 9:6)?

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

DHK, the work of the Spirit in the NT has been to deliver the word of God to us. He did that by speaking through men that sometimes didn't even understand the words that they were saying until much later (Acts 2:39). He did it by working miracles by the hands of those who preached the word in order to confirm it (Mark 16:20). He did it by inspiring men to write letters to address problems and give encouragement and instruction to the early church, and to the rest of us.

And then you come along, and proclaim that the instructions concerning baptism in the NT, which were given by the Holy Spirit, and commanded by Christ and His apostles, are just some pagan (demonic) ritual that God condemned in some obscure verse in Jeremiah (where was that again?), which was spoken to idolatrous Israel who actually was involved in pagan rituals.

You attribute the work of God to Satan. That is my understanding of the passage, and that is why I give you warning.

Also, you did not give a couple dozen verses explaining how we are saved by "faith only". Not one of those verses said "faith only". But that is how you distort them, and thus you conflict with other Scriptures dealing with salvation.

Your turn.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

07-08-2005, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
DHK,

bmerr here. The requested passage is found in Matt 12:22-37 and Mark 3:22-30. For the sake of brevity, I will give the passage from Mark.

22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the pricne of the devils casteth he out devils.

23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

These scribes had attributed the work that Jesus had done in healing one who had been possessed by a blind and dumb spirit (Matt 12:22).

Jesus explains to them that attributing the work of God to Satan was blasphemy against the Spirit of God. For this, they were in danger of eternal damnation.

So how is it that I refer to this text when you say that baptism is a pagan ritual?
How is it that your last statement as well as the rest of your post has gone off on rabbit trails, not dealing with this text. All you have done is quoted this text. Show how it is relevant today. How have I blaspehemed the Holy Spirit in the context of this Scripture. This Scripture is not talking of Baptism. That is clear for all who have read it. Demonstrate your accusation against me that I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit using this Scripture only. Keep to the context. Or apologize and give a retraction of what you said if you can't do it.
DHK

bmerr

07-08-2005, 04:29 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. What authority you must think you have to impose such limitations! It's a wonder you don't reject more of the Bible, since it's writers didn't always keep to their immediate context, but referred to other Scriptures for support.

Indeed the text in question does not mention or speak of baptism. It does, however, demonstrate the danger of attributing the work of God to Satan. I demonstrated my charge against you with these words:

And then you come along, and proclaim that the instructions concerning baptism in the NT, which were given by the Holy Spirit, and commanded by Christ and His apostles, are just some pagan (demonic) ritual that God condemned in some obscure verse in Jeremiah (where was that again?), which was spoken to idolatrous Israel who actually was involved in pagan rituals.

You attribute the work of God to Satan. That is my understanding of the passage, and that is why I give you warning.

Now it is up to you to "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit" (Matt 12:33, 34).

Thus far you have borne corrupt fruit by claiming that NT instruction concerning baptism is of the devil.

Context extends beyond the immediate, sir. If I have misunderstood the passage and offered a poor argument, show it. I've been corrected before, and I will be again, I'm sure. As I said, that is my understanding of it, and my reason for warning you. I do so out of concern for your soul, not from any malicious intent.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

07-08-2005, 04:39 PM

Bmeer,
Before I point out the false accusations in the above post, and start reporting you to another administrator, do as I requested and save yourself a lot of grief.
If I have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit then show me from that passage which you have quoted how I have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. You must show me from that passage and not read your own presuppositions in from other Books of the Bible. Show me in context from the passage which deals with the sin of "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." If you cannot do that you owe me an apology, and a retraction.
If you do not that I will take the matter up with the other moderators. Have I made myself clear.

Accusing another of blasphemy is a serious offence.
DHK

Johnv

07-08-2005, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Sirach:
How do you think we can know that we are not distorting the Scriptures?
We do the best we can with the limited knowlege we have, and do so humbly, prayerfully, and sincerly. God expects faithfulness. He does not expect perfection.
I've heard many people accuse others of twisting or distorting scriptures, how can we really know who is distorting them?
I think when it comes to clear doctrine, we must be diligent. However, when it comes to matters of interpretation (such as what day to call the sabbath, use of translations, women wearing pants, etc etc etc) we must allow persons the religious liberty and local autonomy to practice those interpretations as they feel called.
I read the scriptures and there are many other people that do also and yet we all read something different... how is this what Christ wanted?
Christ wanted us to enter into a relationship with our heavenly father. Jesus doesn't spend much time nitpicking a verse here or there. But, he does spend some time chastising the nitpickers.
Why are we divided when the Scriptures tell us not to be?
Because we allow ourselves to become congregationally and communally self-centered. It's a common problem in the church. I think Satan uses that as a tool to divide, and we fall for it every single time. I believe that the biggest enemy of the church is the church itself. Brother pitted against brother is the easiest way for Satan to divide and destroy.

dianetavegia

07-08-2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
DHK,
You might even realize you're blaspheming the Holy Spirit by condemning baptism as a pagan ritual. You really need to stop doing that, sir.
In Christ,
bmerr Bmerr, You point to a verse out of context. In it's full context:

Mark 16:14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." BAPTISM, is the outward expression of the inward change and is one way we can confess our conversion before men.

Matt 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.

Luke 12:8 "Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." DHK is NOT wrong in his explanation of the 'baptismal regeneration' heresy you and the other C of C members are purporting as truth.

He's also asked you to PROVE his 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit' with SCRIPTURE, which you cannot do!

I ask you to refrain from such attacks and use of such words, as blasphemy, on our Moderators and members who disagree with your Church of Christ beliefs.

Diane

DHK

07-08-2005, 05:50 PM

Matt 12:22-37 and Mark 3:22-30.
I am still waiting for a sutiable explanation of these verses Bmeer. Are you having a problem??
DHK

RTG

07-08-2005, 06:29 PM

Can everyone agree that works,baptism are in vain if having not beleived first?Old or new test,it's beleiving not the physical act of baptism that saves.You all ever been in a dirt clod fight,if I started one I didn't mean to.Call it beleiving call it faith,when people start adding to it,it causes me to ask ?'s Johnv is right,but there's nothing wrong with asking?'s.O'Granny what long teeth you have,when did you grow a tail?

D28guy

07-09-2005, 02:08 AM

bmerr,

Mike here. (sorry, couldnt resist) smile.gif

You said...

"D28guy,

bmerr here. I'd have to disagree, sir. If the command to study was not needed, Scripture would not contain it.Could you quote me where I ever said "studying is not needed". I may not *emphasise* that point as much as others due to my feeling that is just a given. It goes without saying that we study.

The significance of the command to study, coming from Paul, (who had the guidance of the Holy Spirit), to Timothy (and the rest of us), indicates that we would not have the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.Completly false. We MUST have the Holy Spirit opening our understanding to truth. If that were not the case, and all we needed to do was study, then everyone who studies the scriptures would come to the truth.

But thats not the case is it? Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and many others study study study study study and yet they are overflowing with idolatry and heresy, and completly off base regarding foundational teachings.

In adition to the witness of what we see happening, we have the witness of God Himself...

* "Now we have recieved, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us from God. These things we speak, not in the wisdom which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. But the natural man does not recieve the things of God, for they are foolishness to him. Nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned."

* "And we know that the Son of God has come, and given us an understanding, that we might know Him who is true."

* " 'These are the words that I have spoken with you while I was still with you, that all things might be fullfilled which were written in Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me.' And He opened their understanding that they might comprehend the scriptures."

* "When He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth."

And of course, the 1st 2 of those quotes make crystal clear that it appies to us as well as the aposttles.

The Spirit of God works through the word of God to convict men of sin, and convince men to become Christians. The word of God is the sword (tool)of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).I agree completly. They work together.

The promise of the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles, not to Christians of all time (John 14:25, 26)."Then Peter said to them all, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. For 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'."

If you have not recieved the Holy Spirit, bmerr, than you are still lost. Not one christian has ever been born again without the Holy Spirit indwelling them.

2 Tim 3:16, 17 tells us that the scriptures are all that is needed for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and are able to throughly furnish us unto all good works.I agree completly! We do not need tradition in the least. The scriptures...and the scriptures alone, are our only truth standard.

But that is a completly different topic than what we are discussing.

The only thing required for our understanding of the Scriptures is an honest and good heart (Luke 8:15). Those with an honest and good heart are there identified as those who hear the word, and keep it, bringing forth fruit with patience.Because the Holy Spirit opens their understanding to the truths found there.

God's word does not require divine intervention for us to understand it. Never has, never will.* "Now we have recieved, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us from God. These things we speak, not in the wisdom which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. But the natural man does not recieve the things of God, for they are foolishness to him. Nor can he know them, for they are sopiritually discerned."

* "And we know that the Son of God has come, and given us an understanding, that we might know Him who is true."

* " 'These are the words that I have spoken with you while I was still with you, that all things might be fullfilled which were written in Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me.' And He opened their understanding that they might comprehend the scriptures."

* "When He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth."

God bless,

Mike

DHK

07-09-2005, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
DHK,

bmerr here. What authority you must think you have to impose such limitations! It's a wonder you don't reject more of the Bible, since it's writers didn't always keep to their immediate context, but referred to other Scriptures for support.I don't put limitations on "rightly dividing the word of truth." But if you insist on reading into a passage of Scripture things that are not there, well, let's just say that is a mark of a cult. If you cannot give a proper exposition of Matt 12:22-37 and/or Mark 3:22-30, without going outside of these texts (since they are the only ones that talk of Jesus teaching of "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit,"), then you are not rightly dividing the Word of truth, and have demonstrated to all that you have no idea what the meaning of the passage is, and how it relates to us today. It is the latter part that is important. How does it relate to us today? How can one commit "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" today? No one but Jesus spoke of this sin. Therefore you must confine yourself to Jesus's words. That is only proper hermeneutics.

Indeed the text in question does not mention or speak of baptism. It does, however, demonstrate the danger of attributing the work of God to Satan. I demonstrated my charge against you with these words:If it doesn't mention baptism, don't draw baptism into the passage--again the mark of a cult. Reading into a passage things that are not there.

And then you come along, and proclaim that the instructions concerning baptism in the NT, which were given by the Holy Spirit, and commanded by Christ and His apostles, are just some pagan (demonic) ritual that God condemned in some obscure verse in Jeremiah (where was that again?), which was spoken to idolatrous Israel who actually was involved in pagan rituals.This is a false accusation. I never said that baptism, per se, not important. I never said that baptism, per se, was a pagan ritual. Why are you accusing me of such? The Hindu belief, that the waters of the Ganges river washes away sin is a superstition that a pagan cult believes. You believe the same. You believe that water (i.e. baptism) washes away sin. You believe that baptism is a part of salvation--baptismal regeneration. I didn't say baptism was not important, but rather that baptismal regeneration is a heresy, a pagan superstition akin to the pagan belief of Hinduism, and I stand by my words.

You attribute the work of God to Satan. That is my understanding of the passage, and that is why I give you warning.Are you God? Who are you to warn me?
First this is another false accusation.
I never attributed a work of God to Satan.
Why? Baptism is not a work of God. If it is, when did God baptize you? Jesus walked this earth 2,000 years ago. Are you 2,000 years old? Can you point to a time in your life when Jesus in his physical body baptized you? NO! Man baptized you. It is the work of man. A man was the baptizer, and a man was the recipient of the baptism. The whole process was done by man. It is not a work of God. To claim such a work as a work of God is gross error, and in fact is heresy. It is a work of man. Baptism does nothing but get you wet. It is a step of obedience in the Christian life, after salvation, done in obedience to the command of Christ.

Now it is up to you to "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit" (Matt 12:33, 34).The tree is made good by salvation. One is saved by trusting Christ as Saviour. There is nothing about baptism here. The thief on the cross was saved without baptism, as was the jailor in Acts 16:31, and the Ethiopian Eunuch. They simply called upon the name of the Lord, and were saved.

Thus far you have borne corrupt fruit by claiming that NT instruction concerning baptism is of the devil.Another false accusation. You seem to have a good many in this post. I never said that baptism is of the devil. Please point to the statement where I have, or withdraw the statement.

Context extends beyond the immediate, sir. If I have misunderstood the passage and offered a poor argument, show it. I've been corrected before, and I will be again, I'm sure. As I said, that is my understanding of it, and my reason for warning you. I do so out of concern for your soul, not from any malicious intent.Your accusations have been very malicious. Just read your above posts. You have made many false accusations. You just accused me falsely, without any reason of saying that baptism of is of the devil. Shall I call you a liar? You did. Why the slander and the lies? If this were on another board in another place you could be sued for the statements that you are making against me.

But instead I will await an explanation of Matt 12:22-37 and/or Mark 3:22-30. If you cannot explain what "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is from these Scriptures, then apologize and retract your statements.

False allegations are against the rules on BB.
DHK

[ July 09, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

bmerr

07-09-2005, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by DHK:

Accusing another of blasphemy is a serious offence.
DHK DHK,

bmerr here. I've done nothing that you haven't done to me and others already. I just made the charge outright. Myself and others have shown from the Bible that baptism for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. In response you have claimed that such doctrine is a "pagan superstition" derived from Hinduism. For a Christian to introduce "pagan tradition" as Bible doctrine would indeed be heresy.

In effect, you have accused me and others of heresy, which is right on track with blasphemy. You are as guilty as you say I am.

If you don't want to answer the charge, then let it pass. I've not misused the text in giving you warning. The text teaches a principle, that being that attributing the work of God to Satan is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The Bible commands baptism for the remission of sins. The Bible is God's book. You say that baptism for the remission of sins is pagan. You say that baptism for the remission of sins is of the devil. You should substantiate your claim or retract it.

I've stated my case as plainly as I know how. If it's more than you can grasp, I can't help you.

In Christ,

bmerr

SouthernBoy

07-09-2005, 03:40 PM

D28Guy,

Regarding,
How do you think we can know that we are not distorting the Scriptures? The Bible is clear on how we can know. St. Paul tells us in Ephesians 3:8-10

To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light [for all] 5 what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities 6 in the heavens. Thus, the Church is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church. The same that was there in Pentecost is still with us today.

You can learn more by going here: Finding the New Testament Church. (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church6.htm) I suggest you read it.

Do not be led astray by Mormons, Jehov Witness, Baptist. Read the Bible it is clear.

DHK

07-09-2005, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DHK:

Accusing another of blasphemy is a serious offence.
DHK DHK,

bmerr here. I've done nothing that you haven't done to me and others already. I just made the charge outright. Myself and others have shown from the Bible that baptism for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. [/quoted]
You have claimed it, but not demonstrated it. There is a difference.
In response you have claimed that such doctrine is a "pagan superstition" derived from Hinduism. For a Christian to introduce "pagan tradition" as Bible doctrine would indeed be heresy.To say that water washes away sin is a pagan heresy, and nothing less. The Bible teaches no such thing, and you have done nothing to refute that statement but call me names. Instead of calling me names use the Bible to refute what I said.

In effect, you have accused me and others of heresy, which is right on track with blasphemy. You are as guilty as you say I am.You do beleive in heresy. I have stated it. It is up to you, using Scripture (not name-calling and innuendo) to prove that it is not).

If you don't want to answer the charge, then let it pass. I've not misused the text in giving you warning. The text teaches a principle, that being that attributing the work of God to Satan is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.Why are you unable to use the text to prove to me that I have committed the charge you have accused me of--blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I await your apology until you are able to do so. You don't know what the passage means do you? You are unable to apply it or make it relevant to today? You are making false allegations, without any warrant. You use this text out of its context, making it a pretext to say anything you want. Use it in its context and explan what it means and how it applies to us today. Or else apologize and don't use it all.
The Bible commands baptism for the remission of sins. The Bible is God's book. You say that baptism for the remission of sins is pagan. You say that baptism for the remission of sins is of the devil. You should substantiate your claim or retract it.You quote the verses that teach such damnable heresies and then we will deal with them one at a time. Baptismal regeneration is a damnable heresy. You believe in it. You demonstrate it from Scripture.

I've stated my case as plainly as I know how. If it's more than you can grasp, I can't help you.You have demonstrated nothing, except that you do not know how to expound the Scriptures and rightly divide the Word of truth; and that you are very adept at name calling and making false allegations; and that you cannot demonstrate the heresy that you believe in to be true.

So what have you proved--nothing!
DHK

dianetavegia

07-09-2005, 03:45 PM

bmerr, you said: heresy is right on track with blasphemy.

WRONG! I'd suggest you study the scripture DHK has shared concerning blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and then compare it to heresy.

bmerr also said: Myself and others have shown from the Bible that baptism for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. Wrong again! You and another Church of Christer took some scripture out of context to try and add to scriptural requirements for salvation.

What is Heresy?

Heresy can be defined as any departure from Christian orthodoxy which is a teaching, doctrine or practice that goes beyond the apostles teachings -- the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).Biblical heresy is often a denial of the core beliefs held in the Church that are founded on the Bible. In this sense it applies to groups which reject basic Christian doctrines and separate themselves from the historic church.

It can be defined as the over-emphasis of a neglected truth or a truth elevated to an extreme were it can no longer be recognized as biblical. Heresy can also originate from a new revelation or prophesy, which is often the most dangerous source of all. A divisive teaching or practice from inside the Church can be more destructive to genuine faith than one from the outside. The epistle of Jude warns of this.

http://www.letusreason.org/Pent38.htm

bmerr

07-09-2005, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB]

To say that water washes away sin is a pagan heresy, and nothing less. The Bible teaches no such thing, and you have done nothing to refute that statement but call me names. Instead of calling me names use the Bible to refute what I said.bmerr here. At what time did I say that water washes away sins? Not once. The Bible does not teach it, and I have not said it. I don't have to refute a statement I didn't make.

What names have I called you, sir? I have been called names on other sites, and I know it's not fun. I wouldn't do it to another.

Here's some Bible to refute your postion that baptism for the remission of sins is "pagan tradition".

Acts 2:38 And 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Rom 6:17, 18 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.

You do beleive in heresy. I have stated it. It is up to you, using Scripture (not name-calling and innuendo) to prove that it is not).The offered verses of Scripture prove that it is not. If you'd like to show from Scripture that it is pagan in origin, do so.

Why are you unable to use the text to prove to me that I have committed the charge you have accused me of--blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I await your apology until you are able to do so. You don't know what the passage means do you? You are unable to apply it or make it relevant to today? You are making false allegations, without any warrant. You use this text out of its context, making it a pretext to say anything you want. Use it in its context and explan what it means and how it applies to us today. Or else apologize and don't use it all.I have demonstrated the principle (repeatedly) that giving Satan credit for God's work is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The text in Mark 3 and Matt 12 show it quite clearly. What do I have to do, find your name in the text?

You have repeatedly made the statement that the idea of baptism for the remission of sins is pagan in origin, and yet you have not substantiated your claim with Scripture. I have given Scripture to support my postion. Where's yours? You should substantiate your claim or retract it.

You quote the verses that teach such damnable heresies and then we will deal with them one at a time. Baptismal regeneration is a damnable heresy. You believe in it. You demonstrate it from Scripture.Again, for the record, let me state my position: The Bible commands baptism for the remission of sins as a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. I have demonstrated this teaching from Scripture.

If you disagree with this position, show the Scriptures that you think support you.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

07-09-2005, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
You and another Church of Christer took some scripture out of context to try and add to scriptural requirements for salvation.Ma'am, who is "Christer"? I know of no such person. That aside, exactly which Scriptures were taken out of context, and which requirements for salvation did we add?

What is Heresy?

Heresy can be defined as any departure from Christian orthodoxy which is a teaching, doctrine or practice that goes beyond the apostles teachings -- the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).Biblical heresy is often a denial of the core beliefs held in the Church that are founded on the Bible. In this sense it applies to groups which reject basic Christian doctrines and separate themselves from the historic church.

It can be defined as the over-emphasis of a neglected truth or a truth elevated to an extreme were it can no longer be recognized as biblical. Heresy can also originate from a new revelation or prophesy, which is often the most dangerous source of all. A divisive teaching or practice from inside the Church can be more destructive to genuine faith than one from the outside. The epistle of Jude warns of this.Nice comments on heresy, Ma'am. So basically herresy is claiming Divine origin for something demonic. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is claiming demonic origin for something Divine. I'd say those are on the same line.

Truth is divisive, Ma'am. Jesus Himself said that He came not to bring peace, but division (Luke 12:51-53), even to the point of dividing families. Anything that is not truth is false. There is a dividing line.

The Scriptures say that baptism is for the remission, or washing away of sins. DHK says it is not. He has divided himself from the truth. It's not my fault, I just pointed it out.

In Christ,

bmerr

BobRyan

07-09-2005, 06:12 PM

Again, for the record, let me state my position: The Bible commands baptism for the remission of sins as a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. I have demonstrated this teaching from Scripture.

If you disagree with this position, show the Scriptures that you think support you.
#1. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Tongues prophecy etc) given to the saved or the unsaved?

The forgiven or the lost?

The born-again or the unregenerate?

#2. Was the Theif on the Cross ever saved? Forgiven? Born again? A saint?

#3. When does a lost person appeal to God for forgiveness, a clean conscience, a new life?

Do they pray and study the Bible without ever asking God for forgiveness or a clean conscience until AFTER they reach the point of Baptism??

#4. What is the "depravity" described in Romans 3? What does it "prevent"??

In Christ,

Bob

dianetavegia

07-09-2005, 07:37 PM

Acts 2:38 And 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

--------------------------------------------------
NEITHER of those verses claim water baptism saves. Neither! To say so is to empty the cross of its power!
I submit, resubmit these:

Mark 16:14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

BAPTISM, is the outward expression of the inward change and is one way we can confess our conversion before men.

Matt 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.

Luke 12:8 "Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Galatians 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
BLASPHEMY

But unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit (twi de eiß to agion pneuma blasphmhsanti).

1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32 But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: 33 partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; 34 for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. 35 Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: 37 "For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him." 39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.

Speak against the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Luke 12:10 And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

bmerr

07-10-2005, 06:48 PM

dianetavegia,

Acts 2:38 And 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

--------------------------------------------------
NEITHER of those verses claim water baptism saves. Neither! To say so is to empty the cross of its power!bmerr here. Howso? The fact that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world does not mean that everyone will be saved. It means that everyone can be saved.

The power for salvation is still there. Simply accepting the facts of the gospel saves no one. My wife and children all acknowledge the facts of the gospel, but none of them has become a Christian.

In purchasing freedom from sin for the world, Jesus also was given the authority to determine the conditions of pardon for sinners who wanted to enter the kingdom. Those "keys to the kingdom" (Matt 16:19) were given to Peter, and he gave them in Acts 2:38 to those who believed the message.

No, Ma'am, baptism does not diminish the power of the cross. Without the cross, baptism would mean nothing at all.

As far as baptism being "the outward expression of the inward change and is one way we can confess our conversion before men", I can agree with that to a point, but it's not exactly supported with Scripture. What I mean is that there is never any command to "be baptized to confess your faith before men". I agree with the sentiment, but it's just not why men were commanded to be baptized.

In Christ,

bmerr

dianetavegia

07-10-2005, 06:55 PM

My wife and children all acknowledge the facts of the gospel, but none of them has become a Christian.
I'm very sorry to hear this but will be more than honored to pray for their salvation!

bmerr

07-10-2005, 07:18 PM

Bob,

bmerr here. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you until now. I'm playing catch-up.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Tongues prophecy etc) given to the saved or the unsaved?

The forgiven or the lost?

The born-again or the unregenerate?It's not given to anyone in any miraculous sense these days, sir. If you're referring to Cornelius and household, may I refer you to the "Sinner's prayer" board, and my response to StefanM (page 3, I think)? In summary, let me say that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and them to convince the Jewish brethren who had come with Peter that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to them, not to demonstrate that they were already saved.

#2. Was the Theif on the Cross ever saved? Forgiven? Born again? A saint?Saved? Yes. Forgiven? Yes. A saint? Yes.

Born again under the New Testament? No. Jesus had not yet died, and so the New Testament could not yet be in force (Heb 9:16, 17). The thief was saved under the Old Testament.

#3. When does a lost person appeal to God for forgiveness, a clean conscience, a new life?1 Pet 3:21 says, "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".

That word "answer" is eperotema, which means "an inquiry". It comes from the word eperotao, which means "to ask for, i.e. inquire, seek;-as (after, questions), demand, desire, question."

The ASV (1901) translates it as "interrogation", with a marginal reading of "inquiry, or appeal".

I'd say that it is in baptism, where one's sins are washed away (not by the water, but by the submission to God's command) that a person appeals to God for a good conscience, for it is sin that soils the conscience, while dirt soils the flesh.

Do they pray and study the Bible without ever asking God for forgiveness or a clean conscience until AFTER they reach the point of Baptism??I'm sure that many a penitent soul has asked God to forgive them before they have been baptized. I can find nothing in Scripture that would indicate that God would grant that request short of one doing what He has commanded, though.

#4. What is the "depravity" described in Romans 3? What does it "prevent"??Did you mean Romans 3? I'm not sure what you are referring to. It's probably quite obvious to you, but I'm missing it.

In Christ,

bmerr

BobRyan

07-10-2005, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Tongues prophecy etc) given to the saved or the unsaved?

The forgiven or the lost?

The born-again or the unregenerate? Originally posted by bmerr:

If you're referring to Cornelius and household, may I refer you to the "Sinner's prayer" board, and my response to StefanM (page 3, I think)? In summary, let me say that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and them to convince the Jewish brethren who had come with Peter that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to them, not to demonstrate that they were already saved.Regardless of the "strategy" God was using for the Jews - the question remains. Are the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12) for believers or unbelievers? Are they for the born-again or for the unsaved?

If they are for the saved - the born again -- then you have a problem in Acts 10 trying to say that Cornelius AND his household were all unforgiven -- yet filled with the Spirit and given the 1Cor 12 Gifts - do you not?

#2. Was the Theif on the Cross ever saved? Forgiven? Born again? A saint? Originally posted by bmerr:

Saved? Yes. Forgiven? Yes. A saint? Yes.
Was it at his baptism?

Originally posted by bmerr:

Born again under the New Testament? No.
Is John 3 part of the New Testament?

Was Jesus lying to Nicodemus in John 3?

Was the incident in John 3 "before the Cross"?

Did Jesus say "Some day in the future the spirit will move upon the heart of a person and they will be born again according to the new rules about which a Jewish teacher of scripture would not heave any information because all you have is scripture"??

Originally posted by bmerr:

Jesus had not yet died, and so the New Testament could not yet be in force
So then he was "lying to Nicodemus" ??

John 3

3 Jesus answered and said to him, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.''
4 Nicodemus said to Him, ""How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?''
5 Jesus answered, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 "" That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 ""Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.'
8 "" The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.''
9 Nicodemus said to Him, ""How can these things be?''
10 Jesus answered and said to him, ""Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

D28guy

07-11-2005, 01:43 AM

SouthernBoy,

You posted:

D28Guy,

Regarding,

quote:

How do you think we can know that we are not distorting the Scriptures?

The Bible is clear on how we can know. St. Paul tells us in Ephesians 3:8-10

To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light [for all] 5 what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities 6 in the heavens.Great passage of scripture. Great truth. The "church" of course is all born again people. To say that "the Church" is this organisation, or that organisation comes straight out of "cultism 101".

Thus, the Church is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church. The same that was there in Pentecost is still with us today.And there is a prime example of that error. Whether you are referring to the Catholic Church of Rome, or the "Orthodox" church.

You can learn more by going here: Finding the New Testament Church. I suggest you read it.I dont need to read anything like that. I have a copy of the scriptures, and I find the "New Testament/New Covenant" church identified there, and those brothers and sisters have been fellowshipping with one another in regular gatherings for 2000 years now.

Simple fellowships, nothing beyond a localised hierarchy(pastors, teachers, elders, etc), prayer, teaching of the scriptures, the Lords Supper memorial and baptism, strongly evangelistic, etc.

Do not be led astray by Mormons, Jehov Witness,No problem there. The Mormons, JW's, Catholics, Orthodox and the like are not a consideration...for obvious reasons.

Baptist.All the Baptist fellowshipps I have been a part of were fine. As a pentecostal I would say they should be more welcoming of the "gifts of the Spirit", but they are entitled to their convictions. They proclaim the true gospel and I'm proud to count them as brothers and sisters.

Read the Bible it is clear.It is. So very clear. I wish those trusting in the traditions of men would come to their senses and come to the scriptures.

In some cases it can have eternal consequences.

God bless,

Mike

DHK

07-11-2005, 03:12 AM

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

To say that water washes away sin is a pagan heresy, and nothing less. The Bible teaches no such thing, and you have done nothing to refute that statement but call me names. Instead of calling me names use the Bible to refute what I said. bmerr here. At what time did I say that water washes away sins? Not once.
The Bible does not teach it, and I have not said it. I don't have to refute a statement I didn't make. This is but one of your many quotes:
bmerr here. Myself and others have shown from the Bible that baptism for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. (July 09, 2005 03:27 PM)The word "baptism" simply means "immersion." What was the substance in which you were immersed. Were you were immersed in vinegar, wine, honey, etc. "Baptism for the remission of sins." What were you baptized in? I saw two young men in a mud fight. They both wrestled in the mud. By the time that they had finished they had both been baptized in the mud. That is, they had both been immersed in the mud? Were you one of those? Have you been immersed in the mud. Does immersion in the mud give you remission of sins. The word is immerssion. Baptism means immersion. The substance isn't given is it? We assume it to be water, and the assumption is no doubt correct.

If that assumption is correct, then it is the water that washes away sin. Being immersed in water (not mud, or wine, or honey, or any other such thing) washes away your sin--so you say. The word "baptism" (immersion) is simply the English word that you have dubbed for that rite. But it still means immersion. Being immersed in water does not wash away sin.
Yes, your above quote: "baptism (immersion in water) for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation under the New Testament," is both heresy and a pagan ritual.
What names have I called you, sir? I have been called names on other sites, and I know it's not fun. I wouldn't do it to another.You wouldn't do it? You can say that with a straight face? And in all honesty before God? Recognize that raising false allegations and innuendos in any kind of malicious intent is taken as name-calling. Take a look at a few of your quotes and then tell me honestly that you have never done this:
“You might even realize you're blaspheming the Holy Spirit”. (July 08, 2005 01:43 PM)

“You say that baptism is a pagan ritual,“ (July 08, 2005 03:50 PM) false allegation

“And then you come along, and proclaim that the instructions concerning baptism in the NT…are just some pagan (demonic) ritual that God condemned “ (July 08, 2005 03:50 PM). False allegation.

“You attribute the work of God to Satan.” (July 08, 2005 03:50 PM). False allegation.

“Also, you did not give a couple dozen verses explaining how we are saved by "faith only". (July 08, 2005 03:50 PM). (How do you know? Did you spend time looking for them? Which thread did I post them in?)

“You attribute the work of God to Satan.” (July 08, 2005 04:29 PM) False Accusation!! I never even mentioned this phrase “attributing the work of God to Satan;” you did. So what work did you attribute to Satan??

“Thus far you have borne corrupt fruit by claiming that NT instruction concerning baptism is of the devil.” (July 08, 2005 04:29 PM). False allegation, and innuendo.

“In effect, you have accused me and others of heresy, which is right on track with blasphemy.” (July 09, 2005 03:27 PM ) Please look these terms up in the dictionary. They do not have the same meaning. Here's some Bible to refute your postion that baptism for the remission of sins is "pagan tradition".

Acts 2:38 And 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.Let's break it down:
"Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins."
The key word here is the prepositon for (eis).
The meaning is baptized on account or because of the remission of sins.

Mat.3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
--The word "unto" is "eis" the same as is used in Acts 2:38. On what basis did John baptize? On the basis that they had repented of their sins, or on the basis that they would repent of their sins. "unto repentance" means what? because of? or in order to receive? Obviously it does not mean "in order to receive" as some would have us to believe in Acts 2:38. John did not baptize in order that they would receive repentance. No, he baptized because they had already repented (unto, for) repentance. The same was true in Acts 2:38 when Peter said "baptism for the remission of sins" (on the basis of remission of sins, or because their sins had been remitted; not in order that their sins would be remitted.
This is the meaning of the verse. Compare Scripture with Scripture. Know how different prepositions can be used.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This was the Lord's command to Saul. He is rehearshing his testimony of his conversion to Christ that happened back in Acts 9. But what happened. Saul was on the way to Damascus. He saw a great light and fell down from his horse. He heard a voice from heaven. It was Jesus, who identified himself as such. Paul called him Lord, for the first time in his life, recognizing him as Lord over his life. It was at that time that "he called upon the name of the Lord and was saved," as the Scripture says. Now as a believer God commands him to go to Annanias and be baptized. The KJV in this translation is a bit weak. There are many other good translations which translate the phrase: "after having called on the name of the Lord." Jamieson, Faucett and Brown says:
calling on the name of the Lord--rather, "having called," that is, after having done so; referring to the confession of Christ which preceded baptism, as Ac 8:37. Rom 6:17, 18 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.And so? This has nothing to do with baptism, but rather living the Christian life. You point is, well briefly put: non sequitor.

You do beleive in heresy. I have stated it. It is up to you, using Scripture (not name-calling and innuendo) to prove that it is not).[/QUOTE]The offered verses of Scripture prove that it is not. If you'd like to show from Scripture that it is pagan in origin, do so.[/qb][/quote]
700 years before the time of Christ Jeremiah mocked at this pagan ritual.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with lye, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord Jehovah.
--Go ahead, he says: Take as much water as you want. Take a lot of soap and the most powerful type of lye (nitre) that you can find. Scrub hard. But as hard as you can scrub, and as much as you can wash; and as many times as you baptize yourself, you will never wash away your sins. Water does not wash away your sins.

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 his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Why not just accept what the Bible says?

Why are you unable to use the text to prove to me that I have committed the charge you have accused me of--blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I await your apology until you are able to do so. You don't know what the passage means do you? You are unable to apply it or make it relevant to today? You are making false allegations, without any warrant. You use this text out of its context, making it a pretext to say anything you want. Use it in its context and explan what it means and how it applies to us today. Or else apologize and don't use it all. I have demonstrated the principle (repeatedly) that giving Satan credit for God's work is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The text in Mark 3 and Matt 12 show it quite clearly. What do I have to do, find your name in the text? You have not demonstrated from that text even once how a person can commit the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today. You have failed to do this using that passage of Scripture. You bring in baptism, but baptism is not in that passage, and has nothing to do with blasphemy of any kind. Baptism is simply a work of man, a work of obedience, but a work of man nevertheless. Man does it not God. So what work of God is accredited to Satan? You haven't demonstrated this yet. Stick to the passages in Mark and Matthew, and show how one today can commit this sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I challenge you. You haven't done it. And thus, an apology is still outstanding.

You have repeatedly made the statement that the idea of baptism for the remission of sins is pagan in origin, and yet you have not substantiated your claim with Scripture.But I have. You just don't want to accept it. Water doesn't wash away sin. It is a pagan supersition that even Jeremiah mocked at. Baptism simply means immersion. Were you immersed in mud or what. If you were immersed in water, then it is the water, that you claim gave you remission of your sins. Don't be so naive in this. We don't have to play a game of semantics.
I have given Scripture to support my postion. Where's yours? You should substantiate your claim or retract it.You have accused me of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit for no reason at all. You hold a paganistic religious view that cannot be substantiated through Scripture. And you want a retraction for what again??

You quote the verses that teach such damnable heresies and then we will deal with them one at a time. Baptismal regeneration is a damnable heresy. You believe in it. You demonstrate it from Scripture. Again, for the record, let me state my position: The Bible commands baptism for the remission of sins as a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. I have demonstrated this teaching from Scripture.I haven't seen any Scripture yet, only a couple verses that you took out of context. I explained them so that you could understand them. When the Bible, the entire Bible, all 66 Books, thunders forth a theme of justification through faith alone, how dare you add the work of man, when the Bible explicityly says "not of works." You have contradicted the Word of God and fallen into blatant heresy.

If you disagree with this position, show the Scriptures that you think support you.I have.
DHK

[ July 11, 2005, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

bmerr

07-11-2005, 02:44 PM

DHK,

Okay, hang on a minute. I think we need to make our positions clear, though I'm sure we both think we already have. Regardless, we are getting nowhere. So let's back up a minute.

For my part, I hold that immersion in water under the New Testament of Jesus Christ (baptism) is for the remission, or washing away of sins. This is not equivilant to saying that water washes away sin. As you pointed out, 1 John 1:7, and Rev 1:5 make it clear that it is the blood of Christ that washes away sin. No problem with that. I have never once suggested that water washes one free from sin.

Similarly, water cannot wash one free of leprosy. Remember Naaman in 2 Kings 5? He was a leper, and had no cure. Doubtless he had tried in vain to wash away the infection with water. But what was he instructed to do?

Elisha told him to "Go, and wash in Jordan seven times, and they flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean" (2 Kings 5:10).

It didn't make sense to him, and he got angry. But one of his servants spoke to him, and he did as he was told, "...and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean" (2 Kings 5:14).

There was no power in the water of Jordan or anywhere else that could have healed his leprosy. The power was in God, and was accessed by obeying God's command, even though it didn't make sense.

Likewise, when one obeys the gospel command to be baptized for the remission of sins, he does not trust in the water. His faith is in the operation of God (Col 2:12).

That's trusting God, my friend. Doing what He commands, even though it doesn't make sense.

DHK, I don't dislike you. You get under my skin a little, and I'm sure I do yours, as well. My hope in writing this post is that you will understand my position better, and in so doing, we might understand each other better.

If I owe you an apology and a retraction, I don't have a problem with doing it. But with my present understanding of your position, I'm afraid the charge will stand. It's not personal.

In Christ,

bmerr

billwald

07-11-2005, 02:55 PM

"God's word does not require divine intervention for us to understand it. Never has, never will."

Why are there 100's of denominations?

bmerr

07-11-2005, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by billwald:
"God's word does not require divine intervention for us to understand it. Never has, never will."

Why are there 100's of denominations? Billwald,

bmerr here. Although I'm sure some would say I'm guilty of it too, I'd have to say doctrinal bias in the interpretation of Scripture has led to the vast sea of denominationalism.

The problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit has to help us understand the Bible starts with salvation. Consider this.

If man is unable to understand Scripture unless he's saved and has the help of the Holy Spirit, but the same man can't get the Holy Spirit to help him understand the Scriptures until he's saved, how then can he understand to believe and thereby be saved?

This is the dilemma the Calvinist is in, whether he knows it or not.

If, on the other hand, if the only requirement for a proper understanding of Scripture is for man to have an honest and good heart (mind) (Luke 8:15), then anyone with such an attitude toward the Bible can be saved when he hears the gospel and obeys it.

Of course, most anyone will claim to approach the Bible with an unbiased mind, but not many do.

The question is, if Biblical evidence refutes my bias, will I be willing to give up my bias for the Biblical evidence? Or will I attempt to explain away the evidence to maintain my bias?

Those are the only two ways to deal with "cognitive dissonance".

In Christ,

bmerr

mman

07-11-2005, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by DHK:

Acts 2:38 And 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.[/qb]Let's break it down:
"Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins."
The key word here is the prepositon for (eis).
The meaning is baptized on account or because of the remission of sins. [/quote]

First of all, you know and I know that eis does not mean on account of or because. EIS is found some 1600 times in the new testament. You cannot find EVEN ONE TRANSLATION THAT TRANSLATES EIS as BECAUSE in ACTS 2:38. In fact, I doubt you could find where eis is ever translated as because. There is a perfectly good greek word that means because of or on account of. That word is "hoti".

In fact the EXACT same phase in the greek (which is translated "for the remission of sins") found in Acts 2:38 is used in MATT 26:28. By your logic, Jesus blood was shed BECAUSE sins had already been forgiven. Scholar after scholar have agreed that eis does not mean because of in Acts 2:38. It takes some heavy duty mental gymnastics to try and change the clear meaning.

By the way, you never have addressed Mark 16:16. Of all the times I have asked about it, you say you can explain it, but you have refused to do so. Does this mean what it says? Was Jesus kidding? A third grader can read and understand this clear teaching. Yes, it would take help to misunderstand this passage.

Also, if there were question as to what baptism was "in", all doubts are removed when we read Acts 8:36 - As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

or

I Pet 3:20-21, "...in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism..."

or

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

Clearly your biggest hang up with baptism is that Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16 and other passages conflict with your understanding of Eph 2:8-9. Acts 2:38 can't mean what it says, so an alternate meaning must be found. Mark 16:16 can't mean what it says, so an alternate meaning must be found.

When you understand that baptism is part of faith, then you don't have to try and explain away the clear teachings, such as in Mark 16:16.

Eph 2:8-9 also make perfect sense.

Baptism is included in faith. The bible even makes this clear.

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

Col 2:12buried 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.

EVERY scripture telling us how we get INTO Christ deals with baptism. You cannot get around this fact.

To call it a pagan ritual is wrong unfounded.

DHK

07-11-2005, 10:39 PM

mman:
First of all, you know and I know that eis does not mean on account of or because. No, that is just what you would like people to believe. Eis has many meanings, and is not confined to the meanings that the COC would like it to have in order for it suit their perverted theology.
EIS is found some 1600 times in the new testament. You cannot find EVEN ONE TRANSLATION THAT TRANSLATES EIS as BECAUSE in ACTS 2:38. In fact, I doubt you could find where eis is ever translated as because. There is a perfectly good greek word that means because of or on account of. That word is "hoti".Well glory be! You found out this wonderful linguistic truth that in every language there are synonyms. You are learning. Actually the word eis is used 1,773 times to be more precise. Have you checked out the meaning of each time the preposition is used? All 1,773 times? I have a Greek-English Concordance that gives all those meanings, and yes, there are many times where the word is translated with the sense of “because,” or “on the basis of.” Or, do you really think that in Mat.3:11, John baptized that the Pharisees would receive repentance, instead of, because they had already repented? Which way is eis translated in that passage? Answer please.

In fact the EXACT same phase in the greek (which is translated "for the remission of sins") found in Acts 2:38 is used in MATT 26:28. By your logic, Jesus blood was shed BECAUSE sins had already been forgiven. Scholar after scholar have agreed that eis does not mean because of in Acts 2:38. It takes some heavy duty mental gymnastics to try and change the clear meaning.But we are not here to do gymnastics. There are better places for that. The fact is that the word is used 1,773 times. Just because it is used in Mat.26:28 one way does not require it to be translated the same way in Acts 2:38 the same way. There is such a thing as context. Have you heard of it? Context is important when determining the meaning of a word (especially a preposition).

By the way, you never have addressed Mark 16:16. Of all the times I have asked about it, you say you can explain it, but you have refused to do so. Does this mean what it says? Was Jesus kidding? A third grader can read and understand this clear teaching. Yes, it would take help to misunderstand this passage.Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Now there are some who quibble over the word "baptism." There are groups today that take this word, press it to an unwarranted extreme, and say it is necessary not only to believe but also to be baptized. They say that if you believe and are not baptized, you will never be saved. Such an extreme is, of course, totally unsupported by the rest of Scripture. What Jesus means is that belief ought to be real, and the reality of that inward belief is demonstrated by the outward action of baptism. Only that belief that changes us and makes us act is real belief, and the way that we can demonstrate it is by being baptized. But that does not add to what the belief itself has already accomplished; it only demonstrates it. If you cannot be baptized, that does not affect salvation at all. God knows and reads the heart. But ordinarily, belief is to be translated into action by this ritual which is designed to express faith in Jesus Christ, and says, in very eloquent terms, that you have been put down into death and risen again to walk with him in newness of life.—Steadman 16. He that believeth and is baptized--Baptism is here put for the external signature of the inner faith of the heart, just as "confessing with the mouth" is in Ro 10:10; and there also as here this outward manifestation, once mentioned as the proper fruit of faith, is not repeated in what follows (Ro 10:11).
“shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”--These awful issues of the reception or rejection of the Gospel, though often recorded in other connections, are given in this connection only by Mark. (Jamieson, Faucett and Brown)As is seen, Baptism is not part of salvation. This would contradict the direct teaching of every book of the Bible. Baptism is the fruit or evidence of salvation, but has nothing to do with salvation itself. If one is saved then they will have no problem in obeying Christ and being baptized. But baptism has nothing to do with salvation. What will it do for you? It will get you wet, nothing more.

Also, if there were question as to what baptism was "in", all doubts are removed when we read Acts 8:36 - As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
So what prevented him from being baptized? Two things:
1. Before that time, a lack of sufficient to be immersed in. “See here is water.”
2. A clear testimony of faith in Christ. He was baptized on the basis of his faith in Christ. He was saved by faith and faith alone in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism happened after he believed in Christ. There is no more clearer example of that then is demonstrated in Acts 8.

or

I Pet 3:20-21, "...in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism..."Does an “antitype,” a figure of speech, a symbol, save? Is this what you are saying? That is what Peter is saying. Obviously then Peter is not referring to the act of baptism as giving spiritual salvation. Your hermeneutics is badly wanting. Symbols don’t and cannot save. So in the context how were 8 souls saved? Did water save them? No the water would have destroyed them. It was an agent of destruction that destroyed everything in sight. What saved Noah and his family was the Ark, symbolic of Christ. They were safe in the Ark, which floated above the waters, and was in the midst of the waters as they fell from Heaven. But it was the Ark that saved. It is Christ that saves. It saved them from the pollutions of the water.
What is Peter saying? Christ saves.

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:

Christ saves us by His resurrection. Look carefully at the verse. It is our answer to his sacrificial work that saves us. Peter makes sure you understand this point. It is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. That was the result of the water. What happened with the flood? It took away the filth of the flesh. It destroyed. Baptism is only symbolic of what Christ does by the power of his resurrection. Baptism is symbolic of the old life that is buried under the flood, and a new life that is risen with Christ. We are saved by the resurrection. It is our answer to that resurrection, to that sacrifice that saves us. Baptism is a symbol, an antitype. Symbols don’t save.

or

Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,First Paul is speaking to the church, not the COC. You are out of luck here. In fact it is specifically addressed to the Church which is at Ephesus, not even any of the COC churches.
Second, don’t read more into the passage then is warranted. Paul is drawing a picture and using a parallel between the marriage of two believers and the marriage of Christ to his bride. Not everything is going to fit word for word, or object for object. The picture Paul draws is the bride being prepared for the groom. She will be completely set apart and cleansed. In ancient Jewish ceremonies the Jews had a number of purifications that they went through. But the main agent here that does the cleansing is the Word of God. “Ye are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you” Jesus said. Nothing is said here of baptism. If you say that baptism is in this passage you are reading into the passage something that is not there. NOTE: It does not say baptism. Baptism is not in this passage. The Bible does not teach Baptismal regeneration. This is heresy. It is a pagan ritual.

Clearly your biggest hang up with baptism is that Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16 and other passages conflict with your understanding of Eph 2:8-9. Acts 2:38 can't mean what it says, so an alternate meaning must be found. Mark 16:16 can't mean what it says, so an alternate meaning must be found.I know what these passages teach; apparently you don’t. You give them a cultish meaning, and teach a pagan superstition that Hindus believe—that water washes away sin. This is superstition. Water cannot wash away sin. Only the blood of Christ can wash away your sin. (1John 1:7).

When you understand that baptism is part of faith, then you don't have to try and explain away the clear teachings, such as in Mark 16:16.I don’t explain it away; but I did explain it. That is something that you cannot successfully accomplish and harmonize with Eph.2:8,9 at the same time.

Eph 2:8-9 also make perfect sense.To me it does. It teaches that baptism is a work; a work of man. Salvation is not of works. Therefore the teaching of COC is absolute damnable heresy.

Baptism is included in faith. The bible even makes this clear.Your statement doesn’t even make sense. Faith is trust, belief, confidence in the word of another. If I have trust in my wife, does that mean I have “baptism” in her? How ridiculous a statement!! It doesn’t even make sense to say that it is included in faith. Your problem is that you don’t know what faith is.

Gal 3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.We are children of God through faith in Christ. What is the teaching here. That by faith and faith alone we are saved and made children of God. Paul follows that statement up saying that those that are saved are baptized (at the point of salvation) into Christ. That is the time when a person is indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is speaking of the baptism of the Spirit, not water baptism.

Col 2:12buried 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.It is totally symbolic. Paul gives a picture of the believer’s life in Christ through baptism. Our old life is buried, and our life now in Christ is raised that we may walk with Him.

EVERY scripture telling us how we get INTO Christ deals with baptism. You cannot get around this fact.Every Scripture tells a picture of how our old lives are dead to sin, and our new lives are risen with Christ to walk in newness of life. Not one reference speaks of baptism saving or washing away sins. That is both heresy and superstition.

To call it a pagan ritual is wrong unfounded.I call it for what it is. Damnable heresy; pagan ritual; a rite that will lead people straight to Hell when thought of as part of their salvation.
DHK

mman

07-12-2005, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
No, that is just what you would like people to believe. Eis has many meanings, and is not confined to the meanings that the COC would like it to have in order for it suit their perverted theology. No, eis is always looking forward, never in retrospect. You do not like it, so you want it to point backwards. You want the exact same phrase, “eis aphesin hamartion” to have two totally different meanings. The term, “for the remission of sins” is always used in conjunction with baptism, with the exception in Matt 26:28. There is nothing in the context that suggests that the meaning is different in Matt 26:28 and Acts 2:38.

Again, not one translation ever translates eis as “because” in Acts 2:38. I challenge you to find one time where it is. If eis and hoti are synonyms, then of the 1773 times eis is used, you should have quite a few times where “eis” is actually translated as “because”. Show me where eis is translated as “because”, since they are synonyms, as you claim. I say this is a baseless false claim, and challenge you to prove me wrong.

Was John’s baptism because people’s sins were already forgiven? Was Jesus blood shed because people’s sins were already forgiven? These use the exact same phrase as is used in Acts 2:38.

The real question is what is the meaning of “eis aphesin hamartion”. Quite simply you want it to mean one thing in Acts 2:38 and something totally different in Matt 26:28. Any argument for “eis” meaning because in Acts 2:38 also applies to Matt 26:28. Your only objection to this is to say it doesn’t. There is nothing in the context to suggest they have different meanings.

So, you did have to have help to misunderstand Mark 16:16. Basically your (or Steadman’s) argument is Jesus didn’t mean what he said. That is the weakest argument I have ever seen or heard. Mark 16:16 IS TOTALLY SUPPORTED WITH THE REST OF SCRIPTURE. If you would accept Mark 16:16 as truth, I think you would be surprised how all the other pieces fall perfectly into place.

I think Jesus meant exactly what he said in such simple terms that the conclusion is obvious, therefore it takes much twisting to try and explain it away.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Why not accept that baptism if for (eis – unto) the remission of sins – The logical conclusion of Acts 2:38?

Why not accept that baptism washes away our sins – the logical conclusion of Acts 22:16?

Why not accept that baptism puts us INTO Christ, the logical conclusion of Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27.

Why not accept that baptism saves us, the logical conclusion of I Pet 3:21.

Why not accept that baptism is part of faith as shown in Gal 3:26-27 and Col 2:12?

Why not accept that water baptism is part of preaching Jesus as seen in Acts 8:35-36?

You do not accept these clear teaching, but must twist them and try to explain them away. No matter how much you would like for them to be removed or re-worded, they remain.

So, when I believe Jesus when he said “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved - Mark 16:16” I am believing a “Damnable heresy; pagan ritual; a rite that will lead people straight to Hell when thought of as part of their salvation”. I believe Jesus and not your false teaching. Teaching that one is justified by “faith alone” is a damnable heresy according to James 2:24.

If one is actually justified by faith alone, then all who have faith will be saved, regardless of what was added. I have faith, yet you would hate to admit I am saved. I believe I am justified by faith (biblical faith), yet you wouldn’t want to admit that I am. You think I teach something that will lead people straight to hell, yet Jesus taught that it leads to heaven. If one is justified by belief alone, for you to be consistent, you must think that I am saved, since I believe.

By your definition of faith, the wall of Jericho would still be standing (Heb 11:30). You cannot fit your definition of faith into Heb 11:30. By faith the wall fell down. By faith alone, the walls fell down? No. By belief alone, the walls fell down? No. By faith, the walls fell down. Without this type of faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. Your definition of faith and God’s definition of faith are different. Use your definition of faith and show how the wall fell by faith alone. When you understand this simple concept, you can understand how “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many (just as many, no more or no less) of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. – Gal 3:26-27.

DHK

07-12-2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by mman:

Was John’s baptism because people’s sins were already forgiven? Was Jesus blood shed because people’s sins were already forgiven? These use the exact same phrase as is used in Acts 2:38.
You are answering a question with a question. In other words you have avoided answering the question completely. Let me state it again. Was John's Baptism because the people had repented or in order to receive repentance? Answer the question. Which one?
DHK

DHK

07-12-2005, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
I have demonstrated the principle (repeatedly) that giving Satan credit for God's work is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The text in Mark 3 and Matt 12 show it quite clearly. What do I have to do, find your name in the text? You have failed to show how this text relates to today. How does a person today commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? You have accused me of such without demonstrating how I have committed such a sin. I am still awaiting your answer from the passages in Matthew and/or Mark. Where are they, or where is your apology?
DHK

mman

07-12-2005, 01:24 PM

You are answering a question with a question. In other words you have avoided answering the question completely. Let me state it again. Was John's Baptism because the people had repented or in order to receive repentance? Answer the question. Which one?
DHK 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. This is clearly seen back in verse 8 where he commanded them to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Once again the eis points forward and not backwards as you would have it to do.

This is a clear attempt at grapsing at staws, when the obvious conclusion to Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 is the correct conclusion. Isn't that the way it usually works? The obvious conclusion is the correct conclusion.

It's of no use to claim that "eis" can or should be translated as because. Can you show me where ANY scholarship has at any time undertaken to translate or to render it in this fashion in any version of the bible?

If you were to remove your prior teaching and start with a clean slate when you read, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned", what would be your conclusion?

Instead of trying to explain this verse away, you accept it for what it says.

Now, did Jesus really mean "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned." or did he mean something else?

Show me how the wall of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith.

Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition.

With your ability and knowledge, just think how strong an agrument you could make for eis meaning "into" or in order to obtain, in Acts 2:38. If you were to do that, I am certain it would be exceedingly better than your attempt to explain it away. I for one, would love to see that.

DHK

07-12-2005, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by mman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />You are answering a question with a question. In other words you have avoided answering the question completely. Let me state it again. Was John's Baptism because the people had repented or in order to receive repentance? Answer the question. Which one?
DHK 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. This is clearly seen back in verse 8 where he commanded them to bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Once again the eis points forward and not backwards as you would have it to do.

This is a clear attempt at grapsing at staws, when the obvious conclusion to Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 is the correct conclusion. Isn't that the way it usually works? The obvious conclusion is the correct conclusion. [/QUOTE]You have not directly answered my question, have you? You have evaded it. All your theology will fall if you answer that question correctly. Because you refuse I will answer it for you. John baptized "unto" repentance, or because they had repented. He would not have baptized an unrepentant Jew. He demanded that they bring forth "fruit fruit fit for repentance." Otherwise he would not baptize them. "On the basis of" or "Because of" their repentance he would baptize them. It is a very simple passage to understand. But you won't admit this because it absolutely devastates almost everything that you have posted.

Prepositions do not have future and past tense. Don't deceive people with this malarkey. They are prepositions, not verbs with different tenses. Acts 2:38 uses the word eis which in the KJV is translated "for." A KJVO would have a heyday with you.

Example:
I went to the store "for" (in order to obtain) a carton of milk.

I went to the store for (on behalf of, or because of) a friend).
I went to the store for a friend for some milk for his friend for some milk for another of his friends for some more mild for another friend for yet more milk for yet another friend for still more milk for still another friend...
I hope you get the idea.
The word "for" has more than one meaning (because being one of them) as does the word "eis").

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
--The word "on" is eis.
Do they not believe ON Christ because of what He has said, and done, and because of who he is?
The meaning of eis is obvious. It means because. Because of who Christ is, they believed. That is what Christ was inviting them to do.

All your arguments are destroyed because you fail to answer this one question about John baptizing because of repentance. It is too bad you cannot see such a simple thing.
DHK

mman

07-12-2005, 04:52 PM

You have not directly answered my question, have you? Yes, I answered your question, but you did not like the answer. You have not even attempted to answer any of my questions. I suspect I know why.

You are the one evading questions. By your logic, Jesus' blood was shed because people's sins had already been forgiven. You grasps at straws trying to convince yourself and others that you are right. You cannot accept the clear teaching of the scriptures, but resort to name calling.

The real Greek scholars are not on your side. Not one translation ever translates eis as “because” in Acts 2:38. I challenge you to find one time where it is. If eis and hoti are synonyms, then of the 1773 times eis is used, you should have quite a few times where “eis” is actually translated as “because”. Show me where eis is translated as “because”, since they are synonyms, as you claim. I say this is a baseless false claim, and challenge you to prove me wrong.

The real question is what is the meaning of “eis aphesin hamartion”. It either means, "in order to obtain the remission of sins" or "because your sins have already been forgiven." Those are the only two options as I see it. Quite simply you want it to mean one thing in Acts 2:38 and something totally different in Matt 26:28. Any argument for “eis” meaning because in Acts 2:38 also applies to Matt 26:28, since there is nothing in the context to suggest they have different meaning.

It's of no use to claim that "eis" can or should be translated as because. Can you show me where ANY scholarship has at any time undertaken to translate or to render it in this fashion in any version of the bible? YOU CANNOT!!! There is good reason for that, because the Greek does not support that.

I went to the store "for" (in order to obtain) a carton of milk.Now look at the phrase "for a carton of milk".

If I had another sentence, "My father gave me some money "for a carton of milk".

In both instances, the action was done in order to obtain a carton of milk, not because they already had a carton of milk.

This is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many "for the remission of sins". - Matt 26:28

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus "for the remission of sins". - Acts 2:38

Both actions are so that people can obtain the remission of sins, not because their sins are already forgiven.

You have continually evaded the following. Did Jesus really mean "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned." or did he mean something else?

Your previous explanition said "what Jesus means" implies that it means something other than the obvious meaning in the passage. In other words, it doesn't mean what it says it means this....

Show me how the wall of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith.

Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition of faith.

DHK

07-13-2005, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by mman:
You have not directly answered my question, have you? Yes, I answered your question, but you did not like the answer.Perhaps because it was neither logical nor Scriptural. It is absurd to think that the entire theology of the COC hinges on a three letter Greek prepositon. Just think. If you are wrong in your interpretation of that one preposition, your entire theology is washed down the drain and into the garbage where it belongs. Baptismal regeneration is just that. And yet you conveniently ignore the arguments I have clearly set before you and try to go off on other rabbit trails, by asking other unrelated questions which BTW have already been answered.
You have not even attempted to answer any of my questions. I suspect I know why.What do you suspect? That I have already answered them in previous posts. You would be right if that is what you suspect. Secondly, is that I will not even bother to read any of what you have written unti you give suitiable answers to the one main topic of the last two or three posts, i.e. Did not John baptize because of those that had alreadly repented, or in order that they might receive repentance? Which one? Why do you beat around the bush? Why can't you give a clear answer? "I suspect I know why." smile.gif

You are the one evading questions. By your logic, Jesus' blood was shed because people's sins had already been forgiven.Heresy. By my logic the blood of Jesus Christ washes away all sin, of those who believe on Christ.
By your logic, water some how superstitiously washes away sin (as Pagan Hindus believe) for all those who believe that baptism is a part of salvation (as the COC). We call that damnable heresy.
You grasps at straws trying to convince yourself and others that you are right. You cannot accept the clear teaching of the scriptures, but resort to name calling.Calling the kettle black?
I have been accused of attributing the work of God to Satan.
I have been accused of blashpemy of the Holy Spirit.
I have been accused of many other things that are totally unwarranted, none of which can be proven through Scripture. That falls under the category of false accusations and name-calling. A blasphemer is a serious charge.
Clean up your own act first before making such charges.

The real Greek scholars are not on your side.I take that to mean the "real" "COC" scholars? Otherwise you are wrong.
Not one translation ever translates eis as “because” in Acts 2:38. I challenge you to find one time where it is. If eis and hoti are synonyms, then of the 1773 times eis is used, you should have quite a few times where “eis” is actually translated as “because”. Show me where eis is translated as “because”, since they are synonyms, as you claim. I say this is a baseless false claim, and challenge you to prove me wrong.I have already answered that challenge, you do not accept my answer.

The real question is what is the meaning of “eis aphesin hamartion”. It either means, "in order to obtain the remission of sins" or "because your sins have already been forgiven." Those are the only two options as I see it. Quite simply you want it to mean one thing in Acts 2:38 and something totally different in Matt 26:28. Any argument for “eis” meaning because in Acts 2:38 also applies to Matt 26:28, since there is nothing in the context to suggest they have different meaning. Quite simply put, you are diverting this discussion away from Mat.3:11 again. Did John baptize because they had repented? Yes or No?

It's of no use to claim that "eis" can or should be translated as because. Can you show me where ANY scholarship has at any time undertaken to translate or to render it in this fashion in any version of the bible? YOU CANNOT!!! There is good reason for that, because the Greek does not support that. You are wrong. The Greek obviously does support; you don't. You blindly do not want to accept the evidence given in Mat.3:11 neither in John 7:38.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
--on means "because of"

I went to the store "for" (in order to obtain) a carton of milk. Now look at the phrase "for a carton of milk".

If I had another sentence, "My father gave me some money "for a carton of milk".

In both instances, the action was done in order to obtain a carton of milk, not because they already had a carton of milk.You failed to see the point or deliberately confused it. Let me put it plainly so you can see it.
I went to the store for a friend.
I went to the store because of a friend.
for = because of.
Does that make it plain enough. The word "for" also may take on the meaning of "because of" just as the word "eis" also can.

Again it is so pitiful that a cult has to establish its entire religion on one three letter preposition in just one verse in the Bible. Everything that they believe hangs on just that one word. How pitiful.
DHK

mman

07-13-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
Perhaps because it was neither logical nor Scriptural. It is absurd to think that the entire theology of the COC hinges on a three letter Greek prepositon. Just think. If you are wrong in your interpretation of that one preposition, your entire theology is washed down the drain and into the garbage where it belongs. Baptismal regeneration is just that. And yet you conveniently ignore the arguments I have clearly set before you and try to go off on other rabbit trails, by asking other unrelated questions which BTW have already been answered.If you think my entire theology is washed down the drain, you obviously have a shallow understanding of what I believe the bible teaches.

You are the one trying to force me down a rabbit trail. You want to look at one word in the phrase, I want to look at the entire phase “eis aphesin hamartion”. . The entire phase is always used only in conjuction with baptism, with the one exception in Matt 26:28. That is what is important, not your preceived notion that, 1 or possibly 2 times of the more than 1700 times it is used, that eis might possibly mean because. Then you try to go to the english to prove your point.

Where is the word eis used in Mark 16:16? Where is the word eis used in Acts 22:16? Where is the word eis used in I Pet 3:21? Isn't the logical conclusion of these verses that baptism is tied to salvation and the washing away of our sins. Again, you will have to have help to misunderstand these passages.

I don't believe you have to be a greek scholar to understand God's word. Yes, you can have a better understanding, but it is not required.

The scholars I referenced are those who translated the various versions. No, they were not all members of the church. They had various backgrounds. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM TRANSLATE EIS AS BECAUSE IN ACTS 2:38. Those are the scholars I reference. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find where eis is ever translated as because.

John's baptism is different than what is in effect today. His was unto repentance not because of repentance.

In Acts 2:38, they were told to repent and be baptized... "for the remission of sins". The same phrase is used in Matt 26:28, For this is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many "for the remission of sins".

Do you have any trouble understanding what "for the remission of sins" means in Matt 26:28? Then why do you try so hard to misunderstand it in Acts 2:38?

No, you don't have to be a Greek scholar to understand the bible.

I am not a Greek scholar. I am a pitiful Greek student. I am not a preacher, I am just a Christian.

I believe Jesus meant exactly what he said in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

I believe any third grader can read and understand exactly what this says.

And for the record, I have never read a reply to any of the following questions on this or any other posts. I have asked them repeatedly, yet you refuse to answer, or I have missed your answer.

Now, did Jesus really mean "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned." or did he mean something else?

Show me how the walls of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith. (Heb 11:30)

Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition of faith.(Heb 11:7)

Heresy. By my logic the blood of Jesus Christ washes away all sin, of those who believe on Christ.
By your logic, water some how superstitiously washes away sin (as Pagan Hindus believe) for all those who believe that baptism is a part of salvation (as the COC). We call that damnable heresy. THAT IS A FALSE CLAIM, I challenge you to ever find where I stated that the power is in the water or that the water superstitiously washes away ours sins. As a moderator, I think you should know better. You either misunderstand or are willingly trying to misrepresent.

So you will not be confused, there is no power in the water. The power is in the blood. In another post, I clearly laid out how we come in contact with the blood, using the scriptures. NOBODY PRESENTED ANY OTHER OPTION USING SCRIPTURE, they only threw rocks and chaff.

Was there any power in the water when Naaman dipped 7 times in the Jordan river or was the power in God? When was Naaman cleased? He had to be reminded that it wasn't hard, he just had to wash and be cleansed. Just because God uses water does not mean the power is in the water. The power is in God and the blood of Christ. Just because God, through the prophet told Naaman to wash and be clean or God, through Ananias, told Saul to be baptized and wash away your sins, does not mean the power is in the water. It is in God who gave the instructions.

If the power were in the water, we wouldn't need the blood of Christ. We are baptized INTO his death (Rom 6:3-4). You cannot show how we come in contact with his death, if you exclude baptism. That is where his blood flowed. His blood was shed "for the remission of sins". Peter told those believers in Acts 2 to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins." We are baptized into Christ (Gal 3:26-27, Rom 6:3-4). From the scriptures, you can only find one way into Christ. It is only in Christ where we have redemption by the blood (Eph 1:7). God is the one working, not us, according to Col 2:12. Baptism is faith on our part (Col 2:12, Gal 3:26-27).

Now you claim Jesus blood cleans "all those who believe in Chirst". If that were the case, then those in Acts 2:47 were cleansed when they believed which was before they repented. They obviously were believers who were cut to the heart. Is that what you believe and teach that a person is cleansed by the blood of Christ when they believe, prior to repentance? If they had already repented, Peter's instructions to repent and be baptized would have been meaningless and confusing.

Just when did those people in Acts 2 receive the remission of sins?

If baptism is for (unto and not because of) the remission of sins, does if fit with other passages that deal directly with baptism?

Does that fit perfectly with Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved? (No explanitions required)
Does that fit perfectly with Acts 22:16, be baptized and wash away your sins? (No explanitions required)
Does that fit perfectly with I Pet 3:21, baptism doth now also save us? (No explanitions required)
Does that fit perfectly with Rom 6:3-4, Baptized into Christ Jesus, baptized into his death, raised to walk in newness of life? (No explanitions required)
Does that fit perfectly with Gal 3:26-27, For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ? (No explanitions required)

Once you adjust your defintion of faith, to the biblical definition of faith, everything fits. Until that time, you have to explain away the clear passages that deal with baptism that require help to misunderstand them.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned -Mark 16:16

This verse tells us what it takes to be saved and what it takes to be condemned. What is the result of not believing it?

DHK

07-13-2005, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by mman:
[
John's baptism is different than what is in effect today. His was unto repentance not because of repentance.
That's all you have to admit isn't it. It was unto repentance.
unto = because of
"unto" is the word "eis"

bmerr

07-13-2005, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
unto = because of
"unto" is the word "eis" [/QB]DHK,

bmerr here. Are you KIDDING???? Do you honestly believe that "unto" means "because of"?

So should we read the Great Invitation in Matt 11:28 as "Come because of me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest"?

That doesn't even make sense, in any language.

John preached "...the baptism of repentance for (unto-marginal reading) the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4).

Those who were convinced of their sinfulness, and were repentant were to be baptized for the remission of sins.

Some who attended his baptism were not repentant, but had questions about who he was and why he was baptizing (John 1:19-25).

John undoubtably drew a crowd. Luke records those who came to be baptized of him being told to "bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance..." (Luke 3:8). They asked him what they should do, and were given instructions on repentance in Luke 3:11-14.

John taught, in effect, that baptism without repentance would be ineffectual (John 3:7-14).

So it was not a baptism toward repentance and the remission of sins, but baptism (because) of repentance for (toward, unto, the end result being) the remission of sins.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

07-13-2005, 01:44 PM

mman,

bmerr here. Welcome back, brother.

In Christ,

bmerr

BobRyan

07-13-2005, 02:00 PM

Still waiting for a response to the details in Acts 10 that seem to refute all that is being said about forgiveness and the new birth not being available prior to water Baptism.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Tongues prophecy etc) given to the saved or the unsaved?

The forgiven or the lost?

The born-again or the unregenerate? Originally posted by bmerr:

If you're referring to Cornelius and household, may I refer you to the "Sinner's prayer" board, and my response to StefanM (page 3, I think)? In summary, let me say that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and them to convince the Jewish brethren who had come with Peter that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to them, not to demonstrate that they were already saved.Regardless of the "strategy" God was using for the Jews - the question remains. Are the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12) for believers or unbelievers? Are they for the born-again or for the unsaved?

If they are for the saved - the born again -- then you have a problem in Acts 10 trying to say that Cornelius AND his household were all unforgiven -- yet filled with the Spirit and given the 1Cor 12 Gifts - do you not?

#2. Was the Theif on the Cross ever saved? Forgiven? Born again? A saint? Originally posted by bmerr:

Saved? Yes. Forgiven? Yes. A saint? Yes.

Was it at his baptism?

Can one be a SAVED - FORGIVEN SAINT without being in the New Covenant or being a new creation or being born again??

Originally posted by bmerr:

Born again under the New Testament? No.
Is John 3 part of the New Testament?

Was Jesus lying to Nicodemus in John 3?

Was the incident in John 3 "before the Cross"?

Did Jesus say "Some day in the future the spirit will move upon the heart of a person and they will be born again according to the new rules about which a Jewish teacher of scripture would not heave any information because all you have is scripture"??

Originally posted by bmerr:

Jesus had not yet died, and so the New Testament could not yet be in force
So then he was "lying to Nicodemus" ??

John 3

3 Jesus answered and said to him, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.''
4 Nicodemus said to Him, ""How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?''
5 Jesus answered, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 "" That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 ""Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.'
8 "" The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.''
9 Nicodemus said to Him, ""How can these things be?''
10 Jesus answered and said to him, ""Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
[/QUOTE]

BobRyan

07-13-2005, 02:05 PM

Were the saved-forgiven-saints of Heb 11 (in the OT) "Born-again" or were their lives the "fruit" of the "wicked tree" in Matt 7 (pre-cross) that was "good"??

Does the fallen condition of man - and his sinful nature - require the new birth, new creation for him to have MATT 7 "Good fruit" or does the good fruit come from "a bad tree"??

Is repentance, obedience, choosing baptism etc -- "a good fruit"?

In Christ,

Bob

Doubting Thomas

07-13-2005, 02:14 PM

mman:
Was there any power in the water when Naaman dipped 7 times in the Jordan river or was the power in God? When was Naaman cleased? He had to be reminded that it wasn't hard, he just had to wash and be cleansed. Just because God uses water does not mean the power is in the water. The power is in God and the blood of Christ. Just because God, through the prophet told Naaman to wash and be clean or God, through Ananias, told Saul to be baptized and wash away your sins, does not mean the power is in the water. It is in God who gave the instructions.Excellent analogy and illustration. graemlins/thumbs.gif

mman

07-13-2005, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
[
John's baptism is different than what is in effect today. His was unto repentance not because of repentance.
That's all you have to admit isn't it. It was unto repentance.
unto = because of
"unto" is the word "eis" [/QUOTE]"Unto" is a word for "eis", not "because of". It was unto repentance not because of repentance. John's baptism was different that what we have today. I do not read where repentance was a prerequisite for John's baptism. John came preaching repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He told them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. I think, and yes, I said, "I think", baptism was unto repentance, it was a part of the repentance process, not done after the repentance was complete. That is why baptism was unto repentance, not because they had already repented.

Mark states it this way in 1:4, John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Note, this is not a baptism because of repentance but a baptism of repentance, or a baptism repentance which was certainly for (or unto) the remission of sins. Check the Greek and see what you find out.

Prepositions can have direction. Eis always points forward, never in retrospect. It deals with reaching an unreached end.

Surely you can discern the difference in running "toward" the house and running "away" from the house. You can't look toward yesterday, but you can look toward tomorrow.

You can walk "into" a room, walk backwards "into" a room, run "into" a room, crawl into a room, jump into a room, etc., but you are always headed in the same direction, "into" the room.

Now, answer my questions, if you dare.

[ July 13, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: mman ]

mman

07-13-2005, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
mman,

bmerr here. Welcome back, brother.

In Christ,

bmerr Thanks. It's good to be back.

bmerr

07-13-2005, 04:13 PM

BobRyan,

bmerr here. Didn't mean to skip you, Bob.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] Still waiting for a response to the details in Acts 10 that seem to refute all that is being said about forgiveness and the new birth not being available prior to water Baptism.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
#1. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Tongues prophecy etc) given to the saved or the unsaved?

The forgiven or the lost?

The born-again or the unregenerate?In answer to your question, this may not satisfy, but I'd like to go to the OT.

In 1 Sam 10, we read of the annointing of Saul as king of Israel. Samuel tells Saul the events that will take place in the near future, one of which is that the Spirit of the LORD will come upon Saul, and he will prophesy (10:2-6).

Sure enough, these things come to pass, and Saul did indeed prophesy when the Spirit of the LORD came upon him (10:10).

Did this mean that Saul was saved? We know that near the end of his life, Saul had gone so far as to resort to witchcraft, murdered the priests of Nob, and had generally displayed comtempt for God and His commands. I'd say he died a lost man.

Or how about Balaam? He was a prophet, God spoke to him, and he prophesied as the Spirit of God came upon him (Num 22:6-24:25). Yet, in the NT, he is remembered only for his error (Jude 11).

Or even Balaam's ass? She spoke in a tongue that was unnatural to her, but do you think she will be in Heaven?

I realize these are OT examples, and we are in the NT, but I think they show that the fact of the Holy Spirit coming upon someone does not neccessitate their being saved.

are for the saved - the born again -- then you have a problem in Acts 10 trying to say that Cornelius AND his household were all unforgiven -- yet filled with the Spirit and given the 1Cor 12 Gifts - do you not?Bob, I'd say the bigger problem would be to say that Cornelius and household were saved before they ever heard the gospel.

Since "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17), they could not have been saved, since the HS fell on them as Peter began to speak (Acts 11:15), at which point he had not even spoken the name of Christ (Acts 10:34, 35).

An exception to the rule for the gifts of the Spirit is far more plausible than an exception to the law of pardon for sinners under the NT.

#2. Was the Theif on the Cross ever saved? Forgiven? Born again? A saint? Originally posted by bmerr:

Saved? Yes. Forgiven? Yes. A saint? Yes.

Was it at his baptism?

Can one be a SAVED - FORGIVEN SAINT without being in the New Covenant or being a new creation or being born again??[/QUOTE]If you think about it, Bob, it can't be proven whether the thief had been baptized or not. There were many from Jerusalem, Judea, and all around Jordan that went out to be baptized by John (Matt 3:5, 6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:7; John 3:23).

Who is to say that the thief was not of this number.

Regardless, he was still under the OT, since Christ had not yet died (Heb 9:16, 17).

Oh, and yes, there are such things as OT saints. Take Moses and Elijah for example seen with Jesus at the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:3).

Is John 3 part of the New Testament?

Was Jesus lying to Nicodemus in John 3?

Was the incident in John 3 "before the Cross"?The book of John (as well as the other gospel accounts) are in the section of our Bibles labeled as "The New Testament". The gospel accounts introduce us to the Mediator of the NT (Heb 9:15), the testator (Heb 9:16, 17) Whose testament the New Testament is.

While Jesus walked among men, salvation was His to give to whoever He wanted to, under whatever conditions He chose (John 5:26, 27).

But since the cross, where the testator died, eternal life, which is His to give, can only be given in accordance with the New Testament. This requires men to hear the word (Rom 10:17), believe it(John 3:16), repent of sins (Luke 13:3, 5), confess Christ as the Son of God (Acts 8:37), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

No, Jesus did not lie to Nicodemus. He spoke of the kingdom, which had not yet been established, but would be shortly, and was in Acts 2.

Yes, John 3 was before the cross, and therefore, under the Old Testament.

Did Jesus say "Some day in the future the spirit will move upon the heart of a person and they will be born again according to the new rules about which a Jewish teacher of scripture would not heave any information because all you have is scripture"??No, as I said, Jesus was speaking of future things.

8 " The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.''
9 Nicodemus said to Him, ""How can these things be?''
10 Jesus answered and said to him, ""Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
I don't understand how it is that so many think this passage of Scripture teaches the Spirit "blowing around" saving people. Let's look at the text again, shall we?

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

First off, the Holy Spirit is not even a glorified "it", let alone just an ordinary old "it".

Second, in this text there are only two things blowing, the wind, and people. If you want the Holy Spirit to blow, you're going to have to find another passage of Scripture to show it.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

07-13-2005, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by mman:
I do not read where repentance was a prerequisite for John's baptism. Then you don't read your Bible, and this is where your confusion lies.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

What did John say:
Matthew 3:7-8 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Mat.3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. (Because of their repentance, or on the basis of their repentance. They had to bring forth fruit thereof, to prove that they had repented.)

Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

What did John do? He baptized on the basis of repentance. He would only baptize a person if they could prove that they had repented.
But you won't believe the Bible will you. You deny the evidence. The evidence that "unto" repentance means "because" of their repentance--an inescapable fact.
DHK

mman

07-14-2005, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
Then you don't read your Bible, and this is where your confusion lies.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.You still don't understand do you? Baptism was unto repentance. I've read the verses you listed many times and none of them preclude what I have already written. All show that it was a baptism of repentance not a baptism because they repented.

Now, for John 5:39, read and understand it.

Why have you been avoiding the following like the plague?

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Now, did Jesus really mean "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned." or did he mean something else?

Why not accept that baptism if for (unto and not because of) the remission of sins – The logical conclusion of Acts 2:38?

Why not accept that baptism washes away our sins – the logical conclusion of Acts 22:16?

Why not accept that baptism puts us INTO Christ, the logical conclusion of Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27?

Why not accept that baptism saves us, the logical conclusion of I Pet 3:21?

Why not accept that baptism is part of faith as shown in Gal 3:26-27 and Col 2:12?

Why not accept that water baptism is part of preaching Jesus as seen in Acts 8:35-36?

No matter how much you would like for these verses to be removed or re-worded, they continue to remain.

I have asked you time and time again to show the following two things, on this post and other post, yet you refuse to answer or cannot answer.

Show me how the walls of Jericho can fall by your definition of faith.

Show me how Noah can prepare an Ark by faith, using your definition of faith.

Your whole arguement stems around Acts 2:38 can't mean what it says, because that would violate what you believe about Eph 2:8-9. Therefore you have to find an obscure meaning, much different from the obvious meaning, and accept it. It doesn't matter that the exact phase is used in conjunction with the shedding of Jesus' blood and it must have a totally different meaning there(Matt 26:28) than in Acts 2:38.

It's of no use to claim that "eis" can or should be translated as because. Can you show me where ANY scholarship has at any time undertaken to translate or to render it in this fashion in any version of the bible? YOU CANNOT!!! There is good reason for that, because the Greek does not support that. I am still waiting for even one time where the scholarly translators have ever translated "eis" as "because", anywhere, not just in Acts 2:38.

As I've stated before, in Acts 2:38, they were told to repent and be baptized... "for the remission of sins". The same phrase is used in Matt 26:28, For this is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many "for the remission of sins".

Do you have any trouble understanding what "for the remission of sins" means in Matt 26:28? Then why do you try so hard to misunderstand it in Acts 2:38?

Now you claim Jesus blood cleans "all those who believe in Chirst". If that were the case, then those in Acts 2:37 were cleansed when they believed which was before they repented. They obviously were believers who were cut to the heart. What would you have told them to do? What did Peter tell them to do? Did you get the same answer? I did. Is that what you believe and teach that a person is cleansed by the blood of Christ when they believe, prior to repentance? If they had already repented, Peter's instructions to repent and be baptized would have been meaningless and confusing.

Just when did those people in Acts 2 receive the remission of sins?

You see, the verse you listed, John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me", indicates that some people think they have eternal life and they don't.

Matt 7:21 tells of sincere believers who will be lost. Of course they were false teachers, but obviously sincere since they were disputing with the Lord concerning their final judgment.

While sincerity is important, it is the truth that sanctifies. God's word is truth (Jn 17:17). Part of that truth is "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16. Truth always lies in parallel. No verse ever nullifies Mark 16:16, it can only compliment it. Eph 2:8-9 does not nullify it, it only compliments it. I've shown many times in the past how these two verses are in complete harmony.

IF Acts 2:38 really meant that we were baptized because our sins were already forgiven, would that contradict any scripture? Yes it would.

Mark 16:16 would have to be changed from its obvoius meaning to "He that believeth is saved and should be baptized".

Acts 22:16 would have to be changed from its obvious meaning to say, "Arise and be baptized as a symbol to show that your sins have already been washed away"

I Pet 3:21 would need to be changed from it obvious meaning to "Baptism is a symbol that you are already saved".

Rom 6:3-4 would have to be changed from it's obvious meaning from we are "baptized into Christ" to "baptism symbolized we are already in Christ".

Gal 3:26-27 would need to be changed to read, "For we are all childern of God by faith in Jesus Christ and baptism symbolizes that we are already in Christ".

Now, if these verses(and others) read that way, I would be right beside you, believing exactly the same as you do, but they don't read that way. Their obvious meaning has to be changed and twisted to make it fit.

We know what 2 Pet 3:16 says about twisting scripture, "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures".

I truly appreciate your zeal, and that is a fine quality to have.

DHK

07-14-2005, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by mman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DHK:
Then you don't read your Bible, and this is where your confusion lies.
I have explained and answered your questions countless of times. If you don't believe me ask Bmeer. Because you don't care to read through the entire thread for yourself is not my fault. You came into this conversation late. I am not interested in rehashing things that I have already answered. I have already challenged you

"Search the Scriptures" but you don't. That is your fault.
I have given you ample proof that the word eis in certain cases can be translated "because" or because of." You close your mind and mindlessly paste a COC rant which is typical of a cult-like answer. I have no reason to continue this conversation until or unless you first admit to what it says in Mat.3:11 as well as John 7:38. You totally ignore the Scriptures that go against your cultish belief and only post the half dozen or so verses (out of context) that support your unbiblical contention that water wahses away sin (a pagan supersition). That belief contradicts the great theme (justification by faith and faith alone) which runs through every book of the Bible.
DHK

mman

07-14-2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
Originally posted by DHK:
Then you don't read your Bible, and this is where your confusion lies.
I have explained and answered your questions countless of times. If you don't believe me ask Bmeer. Because you don't care to read through the entire thread for yourself is not my fault. You came into this conversation late. I am not interested in rehashing things that I have already answered. I have already challenged you

"Search the Scriptures" but you don't. That is your fault.
I have given you ample proof that the word eis in certain cases can be translated "because" or because of." You close your mind and mindlessly paste a COC rant which is typical of a cult-like answer. I have no reason to continue this conversation until or unless you first admit to what it says in Mat.3:11 as well as John 7:38. You totally ignore the Scriptures that go against your cultish belief and only post the half dozen or so verses (out of context) that support your unbiblical contention that water wahses away sin (a pagan supersition). That belief contradicts the great theme (justification by faith and faith alone) which runs through every book of the Bible.
DHK Of course you don't want to continue this conversation, because I keep posing the same questions you cannot answer. I understand why you can't. No matter how many times I have posed them to you, without exception, they are ignored.

I on the other hand have answered all your questions, yet you do not like the biblical answers I provide, so you begin with your usual inflammatory rhetoric designed to intimidate.

For your information, I have read the entire thread and you did not answer my questions anywhere.

Maybe I asked too many questions of you, so I will try it in much smaller pieces.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Did Jesus really mean this or did he mean to say something else? If he meant it, why don't you believe it? If he meant to say something else, why didn't he?

DHK

07-14-2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by mman:
Of course you don't want to continue this conversation, because I keep posing the same questions you cannot answer. I understand why you can't. No matter how many times I have posed them to you, without exception, they are ignored.What question have I ignored, except just recently.

I on the other hand have answered all your questions, yet you do not like the biblical answers I provide, so you begin with your usual inflammatory rhetoric designed to intimidate.You will not and cannot (according to your theology) answer me an honest answer RE: Mat.3:11 and John 7:38. Did John baptize in order that they would receive repentance, or because they had repented? Did he not require them to bring forth fruit suitable for repentance?
You evade these questions every time. You have not given an honest answer yet.

For your information, I have read the entire thread and you did not answer my questions anywhere.I have answered them all. If not in this thread, then in another related thread. The answer may have been directed to Bmeer, ask him. I have answered all of these same questions, and more than once.

Maybe I asked too many questions of you, so I will try it in much smaller pieces.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned.I have already provided an answer to that elsewhere.
Did Jesus really mean this or did he mean to say something else? If he meant it, why don't you believe it? If he meant to say something else, why didn't he? I have already answered that elsewhere and many times over.
DHK

bmerr

07-14-2005, 04:41 PM

Maybe I asked too many questions of you, so I will try it in much smaller pieces.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already provided an answer to that elsewhere.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Jesus really mean this or did he mean to say something else? If he meant it, why don't you believe it? If he meant to say something else, why didn't he?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already answered that elsewhere and many times over.
DHKDHK,

bmeer here. Perhaps mman missed your answers. You could copy and paste them to bring us all up to speed.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

07-14-2005, 04:46 PM

I have made my point clear Bmerr. I refuse to go down those trails over and over again, when Mman can't answer the one simple question I ask of him. Until I get an answer (and not a question answered back with a plethora of other questions) but a straightforward answer, I refuse to answer his other questions.
DHK

mman

07-14-2005, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
I have made my point clear Bmerr. I refuse to go down those trails over and over again, when Mman can't answer the one simple question I ask of him. Until I get an answer (and not a question answered back with a plethora of other questions) but a straightforward answer, I refuse to answer his other questions.
DHK John came preaching repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He told them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. This baptism was unto repentance, it was a part of the repentance process, not done after the repentance was complete. That is why baptism was unto repentance, not because they had already repented.

Mark states it this way in 1:4, John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Note, this is not a baptism because of repentance but a baptism of repentance, or a baptism repentance which was certainly for (or unto) the remission of sins. Check the Greek and see what you find out.

Let me make this as clear as I know how. John's baptism was unto repentance not because they had repented.

It was a baptism of repentance.(Acts 19:4, Mark 1:4, and Luke 3:3). From all indication, baptism was part of this repentance or reformation.

Matthew said it was a baptism unto repentance, which fits this idea perfectly.

Matt 3:11 - The baptism was unto repentance, not because they had already repented.

I can't help it if you don't like my answer. It is written as simply as I know how. Can you understand it?

And for the record, you have never answered my question concerning Mark 16:16 in this thread or any other thread. The closest you have ever come to attempting to answer it is post something someone else wrote who basically said Jesus didn't really mean what he said, he meant something else.

You have never in this thread or any other thread answered my challenge of using your definition of faith and show how the walls of Jericho fell.

There are many other questions you refuse to answer, and I accept that. That doesn't mean I am going to quit asking them.

This tactic of I'm not answering your question until you answer mine it very transparent and telling to me. I have answered time and time again, you just don't like the answer. Until you can show me where I'm wrong, I won't change. If you can, I will gladly change. Will you be as honest?

DHK

07-14-2005, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by mman:
John came preaching repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He told them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. This baptism was unto repentance, it was a part of the repentance process, not done after the repentance was complete. That is why baptism was unto repentance, not because they had already repented.The word "unto" is the Greek word "eis" meaning in this case "because of." Repentance is not, never was a process. It is a one-time act. There is no process of repentance. To say "part of the repentance process" is foolishness. You either repent or you don't.
"Except ye repent ye shall likewise perish."
John did not say: "to bear fruit in keeping with repentance."
Why are misquoting or misrepresenting Scripture. There is a penalty for adding to the Word of God. He said to bring forth fruit meet (or suitable) for repentance." There was nothing said "in keeping with repentance." That is deceptive. They were to bring forth fruit because they had repented, that is unto repentance. eis=unto=because of.

Mark states it this way in 1:4, John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Note, this is not a baptism because of repentance but a baptism of repentance, or a baptism repentance which was certainly for (or unto) the remission of sins. Check the Greek and see what you find out.You say this is not a baptism because of repentance. Then you preach heresy. The only way that John would baptize a person was on the basis of repentance. Not unless they had repented would he baptize them. Tell me: Did John ever baptize an unrepentant Pharisee?? Yes or No.

Let me make this as clear as I know how. John's baptism was unto repentance not because they had repented.The only reason that John would baptize anyone is because, or on the basis that they had repented. That is straightforward theology. Repentance was the basis upon which he baptized. That is not difficult to understand.

It was a baptism of repentance.(Acts 19:4, Mark 1:4, and Luke 3:3). From all indication, baptism was part of this repentance or reformation.As I have said before you need a dictionary. Repentance is not reformation. A man can do all the reforming he wants, but he well never get saved through reformation. Man needs regeneration not reformation.
Jesus commmanded all men to repent, not to reform.
We wouldn't have reformatories if people repented.
Repentance is a one-time act. It is not a process. Otherwise Jesus would not have given a choice: Repent or perish. There is no way that baptism could ever be a part of repentance. That doesn't make sense. Repentance isn't a process in which baptism can be a part of.

Example.
Turn on your computer and take a bath. Turning on your computer is an act, not a process. Taking a bath has nothing to do with turning on your computer. It is something unrelated that you can do afterward. That is about the same comparison (and about as far-fetched) as you saying that baptism is a part of "a repentance process." It is not. It doesn't even make sense.

Matthew said it was a baptism unto repentance, which fits this idea perfectly.

Matt 3:11 - The baptism was unto repentance, not because they had already repented.Matthew said it like it is. It was a baptism "unto" (because of) repentance. The Greek allows that meaning. It is too bad that you reject Scripture. Your view of Scripture is skewed by your own presuppositions. I can show you in all 66 books of the Bible the great and wondrous theme: justification by faith alone. But you have to rely on just a half dozen verses in the Bible. Don't you think something is terribly wrong when your few verses go against the totality of the Bible?

I can't help it if you don't like my answer. It is written as simply as I know how. Can you understand it?I can never understand people who get caught up in damnable heresies.

And for the record, you have never answered my question concerning Mark 16:16 in this thread or any other thread. The closest you have ever come to attempting to answer it is post something someone else wrote who basically said Jesus didn't really mean what he said, he meant something else.

You have never in this thread or any other thread answered my challenge of using your definition of faith and show how the walls of Jericho fell.

There are many other questions you refuse to answer, and I accept that. That doesn't mean I am going to quit asking them.

This tactic of I'm not answering your question until you answer mine it very transparent and telling to me. I have answered time and time again, you just don't like the answer. Until you can show me where I'm wrong, I won't change. If you can, I will gladly change. Will you be as honest? I have indeed answered those questions, and many times over. In fact I tire of answering them over and over again. That is why I try to get you to stick to one topic at a time. But you use the same J.W. tactic--when cornered spray a whole lot of questions and divert the topic to another.
DHK

mman

07-18-2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
Matthew said it like it is. It was a baptism "unto" (because of) repentance. The Greek allows that meaning. It is too bad that you reject Scripture. Your view of Scripture is skewed by your own presuppositions. I can show you in all 66 books of the Bible the great and wondrous theme: justification by faith alone. But you have to rely on just a half dozen verses in the Bible. Don't you think something is terribly wrong when your few verses go against the totality of the Bible?Just how many times does it have to be stated for it to be true?

Justification has never been by faith alone. You cannot show even one example of justification by faith alone.

You claim I reject scripture. I reject no scripture. I am not willing to go beyond what is written. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance or a baptism unto repentance. That's all the scripture says. I can show where you reject scripture.

James says, "if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" - Jas 2:14

DHK would have to answer Yes - we are justified by faith alone.

James said, "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." - James 2:17

DHK would have to teach that faith alone is alive and justifies.

James said, " that faith apart from works is useless" - James 2:20

DHK teaches faith apart from works is useful, since it justifies.

James says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24

DHK says man is justified by faith alone apart from works.

Without Heb 11, I'm sure you would argue that by works Noah prepared an ark for the saving of his household.

The scriptures clearly teach that by faith, Noah prepared an ark (Heb 11:7).

Without Heb 11, I'm sure you would argue that by works the walls of Jericho fell down.

The scriptures clearly teach the wall fell by faith. (Heb 11:30)

Josh 6:2 states, "And the LORD said to Joshua, "See, I have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and mighty men of valor. "

God had given them something. It was a gift. When they complied with the instructions, the walls fell down. They didn't earn it, it was given. If they "earned" it, then we could perform those same actions today and God would be obligated to make the walls fall down.

In Heb 11, show where anyone was justified who only believed.

You see, when we obey God's instructions it is called faith. Read Heb 11.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Was Jesus kidding? Do you believe Jesus? Was Jesus trying to deceive us?

You see, when we obey this instruction, God calls it faith. We are not earning anything. Your definition of works would also include confession, but even you don't think that confession is a work of merit, do you?

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

Baptism is not a work of merit but an act of faith. If it were meritious, then God would be obligated to forgive the sins of anyone who at any time was ever plunged beneath the water for any reason. Just as it can be said that by faith... Noah prepared an ark, or by the faith, the walls of Jericho fell down, it can be said, by faith we are baptized into Christ (Gal 3:26-27).

You see, to claim justification by faith alone and proving justification by faith alone are two totally separate things. You ignore the plain teachings on baptism because they don't fit with your belief of justification by faith only. Just because you ignore them doesn't make them go away. On another post, you tried to show justification by faith alone by listing verses from Matt to the first part of Romans, yet I showed you where it was justification by faith (not faith alone) and that none of your listed passages precluded baptism.

Now, did Jesus really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and the that believeth not shall be condemned." or did he mean something else?

Is this verse not valid because it does not fit with your belief of justification by faith only?

Read and study all of Hebrews 11 to understand biblical faith. Without this type of faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God.

Where ever you see the word faith in Heb 11, I want you to substitute "belief only" and see how miserably that fits. Faith is not belief only. It is hearing God, believing or trusting God and obedience to God's instructions.

bmerr

07-19-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by DHK:

Does an “antitype,” a figure of speech, a symbol, save? Is this what you are saying? That is what Peter is saying. Obviously then Peter is not referring to the act of baptism as giving spiritual salvation. Your hermeneutics is badly wanting. Symbols don’t and cannot save. DHK,

bmerr here. I may be mistaken, but a "type" is symbolic, while an "anti-type" is actual. The symbolic always precedes the real.

So in the text at hand, the flood is a type of baptism, in which the sin of the world was washed away, while baptism is the antetype, or the real thing. The flood was a "like figure" of baptism, which "doth also now save us".

Now you have stated that baptism does not save one from sin. But the Bible very plainly states that at least in some sense, baptism "doth also now save us".

If not from sin, then from what?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

07-20-2005, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:

bmerr here. I may be mistaken, but a "type" is symbolic, while an "anti-type" is actual. The symbolic always precedes the real.

So in the text at hand, the flood is a type of baptism, in which the sin of the world was washed away, while baptism is the antetype, or the real thing. The flood was a "like figure" of baptism, which "doth also now save us".

Now you have stated that baptism does not save one from sin. But the Bible very plainly states that at least in some sense, baptism "doth also now save us".

If not from sin, then from what?

In Christ,
bmerr The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us KJV
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism ASV
which figure also now saves you, [even] baptism, Darby
This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you WEB

Perhaps you should use a better translation, one that doesn't confuse you. I've quoted from four different translations, including the KJV.
"The like figure"
"after a true likeness"
"Which figure"
this is a symbol This last one (the WEB) makes it very plain doesn't it. Baptism is a symbol. BTW, how much English grammar have you had? Did you ever learn how to diagram sentences?
Let's break down the statement phrase by phrase until we have the basic subject and predicate, and leave the modifiers out.

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:
--Though it ends in a colon and continues on in the next verse, this verse in itself could be considered as a sentence in itself.
"The like figure" The meaninig is obvious. I just quoted it to you from four different translations. It is an introductory phrase meaning "symbolically speaking." Baptism in the Bible is always presented as a symbol, and Peter comes right out and says so here. The WEB translation puts it best.
The basic part of the verse is: "baptism saves us," but it does have some conditions and qualifiers that define what baptism it is that saves us. We know that it is not a physical water baptism by our introduction. "This is a symbol." Symbolically speaking baptism saves us. That means that it is not that baptism saves. Baptism is a symbol of something else that saves. It says outright that it is a symbol.
Now Peter goes on and makes that thought even more clear:

"baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,"
Aaaaah, so it is not the physical baptism that saves. It is not water baptism that cleanses us from sin, or puts away the filth of the flesh. No baptism can do that. That is a silly superstition, and I think Peter would agree to that otherwise why would he write such?
So that phrase eliminates water baptism as any possibility of being a rite that can save or remit sin. It doesn't. Peter says so right there.

Thus:
baptism doth also now save us,Not...but the answer of a good conscience toward God,
What saves? Not the baptism. BUT the answer of a good conscience toward God. What must my conscience answer to?
"by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" My conscience must answer to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (which is the gospel that saves). Without the resurrection there is no gospel, no saving power. And baptism is symbolic of this message--of his death, his resurrection. It is a symbol. Faith in Christ saves. Noah did not put faith in the destructive waters of the flood to save him. He put faith in the ark (Christ) to save him.
DHK

mman

07-20-2005, 07:14 AM

DHK - Your mental gymnastics are remarkable.

Here are some more literal translations:

I Pet 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 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, (NKJV)

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, (NAS)

I Pet 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (ESV)

I Pet 3:20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; 21also to which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, (YLT)

You refuse to accept the plain teaching of this passage. Baptism saves us. No, the power is not in the water, washing away your sins the way it washes away dirt, but is done in response to God and just as he raised Christ from the dead, we are also raised from the dead (Read Rom 6).

The parenthetical phrase is giving more detail concerning baptism, it does not change the meaning of the first part of the sentence. If sin were washed away the same as dirt, then every time water touched your body, it would be washing away sin. No, of course it doesn't work that way and that is what Peter is teaching.

You dismiss the obvious teaching of this passage because it doesn't fit your other beliefs. If you truly studied this passage to learn the meaning of it, without trying to satisfy your other beliefs, you would no doubt come to the conclusion that "baptism now saves you" - NAS.

When Naaman was cleansed from his leprosy, was the power in water or in God? Did the water wash away his leprosy the same way water washes away dirt? Peter is clearly teaching the same thing.

This passage clearly teaches Baptism saves us. You teach Baptism does not save us.

This reminds me of how the word "not" is inserted where God did not have it,
See Gen 2:17, "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Gen 3:4 "The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!"

Furthermore, I Pet 3:21 clearly agrees with the simple and plain teaching of Jesus in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

It clearly teaches the same as Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", yet you want to twist each of these from their obvious meanings.

The logical conclusion of I Pet 3:21 clearly agrees with Acts 22:16, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins".

It agrees with Eph 5:26, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"

It agrees with Heb 10:22 "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

Since salvation is in Christ (II Tim 2:10) and the only way the scriptures tell us how to get into Christ is through baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27), I Pet 3:21 fits perfectly with this.

God - Baptism saves us
DHK - Baptism does not save us

DHK

07-20-2005, 02:37 PM

We use a common English expression. It really is the common way to say things today. Baptism--NOT!!!!

Now read almost every translation. What do they say?

Baptism, Not..

mman

07-20-2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
We use a common English expression. It really is the common way to say things today. Baptism--NOT!!!!

Now read almost every translation. What do they say?

Baptism, Not.. That's real funny, NOT. If you think that is the way that is used, you are truly deceived.

Now for some context, "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh" - ESV

If I were to say about Naaman, "He dipped in the waters of the Jordan river 7 times and he was healed, not because the water physically washed away his leprosy, but it was his response to God's instructions.

Would you argue that he was healed - NOT!?

I would say that he was healed when he dipped 7 times in the Jordan River, not because the water possessed special healing powers, but in an honest response to God's instructions.

Now, does 1 Pet 3:21 agree with or contradict Mark 16:16? What about Acts 2:38? What about Acts 22:16? What about Rom 6:3-4? What about Gal 3:26-27?

DHK

07-20-2005, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by mman:
What is funny. It is not. I summarized it for you. But it still says the same thing, that in a previous post I explained in great detail. Look at it again.

"baptism now saves you--not"

The following phrase after "baptism now saves you begins with a negative adverb qualifiy the previous phrase. "NOT the removal of dirt from the flesh," Baptism does not save. Does baptism save--baptism does now save--not!--but but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
What saves? The answer of a good conscience toward God through Jesus Christ. It is quite clear that it is not baptism that saves. It is qualifed with NOT. This is simple English grammar. If you don't understand it, go back to school.

If I were to say about Naaman, "He dipped in the waters of the Jordan river 7 times and he was healed, not because the water physically washed away his leprosy, but it was his response to God's instructions.Foolishness!! And was Naaman saved? No! He was just as much as a heathen after he was "baptized" seven times, as before. He may have been healed physically, but he was not healed spiritually. Baptism does not save.

Would you argue that he was healed - NOT!?

I would say that he was healed when he dipped 7 times in the Jordan River, not because the water possessed special healing powers, but in an honest response to God's instructions.Your argument is quite moot, and doesn't make sense, for the reasons given above, and also for the context. The text in the Old Testament is not followed by the negative NOT. The text in 1Peter3:21 is. Learn how to read.

[/quote]Now, does 1 Pet 3:21 agree with or contradict Mark 16:16? What about Acts 2:38? What about Acts 22:16? What about Rom 6:3-4? What about Gal 3:26-27? [/QB][/QUOTE]
I have already ansered those other Scriptures. This post deals with 1Peter 3:21
DHK

bmerr

07-20-2005, 05:01 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. I've copied a part of your post, the part where you gave the WEB translation of a portion of 1 Pet 3:21. I've bolded a couple of things, and included a portion of your following comments in which you actually contradict the translation you said made it "very plain".

Hilarious!!!!!! graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you WEB

Perhaps you should use a better translation, one that doesn't confuse you. I've quoted from four different translations, including the KJV.
"The like figure"
"after a true likeness"
"Which figure"
this is a symbol This last one (the WEB) makes it very plain doesn't it. Baptism is a symbol.What a RIOT!!! Your "very plain" translation says outright that Noah's being saved during the flood is a symbol of "baptism, which now saves you", and you still get it wrong!!!!

Yeah, I'm the confused one here. Worried, actually. You don't actually teach anyone, do you?

I'm serious, if the stakes weren't so high, and you weren't headed for eternal destruction, this would be really funny. But the stakes are high, and you are in danger. Have you noticed that most of your supporters seem to have abandoned you?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

07-20-2005, 07:31 PM

THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST: di anastaseos Iesou Christou:

Baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as our own spiritual renewal.

SUMMARY: Only those who were in the Ark were saved. Only those who had in a sense "identified" with the Ark were saved. And thus Peter goes on make the analogy with baptism but not a ritual baptism like practiced in Peter's day. (Archeologists have found houses that possess "baptismal chambers" that the rich owners would use for daily "purification"). The "baptism" Peter is talking about is not this daily ritual but that which gives a clean conscience (Heb9:9,14, 10:19-21,22), when one is identified by grace thru faith in the finished work of Christ's death, burial & resurrection. Only then can a man have a "good conscience". And this truth of identification with Christ (baptism into Christ Ro6:2ff) would encourage the beleivers who might be called to suffer and even die for the sake of righteousness. After all why should they now fear man? (cp Mt10:28) What could man do to them? They could not be killed because they had already died with Christ and they now had everlasting life. So Peter's allusion to Noah, baptism & good conscience is to encourage them about who they are in Christ (in the "Ark" so to speak) no matter what fiery trials might come their way. And to show the completeness of this victory over present sufferings, Peter teaches that after His suffering & death, Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father and now all powers were subjected to Him. He triumphed over evil. You are on the winning team. Keep a good conscience before God. Live the way you are supposed to live by doing what is right! Amen.

It may be worth noting that the chronology of the Flood is closely related to our Lord’s day of resurrection. Noah’s ark rested on Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month (Ge 8:4). The Jewish civil year started with October; the religious year started with the Passover in April (Ex12:1-2), but that was not instituted until Moses’ time. The seventh month from October is April. Our Lord was crucified on the fourteenth day, Passover (Ex. 12:6), and resurrected after three days. This takes us to the seventeenth day of the month, the date on which the ark rested on Mt. Ararat. So, the illustration of Noah relates closely to Peter’s emphasis on the resurrection of the Saviour.Precept Ministries (http://preceptaustin.org/1_peter_318-22.htm)

D28guy

07-20-2005, 08:02 PM

bmerr,

"I'm serious, if the stakes weren't so high, and you weren't headed for eternal destruction, this would be really funny."Good grief, man...are you losing your mind?

You are saying DHK is a hell bound lost person???

"Have you noticed that most of your supporters seem to have abandoned you?"Nobody is "abandoning" anyone. DHK has made his point..very clearly...over and over and over again. And he has the support of the Holy Spirit who uses truth to convict people of that truth.

I sincerely hope you discern the Holy Spirits influence, because the Holy Spirit will never enlighten anyone towards any form of works justification, which you are proclaiming.

But the Holy Spirit will always convict and enlighten when justification through faith in Christ alone is being presented.

We are to be water baptised because it is a wonderful *picture* of the death to the old life (down into the water) and new birth into a new life (up from the water)...which has already taken place when a lost person embraces Christ through faith alone.

It would be impossible for the scriptures to be more clear.

God bless,

Mike

Claudia_T

07-21-2005, 06:03 PM

There is so much confusion about "What is Truth" mainly because of 4 different things.

1.People try to take one or two Bible verses to support their theories, instead of comparing all they can find about any given subject and allowing each verse to have it's proper weight. They start out wanting a thing to be so, and then find a few Bible verses to try to justify their beliefs.

But the Bible says 1Cor:2:13: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

2. People who want to sin or want to do a certain "bad act" will try to use the Bible to justify their position instead of determining that WHATEVER the Bible says, they will be willing to accept it, no matter if it cuts across their own inclinations. And so, again... they will try to grab at whatever Bible verses seem to support their theory. This is done many times for instance, when people want to justify their idea that "all we have to do is believe". They will ignore every Bible verse that tells them otherwise and/or try to wiggle their way around it somehow.

3.People just accept whatever their religious leaders tell them instead of searching the Bible for themselves.

4. People will take Bible verses that are just as plain as they can be, and decide that because they dont LIKE what the Bible verse says, that they will just ignore the verses. Or they will try to pretend the verses have some sort of a "mysterious" meaning that only the elite may understand. Let me give an example:

So many Christians today make the "Mark of the Beast" and its meaning out to be some really mysterious thing that we need some Bible Scholar to explain to us. But let me show you something. Just simply read this and take it for what it says:

Revelation 14:
6: And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7: Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8: And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9: And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10: The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

NOW... notice at the end of this warning about the Mark of the Beast it plainly and simply TELLS YOU who are God's people in this whole scenario... "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (verse 12).

After the warning against the worship of the beast and his image the prophecy declares: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Since those who keep God's commandments are thus placed in contrast with those that worship the beast and his image and receive his mark, it follows that the keeping of God's law, on the one hand, and its violation, on the other, will make the distinction between the worshipers of God and the worshipers of the beast. And so obviously, those who do receive the Mark of the Beast will have no regard for the commandments of God, while at the same time, God's people do observe them.

Reader, do you see that if we will just allow the Bible to explain itself, it then becomes easy to understand what it means? Instead of imagining all sorts of theories about what it means, we need to let God reveal the truth to us by comparing scripture with scripture. So many Christians have made conjectures about what the Mark of the Beast is such as having to do with computer chips and bar codes, when the Bible doesn’t say that at all. If God is going to give us a final serious warning message He is not going to leave us to guess at what it means.

But do you know why some pretend they dont know what the Mark of the Beast is? because they dont WANT to keep the commandments. And this is why there are so many denominations. Being that the natural heart is evil, people can come up with all kinds of pretty fancy and elaborate ways to skirt around issues.

Human theories and speculations will never lead to an understanding to God's word. Those who suppose that they understand philosophy think that their explanations are necessary to unlock the treasures of knowledge and to prevent heresies from coming into the church. But it is these explanations that have brought in false theories and heresies. Men have made desperate efforts to explain what they thought to be intricate scriptures; but too often their efforts have only darkened that which they tried to make clear.

The priests and Pharisees thought they were doing great things as teachers by putting their own interpretation upon the word of God, but Christ said of them, "Ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. He charged them with the guilt of "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:7. Though they were the teachers of the oracles of God, though they were supposed to understand His word, they were not doers of the word. Satan had blinded their eyes that they should not see its true import.

This is the work of many in our day. Many churches are guilty of this sin. There is danger, great danger, that the supposed wise men of today will repeat the experience of the Jewish teachers. They falsely interpret the divine oracles, and souls are brought into perplexity and shrouded in darkness because of their misconception of divine truth.

The Scriptures need not be read by the dim light of tradition or human speculation. As well might we try to give light to the sun with a torch as to explain the Scriptures by human tradition or imagination. God's holy word needs not the torchlight glimmer of earth to make its glories distinguishable. It is light in itself--the glory of God revealed, and beside it every other light is dim.

But there must be earnest study and close investigation. Sharp, clear perceptions of truth will never be the reward of indolence. No earthy blessing can be obtained without earnest, patient, persevering effort. If men attain success in business, they must have a will to do and a faith to look for results. And we cannot expect to gain spiritual knowledge without earnest toil. Those who desire to find the treasures of truth must dig for them as the miner digs for the treasure hidden in the earth. No halfhearted, indifferent work will avail. It is essential for old and young, not only to read God's word, but to study it with wholehearted earnestness, praying and searching for truth as for hidden treasure. Those who do this will be rewarded, for Christ will quicken the understanding.

Disobedience has closed the door to a vast amount of knowledge that might have been gained from the Scriptures. Understanding means obedience to God's commandments. The Scriptures are not to be adapted to meet the prejudice and jealousy of men. They can be understood only by those who are humbly seeking for a knowledge of the truth that they may obey it.

Do you ask, What shall I do to be saved? You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God's word.

Faith in Christ as the world's Redeemer calls for an acknowledgment of the enlightened intellect controlled by a heart that can discern and appreciate the heavenly treasure. This faith is inseparable from repentance and transformation of character. To have faith means to find and accept the gospel treasure, with all the obligations which it imposes.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3. He may conjecture and imagine, but without the eye of faith he cannot see the treasure. Christ gave His life to secure for us this inestimable treasure; but without regeneration through faith in His blood there is no remission of sins. And without being born again you will not be able to "see" what is in God's Word.

Ed Edwards

07-22-2005, 02:14 PM

bmerr (to DHK): "Have you noticed most
of your supporters seem to have
abandoned you?"

We didn't abandon DHK.
We left earlier cause DHK was so
far ahead in the debate there is no
way his opponent(s) could ever catch up.

DHK won the debate and we, his supporters,
had a party and then we left. The word
'abandon' is not applicable graemlins/wave.gif

dianetavegia

07-22-2005, 02:41 PM

bmerr, I left the discussion because you don't listen and I'd rather you stop this 'baptism saves' heresy.

DHK provided proof repeatedly, with scripture, that you're dead wrong.

Johnv

07-22-2005, 03:44 PM

I'm still looking for scriptural support that baptism, or any work, saves. Must be there next to the scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism.

D28guy

07-22-2005, 06:10 PM

It couldnt be clearer.

At some point during the hearing of the gospel Cornelious and his family entered into saving faith. And thats faith alone. They did no "works" of any kind. They were simply sitting their listening.

We know they were sealed into the body of Christ because God in this case granted the gift of tongues as a sign.(He doesnt always do that, only when He chooses to. This time He chose to)

After that the word of God says...

Who can forbid water that these should not be baptised, seeing that they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?God says we are water baptised after entering into faith, recieving the Holy Spirit and being saved.

Men come along and say "NO! You must be water baptised to recieve the Holy Spirit and be saved!"

God...

Who can forbid water that these should not be baptised, seeing that they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?God bless.

Mike

mman

07-26-2005, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by D28guy:
It couldnt be clearer.

At some point during the hearing of the gospel Cornelious and his family entered into saving faith. And thats faith alone. They did no "works" of any kind. They were simply sitting their listening.

We know they were sealed into the body of Christ because God in this case granted the gift of tongues as a sign.(He doesnt always do that, only when He chooses to. This time He chose to)

After that the word of God says...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Who can forbid water that these should not be baptised, seeing that they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?God says we are water baptised after entering into faith, recieving the Holy Spirit and being saved.

Men come along and say "NO! You must be water baptised to recieve the Holy Spirit and be saved!"

God...

Who can forbid water that these should not be baptised, seeing that they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?God bless.

Mike [/QUOTE]Acts 11:14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.

Question, how can you believe something you have not even heard? The HS fell on them as he BEGAN to speak.

The only command or order Peter gave them was to be baptized, "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.-Acts 10:48

When Peter preached on Pentecost, He told them to, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins".

In Acts 3:19 he says, "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,"

Lets compare the two verses.

Acts 2:38 = Acts 3:19
Repent = Repent
be baptized = be converted
for the remission of sins = that your sins may be blotted out

Peter has not changed his message. He is simply restating it. The bible does this time and time again. Baptism is clearly tied to conversion.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Did Jesus really mean this, or did he mean something else?

mman

07-26-2005, 08:06 AM

Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

Acts 3:19 "Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out"

Acts 2:38 = Acts 3:19
Repent = Repent
Be baptized = Be converted
For the remission of sins = That your sins may be blotted out

Peter is not saying two different things, but the same thing in a different way. Baptism is tied to conversion.

Preaching Jesus includes instructions for water baptism (Acts 8:35-36, for example).

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Did Jesus mean this or did he really mean to say something else?

[ July 26, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: mman ]

mman

07-26-2005, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Johnv:
I'm still looking for scriptural support that baptism, or any work, saves. Must be there next to the scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism. First of all, baptism is not a work. The bible does not call it a work, only people on this board.

Second, the bible shows baptism is part of faith. Gal 3:26-27, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. - ESV

Col 2:12 states, "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

This is the only time any type of works are ever associated with baptism and it is God doing the work, not man.

Baptism is not a work of merit. It does not earn anything. If it did, all who were plunged beneath the waters, for any reason, would obtain the remission of sins, and that is not the case.

Why would anyone be baptized? Because God said to. It's not from any human logic or wisdom. Most folks count it as foolishness. Some even go as far as saying it is a pagan ritual.

You can search your bible from cover to cover and you will only find ONE way to get INTO Christ and that is through baptism. Do you think or does the bible teach that anyone can be saved OUTSIDE of Christ?

If salvation is in Christ (II Tim 2:10), how do you get INTO Christ? What sayeth the scripture?

A passage so plain, that one would literally have to have help to misunderstand it is Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Did Jesus really mean this or did he mean something else?

DHK

07-26-2005, 07:46 PM

Either you believe the heresy that the blood of Jesus Christ was not sufficient enough to pay the penalty for your sins, and you insult our Saviour by saying "Jeus I am just helping you along to atone for the sins of the world by my baptism," or there is an obvious alternative explanation to the above verses, other than the COC interpretation which you have given. I prefer to believe the latter.
DHK

mman

07-27-2005, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
Either you believe the heresy that the blood of Jesus Christ was not sufficient enough to pay the penalty for your sins, and you insult our Saviour by saying "Jeus I am just helping you along to atone for the sins of the world by my baptism," or there is an obvious alternative explanation to the above verses, other than the COC interpretation which you have given. I prefer to believe the latter.
DHK Very interesting comment. I did nothing to explain the verses, yet they don't come to the conclusion you want them to after reading them. I did not spin them, explain them, just presented them. You don't like their obvious meaning, so you look for an "alternative explanation". Why not accept them for what they say.

You are the one insulting Jesus. He plainly said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

You say, that is not true. You say, "He that beliveth is saved and shall be baptized". You don't believe or accept Jesus' plain statement in Mark 16:16 do you? You are forced to search for an alternative obscure meaning, rather than accept the plain teaching.

Even though it has been stated MANY times before, I will do it again. The blood of Jesus washes away our sins. Nothing else can!

How do we come in contact with the blood? Through belief only? Where is the scripture to support that idea?

What do the scriptures say? Where did his blood flow? At his death? Romans 6:3-4 says that we are baptized into his death. Nowhere else do the scriptures say we come in contact with His death.

Lets go another route. Heb 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. We know it is His blood and not the blood of bulls and goats (Heb 10:4). Matt 26:28 plainly states that his blood was shed "for the remission of sins". That same phrase, "for the remission of sins" is used in Acts 2:38. It tells us that baptism is "for the remission of sins", again tying baptism to the blood and remission of sins.

Lets try another route. Eph 1:7 says "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace". In whom? Christ. How do we get into Christ? Again, back to baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27).

You have the misconception that baptism is a work. You state that we are saved by faith, apart from works. I wholeheartly agree. We are saved by faith apart from works. There is nothing we can do to earn our salvation, not even one moment of it.

We must, however, correctly understand biblical faith. Heb 11 if devoted to biblical faith. Their actions did not earn the results, but were done because God gave them instuctions and they obeyed. Read Gal 3:26-27. It says we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized INTO Christ.

Lets go another route, what else did Jesus' blood do? It purchased the church, according to Acts 20:28. Christ is savior of the body (Eph 5:23) which is the church (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). How do we get INTO the church? We are baptized into the church that was purchased with his blood (I Cor 12:13). Christ adds to the church those who are being saved (Acts 2:47). Baptism adds us the the church, again tying the water to the blood.

When Philip taught the Eunuch, he preached Jesus which included water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). See how nicely this all ties together. Baptism washes away our sins. Isn't that exactly what Saul was told to do after believing and praying for 3 days,"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord Acts 22:16." Why did this believer have sins to be washed away after 3 days of praying? Only because he had not come in contact with the blood of Christ.

You see, it is not the water, but the blood of Jesus. Not because God owes us anything or we earn anything in baptism, but by our faithful obedience. You cannot lay out a logical, whole truth, explaination using scriptures of how we obtain the remission of sins, how we get into Christ, or how we get into the Church without mentioning baptism (water) and the blood.

Did you ever wonder why blood and water came forth from Jesus' side (John 19:34). Isn't it obvious! We are baptized into his death (Rom 6:3-4), baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27), we are baptized into the body/church (I Cor 12:13, Acts 2:41,47), all of which are tied to His blood.

BobRyan

07-27-2005, 07:31 AM

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;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The steps for salvation are given in the text above –
#1. The Word.
#2. Confess AND Believe (with the heart)
#3. Saved!

It is OUT of that new believing relationship that one CONTINUES to study the bible and to find out about acts of obedience such as “Baptism”.

But someone may ask “Why not a lost unbeliever that simply reads about Baptism and then decides for it WITHOUT actually yet believing, without being born again without being in fellowship with Christ – but still as an unsaved lost person?”

Paul already gave that answer to the church in Corinth.

1Cor 2
9 but just as it is written, "" THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND WHICH HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.''
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
By contrast to the born again “Believer” who IS enabled to read with insight and obey – 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him;

BobRyan

07-27-2005, 07:33 AM

And that explains the fact that we see the thief on the cross spiritually alive and discerning even without Baptism and it explains the Acts 10 outpouring of the Holy Spirit on those who heard and who believed even BEFORE Baptism. (Not to mention the OT saints listed in Heb 11 that were never baptized)

Ed Edwards

07-27-2005, 08:23 AM

Mar 16:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth not, shall be damned.

This scripture has to be added to
made it say:

He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth AND IS BAPTIZED
not, shall be damned.

I generally try to stay away from adding
to the scripture :(

Jesus saves, not baptism.

mman

07-27-2005, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Mar 16:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth not, shall be damned.

This scripture has to be added to
made it say:

He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth AND IS BAPTIZED
not, shall be damned.

I generally try to stay away from adding
to the scripture :(

Jesus saves, not baptism. Earl, what does this scripture say it takes to be saved?

What does it say it takes to be condemned?

Which part of it do you not believe?

mman

07-27-2005, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
And that explains the fact that we see the thief on the cross spiritually alive and discerning even without Baptism and it explains the Acts 10 outpouring of the Holy Spirit on those who heard and who believed even BEFORE Baptism. (Not to mention the OT saints listed in Heb 11 that were never baptized) How do you know he was not baptized? Multitudes were baptized under John's baptism, why are you so certain he wasn't one of them. Regardless, the thief was under the old covenant.

The new covenant could only be valid after the death of Christ, not before (Heb 9:17 ...it never takes effect while the one who made it is living).

mman

07-27-2005, 01:30 PM

Bob,

Is Romans 10 the only place where you find verses dealing with salvation?

Are the other verses relevant?

Obviously, you think repentance is unnecessary and irrelevant. It is not in your list.

The bible doesn't teach us everything about a subject in one verse. While each verse is true, you have to have all God said about a topic to have the whole truth.

Example, Did Jesus baptize people? John 3:22 - After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.

John 3:26 - And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!”

If you read this verses at the exclusion of all others, then you would come to the WRONG conclusion that Jesus, himself, was baptizing people.

How do I know? Because John 4:2,-2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),

You see, one truth has to be laid upon another to have the whole truth.

The simple fact is that there are other passages to lay on top of Rom 10.

Acts 2:38 - Tells us baptism is for the remission of sins

Acts 22;16 - Baptism washes away our sins.

Mark 16:16 - Baptism is a prerequisite for salvation

I Pet 3:31 - Baptism saves us

Rom 6:3-4 - We are baptized into Christ

Gal 3:26-27 We are children by faith because we have been baptized

The passages you listed in Rom 10 are true, but so are these. They compliment what is said in Rom 10, not contradict or invalidate.

So many people want to put their blinders on and ignore the plain teaching, holding on to one passage at the exclusion of all others. Until all are accepted and embraced, you can never have the whole truth.

Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Did Jesus really mean this or did he mean to say something else?

mman

07-27-2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Mar 16:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth not, shall be damned.

This scripture has to be added to
made it say:

He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth AND IS BAPTIZED
not, shall be damned.

I generally try to stay away from adding
to the scripture :(

Jesus saves, not baptism. I'm sorry. I addressed the first post to Earl. I meant, Ed. I apologize.

Ed, what does this scripture say it takes to be saved?

What does it say it takes to be condemned?

Which part of it do you not believe?

Nothing has to be added to understand this clear passage. I do not have the authority to add or take away from any scripture.

Ed Edwards

07-27-2005, 09:15 PM

Brother mman: You err bad. Here are some of your bad errors:

1. Depending on your understanding of one verse
to set up your dogma

2. Being dogmatic about your error

3. Assuming everybody else is going to join in
being dogmatic about your error.

4. Picking a set of verses about 'baptism' and salvation.
I can pick a set of verses as big as yours that
omit baptism. A bit of common sense would help.

Mman about Mark 16:16: "Nothing has to be added
to understand this clear passage."

So why did you add something? I accused you of
adding to the scripture. How do you answer the charge?

Mman: "Ed, what does this scripture say it takes to be saved?"

Belief that leads to baptism.

Mman: "What does it say it takes to be condemned?"

Disbelief.

Mman: "Which part of it do you not believe? "

Which part are you having a problem with?
I don't have a problem with being baptized,
i was baptized 53 years ago after believing.

Joh 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his
only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth
in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

Everlasting life with no mention of baptism.
This most popular of all scriptures blows your
'baptism required for salvation' out of the water.

Rom 10:9 (KJV611 Edition):
That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus,
and shalt beleeue in thine heart, that God hath raised
him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

The verse that got me saved 53 years ago -- no mention
of Baptism. Yes, i first called Jesus my Lord in April 1952
while believing that God had raised Jesus from the dead.
And still today i confess that Jesus is my Lord and
my Savior.

Say, in case somebody want to know: 'should i repent
somewhere along in there?' -- I had to repent before
i called Jesus my Lord.

Mar 16:16-18 (KJV1611 Edition):
He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth not, shall be damned.
17 And these signes shal follow them that beleeue,
In my Name shall they cast out deuils, they shall
speake with new tongues,
18 They shall take vp serpents, and if they drinke
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them, they shall
lay hands on the sicke, and they shall recouer.

Strangely, i know of people who say you have to handle
snakes if you REALLY got saved.
Strangely, i know of people who say you have to speak
with unknown tongues if you REALLY got saved.
And i don't believe them a bit more than the ones
who say you have to be baptized before Jesus will save you.
I beleive, from the study of the whole Bible that the
best bet is: If you are saved, you aught to show you have
been saved by submitting to scriptural Baptism.
If Jesus saves you, you will be Baptized by Jesus with
with the Holy Spirit.

To think that water baptism is a feature
leading to salvation - wrong - it is a
distortion of scripture. True scriputral
baptism FOLLOWS salvation and is because
of baptism. BTW, baptism is so closely
associated with salvation as a sign of
salvation, that sometimes 'baptism' is used
to describe 'salvation'.

bmerr

07-27-2005, 10:15 PM

Ed,

bmerr here. You made the point (?) that Mark 16:16 does not specifically state that "...he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned."

How much more damned would one need to be than if they did not believe the gospel in the first place? One is no more damned by not being baptized than one would be for not believing.

You said you tried to avoid adding to the Scriptures, but requiring them to say more than they say in order to mean what they plainly mean is just as bad, don't you think?

Also, your contention that mman is, "Depending on your understanding of one verse to set up your dogma" is unfounded. If it were the case that mman, Frank, and I were asserting that "baptism only" was neccessary for salvation, then yes, we would be guilty as charged.

That, however, is not the case. We simply affirm that the New Testament of Jesus Christ requires that one be baptized in order to be saved. This would be in addition to hearing and believing the word of God, repenting of sin, and confessing that Jesus is the Son of God.

Scriptures for each of these requirements have been given, and include some of the very verses you and yours have presented to show that we are saved by "faith only".

If either side is depending on their understanding of one verse to set up their dogma, it is you and yours' misuse of Eph 2:8, 9, while you reject or "seek a deeper meaning" for others that speak against you.

2. Being dogmatic about your errorA classic case of the pot calling the kettle "black".

3. Assuming everybody else is going to join in being dogmatic about your error.I think it's safe to say that you are the one in the majority in this debate. Biblically, a BAD place to be.

4. Picking a set of verses about 'baptism' and salvation. I can pick a set of verses as big as yours that omit baptism. A bit of common sense would help.Yes, it would. The honest, common sense approach to the Bible is to search out all the Scriptures pertaining to a subject, and find the sum of what God's word (Ps 119:160 ASV) says about it.

We do not have liberty to compare lists of verses, see which is longer, and reject the shorter of the two. Those who do so place their souls in peril.

To think that water baptism is a feature
leading to salvation - wrong - it is a
distortion of scripture. True scriputral
baptism FOLLOWS salvation and is because
of baptism. BTW, baptism is so closely
associated with salvation as a sign of
salvation, that sometimes 'baptism' is used
to describe 'salvation'.Can you give me just one passage of Scripture that says that baptism is a sign of salvation? If there was just one that said that we should be baptized to show that we are already saved, I'd believe it. Just one - Please?

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

07-27-2005, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The steps for salvation are given in the text above –
#1. The Word.
#2. Confess AND Believe (with the heart)
#3. Saved!Bob,

bmerr here. Correct. Those are the steps of salvation given in that text. What of other texts speaking of salvation? Can we just ignore them? What would keep someone from choosing one of the others and ignoring the one you gave?

It is OUT of that new believing relationship that one CONTINUES to study the bible and to find out about acts of obedience such as “Baptism”.Unless, of course, one began to read in Acts, instead of in Romans. Even if one did start in Romans, they'd get to chapter 6 before they got to chapter 10!

1Cor 2
9 but just as it is written, " THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND WHICH HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.''
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

By contrast to the born again “Believer” who IS enabled to read with insight and obey – 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him;This is a common misuse of 1 Cor 2:10-14. Remember that at the time of Paul's writing, there was no complete written revelation from God. God's word came through the apostles and other prophets, and was later written down by inspiration in the epistles.

Paul is not contrasting the saved and the unsaved in this text. He is contrasting the inspired man with the uninspired man. Look at it closely.

1 Cor 2:

10 But God hath revealed them [the things from v. 9] unto us [apostles] by his Spirit : for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, by the Spirit of God.

12 Now we [apostles] have received, not the spirit of the world, by the spirit which is of God; that we [apostles] might know the things that are freely given to us [all men] of God.

13 Which things also we [apostles] speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural [uninspired] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The idea that one must be saved in order to understand the Bible collapses under its' own weight. Consider this:

If I can't understand until I am saved, but I can't be saved unless I believe, and I can't believe what I don't understand, [i]then how can anyone be saved?

God didn't give us His word to fool us. While it is true that there are "some things hard to be understood" (2 Pet 3:16), most things are not really all that hard to figure out, if we approach with objectivity.

In Christ,

bmerr

Ed Edwards

07-27-2005, 11:12 PM

Bmerr: "I Pet 3:31 - Baptism saves us"

None of the chapters of 1 Peter have a 31st verse???

Bmerr: "Rom 6:3-4 - We are baptized into Christ"

This is a clear 'baptism is a sign of salvation' picture.

Rom 6:3-4 (KJV1611 Edition):
Know ye not, that so many of vs as were baptized into Iesus Christ, were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore wee are buryed with him by baptisme into death, that like as Christ was raised vp from the dead by the glorie of the Father: euen so wee also should walke in newnesse of life.

'Like' and 'as' are both clues of a metaphor.
We are not literaly 'buryed with him by baptisme' but
it is a spiritual metaphor - A SIGN.

I don't have time to go through all your 'baptism saves'
scripturs right now. But the three i've looked at, not
a one shows your contention that 'baptism saves'.
Jesus saves. People get baptized because Jesus saves.

Ed Edwards

07-27-2005, 11:13 PM

D28guy

07-28-2005, 12:46 AM

mman,

You said...

"Acts 11:14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.

Question, how can you believe something you have not even heard? The HS fell on them as he BEGAN to speak.

The only command or order Peter gave them was to be baptized, "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.-Acts 10:48

When Peter preached on Pentecost, He told them to, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins".

In Acts 3:19 he says, "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,"

Lets compare the two verses.

Acts 2:38 = Acts 3:19
Repent = Repent
be baptized = be converted
for the remission of sins = that your sins may be blotted out

Peter has not changed his message. He is simply restating it. The bible does this time and time again. Baptism is clearly tied to conversion.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Did Jesus really mean this, or did he mean something else?mman, this is not rocket science here. This is actually more along the lines of...

2 + 2 = 4

(while you are saying 2 + 4 = 2)

Again, this is not complicated. Its very very simple.

1) Cornelious and his family are sitting there listening to the gospel being presented.

2) As they were listening to the gospel they began speaking in tongues.

mman, the gift of tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, meaning that only one who is saved can exhibit that gift. While they were listening they entered into saving faith and were obviously... (they spoke in tongues, remember?)...sealed into the body of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit at that time.

3) Then...AFTER that...they were water baptised.

And the scriptures even tell us exactly...PRECISELY...why they were water baptised:

Because THEY HAD ALREADY RECIEVED THE HOLY SPIRIT....

"who can forbid water that these should be baptised, seeing as they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

I honestly dont know how God could make it any clearer.

God bless,

Mike

mman

07-28-2005, 08:04 AM

D28guy:

What was the purpose of the Holy Spirit falling on the apostles on the day of Pentecost? Was this a saving act or sign for other?

Luke 10:20 tells us their names were written in Heaven.

Remember, Cornelius was a Gentile. He was the first Gentile convert. Let me ask you a question. Did you start speaking in foreign languages just as you began to hear your first gospel sermon?

This was a sign given for the Jews, letting them know that the Gentiles were to included. It didn't save the Apostles on the day of Pentecost and it didn't save Cornelius. In fact, he was commanded to be baptized in water.

There is no other example given that even comes close to being comparable to Cornelius.

Acts 2:38 - baptism is for the remission of sins. You either believe that or you don't.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be save - You either believe this or you don't.

Acts 22:16 - Be baptized and wash away your sins - You either accept this or you don't

I Pet 3:21 - Baptism now saves us - You either believe this or you don't

Gal 3:26-27 - Baptized INTO Christ - You either accept this or you don't

I could go on, but these are plain passages telling us about baptism. They applied to Cornelius, those in Acts 2, and to us.

Ed Edwards

07-28-2005, 08:18 AM

Mman: "Acts 2:38 - baptism is for the remission of sins. You either believe that or you don't."

I don't believe your interpretation of what those
words mean.

Act 2:38 (Geneva Bible):
Then Peter said vnto them, Amend your liues,
and bee baptized euery one of you
in the Name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes:
and ye shall receiue the gift of the holy Ghost.

This scripture cleary denotes that it is the
Name of Iesus CHrist which remits sins.
Baptism by the Holy Ghost follows remission of sins
(AKA: salvation).

mman

07-28-2005, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Bmerr: "I Pet 3:31 - Baptism saves us"

None of the chapters of 1 Peter have a 31st verse???

Bmerr: "Rom 6:3-4 - We are baptized into Christ"

This is a clear 'baptism is a sign of salvation' picture.

Rom 6:3-4 (KJV1611 Edition):
Know ye not, that so many of vs as were baptized into Iesus Christ, were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore wee are buryed with him by baptisme into death, that like as Christ was raised vp from the dead by the glorie of the Father: euen so wee also should walke in newnesse of life.

'Like' and 'as' are both clues of a metaphor.
We are not literaly 'buryed with him by baptisme' but
it is a spiritual metaphor - A SIGN.

I don't have time to go through all your 'baptism saves'
scripturs right now. But the three i've looked at, not
a one shows your contention that 'baptism saves'.
Jesus saves. People get baptized because Jesus saves. Baptism is a symbol of Jesus death, burial and resurrection. Is is not a symbol of our salvation.

Can we actually die, be buried and raised again to pay for our sins? No, we have to obey a form of this. We do that in baptism.

We are baptized into his death. We are buried with Him (Christ) through baptism. Just as Christ was raised, so are we.

Read verse 8. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

How did we die with Christ? He just told us, in baptism. Ok, what if we didn't die with him (i.e., what if we were not baptized)? Can we expect to live with him?

Rom 6:17, 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.

What form of doctrine? That which he just described in verses 3 and 4.

You can search the bible from cover to cover and you can not find another way to get INTO Christ, other than through baptism.

(And since you couldn't figure it out, bmerr was refering to I Pet 3:21).

mman

07-28-2005, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Mman: "Acts 2:38 - baptism is for the remission of sins. You either believe that or you don't."

I don't believe your interpretation of what those
words mean.

Act 2:38 (Geneva Bible):
Then Peter said vnto them, Amend your liues,
and bee baptized euery one of you
in the Name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes:
and ye shall receiue the gift of the holy Ghost.

This scripture cleary denotes that it is the
Name of Iesus CHrist which remits sins.
Baptism by the Holy Ghost follows remission of sins
(AKA: salvation). This scripture clearly teaches that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ if for the remission of sins.

Did they have any trouble understanding? No, the were baptized that same day, about 3000 of them (vs 41). This was water baptism. The purpose, as stated in verse 38, was for the remission of sins.

I simply believe what the verse says. No explanitions are really necessary.

Ed Edwards

07-28-2005, 08:47 AM

When i was in the first 4 grades, the teachers
had figured out they didn't need to teach
phonics to new readers. I still don't know
much phonics, though it is very necessary for
spelling.

People tell me - it is spelt just like it
sounds. No, it is spelled just like the
sounds are phonetically supposed to be spelled.

Mman: "I simply believe what the verse says. No explanitions are really necessary."

Sorry, Sir, but that makes no sense. You
are puting meaning into the words. You are
believing your understanding of the words.

Let me read you the riot act
(usually used for those who
think one and only one version of the
Bible can possibly be correct):

--------------------------
I believe the Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that my understanding
of all the Bible is inerrant.

You believe your Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that your understanding
of all your Bible is inerrant.

Surely i have respect enough for my
Brother in Christ that i will allow you your
opinion. If further you believe your
opinion, i will allow that also.
But i will receive the same consideration
for my opinion/belief.
I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible
said versus your opinion of what the Bible said.
What the Bible said is true, what
the Bible means is your opinion or
is my opinion.
Don't get your opinion of what the Bible meant
get confused with what the Bible said.

D28guy

07-28-2005, 02:33 PM

mman,

"What was the purpose of the Holy Spirit falling on the apostles on the day of Pentecost? Was this a saving act or sign for other?"They spoke in tongues because they entered into faith and were born again. Speaking in tongues is...a...gift...of...the...Holy...Spirit.

There could be 1, 2, 10, or 50 other reasons why that gift might be given, but it doesnt change the fact that they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and therefore born again.

Luke 10:20 tells us their names were written in Heaven.

Remember, Cornelius was a Gentile. He was the first Gentile convert. Let me ask you a question. Did you start speaking in foreign languages just as you began to hear your first gospel sermon?No, and that is 100% irelavent. It doesnt matter. Sometimes God grants tongues, sometimes He doesnt. Justification is through faith alone, not faith plus speaking in tongues. The day of pentecost and in the room with Cornelius were 2 times when God did choose to grant tongues. And there are 2 good reason why. He wanted to make crystal clear that...

1) Justification is through faith alone.

2) Water baptism comes after salvation.

"This was a sign given for the Jews, letting them know that the Gentiles were to included."That could very well be a 2nd reason why God granted tongues. But they could not have spoken in tongues if they we not born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

"It didn't save the Apostles on the day of Pentecost and it didn't save Cornelius."Speaking in tongues doesnt save anyone. And people who have never spoken in tongues are no less saved if they have embraced Christ by faith.

Faith alone in Jesus Christ saves. In these cases tongues gave evidence that they were born again...before being water baptised.

"In fact, he was commanded to be baptized in water."We are all expected to be water baptised after we are born again.

There is no other example given that even comes close to being comparable to Cornelius.Yes there is.

The thief on the cross.

("Remember me when you come into your kingdom...justified")

The day of pentecost.

(As they were listening to the gospel they began speaking in tongues)

The Ethiopian eunuch.

(Scripture says Philip "preached Jesus to him". Not preached Jesus + water baptism. Ethiopian: "What hinders me from being baptised?" Phillip: "If you believe with all your heart, you may.".)

The Phillipian Jailer

(Jailer: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Paul or Silas: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. You and your household".)

"Acts 2:38 - baptism is for the remission of sins. You either believe that or you don't."I believe it. It does not mean what you believe it means.

Water baptism...as all that I have posted proves...is indeed for the remission of sins, with "for" meaning "because of" the remission of sins.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be save - You either believe this or you don't.I believe it, but it does not mean what you think it means.

Someone who believes and is baptised is indeed saved. They became saved at the moment they entered into saving faith alone.

"Acts 22:16 - Be baptized and wash away your sins - You either accept this or you don't"I accept it. But it does not mean what you think it means.

"I Pet 3:21 - Baptism now saves us - You either believe this or you don't"I do. But it does not mean what you think it means.

Gal 3:26-27 - Baptized INTO Christ - You either accept this or you don'tI accept it. But it does not mean what you think it means.

"I could go on,..."So can I.

"...but these are plain passages telling us about baptism. They applied to Cornelius, those in Acts 2, and to us."Then why does God say different? At the time God gave us the scriptures was God getting old and feeble and he made mistakes?

God says...

The thief on the cross.

("Remember me when you come into your kingdom...justified")

The day of pentecost.

(As they were listening to the gospel they began speaking in tongues)

The Ethiopian eunuch.

(Scripture says Philip "preached Jesus to him". Not preached Jesus + water baptism. Ethiopian: "What hinders me from being baptised?" Phillip: "If you believe with all your heart, you may.".)

The Phillipian Jailer

(Jailer: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Paul or Silas: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. You and your household".)And dont forget, in the scriptures "baptism" does not always refer to water baptism. John the Baptist said...

"I indeeed baptise with water. But there is one coming who is mightier than I, whos sandle straps I am not worthy to loosen. He will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire"

God bless,

Mike

bmerr

07-28-2005, 07:23 PM

To All,

bmerr here. Sometimes I don't know where to start. I guess I'll start with Ed.

Ed, the 1 Pet 3:31 reference is an obvious typo from mman's July 27 post. It's far less than I'd expect from you to try and make a point out of it. I think everyone knew that 1 Pet 3:21 was the intended verse.

Surely i have respect enough for my Brother in Christ that i will allow you your opinion. If further you believe your opinion, i will allow that also. But i will receive the same consideration for my opinion/belief. I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible said versus your opinion of what the Bible said. What the Bible said is true, what the Bible means is your opinion or is my opinion. Don't get your opinion of what the Bible meant get confused with what the Bible said. This comment is actually a bit disturbing, Ed. Here's why. It seems as though you are taking the position that man is not able to properly interpret the Bible, and that each person's opinion of what the Bible means is to be given equal consideration. In other words, it seems like you're saying that truth is relative.

I really don't think you intended to say anything like that, but that's lind of what it sounded like. I hope I'm wrong, and if so, I apologize.

You see, the idea that truth cannot be known, and that man cannot ever really understand the Bible, is the voice of post-modernism. "Your truth is true for you, but not neccessarily for me."

The Bible says otherwise. Jesus said "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). If we can't really know the truth, then we can't really ever be free.

It is possible for man to properly interpret the Bible. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus is questioned by a certain lawyer as to what should be done to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks him, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

Jesus is asking the man, "what is written, and what is your interpretation of it?"

In response to the man's answer, Jesus said, "Thou hast answered right..." The implication here is that the man could have answered wrong!

God has given us logic and common sense enough to understand His word. The thinking that man is unable to understand God's word implies one of two things about God:

1. God is not intelligent enough to effectively communicate with His creation, or

2. God is cruel and unjust, and will judge man according to a Standard which he cannot comprehend.

Of course, neither of these is true.

Secondly, you made reference to the KJ onlyists (my assumption). I used to be one of those, actually. Over all, that bunch generates much more heat than light, but I will give them credit for one thing. They rightly point out some really horrendous errors in some very popular versions of the Bible, the NIV in particular.

In short, let me say (and I think you'd agree), the list of reliable translations is alot shorter than the list of not-so-reliable ones. The KJV is on the short list. It's what I use, and what I recommend, but I don't try to force it on folks anymore.

Oh yeah, You said that baptism is a picture, or symbol of salvation. I disagree. Baptism is a picture of something - the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Bible says that when we obey a form of the doctrine delivered to us, we are then made free from sin (Rom 6:17), and become the servants of righteousness.

Although, if you want to insist that baptism is a symbol of salvation, I would urge you to recall that in the Bible, the symbolic always precedes the real.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

07-28-2005, 09:08 PM

D28Guy,

bmerr here. You mentioned Cornelius, the thief on the cross (ttoc), the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Phillipian jailor (PJ). These have all been discussed at length in other posts, but repetition is the key to learning, so I'll hit the high spots again.

Cornelius - In Peter's chronological (by order - Acts 11:4) account of the events at Cornelius' house, we learn that it was "as [Peter] began to speak [that] the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us [the apostles] at the beginning" (11:15).

We can also read the words Peter was speaking as he began to speak in Acts 10:34, 35, none of which come close to mentioning Jesus Christ, or His death, burial, and ressurrection.

If Cornelius was saved when the Holy Ghost fell on him, he was saved by hearing that God is no respecter of persons, and that in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him.

Is that the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can someone be saved by believing nothing but that? Certainly not!

Cornelius and household heard the gospel after the Holy Ghost fell on them. Their speaking in tongues, though from God, neither saved them, nor did it indicate that they were saved.

ttoc - It is not provable from Scripture whether or not he had been baptized. Either way, it is irrelevant. The conditions of pardon under the New Testament did not apply to him, since he died under the OT. Heb 9:16, 17 tells us that the death of the testator is required for a testament to be of force. Jesus was not yet dead when He promised ttoc paradise.

Was ttoc saved? Definitely!

Was ttoc saved without baptism? Maybe, maybe not.

Was ttoc saved under the NT? No!

He just carries no weight as an example of a NT conversion. If you want to teach salvation without baptism, you'll have to find a different example.

Ethiopian eunuch The contention is that Phillip preached unto him Jesus, not baptism. Nevertheless, the eunuch requested baptism at the first opportunity. Why?

Phillip also "preached Christ" to the Samaritans (Acts 8:5-13). We read therein that preaching Christ includes "...preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ" (8:12). No mention of baptism there, either. And yet, oddly enough, in the same verse, we see that "...they were baptized, both men and women.

Here are two examples of preaching "Jesus", or preaching "Christ", that both resulted in folks being baptized. I'd say that the command to be baptized is implied in both cases.

Phillipian jailor - We simply do not know if he had heard the gospel or the name of Jesus Christ prior to Acts 16:30. It seems logical to say that if he had heard the gospel, he would not have needed to ask what to do to be saved. He would have already known.

However, in 16:32, we find that Paul and Silas "...spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house."

It is at this point, and not before, that we can say with certainty that PJ could have had faith by which to be saved. All the events concerning the conversion of PJ and houshold (hearing, believing, repentance, and bapitsm) are summed up in verse 34 with the phrase, "...believing in God with all his house." This is the very thing he was told to do in verse 31.

I hope this helps.

In Christ,

bmerr

D28guy

07-29-2005, 02:32 AM

Bmerr,

"bmerr here. You mentioned Cornelius, the thief on the cross (ttoc), the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Phillipian jailor (PJ). These have all been discussed at length in other posts, but repetition is the key to learning, so I'll hit the high spots again.

Cornelius - In Peter's chronological (by order - Acts 11:4) account of the events at Cornelius' house, we learn that it was "as [Peter] began to speak [that] the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us [the apostles] at the beginning" (11:15).

We can also read the words Peter was speaking as he began to speak in Acts 10:34, 35, none of which come close to mentioning Jesus Christ, or His death, burial, and ressurrection.

If Cornelius was saved when the Holy Ghost fell on him, he was saved by hearing that God is no respecter of persons, and that in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him.

Is that the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can someone be saved by believing nothing but that? Certainly not!Bmerr, are you serious? You have to be joking. Your saying that Cornelious and those with him did not hear the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Here is the whole thing, bmerr...not one little snippet...

"10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.

10:35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

10:36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ--He is Lord of all--

10:37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:

10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they F53 killed by hanging on a tree.

10:40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,

10:41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

10:42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.

10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word."

Cornelius and household heard the gospel after the Holy Ghost fell on them.Not according to God, bmerr. Here it is again...

10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they F53 killed by hanging on a tree.

10:40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,

10:41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

10:42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.

10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.

Their speaking in tongues, though from God, neither saved them, nor did it indicate that they were saved."So, you believe a lost doomed child of the devil can excercise a gift of the Holy Spirit?

ttoc - It is not provable from Scripture whether or not he had been baptized.He was hanging from a cross being executed, bmerr!!! THAT is when he placed his faith in Christ, and that is when Christ pronounced him saved.

Goodness gracious, man...you are literally argueing against the scriptures in the 1st example and now you are argueing against the words of Christ Himself in the 2nd one.

"Either way, it is irrelevant. The conditions of pardon under the New Testament did not apply to him, since he died under the OT. Heb 9:16, 17 tells us that the death of the testator is required for a testament to be of force. Jesus was not yet dead when He promised ttoc paradise."But those with Cornelious and Cornelious himself were born again under the new covenant, as where the jailer and the Ethiopian.

"Was ttoc saved? Definitely!

Was ttoc saved without baptism? Maybe, maybe not.How do you suppose they baptised him while dying on a cross, bmerr.

"Was ttoc saved under the NT? No!"The Lord Jesus Christ can make an exception any time He feels like it, bmerr. He is God you know. But either way, the other examples I gave ARE from the new covenant

"He just carries no weight as an example of a NT conversion. If you want to teach salvation without baptism, you'll have to find a different example."I did. Several of them.

"Ethiopian eunuch The contention is that Phillip preached unto him Jesus, not baptism. Nevertheless, the eunuch requested baptism at the first opportunity. Why?Because after one is born again, we are expected to be water baptised.

"Phillip also "preached Christ" to the Samaritans (Acts 8:5-13). We read therein that preaching Christ includes "...preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ" (8:12). No mention of baptism there, either. And yet, oddly enough, in the same verse, we see that "...they were baptized, both men and women."Of course they were water baptised, bmerr. Christians are to water baptise new converts.

"Here are two examples of preaching "Jesus", or preaching "Christ", that both resulted in folks being baptized. I'd say that the command to be baptized is implied in both cases."There is indeed the command to be water baptised. It is AFTER one has been born again through faith alone.

Phillipian jailor - We simply do not know if he had heard the gospel or the name of Jesus Christ prior to Acts 16:30. It seems logical to say that if he had heard the gospel, he would not have needed to ask what to do to be saved. He would have already known.

However, in 16:32, we find that Paul and Silas "...spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house."

It is at this point, and not before, that we can say with certainty that PJ could have had faith by which to be saved. All the events concerning the conversion of PJ and houshold (hearing, believing, repentance, and bapitsm) are summed up in verse 34 with the phrase, "...believing in God with all his house." This is the very thing he was told to do in verse 31.Thats all well and good, bmerr...but the thing you are missing is the chronolgy of events...

16:30: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household"

16:32: "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to to him and to all his household"

16: 33: And they took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immedietly he and all his family were baptised"

They were water baptised at the last...after being told...

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household"

Why didnt he say to them "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be water baptised and you will be saved."?

Because that is not the gospel.

God bless,

Mike

bmerr

07-29-2005, 07:01 PM

D28guy,

bmerr here. Admittedly, I'm a little loopy on pain medication, but no, I wasn't joking. If you stop reading in Acts 10, it does, in fact, appear as though Cornelius heard the gospel first, and then spoke in tongues. I'll give you that.

That's why I directed your attention to Peter's retelling of the incident in Acts 11. Acts 10 gives us the events that transpired. Acts 11 gives us the order in which they took place.

So the Bible tells us (if we read a bit further) that Cornelius and household spoke with tongues before they heard the gospel, for it was "...as [he] began to speak"..., and not after, that they spoke in tongues.

So what was the purpose for their speaking in tongues? My opinion (and that's all it is) is that the six Jewish brethren who accompanied Peter (and possibly Peter as well) needed to be convinced once and for all that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached unto them. They needed confirmation that what was going on was approved by God.

If Peter still had need of such confirmation, then the sight of these Gentiles speaking in tongues (my guess is that it probably was Hebrew) would certainly prompt him to say what he said in 10:34, 35. It is following this statement that Peter begins to preach concerning Jesus.

As far as Jesus making an exception as He sees fit, well, I guess He could, but it would mean violating His own word, His own Testament. Seeing as Acts deals largely with conversions, it seems more likely that the "rules" would be given several times, as opposed to "exceptions" to the rules.

If there is an exception taking place in the conversion of Cornelius, I'd sooner believe it was an exception regarding who would speak in tongues than an exception regarding how men must be saved.

Concerning PJ, of course he was baptized after he was told to believe. The question is, what exactly did PJ know about Jesus or the gospel before Paul and silas spake unto him the word of the Lord in 16:32?

As I pointed out, we cannot know for sure that PJ had ever heard the name of Jesus Christ or the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection until verse 32.

Why didn't Paul tell PJ "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be water baptized and you will be saved"? Because PJ would not yet have known the purpose of baptism, and how it pictures the death, burial, and ressurrection of Christ.

If you would do me this favor, I'd be thankful. Would you please demonstrate from Scripture why we should be baptized, if not for the remission of sins, or to enter Christ, or to be added to the church, or to be saved? A couple of verses would be sufficient.

In Christ,

bmerr

D28guy

07-30-2005, 03:43 AM

Bmerr,

"If you would do me this favor, I'd be thankful. Would you please demonstrate from Scripture why we should be baptized, if not for the remission of sins, or to enter Christ, or to be added to the church, or to be saved? A couple of verses would be sufficient."Gladly.

Matt 28:19

"Go therefore and make disciples, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

We water baptise because the Lord Jesus Christ has told us to do it.

Acts 10: 44-47

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured on the gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered 'Who can forbid water, that these should be baptised, who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have'?."

We water baptise after conversion because the testimony of God found in Romans, Galaciens, Ephesians, and the entirety of the scriptures concerning justfication is overwhelmingly that we are justified through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

And the testimony of the scriptures make clear...on the day of pentecost, the Cornelious conversions, the Ethiopian Eunuch, the Phillipian jailer, etc...is that water baptism is for believers, and follows salvation.

It is a beautiful picture of the death to our old life,(down into the water) and new birth into our new life,(up from the water) that has taken place as a result of our embracing Christ.

God bless,

Mike

bmerr

07-31-2005, 02:45 PM

Mike,

bmerr here. I'd agree that baptism is for believers, since we cannot please God without faith (Heb 11:6). However, the Bible tells us that "...baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh [dirt], but the answer [appeal, request] of a good conscience toward God) by the ressurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3:21).

So baptism is not a bath for the body to wash away dirt, but an inquiry, or appeal (marginal reading from ASV) of a good conscience toward God.

It's saying, "Okay God, I believe that Jesus died for my sins and was raised from the dead. You said that if I repent of my sins, and submit to baptism by the authority of Christ, then you'll clear my record of sin. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I'll trust you to do as you've promised."

Baptism is not a picture of our anything. It's a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, a form of the gospel, and like as He was raised by the power of God, even so we should rise to walk in newness of life.

There's no doubt that we are justified by faith, as the many Scriptures you alluded to state. But the Bible also states quite clearly that we are not justified by faith only.

I know that's one against a multitude. But the Bible only has to say something once for it to be true. The words "faith only" are only found once, and they're preceded by the words, "not by".

Please understand that I mean no slight to the requirement of faith! As stated earlier, without faith, it is impossible to please God. It's also impossible to obey God without faith, and Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey him (Heb 5:8, 9).

If you think about it, to believe is to obey. Look at 1 Pet 2:7:

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner.

Those who believe are presented as the opposite of those who are disobedient. Conversely, unbelief is the opposite of obedience. So believe is to disobedience as unbelief is to obedience. They're opposites. In short, belief = obedience, and unbelief = disobedience. Confused yet? I'm writing this, and I'm about turned around, myself!

Of course, there's the kind of belief the chief rulers had in John 12:42, 43 which reads,

Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: 43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Now you affirm salvation/justification by faith alone. The faith you speak of is mental affirmation of the facts of Jesus, unless I have it wrong (and please correct me if I do).

By that definition, are you not kind of cornered into saying that these men were saved?

Like I said, I may have your position wrong, and I'm very willing to be corrected if that is the case. But if no works of any kind are required for one to be saved, then it seems to me that these men would have to be saved.

However, if works of obedience, (which James tells us are what makes faith perfect, or complete), are allowed, such as repentance, confession, and baptism, then these men were clearly not saved, since they knew who Christ was, but did not confess Him (Luke 12:8-9; Mat 10:32-33).

The Scriptures are very clear that "by deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." (Rom 3:20). However, Peter (Acts 10:35) and James (James 2:17-26) both affirm that there is a class of works that is required to be accepted by God.

I really don't think we're all that far apart on this, Mike. I think if we can figure out what the different Bible writers meant when they spoke of "works", we can come to an agreement, or at least get closer to one.

Other duties earnestly call me away for now. I'll talk to you later.

In Christ,

bmerr

Ed Edwards

07-31-2005, 04:15 PM

The discussion of "Baptism: Essential or Mandatory",
has been moved to:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3327.html

Sorry for stealing the "Distortion of Scripture"
Topic. Read the OP = Opening Post, to see
what the original subject was all about.

D28guy

07-31-2005, 05:06 PM

bmree,

You said...

"It's saying, "Okay God, I believe that Jesus died for my sins and was raised from the dead. You said that if I repent of my sins, and submit to baptism by the authority of Christ, then you'll clear my record of sin. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I'll trust you to do as you've promised.""You have just articulated a false gospel. A gospel of works, because you have added the work of "repenting of my sins" and the work of "water baptism by the authority of Christ" to faith.

God says...

"It is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast"

"Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God."

"even the rightiousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe."

"to demonstrate at this time His rightiousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

"knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ Jesus and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law no flesh will be justified."

I could go on and on for hours of course. God thunders justification through faith alone from the entirety of His scriptures.

"Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: 43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Now you affirm salvation/justification by faith alone. The faith you speak of is mental affirmation of the facts of Jesus, unless I have it wrong (and please correct me if I do).You do. It is not mental affirmation of facts. I believed all of the correct facts concerning Jesus Christ for decades as a Catholic and was no more born again than Satan himself.

I am talking about what God affirms, and is that we are justified by faith alone, not intellectual ascent to facts alone.

"By that definition, are you not kind of cornered into saying that these men were saved?"Not in the least.

"Like I said, I may have your position wrong, and I'm very willing to be corrected if that is the case. But if no works of any kind are required for one to be saved, then it seems to me that these men would have to be saved."No they wouldnt. They had intellectual ascent. We are justified by faith alone, and after that the fruit of our justification and new birth will become evident by the fruit which will appear in our lives.

The fruit flows from our justification, but has no part in our attaining justification.

"The Scriptures are very clear that "by deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." (Rom 3:20). However, Peter (Acts 10:35) and James (James 2:17-26) both affirm that there is a class of works that is required to be accepted by God."Not meaning that we are required to add works to our faith to be justified. That turns the saving gospel into a false gospel. That is precisely what God was adressing through Paul in Galaciens when God said that if anyone comes along with a different gospel than justification through faith alone let him be accursed.

That pretty serious.

"I really don't think we're all that far apart on this, Mike. I think if we can figure out what the different Bible writers meant when they spoke of "works", we can come to an agreement, or at least get closer to one.""Works" in relation to the saving gospel means anything in the form of our "doing" that we add to embracing Christ through faith.

God bless,

Mike

bmerr

08-02-2005, 01:51 PM

D28Guy,

bmerr here. Then was James wrong in his reasoning? Or can one be saved without being justified?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-03-2005, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:

bmerr here. Then was James wrong in his reasoning? Or can one be saved without being justified?

In Christ,

bmerr No, You are wrong in your reasoning.
Simple reason: The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The second reason: You fail to take into consideration the purpose for which James is writing and the theme of the Book of James.
The theme: Practical Christian Living.
He is not writing about salvation, like Paul is in Romans 4.

You fail even to understand the context of the second chapter, the key verse of which, I posted above (vs. 18). James challenges others and tells them that he will demonstrate his faith by his works. His works has nothing to do with his salvation; they are a result of it. They come because he is saved--after he is saved. They in no way are a part of his salvation. Understand what he is saying. Salvation without works is not salvation at all, but only because salvation (by faith alone) so changes a person that works will be very evident in his life. That is what James is all about. And that is what James is teaching, in spite of the spin you are trying to put on it. All the verses have to harmonize together, and all the Books of the Bible have to harnonize together. Your interpretation does not.
DHK

D28guy

08-03-2005, 02:43 AM

Bmerr,

"Then was James wrong in his reasoning? Or can one be saved without being justified?"The book of James fits perfectly and beautifully with the truth of justification through faith alone.

James is speaking of someone who *claims* to have faith but is devoid of any fruit that proves his faith is legitimate.

God bless,

Mike

bmerr

08-03-2005, 09:26 AM

D28guy,

bmerr here. Believe it or not, I can go along with this:

James is speaking of someone who *claims* to have faith but is devoid of any fruit that proves his faith is legitimate.I would agree that one who decides to become a Christian ought to behave differently than those of the world around him.

But here's the glitch in my understanding of your position: regardless of whether James speaks of salvation, or practical Christian living, the idea of "justification by faith alone" is flatly denied in this chapter. James 2:24 is the only place in all of Scripture that places the words "faith" and "only" side by side in a sentence.

James writes to those he calls, "My brethren" (1:2). At some point, James was convinced that his audience was of the same heart and mind as he was. What would cause him to think of these people as brethren, if they were not demonstrating appropriate works?

At what point would he start calling them "brethren", when he knew that "not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt 7:21)?

What had they done to be counted as brethren?

James main point in this chapter IMO, is that faith is perfected (made complete) by works, and that faith without works is dead. There is no such thing as Biblical faith apart from works. That's the thrust of Hebreews 11. This NT writer tells us that "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" (11:6). He also points to OT examples of faith to give us a picture of the kind of faith that pleases God.

Not one of the examples given shows someone simply believing without doing what God said to do.

"By faith Abel offered...by which he obtained witness that he was righteous..."

"By faith Noah...prepared an ark..."

"By faith Abraham...obeyed..."

That's what the Bible means when it talks about faith.

So, getting back to James, what did the recipients of his letter do to become known as "brethren? How were they justified?

In Christ,

bmerr

Doubting Thomas

08-03-2005, 09:50 AM

DHK:You fail to take into consideration the purpose for which James is writing and the theme of the Book of James.
The theme: Practical Christian Living.
He is not writing about salvation, like Paul is in Romans 4.That's incorrect. James is indeed talking about salvation, the kind of faith that saves...

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works. Can faith save him?" (James 2:14). This a rhetorical question, and James proceeds to answer "no" with the rest of the passage--if one does not have works one cannot be justified/saved.

"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17). Such a dead "faith" doesn't justify (which is confirmed in verse 24) but only, as Paul says, a faith working through love (Gal 5:6). This is the way in which faith "avails" (as Paul says) and "profits" (as James says) and both are mentioned in the context of salvation/justification.

And of course, James, inspired by God, specifically says in verse 24: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only". So James and Paul and Peter and John all agree with each other and with Christ that salvation/justification is not granted to faith "alone"--to a naked or a dead "faith"--but only to faith which works through love, a faith which is proven and made perfect by loving acts of obedience.

[ August 03, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

bmerr

08-03-2005, 10:31 AM

DHK,

bmerr here. Yeah, what he said.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-03-2005, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />DHK:You fail to take into consideration the purpose for which James is writing and the theme of the Book of James.
The theme: Practical Christian Living.
He is not writing about salvation, like Paul is in Romans 4.That's incorrect. [/QUOTE]No it is not incorrect. You understanding of this passage is very much incorrect.
James is indeed talking about salvation, the kind of faith that saves...

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works. Can faith save him?" (James 2:14). This a rhetorical question, and James proceeds to answer "no" with the rest of the passage--if one does not have works one cannot be justified/saved.What was James teaching here? Remember the theme of the book? Practical Christian Living.
"Can faith save him"
The meaning here is: "Can their Christian faith, that is their Chrisianity, if not outwardly practiced, physically save those that are hungry. The word faith refers to Christianity, or more to the point "Baptist faith," for example. The word save, refersy to a physical salvation, as in keeping them from starvation. It is not speaking of salvation at all. He is speaking of the good works of a Christian. See how easy it is to misunderstand the context in which James is writing. If a Christian stands around and does nothing, does no good works at all, doesn't try to help anyone, etc., James questions if he is really a Christian in the first place. True Christianity brings forth the fruit of the Spirit. It brings forth good works. But good works never brings forth salvation.

"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17). Such a dead "faith" doesn't justify (which is confirmed in verse 24) but only, as Paul says, a faith working through love (Gal 5:6). This is the way in which faith "avails" (as Paul says) and "profits" (as James says) and both are mentioned in the context of salvation/justification.James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
The devils (demons) believe also, and yet are not saved. What is the difference. There's is only a mental assent of existence. They do not believe in the saving power of God, in fact they rebel against God.
Belief in God is far more than mental assent. It is a living faith that produces works. This chapter is not about salvation per se. It is about works which are a result of a living faith in Christ.
If you just have a mental assent, lip service toward God, and no works, then your faith is dead. It is not the faith that comes from your heart, that God demands (Rom.10:9). It is mere profession without possession. Works is the product of saving faith.

The key verse:
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
--Our faith is demonstrated by our works. Our works are never part of our faith.
And of course, James, inspired by God, specifically says in verse 24: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only". So James and Paul and Peter and John all agree with each other and with Christ that salvation/justification is not granted to faith "alone"--to a naked or a dead "faith"--but only to faith which works through love, a faith which is proven and made perfect by loving acts of obedience. Peter, James, and Paul all agree that a man is justified by faith and faith alone. This wonderful truth is repeated over and over again in Scripture in almost every book of the Bible including the Old Testament books.
Again, to understand the statement you cannot take it out of its context as you just did, but read in its context of practical Christian living, and realize that a man is justified by faith alone, and the proof of that justification is in its works.
DHK

Doubting Thomas

08-03-2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
You understanding of this passage is very much incorrect.No, yours is, and this is easily demonstrated.

What was James teaching here? Remember the theme of the book? Practical Christian Living.
"Can faith save him"
The meaning here is: "Can their Christian faith, that is their Chrisianity, if not outwardly practiced, physically save those that are hungry. Wow...that is a horrendous distortion of the context. Here's the verse again:
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works. Can faith save him?"(James 2:14) The one in question (about whom can be saved by faith or not) is the one who claims to have faith but doesn't have works. "Someone", "him", and "he" all refer to that same individual. That question (and that "saving") has nothing to do with physically "saving" the hungry--ie, someone else.

If a Christian stands around and does nothing, does no good works at all, doesn't try to help anyone, etc., James questions if he is really a Christian in the first place.As indeed he should. :cool:
True Christianity brings forth the fruit of the Spirit. It brings forth good works. But good works never brings forth salvation.Yet, one is never saved without good works.

Hear Paul:
"(God) who 'will render to each one according to their deeds': eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory honor and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil" (Romans 2:6-9).

Belief in God is far more than mental assent. It is a living faith that produces works. This chapter is not about salvation per se. It is about works which are a result of a living faith in Christ. True (except for your third sentence), and without these works any alleged faith is dead and therefore unable to justify/save.

If you just have a mental assent, lip service toward God, and no works, then your faith is dead. It is not the faith that comes from your heart, that God demands (Rom.10:9). It is mere profession without possession. Works is the product of saving faith.True, but James also states that such works perfect faith (v.22) and that without these works there is no justification since there is no living faith.

Peter, James, and Paul all agree that a man is justified by faith and faith alone.Only half right. They agree that one is justified by faith alright, but not faith alone. Works do not passively flow from one simply because he or she at one time made a heart-felt declaration of faith in Christ and invited Him into his heart. (If it was passive or automatic, then Paul would never have to command Christians to be "careful to maintain good works"--Titus 3:8). Less still is one finally and ultimately justified because of a one-time faith "experience". The life of faith must be continuous and ongoing, being constantly demonstrated by and completed by works of love for it to avail for salvation. (Peter wrote that one must be diligent to add to faith virtue, knowledge, self-control, perserverance, godliness, brotherly kindess, and love so that one's election would be sure and so that he wouldn't stumble and that an entrance would be supplied to him into the everlasting kingdom [2 Peter 1:5-11]. Diligence implies effort not passivity.)

So you see, faith and faithfulness go hand and hand. One cannot separate the two and fallaciously maintain that one is justified by faith apart from loving acts of obedience.

DHK

08-03-2005, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Wow...that is a horrendous distortion of the context. Here's the verse again:
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works. Can faith save him?"(James 2:14) The one in question (about whom can be saved by faith or not) is the one who claims to have faith but doesn't have works. "Someone", "him", and "he" all refer to that same individual. That question (and that "saving") has nothing to do with physically "saving" the hungry--ie, someone else. Look at the context again.
James 2:15-17 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
15 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

What does it profit if your "so-called" Christian faith is not able to be put in action and even help those that are in need. You, DT, call yourself a Catholic, like my next door neighbor. I don't see him involved in helping the needy and doing any good works. Nor do I see his life evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit. I suppose he would call himself a Christian just because he is a RC. But there is no evidence in his life that he is. His faith is dead, devoid of any works. He may call himself a Christian but doesn't act like one. he doesn't even go to church. I doubt if he could find the gospel of John if given a Bible.
Even so faith if it hath not works is dead being alone
Call yourself a Christian all you like (like he does). But if your life does not demonstrate it by its works, I doubt if you are.

How is his "faith" his Catholicism, going to "save" those hungry people from starvation. It is not. He has not works. He doesn't care.

True Christianity brings forth the fruit of the Spirit. It brings forth good works. But good works never brings forth salvation. Yet, one is never saved without good works.Just like the thief on the cross wasn't saved without good works, or those who trust Christ near the hour of their death are not saved without good works? Are you another one that believes in such a cruel God that you also would condemn such ones to Hell. I am glad I don't serve your God. I don't judge the heart. God does. Only generally speaking can we say that good works is a product of salvation. We can dogmatically say that good works is not a part of salvation, and one can be saved without them. For the Bible says that we are justified by faith. Not by works. The Bible is clear on this subject.
"Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God." (Rom.5:1) The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Do you believe this verse or not?

Hear Paul:
"(God) who 'will render to each one according to their deeds': eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory honor and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but unrighteousness--indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil" (Romans 2:6-9).Paul was warning the unsaved Jew of what would happen if they did not repent. Verse 7 is a contrast. It means that those who already have eternal life will patientlt continue in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality. This is the fruit of the saved.

Belief in God is far more than mental assent. It is a living faith that produces works. This chapter is not about salvation per se. It is about works which are a result of a living faith in Christ. True (except for your third sentence), and without these works any alleged faith is dead and therefore unable to justify/save.Works do not justify. Check Romans 5:1

Also:
Romans 3:27-28 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

If you just have a mental assent, lip service toward God, and no works, then your faith is dead. It is not the faith that comes from your heart, that God demands (Rom.10:9). It is mere profession without possession. Works is the product of saving faith. True, but James also states that such works perfect faith (v.22) and that without these works there is no justification since there is no living faith.Again, You need to understand the theme of the book. The works are the product of a faith that is right with God. They are the product, not part of the salvation. Salvation is not of works, never was.

Peter, James, and Paul all agree that a man is justified by faith and faith alone. Only half right. They agree that one is justified by faith alright, but not faith alone.Show me that through Eph.2:8,9
This passage has "faith alone" written all over it. Why don't you give me a good explanation for it.

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.

Works do not passively flow from one simply because he or she at one time made a heart-felt declaration of faith in Christ and invited Him into his heart. (If it was passive or automatic, then Paul would never have to command Christians to be "careful to maintain good works"--Titus 3:8).What are you talking about? Mumble Jumble?
A work is a work is a work. And there are no works involved in salvation which is entirely by faith. Works have nothing to do with faith. People work every day. What does faith have to do with a carpenter or a bus driver? The good works of a Christian are no different. What faith does it take to go and comfort the sick, give to the poor? It doesn't take faith at all. They are just good works. Salvation is by faith, not of good works.
Less still is one finally and ultimately justified because of a one-time faith "experience". The life of faith must be continuous and ongoing, being constantly demonstrated by and completed by works of love for it to avail for salvation.It is a nice thought but it is not Biblical. It is a mark of a false religion.
(Peter wrote that one must be diligent to add to faith virtue, knowledge, self-control, perserverance, godliness, brotherly kindess, and love so that one's election would be sure and so that he wouldn't stumble and that an entrance would be supplied to him into the everlasting kingdom [2 Peter 1:5-11]. Diligence implies effort not passivity.)So what? None of that has to do with our salvation. All of that has to do with our walk with Christ.

So you see, faith and faithfulness go hand and hand. One cannot separate the two and fallaciously maintain that one is justified by faith apart from loving acts of obedience. No, just because you have created a false dichotomy doesn't make it true.
DHK

D28guy

08-04-2005, 04:00 AM

Doubting Thomas,

"Yet, one is never saved without good works.""For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast."

"True, but James also states that such works perfect faith (v.22) and that without these works there is no justification since there is no living faith."Thats the point we are making. Why do disagree with us one minute...and agree the next? Why do you "falter between two opinions?"

"They agree that one is justified by faith alright, but not faith alone.""For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast"

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God"

"One cannot separate the two and fallaciously maintain that one is justified by faith apart from loving acts of obedience."Yes we can.

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast"

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God"

Your choice is to either agree with what God says and let the scriptures fit together like a hand in a glove, or continue to "falter between two opinions" and have scriptures that contradict one another and cause "grace to no longer be grace".

Grace and peace,

Mike

mman

08-04-2005, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by D28guy:
Your choice is to either agree with what God says and let the scriptures fit together like a hand in a glove, or continue to "falter between two opinions" and have scriptures that contradict one another and cause "grace to no longer be grace".

Grace and peace,

Mike [/QB]I cannot agree more with this statement.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16

Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" - Acts 2:38

Paul was told, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins" Acts 22:16

Peter said, "Baptism doth now also save us" - I Pet 3:21

Paul said, "For by grace have you been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast" - Eph 2:8-9

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

All of these statements are true and fit together perfectly. One verse does not negate another, but rather is in harmony and full agreement.

Titus 2:11 says, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,"

Does this mean all men will be saved? Of course not. Most men will be lost according to Matt 7:13-14.

In fact, Jesus said in Matt 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Faith alone cannot save. These people are sincere, but sincerely wrong.

Question, Did God give Jericho to the childern of Israel? (Josh 6:2)

Did they have to "do" anything to receive that gift?

By faith the walls of Jericho fell down (Heb 11:30). Do you really believe the walls would have fallen down without obedience to God's instructions? Remember, they fell by faith.

I know this seems like foolishness, but Jesus said in words so plain that you truly have to have help to MISUNDERSTAND them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Did he really mean that or did he mean to say something else?

bmerr

08-04-2005, 05:16 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. Sir, you've done it again! You make the claim that the Bible says something that it simply does not say. Only this time, you actually give the Scripture you misquote, and expose youreself as one adding to the word of God. Don't you know that's dangerous?

Here's what I mean:

Originally posted by DHK: Show me that through Eph.2:8,9
This passage has "faith alone" written all over it. Why don't you give me a good explanation for it.

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.Honestly, sir! Where do you see the phrase, "faith alone" in that (or any other) verse? It's not here.

Prov 30:5, 6 says,

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

No comment needed.

In Christ,

bmerr

D28guy

08-05-2005, 02:10 AM

This verse was posted...

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.And Bmerr said...

Honestly, sir! Where do you see the phrase, "faith alone" in that (or any other) verse? It's not here.You know, I would almost think I was watching comedy central...if it werent so mind bogglingly sad.

Bmerr...do you honestly...HONESTLY...expect any clear thinking person to buy such nonsense as you just posted.

I'm serious...there are intelligent people on these boards. Not dullards...sharp people. Bright people.

Dont you know how such a response as yours there causes you to come across? Its almost as if you dont want to be taken seriously or something.

Sadly,

Mike

DHK

08-05-2005, 03:24 AM

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.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Romans 3:27-28 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:6-7 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Romans 4:23-25 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

There are hundreds, literally hundreds of other verses--both Old Testament and New, that teach the same thing: that a man is justified by faith and faith alone; as all of the above teach. It does not have to use the very word "alone" to teach alone. "Alone" is taught in these verses by the very implication that nothing else is added. That truth is self evident. There is no mention in all of these verses. The sum totality of Scriptures declare unto us that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. To say that it does is heresy, if not pagan superstition.
DHK

Doubting Thomas

08-05-2005, 06:27 AM

Still waiting for the verse (any verse) that says we are justified by "faith alone". Again, the only verse that has "faith alone" in the context of justification is James 2:24 which specifically states that one is "justified by works and not by faith alone." It's truly amazing the lengths people will go to distort scripture in order to deny this. ("Stunning", I tell you!)

Very sadly,
DT

Matt Black

08-05-2005, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by DHK:

The sum totality of Scriptures declare unto us that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. To say that it does is heresy, if not pagan superstition.
DHK Mark 16:16. It seems, according to DHK, that Jesus was a heretic and pagan. Bad luck, Lord...

Thanks, DHK, but I'd rather stick with what Jesus says if you don't mind

Yours in Christ

Matt

bmerr

08-05-2005, 12:03 PM

DHK,

The reasoning you are using is flawed at its' core. Here is your statement:

There are hundreds, literally hundreds of other verses--both Old Testament and New, that teach the same thing: that a man is justified by faith and faith alone; as all of the above teach. It does not have to use the very word "alone" to teach alone. "Alone" is taught in these verses by the very implication that nothing else is added. That truth is self evident. There is no mention in all of these verses. The sum totality of Scriptures declare unto us that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. To say that it does is heresy, if not pagan superstition.
DHKLet me summarize my understanding of the "logic" you're using. Since only faith is mentioned in the verses you cited, then the conclusion is that they teach salvation by "faith only".

If this is the case, then I'm going to start sleeping in on Sundays, go back to drinking heavily on the weekends, see if I can get back into the local music scene, cursing and swearing, and generally start living like a heathen again.

Why would I do that? one might ask. Simple: because the Bible contradicts itself. (Please bear with me, I'm using "faith only" reasoning).

I figure if the Bible contradicts itself even ONE TIME, then it's not worthy to be trusted, and there is no God.

You see, DHK gave a wonderful list of verses that say we're saved by faith, and since no other conditions are given in these verses, then they obviously teach that we're saved "by faith only".

But I read in 1 Pet 3:21 that "...baptism doth also now save us...", and there are no other conditions listed in that verse, so it obviously teaches that we are saved by "baptism only".

And if that weren't bad enough, Romans 8:24 says that we're "saved by hope", and since no other conditions are listed, it must obviously teach that we're saved "by hope only".

So it's at least a triple contradiction, based on seeing these verses as the "faith only" crowd seems to.

Fortunately, this reasoning is anything but logical. The Bible says in Ps 119:160 (ASV 1901), "The sum of thy word is truth..." In order to discern the whole truth of God's word on any subject, we must find all of what it says in reference to that subject.

Time does not permit me to give all that the NT says concerning salvation, but the conditions of pardon have been given numerous times. Suffice it to say for now, that "faith without works is dead".

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-05-2005, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Still waiting for the verse (any verse) that says we are justified by "faith alone". Again, the only verse that has "faith alone" in the context of justification is James 2:24 which specifically states that one is "justified by works and not by faith alone." It's truly amazing the lengths people will go to distort scripture in order to deny this. ("Stunning", I tell you!)

Very sadly,
DT I regret that you don't believe that the English language has synonymns, or perhaps you just haven't studied the English language. I don't know which. There are different ways of saying things. But to hang your theology on one specific English word, when there are so many others that mean the same thing, is very sad. It is even self-comdemning. Sad, but true.

If you know that I have only one daughter.
And I tell you: I came home without my daughter.
It means I came home alone.
How profound.
Justification without works means justification by faith alone. (whether or not the alone is added--to add it would simply be redundant). The Lord was a good grammarian. He didn't see fit for the sake of Catholics to be so redundant throughout the Scriptures. Justification by faith repeated over and over again, means: justification by faith alone. Ask the Lord. He will tell you. He told me. That is all I need to know. Don't try to confuse yourself by contradicting the Bible.
DHK

DHK

08-05-2005, 06:46 PM

Bmerr,
Give me a post when it makes sense.
The Bible gives many commands. We all know that, and we all agree with that. But not all commands are related to salvation. You have chosen to take a Scripture here and a Scripture there--out of its context of course, and try and make a point with it.
The fact is that the one major them all throughout the Bible is that a man is justified by faith, and faith alone. There are other commands in the Bible, unrelated to salvation. There are even other things that are related to salvation. That doesnt' change this one great theme. Nothing but faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ can justify a man. You can pull all the references you want out of the Bible, but it won't change this fact.

The Bible says: "There is no God" in Psalm 14:1. Do you believe this also? It does.
You do the same thing with 1Pet.3:21.
DHK

prophecynut

08-05-2005, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
Bmerr,
Give me a post when it makes sense.
Expecting a miracle?

James 2:24
People are justified (declared righteous before God) by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Genuine faith will produce good works, but only faith in Christ saves.

bmerr

08-05-2005, 08:22 PM

P-Nut & DHK,

bmerr here. So according to you guys, salvation is by faith apart from works, but this faith which has no works produces works. Do I have that right?

If so, then we are saved by what the Bible describes as dead faith, but from this dead, saving faith, springs works which make it genuine, living faith. And you imply that I make no sense!

In reference to your illustration, DHK,

If you know that I have only one daughter.
And I tell you: I came home without my daughter.
It means I came home alone.
How profound.In order for this to be true, I would have to assume that you have no wife, sons, or any other family or friends that could possibly accompany you to your house. Is this the case? Do you not have any other family or friends?

(I'm sorry if it is the case. I know that sometimes tragic events can leave a man bereft of family and friends, and would not stoop so low as to open "old wounds".)

What I'm getting at is that I would have to investigate to see if there were anyone else that might come home with you besides your daughter.

I have not taken 1 Pet 3:21 out of context, either. Do we need to go over this again? It says,

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:"

Just for fun, let's look at the verse without the parenthetical portion, and then look at the part in paretheses by itself.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

The portion of the verse in parentheses is an explanation of what baptism is, and is not. First, what baptism is not,

(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh...)

Baptism is not the removal of dirt and other impurities from the body.

(...but the answer of a good conscience toward God}

Baptism is the answer (inquiry, appeal - marginal reading ASV) of a good conscience toward God.

So baptism saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Another statement you made is confusing, DHK.

There are even other things that are related to salvation.What are these things, and with these things in mind, how can you still believe salvation is by "faith alone"?

In Christ,

bmerr

Charles Meadows

08-05-2005, 08:35 PM

"... how can you still believe salvation is by "faith alone"?

I think we would all agree that salvation is a gift from God. That pretty well implies He is just giving it to us without our earning it. As such it is acceptance by faith of God's gift which allows us eternal life. I think we would also all agree that the indwelling of the Spirit changes a person.

A person whose life demonstrates NO WORKS is not unsaved BECAUSE of a lack of works - but one might speculate that the person who has NO WORKS never really had an indwelling of the Spirit.

No contradiction here.

prophecynut

08-05-2005, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
So according to you guys, salvation is by faith apart from works, but this faith which has no works produces works. Exactly, bravo. "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works , which God prepared in advance for us to do." We are created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of doing good works. We have to be in Christ before we can do good works.

"Dead faith?' Come on bmerr, get a grip will ya! :rolleyes:

bmerr

08-05-2005, 10:52 PM

P-Nut,

bmerr here. Well, that's what James says faith without works is - "dead".

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" (James 2:14 - rhetorical question, implies a negative answer - no.)

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17)

"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:26).

Thus my restating of your position, that being that we are saved by a dead faith. It's not Biblical. It doesn't even make common sense.

In Christ,

bmerr

prophecynut

08-06-2005, 02:17 AM

Faith without works is a mere intellectual acceptance of certain truths without trust in Christ as Savior. Faith with works is genuine and comes from the faith that saves. Intellectual faith is dead and cannot save you. James was referring to a counterfeit faith that doesn't produce good works.

Which one do you have?

Charles Meadows

08-06-2005, 08:53 AM

bmerr,

"Thus my restating of your position, that being that we are saved by a dead faith. It's not Biblical. It doesn't even make common sense."

"Sola fide" is a reductio ad absurdum. Salvation by "faith alone" was never meant to imply that works are not important, particularly as they are signs of a new man. The significance of sola fide is in the fact that it is our faith in God that saves us; it is God's grace and not the merit of our works which brings about our salvation. Without God's generosity, even our rituals (praying a certain way, being dunked in water, going to a church that doesn't use instruments) mean NOTHING.

Frank

08-06-2005, 03:00 PM

No one has ever been saved by mere mental acceptance of truth. no one has ever been saved by a mere feeling or spirit. The faith that saves always ACTS. It Always has, and always will be the case! Hebrews 11:6. An obedient active faith is the ONLY faith that saves. Romans 15:26, Hebrews 5:8,9, John 3:36, II Thes. 1:6-9.

DHK

08-06-2005, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
P-Nut & DHK,

bmerr here. So according to you guys, salvation is by faith apart from works, but this faith which has no works produces works. Do I have that right?Partly right. Salvation is by faith apart from works. That part is right. It is almost a direct quote from Eph.2:8,9.
"But this faith which has no works produces works."
Maybe; maybe not.
Was the thief on the cross baptized? Did he ever do any good work after he believed?
Secondly, Do we dare put outselves in the place of God and judge the heart?
As a general rule we observe the fruit (works) and make a judgement about one's salvation. But our judgements are fallible. We are not God. Just because you don't observe the works doesn't mean that the person isn't saved.
"The Lord knows them that are His," the Bible says.
And guess what! He doesn't go by the standards of the COC.

If so, then we are saved by what the Bible describes as dead faith, but from this dead, saving faith, springs works which make it genuine, living faith. And you imply that I make no sense!You put your own definitions to words that the Bible has not so defined. We are saved by faith. Never mind redefining them according to COC theology. Just stick with simple Biblical defintions, and if you need a dictionary for help then so be it.
What is faith? Faith is confidence, or trust in the word of another: biblically in the Word or promises of God.
It is demonstrated and described very well by Paul using Abraham as an example:

Romans 4:20-21 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.
--Verse 19 says that Abraham was not weak in faith.
Verse 20 says that Abraham was strong in faith.
Verse 21 defines his faith--fully persuaded that what God had promise he was able also to perform.
That is faith--confidence in the promises of God.

In reference to salvation, I put my faith, (trust) in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ that he will (as he promised he would) grant unto me eternal life and forgive me of all my sins. I am fully confident that he will. And the moment that I did put my faith in him, I was fully confident that he had forgiven me my sin, and granted me eternal life.
The Scripture says:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

So, try not to make such a big deal about dissecting the word "faith" when the Bible doesn't. It is a simple word, with a simple definition.

In reference to your illustration, DHK,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If you know that I have only one daughter.
And I tell you: I came home without my daughter.
It means I came home alone.
How profound.In order for this to be true, I would have to assume that you have no wife, sons, or any other family or friends that could possibly accompany you to your house. Is this the case? Do you not have any other family or friends?

(I'm sorry if it is the case. I know that sometimes tragic events can leave a man bereft of family and friends, and would not stoop so low as to open "old wounds".)

What I'm getting at is that I would have to investigate to see if there were anyone else that might come home with you besides your daughter. [/QUOTE]Yes, you try needlesly to complicate a simple illustration. I avoided other details just to keep the illustration simple (guessing that you would jump at the chance to bring in all the red herrings you could). It was a simple illustration. Why couldn't you keep it that way? We were examing the way English grammar works, not the details of an extended family. :rolleyes: In other words, it is a statment I might of said to my wife which would have made perfect sense to her.

I have not taken 1 Pet 3:21 out of context, either. Do we need to go over this again? It says,

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:"

Just for fun, let's look at the verse without the parenthetical portion, and then look at the part in paretheses by itself.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

The portion of the verse in parentheses is an explanation of what baptism is, and is not. First, what baptism is not,

(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh...)

Baptism is not the removal of dirt and other impurities from the body.

(...but the answer of a good conscience toward God}This is where your mistake is.
Baptism all throughout the passage is purely symbolic. It doesn't save anyone. The answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection by Jesus Christ saves. That is what the passage says, not baptism. Baptism is purely symbolic. "The like figure unto..." It tells us it is symbolic. It tells us that it is a good conscience toward God by the resurection of Jesus Christ that brings salvation. Why are you making it something different.

It is parallel to verse 20:
Water destroyed. Baptismal waters are symbolical of destruction--leaving the old world behind, as Noah left the old world behind.
Noah was saved by being in the Ark (Christ)
We are saved by being in Christ (our Ark),
Noah was safe in the Ark, and disembarked on dry land picturing the resurrection.
Baptism pictures the resurrection, or it pictures our resurrection as we come out of that polluted world of sin, and live in newness of life with the resurrected Jesus Christ.
Baptism doesn't save. It is a picture of what Christ has done in our lives. To say that baptism saves is to contradict all of Scripture, and to contradict the very picture that Peter is painting here.
DHK

bmerr

08-06-2005, 07:24 PM

DHK,

bmerr here.

originally by DHK:
Noah was saved by being in the Ark (Christ)
We are saved by being in Christ (our Ark)I can go along with this. One question: How does the Bible say that we get "into Christ"?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-06-2005, 08:04 PM

John 15:1-7 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Romans 10:13-17 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

We are born again, "get into Christ," as you say, by calling on the name of the Lord. It is through His Word. His Word is the agency by which one is born again, or saved. The gospel is the Word of God, which is preached, and believed, and received by faith.
DHK

bmerr

08-06-2005, 08:26 PM

P-Nut,

bmerr here. Please understand that I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but your post flips and flops back and forth so much in so short a time, that I've got to break it down.

Originally posted by prophecynut:
Faith without works is a mere intellectual acceptance of certain truths without trust in Christ as Savior.Okay. Faith apart from works, then, does not save. Am I understanding you correctly?

Faith with works is genuine...I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mean works of obedience, as opposed to works of the Law, or works of merit. Would it be acceptable to restate this as "Obedient faith is genuine?"

...and comes from the faith that saves.So now the obedient faith, (if I may use that term), which is genuine, is brought forth by the faith that saves, though that faith is separated from any work.

Intellectual faith is dead and cannot save you.If I wasn't confused already, this is where you lose me. At the beginning of your post, you said that, "Faith without works is a mere intellectual acceptance of certain truths...", thus describing what you term "Intellectual faith", which you said was dead, and cannot save.

Then you said that faith with works was genuine, but that genuine faith (with works) came from the faith that saves, which aparently has no works, which causes it to fall into the category of "intellectual faith", that you said was dead and cannot save.

Am I misunderstanding your post? Please tell me I am. You seem to differentiate between a faith with works, which is genuine, and a faith without works, which you called intellectual faith which cannot save.

Basically you've boiled it down to two types of faith: one with works ("genuine")
one without works ("intellectual")

All the while maintaining the position of salvation by "faith only", or faith without works. Do you not see that saving faith must be one type or the other? It either must be dead faith (without works), or living, perfected faith (with works). There is no "Door # 3" for it to be in.

[Reminder: When I speak of "works", I mean obedience, not works of the law, or works of merit. Nobody's earning anything.]

So, like I said earlier, your position seems to be salvation by dead faith ("intellectual" - without works) producing genuine faith (with works).

I'm getting frustrated just trying to make sense of your belief! How do you keep a straight while trying to defend such a doctrine? It makes no sense at all, not to mention the fact that it simply is not what the Bible teaches.

Which one do you have? My faith is one that manifests itself in obedience to the commands of God which pertain to me under the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

If you want to try to clarify your position, please do.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-06-2005, 08:39 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. You can't bring yourself to say it, can you? The phrase "into Christ" is found in the NT, and I'm pretty sure you know where, but you can't say what the Bible says without saying what mman, Frank, and I have been saying, so you dance around, trying to find another way to get "into Christ".

People are either "in Christ", or they're not. Inside or outside. The Bible tells those on the outside how to get on the inside, but it seems as though you can't bring yourself to say what it says. Is this the case, or do you really not know?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-06-2005, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
DHK,

bmerr here. You can't bring yourself to say it, can you? The phrase "into Christ" is found in the NT, and I'm pretty sure you know where, but you can't say what the Bible says without saying what mman, Frank, and I have been saying, so you dance around, trying to find another way to get "into Christ".

People are either "in Christ", or they're not. Inside or outside. The Bible tells those on the outside how to get on the inside, but it seems as though you can't bring yourself to say what it says. Is this the case, or do you really not know?

In Christ,

bmerr Do not the words of Christ Himself apply? Or do you just rely on Paul
What does "in me" mean?
It means "in Christ" since Christ said it. He repeats it many times throughout this same passage. Read it carefully. "He that abides in me," You must abide, or remain in Christ. How do you get "into Christ?" Read the chapter and find out? It has nothing to do with baptism. I quoted all those verses for your sake. They tell you how to get into Christ. Why don't you believe the Bible?
DHK

bmerr

08-06-2005, 09:35 PM

Charles,

bmerr here.

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
I think we would all agree that salvation is a gift from God. That pretty well implies He is just giving it to us without our earning it.So far, so good. Salvation is certainly a gift that we do not earn. I do not believe that fact neccessarily rules out the possibility of conditions that must be met in order to receive the gift.

An illustration might go like this: A young man (Bob) learns that his rich old uncle (Chip) has died and left 2 million dollars to him in his will. However, in order for Bob to receive his inheritance, he must not be a drug user (illegally, of course). It so happens that Bob is a clean-living young man, and does not use illegal drugs. He presents himself to the executor of Chip's will, and shows the negative results of a recent urinalysis. Having met the aforementioned condition, Bob recieves a check for 2 million dollars from uncle Chip's estate.

Now I ask you: did Bob earn 2 million dollars by not using drugs? Obviously not. Did Bob meet the required condition to recieve 2 million dollars? Yes, he did.

Likewise, when one meets the conditions of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism, he does not earn anything, he merely meets the conditions that God has set for man to become the children of God.

It's not the deeds of the Mosaic Law, it's not works of merit. It's simply faith manifesting itself in obedience.

As such it is acceptance by faith of God's gift which allows us eternal life. I think we would also all agree that the indwelling of the Spirit changes a person.I will admit up front that I don't have the issue of the Spirit's indwelling (literal or figurative) all worked out yet. I've seen pretty convincing arguments for both positions. However, the method of the Spirit's work (direct, or indirect) is pretty clear to me.

I guess what I'm getting at is your statement, "I think we would also all agree that the indwelling of the Spirit changes a person". If you mean that one's behavior will change as he brings himself into line with the Bible, then, yes, I could agree with that.

If you mean that the Holy Spirit mysteriously changes a person directly, then I could not agree.

A person whose life demonstrates NO WORKS is not unsaved BECAUSE of a lack of works - but one might speculate that the person who has NO WORKS never really had an indwelling of the Spirit.Is faithfulness not required, then? It seems as if one minute you're saying "saving faith produces good works", and now you say that salvation actually may not manifest itself in good works. So did the guy with no works ever really get saved? Can one be sure of his salvation if he has no works to act as evidence of his faith? It's like you're chasing your tail or something.

No contradiction here.I beg to differ, sir. There are contradictions everywhere you turn. Salvation produces good works, but it might not. We're saved by faith without works (which the Bible says is dead), but one without works, might not have really been saved, after all.

On the whole, it's vastly different from the Bible.

In Christ,

bmerr

Frank

08-06-2005, 09:59 PM

John 15 does not tell us HOW one gets into Christ?
How is one clean throught the word? To state a thing to be so does not tell us HOW? One is saved by grace through faith. WHEN is one saved by grace through faith? again, to state a thing as fact does not always reveal the how or when. I agree we are saved by grace through faith. The new testament of Christ is a system of justification by faith. However, WHEN is one justified by grace through faith. See Gal. 3:26,27. There is only one way into Christ. The one way is WHEN one is baptized into Christ

Charles Meadows

08-06-2005, 10:23 PM

bmerr,

[B]We're saved by faith without works (which the Bible says is dead), but one without works, might not have really been saved, after all.[B/]

What do you think Paul means when he says that we are saved by faith and not works less any man should boast?

I'll tell you. He means that the salvation comes from the fact that God is gracious enough to give it to us, though we do not deserve it. He wants to show that while the trye believer will manifest works, the works have nothing to do with meriting salvation. You are saved because you acquiesced to Christ, not because you fulfilled requirements. And seriously bmerr, how do you get past that verse anyway?

Your "uncle Chip" story is elucidating. If salvation is analagous to the inheritance in that story then you see salvation as something we get if we meet certain stipulations. That's a very consistent old testament theology (which makes sense since the COC is a very old testament-like church). Keep the law and you get the reward. Simple enough.

But Jesus and Paul describe something different. God wants to indwell us (Jn 14:23). We don't have a list of stipulations regarding our receipt of salvation - all we have to do is ask. In truth uncle Chip didn't make any demands about what his nephew must do to get the inheritance - he just had to ask for it!

If baptism and going to worship in a buidling that says COC could save someone then why did Jesus have to come ?

DHK

08-06-2005, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
John 15 does not tell us HOW one gets into Christ?
How is one clean throught the word? To state a thing to be so does not tell us HOW?Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
--The washing of regeneration referring again to the washing of the Word of God in John 15:3, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit are the two means which God uses in bringing a person to salvation. Baptism gets a person wet. It is a work, as this verse indicates, a work of righteousness to be sure, which means doing the right thing--the right thing after salvation; but it does not save. Not by works of righteousness which we have done are we saved--but according to his mercy. Salvation is all of the grace of God. It is a gift. There is no possible way that the work of baptism could ever be involved.

One is saved by grace through faith. WHEN is one saved by grace through faith? again, to state a thing as fact does not always reveal the how or when. I agree we are saved by grace through faith.If you truly agree with this statement then baptism is automatically out of the question. Baptism is a work. If salvation is by grace through faith, then it is impossible for the work of baptism to be involved. Consider:

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.

You believe that baptism is a part of salvation. The Bible says that salvation is by grace through faith.
Both cannot be true because baptism is a work. If works are involved then grace is no more grace. It is only grace when there are absolutely no works involved. Therefore you practice a works-based religion which is not the faith of the Bible, but a man-made religion.
The new testament of Christ is a system of justification by faith. However, WHEN is one justified by grace through faith. See Gal. 3:26,27. There is only one way into Christ. The one way is WHEN one is baptized into Christ The only way into Christ is by faith in Christ.
Philip came to Christ. What did Philip say? Show us the way, and it will satisfy us. Jesus answered and said unto him:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me."
Jesus did not say to Philip: Go and be baptized, that is the way.
Jesus never preached baptism. His message was always centered around Himself. Seven times in the Book of John he said "I am..." His ministry centered around himself. Why? Because He is the only way. Salvation is centered around Christ. The only way into Christ is through faith in his shed blood. Baptism has no part in salvation.
DHK

Eric B

08-06-2005, 11:45 PM

If so, then we are saved by what the Bible describes as dead faith, but from this dead, saving faith, springs works which make it genuine, living faith. And you imply that I make no sense! ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!!!
There's your "resurrection", following the "death" of the old man that occurs when we are "baptized by the Spirit into the Body" (converted through faith), which the water ceremony symbolizes.
In your system, a spiritually dead person just starts doing certain things, and is then passed from death to life. That is not how it works.
Your "uncle Chip" story is elucidating. If salvation is analagous to the inheritance in that story then you see salvation as something we get if we meet certain stipulations. That's a very consistent old testament theology (which makes sense since the COC is a very old testament-like church). Keep the law and you get the reward. Simple enough.

But Jesus and Paul describe something different. God wants to indwell us (Jn 14:23). We don't have a list of stipulations regarding our receipt of salvation - all we have to do is ask. In truth uncle Chip didn't make any demands about what his nephew must do to get the inheritance - he just had to ask for it! Also, don't forget, that in that story, the person started out "clean", and had nothing to do but show up in that state. So of course, he didn't "earn" anything! But in real life, it is not like that. We would all be addicted drug users. What we need is pardon and to be changed, not simply commanded to stop/change (in our own power), and then rewarded accordingly (which would be "earning", and in which case none of us would make it). Such an illustration betrays the COC's Pelagianism: man is basically good, but simply deceived by false churches!

bmerr

08-07-2005, 02:39 PM

Charles,

bmerr here. I'm fine with Eph 2:8,9. I try not to "get past" any passage of Scripture without bringing myself in line with it. I do, on the other hand, question the popular interpretation of it, as it tends to lead to many other Scriptures being avoided, or having their plain meaning explained away.

"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."

What I want to do is define some of the terms Paul uses in this text, so we know exactly what he was saying.

First off, what's "grace"? I started another thread with this question, but there hasn't been much input so far. The only descriptive passage I'm familiar with is Titus 2:11, 12, which reads,

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Here grace is described as what teaches men how to live. A common description of grace is "unmerited favor". Certainly Divine instruction would fall into that category, but since the teaching aspect is what the Bible says about grace, perhaps we should apply that meaning to Eph 2:8 as well.

Secondly, I want to understand what Paul meant by "faith". The "hall of faith" in Heb 11 gives several examples of Biblical faith, the kind of faith that is pleasing to God. More often than not, those listed in Heb 11 are said to have done something by faith. Abel offered, Noah prepared, etc.

Since we know that faith comes from hearing God's word (Rom 10:17), we know that the things they did were done because God had told them what to do. Based on this, I would understand Paul to mean a faith that obeys God's instructions.

Third, I would want to know what Paul was referring to by "works". Much of Paul's efforts were centered on combatting the teachings of the Judaizers. These false teachers were trying to bring Gentiles under the bondage of the Mosaic Law by saying things like, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).

Much of the book of Romans emphasizes the fact that "...by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." (Rom 3:20). There was a lot of conflict between Christians of Jewish heritage and those converted from the Gentiles in the early church. The epistles to the different churches spend alot of time trying to straighten these conflicts out.

Additionally, there are seemingly contradictory statements from James and Peter (James 2:17-26; Acts 2:35), which plainly state that man must do some work to be justified or be accepted of God.

Of course, we all have confidence in the fact that the Bible does not contradict itself, and that things that look like contradictions are simply evidence of our incomplete, or erroneous understanding.

It has been my conclusion that Paul is referring to works of the Law, and good works for the purpose of earning God's favor (meritorious works). There are good works done by the unrighteous for the sole purpose of soothing their guilty conscience. If you will, an effort to score "brownie points" with God. These are of no avail. Likewise, the Jews' attempt to be righteous by keeping the Mosaic Law was also fruitless.

But Peter and James both say that man must work to be justified. Obedience seems to be the only option that allows all three to say what they said, and not be in conflict with one another.

So "not of works", meaning Mosaic Law keeping, or doing good works to merit God's favor, while leaving room for obedience.

Lastly, "gift". Salvation is only available to man because God, in the Person of Jesus, gave of Himself to make it possible. It would be totally out of reach for man had God not given His only begotten Son. For Him to require man to meet some conditions in order to avail himself of the gift of salvation does nothing to take away from it being a gift. Even faith is a condition, otherwise all men would be saved.

Sorry this has been so long, but to sum it up, my take on Eph 2:8, 9 might go like this:

For by God's instruction are ye saved through faithful obedience; not some plan of your own; it is only possible for you by God's gift of Jesus: Not by keeping the Law, or doing enough good works, lest any man should claim to have earned it.

Though some will likely be quick to blow this off as some "COC brainwashing" or something, I would ask you to give careful consideration to this. If I'm off, it won't be the first time.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-07-2005, 02:51 PM

Eric B,

Originally by EricB:
Such an illustration betrays the COC's Pelagianism: man is basically good, but simply deceived by false churches!bmerr here. Man, you are getting WAY more out of my illustration than I ever intended to put in it! It's just an illustration. It's not perfect.

As far as man's need to "be changed", as though from some outside force, I'd back away from that idea, personally. It ends up placing the responsibility for every lost soul at the feet of God, since He didn't step in and "change them". I don't think you'd take it that far, but that's where it ends up. It's pretty much Calvinism.

God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). God would not command something of man that he was incapable of doing, or that God alone is able to do for him. Man has always been given the choice to either submit to God's commands, or rebel against them.

Those with an "honest and good heart" (Luke 8:11) hear the word of God, and keep it, or obey it, the result being that they bring forth fruit with patience.

In closing, try not to read too much into my imperfect illustrations. You're not the first to do so. No harm done.

In Christ,

bmerr

Charles Meadows

08-07-2005, 04:35 PM

Bmerr,

Well you are patient and thorough - I'll give you that!

Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).

But does the COC not in effect say, "Except ye be baptized and join the COC, ye cannot be saved"?

To me that is about the same as Judaizing, excpet it's using a Christian legalism instead of the Torah.

The point of Paul's "faith and not works..." is that God saves us based on His generosity and mercy, not by us fulfilling any requirements (of which baptism and church membership are these).

Paul never would have agreed that works mean nothing. Certainly the believer WILL manifest works. But that is not what saves him/her.

What about a man who is shipwrecked on an island. He finds a Bible in the ship's wreckage and decides to give his life to Christ. He dies of mosquito-borne meningioencephalitis a week later and never has a chance to show kindness to another human, or to be baptized by a minister. No works and no baptism and no church membership. Was he saved? If you answer "no" then you make salvation every bit as ritualistic as the Judaizers did - since this man asked sincerely with all his heart for Jesus to save him.

D28guy

08-07-2005, 06:42 PM

bmerr,

You seem to be in the midst of the same confusion these dear Catholics are caught it. Here is some information that hopefully will help with your confusion...

Grace and Faith

To understand imputed righteousness is to understand grace and faith. Grace is the means by which everything necessary for man to receive forgiveness and eternal acceptance has been provided as a gift by God through the work of his Son. It is not a work achieved or merited by man in any way. It is accomplished by Christ alone. It is his righteousness, not man’s. Therefore from a biblical standpoint, grace alone means by Christ alone, received by faith alone and not by works. As Paul puts it:

"If it is by grace it is no longer on the basis of works otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Rom. 11:6).

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28).

Repeatedly, scripture tells us that justification is not by works, either before or after a person has come into the experience of grace.

For example Titus 3:5 states: ‘He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy.’ Paul states that works are not the basis for our salvation, grace empowered or otherwise. Why is this so? Because Christ has done all the work necessary for justification:

"By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" (Eph. 2:8–9).

Some Roman Catholic apologists point out that the verb form for justify is found in the aorist, present and future tenses in the New Testament. They maintain this proves that justification is not a completed work but an ongoing process which is dependent upon the human works of sanctification. However such assertions are laid to rest by Galatians 2:16 where all three verb tenses are found in relation to justification:

"Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified (present) by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified (aorist) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (future)."

Paul states emphatically that no man is ever justified by works, whether it be the past, present or future. He is writing to the Galatians who have already experienced the grace of God. He is warning these believers that justification is not a process based upon human works, even works in cooperation with grace, but solely upon faith in Christ at a point in time. Paul makes it clear in this same letter that if a gospel of justification by works is preached it will result in the corrupting and distorting of the true gospel of grace:

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for another gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6–9).

Works as a basis for justification must be repudiated and an exclusive trust in and reliance upon the person of Christ and his work of atonement alone for salvation must be exercised if one is to have saving faith. This is the Reformation truth of sola fide or faith alone. It is another way of stating the truth of Romans 3:28: ‘For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law.’

Hope this helps.

God bless,

Mike

Click Here (http://www.christiantruth.com/gospeljustification.html)

Ed Edwards

08-07-2005, 06:46 PM

Amen, Brother Charles Meadows -- Preach it!! graemlins/thumbs.gif

Frank (on another Topic):
Baptism is for the remittance of sin. Act 2:38" "

I think you mean FOR21 - in order to become

I think it means:
FOR28a - by reason of
FOR28b - because of

I was baptized (as a Baptist) because
my sins had been remittted.
I was NOT baptized so i could be saved;
i was baptized because i had already been
saved.

bmerr

08-07-2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Bmerr,

Well you are patient and thorough - I'll give you that!Charles,

bmerr here. Why thank you, sir. I apologize for being so long-winded at times, especially here lately. I'm having to take some pretty stout stuff for low back pain, and I may tend to ramble a bit. It's merely an effort to make myself clear. Success may vary though...

Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).

But does the COC not in effect say, "Except ye be baptized and join the COC, ye cannot be saved"?

To me that is about the same as Judaizing, excpet it's using a Christian legalism instead of the Torah.No, I don't think so, although I think I see where you're coming from. Let me try and help you understand my point of view.

First, we must recognize the difference between circumcision and baptism. Simply put, circumcision originated with the Abrahamic covenant and continued into the Mosaic. It was a very Jewish thing.

You may recall that Paul refused to let Titus be compelled to be circumcised (Gal 2:3). Titus was a Gentile. For him, a Gentile, to submit to being circumcised as a way to be justified by the law, would have caused him to fall from grace (Gal 5:3,4).

But when Paul met up with Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), he "...took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek."

This confused me, quite honestly. Why would Paul have one be circumcised and not the other? Fortunately, I've been given quite a few books by some good friends, a few of which are comentaries. One of those is J.W. McGarvey's "Original Commentary on Acts". He's no more perfect than any other commentator, but his explanation seemed pretty good to me. I'll give a brief exerpt from his comments.

"The connection between the law and circumcision originated in the fact that the law [of Moses - me] was given to a part of the circumcised descendants of Abraham. We say a part of his descendants, because circumcision was enjoined upon his descendants through Ishmael, through the sons of Keturah, and through Esau, as well as upon the Jews. Since, then, the law did not originate the obligation to be circumcised, the abrogation of the law could not possibly annul that obligation."

He goes on to say lots more, but it boils down to this: Timothy was a descendant of Abraham, and as such was obligated to be circumcised. Titus was not from Abraham, and thus was not under obligation to be circumcised.

Probably more than you wanted to know, but I thought it was interesting.

The other issue was baptism. Whether we like it or not, the command to be baptized for the remission of sins is in the New Testament. We can go back and forth over "eis" and what it means, but at least let's acknowledge the command, and it's origin under the NT of Jesus Christ.

So circumcision is from the fathers (John 7:22), and baptism is of Christ. So, no, I don't see them the same way.

Second (second?!?! smile.gif ), I would never ask anyone to "join the church of Christ". It's just not Scriptural. Let me explain - briefly!

In Acts 2:40-41, we read,

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Then in 2:47, we find,

"...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

The ASV 1901 puts it like this,

"...And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved."

I will allow those verses to stand without what has been termed, "church of Christ spin".

Third point - legalism. I know this title is reserved for those of us who believe that man has any part whatsoever to play in his salvation. Would this title be given to men like Noah, Abraham, or Moses? The Bible testifies of each of these men that they did all that the LORD commanded them, so did they.

Is obedience legalism? What would be the difference if it's not? I'd really like your opinion on this, Charles. I'd define obedience as doing what God says, in the way God says, for the purpose God says. But in doing so, I'd often be labeled as a "legalist".

The point of Paul's "faith and not works..." is that God saves us based on His generosity and mercy, not by us fulfilling any requirements (of which baptism and church membership are these).Is faith not a requirement? Certainly one must believe, at least. Unbelievers (those who do not fulfill the requirement of faith) will be cast into the lake of fire. Jesus said to believe on Him was the "work of God" (John 6:28-29). It's something one must do, that is commanded by God.

That's partly how I came to the conclusion given earlier about what Paul meant by "works", that it would not rule out obedience.

Paul never would have agreed that works mean nothing. Certainly the believer WILL manifest works. But that is not what saves him/her.That is not always the case. Do you recall the chief rulers in John 12:42-43? The text tells us that they believed on Jesus. They were convinced that He was Who He claimed to be.

But, "...they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue".

This is a case of faith, real intellectual acknowledgement of the facts of Jesus, that did not produce works. They met the requirement of belief, but these guys were not saved.

What about a man who is shipwrecked on an island........ Charles, please. Let's not go to "hypothetical world". I really didn't expect that from you. I'll forget about it if you will.

Again, I've gone longer than I intended. Thank you for your time spent reading and responding.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-08-2005, 10:21 AM

Greetings all

Originally posted by bmerr:
[QB] Jesus said to believe on Him was the "work of God" (John 6:28-29). It's something one must do, that is commanded by God.The word justification is in the passive voice whenever it refers to human faith. Faith is not a measure of Christianity. Faith is not a work to be done. Faith is the instrument by which God imputes righteousness to the believer.

Justification is only in the active voice when it refers to God's activity. Failure to grasp this vital exegetical detail leads to big error.

Jesus gave an example of the faith that saves in John 3. When the murmuring Israelites were disciplined with poisonous snakes, they were told to at the brazen serpent to be saved. No one had to get washed, cleansed, circumcised, or baptized. No one had to offer up sacrifices or offerings. No one had to say a sinner's prayer, confess Jesus, or repent. All they had to do was [b]LOOK.

In this teaching Jesus makes two parallels. First, He equates the brazen serpent with Himself. Second, He equates a simple look to saving faith (John 3:15-16).

You make faith a work of sanctification. Faith is not a work or a measure. It is an instrument used by God.

One of the two greatest errors that a theologian can make is to confuse justification with sanctification.

Lloyd

bmerr

08-08-2005, 10:44 AM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. I responded to the "justification/sanctification" thing on another thread, so I won't go into it here.

Something I think you're overlooking in the brasen serpent illustration is the fact that the people had to repent of their attitude toward God before the serpent was made available.

Once it was available, those bitten had to have faith that their healing was dependant upon their looking at the serpent. They then would have to make the required effort to get into a position to see the serpent.

Their looking to the serpent was a work of faith. They couldn't just sit in their tent, sick of snakebite, believing that if they could look upon the brasen serpent, they'd be healed. They had to do something, even if it was no more than to go to where they could look at it.

Their faith was manifested and made complete by their taking the appropriate action, and not before.

Jesus does not equate a simple look to saving faith. He equates being born again to being born of water and of the Spirit. The brasen serpent reference seems to be more an allusion to the manner of His death than anything else.

Faith may be an instrument used by God, but it is required of man to demonstrate his faith by corresponding works.

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-08-2005, 11:00 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Something I think you're overlooking in the brasen serpent illustration is the fact that the people had to repent of their attitude toward God before the serpent was made available.

Their looking to the serpent was a work of faith. They couldn't just sit in their tent, sick of snakebite, believing that if they could look upon the brasen serpent, they'd be healed. They had to do something, even if it was no more than to go to where they could look at it.Well, yes, people have to make a decision to believe in Jesus. This is a wild stretch of the illustration. Turning one's head to look at the serpent is not a work in any wild theological sense. You have employed a wild definition of "work" as a substitute for "works commanded by God." It is confusion.

The equivalent of "turning one's head" can be done by a quadlepalegic in a hospital. The turning is of the heart to Jesus. This turning in no way requires water baptism, sacrifices, works or rites.

The John 3:15-16 verbs of believing are not to be seen as simply the continuous Greek Present tense. This is but lesson 3 in first year Greek. There is much more. Only someone who has never had the second semester of basic Greek would make that statement.

Second year Greek studens should be able to see the definite article plus participle as the customary marker for the Gnomic Present. This gives a timeless truth - not a continuous activity. Check it out in any second year text like Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Wallace.

Furthermore, the Hebrew tenses in Numbers 21 are the perfect tense showing that the action is done at the moment one looks. Salvation is a one shot deal - that lasts for ever. You can get to this using the Blue Letter Bible Project http://www.blueletterbible.org . Try it! Check on the verse, then the "C" button and get to the Hebrew word tied to Strong's condordance. You don't need to know Hebrew to use this tool.

Justification is a done deal at the moment of faith. Sanctification is also a done deal if you look only to the aspect of adoption. With respect to fellowship, sanctification is a process. But even here, regardless of the degreee of holiness attained, sanctification is a done deal with respect to future glorification (Rom 8).

When justification is blended with sanctification big error happens.
Lloyd

Charles Meadows

08-08-2005, 11:06 AM

Bmerr,

Charles, please. Let's not go to "hypothetical world". I really didn't expect that from you. I'll forget about it if you will.

Hmmm... What about uncle Chip? ;)

I will say that you articulate your points very well. It makes it very clear on which specific points we differ.

And you say that faith is a work - I anticipated that! Fair enough. But I do not see faith as simply an intellectual recognition of Jesus' saviorship. Jesus said in Jn 6:37 that He would not cast out any who sought after Him. To me this typifies what faith is. Look at God's relationship with Israel in the OT. He wanted them to want Him! Faith in Christ is not just our believing that He is God, but rather our yearning for Him. I think it is that which is the substance of faith - and that is WHY salvation is of faith without works. Yes the true believer will manifest works - but Jesus is what distinguishes Christianity from all human-made religions in which a person disciplines him/herself and lives a life which merits a reward. Remember Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem? Oh Jerusalem if you had only known... We just have to empty ourselves before Him. That's why Jesus is so different than anything else in any religion or "ism".

Now true, no believer will refuse baptism - but my hypothetical situation was constructed to show that it is not the actual baptism which saves a person. If that were the case then baptism is not different than circumcision (I appreciate your discussion of that point - but I disagree).

ascund

08-08-2005, 11:28 AM

Great post Charles Meadows!

All one has to do is look to father Abraham as Paul's example of OT salvation. Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcision WITHOUT baptism WITHOUT sacraments of any sort and WITHOUT sacrifices or rites.

Since the BIBLE says that there is only ONE BAPTISM, Abraham's example shows that the one true baptism is the Spirit's baptism. Water baptism wasn't even mentioned in the OT times. God's Spirit immersed father Abraham into Jesus Christ at the moment of his faith. Thus, water baptism is NOT REQUIRED for justification.

Your hypothetical example clearly strips away any false appeal to sanctification.

Great post!
Lloyd

Frank

08-08-2005, 08:29 PM

In every dispensation of time, an obedient active faith accesses the grace of God that saves. Always has. Always will. Romans 5:1,2, Hebrews 11.

Eric B

08-08-2005, 08:39 PM

As far as man's need to "be changed", as though from some outside force, I'd back away from that idea, personally. It ends up placing the responsibility for every lost soul at the feet of God, since He didn't step in and "change them". I don't think you'd take it that far, but that's where it ends up. It's pretty much Calvinism.

God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). God would not command something of man that he was incapable of doing, or that God alone is able to do for him. Man has always been given the choice to either submit to God's commands, or rebel against them. That is not Calvinism any more than where you quoted "In Acts 2:40-41, we read,

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Then in 2:47, we find,

"...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

The ASV 1901 puts it like this,

"...And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved."
or "Jesus said to believe on Him was the 'work of God' (John 6:28-29)."

Still, when you come to God He does something. We do not regenerate or save ourselves, and if we do, then I did not take your illustration too far!

ascund

08-10-2005, 02:54 PM

Greetings Frank

Originally posted by Frank:
In every dispensation of time, an obedient active faith accesses the grace of God that saves. Always has. Always will. Romans 5:1,2, Hebrews 11. This is OBE since I've presented the list of Greek passive voice verses involving justify in another thread.

You made one itsy bitsy gigantic error in word selection. The right to say it is as follows:

In every dispensation of time, an obedient PASSIVE faith accesses the grace of God that saves. Always has. Always will. Romans 5:1-2, Hebrews 11.

Even the very verse in Romans which you referenced uses the verb in the passive voice. Doesn't your denomination have any Greek scholars? Even a few Greek students would help.

Lloyd

Frank

08-10-2005, 09:28 PM

Lloyd:
I am not a part of a denomination. No one doubts that men are justified by faith. But How? Romans 16:26 tells us how. *But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
The purpose of the gospel is to bring all men to obedience to God. Man is justified when he is led by faith to trust and obey God as his master. Paul tells us how in Galatians 3:26,27.*For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 *For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The passive voice simply indicates they had expressed their faith earlier to become Christians and have peace with God. However, the passive voice does not indicate How?

You can search the entire text of Hebrews 11 and you will find active expressions of faith. Now, these active expressions may have taken place in the past, but they were active at the time God blessed them and saved them. Greek language itself does not suffice for proper interpretation of scriptures. Try enrolling in a course that teaches hermaneutics. Maybe you can get it right.

DHK

08-11-2005, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Frank:

I am not a part of a denomination.Your denomination is the Church of Christ, as your profile indicates. The COCers deny that this is a denomination, but would they rather be called Cambellites instead? Even the name "Christian" was given out of scorn. Your denominational name, (COC), whether you chose it or not, whether you like it or not, simply identifies who you are. No need to deny it.
No one doubts that men are justified by faith.Glad you agree. If we just left it there all would be great. Your next question is already answered in this statement. "But how?" It is already answered here. "By faith." There is no other answer as you proceed to try and show. We are justified by faith as the Scripture says. Faith plus nothing.
But How? Romans 16:26 tells us how. But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:What on earth? This verse has nothing to do with justification, sanctification maybe; but justification never. Paul is writing the closing words of his epistle to the believing Romans to the church at Rome. Look at the context of the verse that you just quoted:

Romans 16:24-26 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

In summary this passage has to do with the Great Commission that is given to believers, those that have already been saved and baptized and have been living for the Lord. As Christians we need to obey the Lord and make the gospel known to all nations. There is nothing real profound in that. And it certainly has nothing to do with salvation or justification.

The purpose of the gospel is to bring all men to obedience to God.Not true. The purpose of the gospel is to make a person a new creature in Christ. Obedience (sanctification) comes after a person is born again, not before. And for the record, the new birth has nothing to do with water baptism. As long as you confuse justification with sanctification you will forever be confused about Biblical salvation. We are justified by faith and faith alone. Baptism is a step of obedience in the Christann's life, a part of the sanctification procees, and has no part in salvation. It is a work. And salvation is by grace through faith...not of works.
Man is justified when he is led by faith to trust and obey God as his master. Paul tells us how in Galatians 3:26,27. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.This passage is so simple. Why do the COCers stumble on it so much of the time?
1. Let's amend your first statement. "Man is justified when his is led by faith to trust God as his master. No need to add that one phrase in there that makes the statement heretical.
2. Gal.3:26 states justification perfectly clear.
"for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Now if you just stop there and take God at his word, you have no problem. We become God's children by faith and faith alone. That is the teaching isn't it? "Childrent of God by faith in Jesus Christ" It couldn't be any clearer.
3. 27 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
--The baptism here is not water baptism, and there is nothing in the context to indicate it to be. We were baptized into Christ at the time of our salvation by the Holy Spirit (a Spirit baptism), and have therefore been put into Christ, just as John 15:1-7 has explained to us. You wouldn't doubt the words of Jesus would you?
The passive voice simply indicates they had expressed their faith earlier to become Christians and have peace with God. However, the passive voice does not indicate How?But it does. It is so simple.
It simply says:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
The how is: by faith.
We are justified by faith. The how is right there in the verse. We are justified by faith and faith alone.

You can search the entire text of Hebrews 11 and you will find active expressions of faith. Now, these active expressions may have taken place in the past, but they were active at the time God blessed them and saved them. Greek language itself does not suffice for proper interpretation of scriptures. Try enrolling in a course that teaches hermaneutics. Maybe you can get it right. Sure they were active. But it doesn't say one word about their salvation. It gives example after example of believers who obeyed God because they were saved, not in order to be saved. In other words their obedience was a result of their salvation and part of their sanctification. If you keep confusing justification with sanctification you will never understand sanctification. Abraham was justified by faith. After he was justified by faith, he went out and obeyed God. A saving faith results in works. Works don't result in a saving faith. You have things backwards.
DHK

ascund

08-11-2005, 07:52 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by Frank:
The passive voice simply indicates they had expressed their faith earlier to become Christians and have peace with God. However, the passive voice does not indicate How?Let me quote "In general it can be said that in the passive voice the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb. No volition - nor even necessarily awareness of the action - is implied on the part of the subject. That is, the subject may or may not be aware, its volition may or may not be involved. But these things are not stressed when the passive is used." (See http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gvoice.html)

Originally posted by Frank:
You can search the entire text of Hebrews 11 and you will find active expressions of faith. Now, these active expressions may have taken place in the past, but they were active at the time God blessed them and saved them.Wrong-O! These expressions link faith with obedience in an overall snapshot of one's salvation. But salvation is composed of justification by faith and sanctification by obedience. There is no link between justification and obedience. The link is between salvation and obedience.

Salvation is much more than justification. I totally endorse good works, obedience, faithfulness, and endurance. But for the right reasons - sanctification and fellowship with God.

Justification is nevertheless stictly, solely, and only by faith in Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by Frank:
Greek language itself does not suffice for proper interpretation of scriptures. Try enrolling in a course that teaches hermaneutics. Maybe you can get it right.Oh brother! What now? Any language is suffient to express the intentions of the author. I suppose you are some experiential type who adds to God's Word every time you have a dream. Let's give you grace on this statement of ignorance.

It is curious to see you appeal to hermeneutics when you have no idea of the basic building blocks of theology.

Lloyd

ascund

08-11-2005, 08:09 AM

Greetings

Originally quoted by DKH:
In other words their obedience was a result of their salvation and part of their sanctification. If you keep confusing justification with sanctification you will never understand sanctification. Abraham was justified by faith. After he was justified by faith, he went out and obeyed God. A saving faith results in works. Works don't result in a saving faith. You have things backwards.It is nice to see how so you so aptly use the terms salvation, justification and sanctification without confusion.

The human urge to do something is terribly powerful. In fact, it is blessed by the Bible for certain aspects. If a man won't work, let him not eat. While paychecks truly don't reflect our personal worth, we have accepted jobs that reward human works on a weekly basis.

Thanks be to God that heavenly things are exactly opposite of earthly things. We get what we don't deserved (grace) and we don't get what we do deserve (mercy).

Lloyd

Briguy

08-11-2005, 08:49 AM

To Frank and others who believe that faith must have works to be faith.

That is a great thought but think on it realisticly. Lets say a Christian man's wife is dying of cancer and after a two year struggle dies. During that time this man took care of his wife the best he could. His time was occupied between work and the cares for his wife. His Bible reading lapses and prayer time fades in to very little. His church attendance gets less and then goes away for the last several months of his wife's life. He hasn't helped another, given money or done anything for God in many months. He tries to draw strength from God but alas he is sad and after his wife passes he is not sure about God anymore. He is angry with God for a time. Ok, lets stop there. This mans faith is not active and is mind is cluttered with many thoughts and feelings. At what point was his salvation taken away? or does the fact that he struggled and is struggling with the tragic death of his wife mean he never had faith at all? because a "real" Christian would never struggle with God, right? Do you really think the God we serve would leave this man when he needs Him most. If faith always means "works" or being "active", then how much activity is enough? How many works is enough to gain God's acceptance? or to prove your value to God?

The works and the activities of our faith were never meant to justify us before God. Justify menas "to prove", right? Now think of the mans aboves salvation being by faith only, and secure from the moment it was obtained. The works he used to do were not "to prove" to God he had faith because God sees the heart directly. No, the works were for the world to see and to justify us before man, because man can only see the outward. Yes, this man in his sad state is not doing much to forward the gospel and show his faith to others but his salvation is secure because Jesus is the anchor of the soul, SURE AND STEADFAST. In other words our witness to others can diminish and our faith lose its effect on others but our eternal salvation was never dependent on what we did anyway so can't be lost.

In Christ,
Brian

bmerr

08-11-2005, 09:08 AM

ascund,

bmerr here. On what basis do you make this statement:

Originally by ascund:

Even the name "Christian" was given out of scorn.I have heared this said before, but I find no textual evidence to support it. I may have overlooked it, (probably due to my ignorance of "first year greek"), and if you know where it is, please explain.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-11-2005, 09:32 AM

Briguy,

bmerr here. The situation you describe is heart wrenching. I hope you are not speaking from personal experience.

But thinking rationally about it, as you requested, and as I try to do anyway, (though some might argue my success), it would be a part of this man's Christian duty to his wife to care for her by whatever means were neccessary. No person on earth would have more claim to his time and efforts than his wife in this situation.

Care-giving can be discouraging, especially if the death of the loved one occured in spite of it, and could conceivably produce doubts as to the goodness of God, the truth of the Bible, etc.

Whatever the case may be, unless the man in your senario lapsed into sin, his salvation is not in peril. He would not be the first to struggle with doubts as a result of suffering.

I think I get the point you're trying to make, though. I also think you're missing the point Frank, mman, and I have been trying to make. We are all confident of the stand we're taking. But we all need to be open-minded enough to consider the other side of the issue (open-minded, not empty-headed), and honest enough to admit, at the least, that we can understand the other person's point of view.

In reality, I don't think we're all that far apart on the issue of salvation. My position is that an obedient faith saves. Your postion (if I understand it correctly) is that a saving faith obeys.

It also seems as though you adhere to "once saved, always saved", (which I don't think the Bible teaches), based on your statement,

...our eternal salvation was never dependent on what we did anyway so can't be lost.Maybe I'll start a thread where that can be discussed as well. In closing, I'll make an appeal for you to consider this thought regarding faith not working and working faith: John 12:42: Were the chief rulers in this text lost, or saved?

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-11-2005, 10:35 AM

Hey bmerr

I know I stedily and faithfully give Bible to demolish your position. However, the reference to "scorn" is found in DHK's posting - not mine.

I don't understand what you are referring to with your reference to first year Greek. I usually only use that in regard to the Gnomic Present in verses like John 3:15-16.

So . . . please clarify your question.
Lloyd

bmerr

08-11-2005, 10:55 AM

ascund,

bmerr here. My apologies, sir. That was from DHK's post.

Concerning the "first year greek" reference, you've been flailing around with verb tenses and such like you just graduated from seminary or something. You remind me a little of a basic trainee, who goes on leave with just enough hand-to-hand combat training to get himself beat up by the locals.

Either way, feel free to adress the question, if you like. But please, speak English. smile.gif

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-11-2005, 11:41 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Concerning the "first year greek" reference, you've been flailing around with verb tenses and such like you just graduated from seminary or something. You remind me a little of a basic trainee, who goes on leave with just enough hand-to-hand combat training to get himself beat up by the locals.I have undergraduate minors in Greek, linguistics (and Math and Psychology majors with Physics minor. But these are not applicable here) from the University of N. Dakota. I had a review sequence in my MS in Bible at Heritage Bible College. (Let's not forget MS in Math from UND - but again it is not applicable here). I am getting ready to graduate from Trinity with 18 semester hours of Greek beyond the theology requirements. I need those post-graduate hours so that I can teach Greek at any accredited university in the USA.

Bring on the locals!
Lloyd

bmerr

08-11-2005, 05:24 PM

ascund,

bmerr here. My, you have been busy! Hats off to anyone who has put that kind of time into their education. I'm sure it was not just time, but a lot of hard work, too. Just try not to talk too far above the rest of us! Most of us only graduated the sixth grade! graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-11-2005, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey bmerr

I know I stedily and faithfully give Bible to demolish your position. However, the reference to "scorn" is found in DHK's posting - not mine.
My answer comes mostly from historical sources as well as from others.
A.T. Robertson, a Greek scholar, has this to say on Acts 11:26, where the word "Christian" is first used.
It is made thus like a Latin adjective, though it is a Greek word, and it refers to the Hebrew belief in a Messiah (Page). The name was evidently given to the followers of Christ by the Gentiles to distinguish them from the Jews since they were Greeks, not Grecian Jews. The Jews would not call them Christians because of their own use of Cristoß the Messiah. The Jews termed them Galileans or Nazarenes. The followers of Christ called themselves disciples (learners), believers, brethren, saints, those of the Way. The three uses of Christian in the N.T. are from the heathen standpoint (here), Acts 26:28 (a term of contempt in the mouth of Agrippa), and 1 Peter 4:16 (persecution from the Roman government). It is a clear distinction from both Jews and Gentiles and it is not strange that it came into use first here in Antioch when the large Greek church gave occasion for it. Later Ignatius was bishop in Antioch and was given to the lions in Rome, and John Chrysostom preached here his wonderful sermons.A.T. Robertson (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=ac&chapter=011&verse=026&next=027&prev=025)
DHK

Briguy

08-12-2005, 08:22 AM

Hi bmer,
You asked about the chief rulers. I read the passage and I don't think it applies to our conversation which is geared for Gentiles in the post pentecost church. The chief ruler were Jewish before Jesus died and rose again and sent the comforter. The standard of faith they were held to and the paying for sin and that kind of thing may or may not be the way things are now. Either way, as I read the passages surronding the one you asked me to read it seemed it likey that one of two things were true. Either they rulers believed in the same sense that the demons believe, thus they would not have a saving belief or they were saved but just babes in the faith and not ready to handle persecution. I don't know that the text is clear but I don't think it helps your point either way because of the time frame and who the chief rulers were. Remember that the house of Isreal was God's chosen people and operated as such for thousands of years.

In Christ,
Brian

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 06:05 AM

Referreing back to the beginning of this thread, "The following is EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT!!!: Its wise to consult wiser ones as long as they understand justification through faith alone, and the principle known as "sola scriptura". Meaning, those wiser ones hold to those same priciples themselves, and they NEVER expect you to take anything they say to be the truth simply because of who they are, but rather they encourage you to go to the scriptures yourself, TRUSTING only the Holy Spirit to teach you truth.
And...in the same vein...we are to never, under any circustances allow any religious organisation to take the place of the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth. Rather, the believer should flee any organisation as that like the plague."

Now I, being a believer that confesses: "I believe the Church ..." WITH the catholic Church, reject everything here asserted, because there is no such thing as either "the Bible and the Bible only", or, "the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth" outside and without this Church of the Congregation of Christ's. For it never is 'the Bible only' but I, and, the Bible - second! And it never is the Spirit, if a spirit "witnessing of himself", but a false spirit not of God!
We are TAUGHT "Gehorsamkeit" - 'obedience' or "to listen to one another" (as Karl Barth has said), IN THE CHURCH. No true Christian forms his own ideas of what the Word of God is because he will always form and base his understanding through the 'PROCLAMATION' of Jesus Christ that goes on in and through THE CHURCH.
So, for me, away with anything boasting uniqueness in the Faith especially when bolstered by some 'spiritual gift'!

ascund

08-13-2005, 07:13 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
No true Christian forms his own ideas of what the Word of God is because he will always form and base his understanding through the 'PROCLAMATION' of Jesus Christ that goes on in and through THE CHURCH.
So, for me, away with anything boasting uniqueness in the Faith especially when bolstered by some 'spiritual gift'!The Church? Yes!
The organized corrupted Catholic Church? No!

Even Paul greeted the Church at the house of Aquilla and Priscilla (Rom 16:3-5). Not an organization.

Where is the word "Pope" in the Bible? It is a human invention.

Where does it say anyone is born perfect? But in 1951, the Roman Catholic church decided Mary was perfect. Human foolishness. God's Word says all have sinned (Rom 3:23).

Roman Catholics say that priests can't marry. Yet Peter had a wife (Matt 8:14). More human foolishness.

This list could be quite lengthy.
Roman Catholics say salvation is a process (Councils of Trent).

Bible says justification is an EVENT. Even sanctification has an aspect that can be described as an EVENT; namely, God's separation of believers unto Himself. This is the biggest Catholic error showing that it is a human centered religion and not a Christ centered religion. Therefore, it is a monolithic monstrosity.

All the other features are foolish wrappings. The false view of justification reveals the evil and corruption within that human organization.
__Pray to Mary - a venemous lie!
__Light a candle - a dark deception.
__Purgatory - not in the Bible

But one thing the Catholic Church did really well was to incorporate the pagan religious of Egypt and Babylon and then dress them up with Christian terminology. Jesus Christ is the only WAY to heaven (Acts 4:12).

Repent!
Judgment comes quickly
Lloyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 07:29 AM

I'm not talking of the Roman falsely so called "Catholic Church" - I'm talking of the universal, everlasting Church of Believers - "The Communion of the Saints" as the Articles of Faith in the Apostolic Confession say. I believe this Church of God is the Protestant Churches - or is found within their fold. I am a "Reformer" or "Reformed" -"Gereformeerd" Calvinist. Have I listened to Calvin; have I read Luther; have I consulted Karl Barth, John Owen, - aal the MAMY men of God 9Like Spurgeon, Robertson - MANY MANY) - the Church, in other words? If not, then I have not yet heard the Word of God "rightly broken" by Paul, by Matthew, by John, or by whomever "according to the Scriptures". The Scriptures are the Test of every one of them. Only thus, am I able to form MY own conclusions and convictions!
You should have realised this is what I meant.

ascund

08-13-2005, 07:34 AM

Greetings

I am a "Reformer" or "Reformed" -"Gereformeerd" Calvinist. Have I listened to Calvin; have I read Luther; have I consulted Karl Barth, John Owen, - aal the MAMY men of God 9Like Spurgeon, Robertson - MANY MANY) - the Church, in other words? ... Scriptures". The Scriptures are the Test of every one of them. Only thus, am I able to form MY own conclusions and convictions!
You should have realised this is what I meant.Good to hear that we don't have to go down the errant RC menu. Your references to Karl Barth aren't exactly evangelical. Catholics like Barth since a lot of his stuff can be easily used to support humanism.

Part of theology is learning to say what you mean and mean what you say. I liked your posts in the GRACE and OSAS threads.

LLoyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 07:42 PM

You know, I love Barth, although I differ with him on his salvation of all kind of views. No doubt with me he is the greatest theologian of all time and 'evangelical' in the true sense of the word! Criticisms of Karl Barth I have encountered come from people who have no clue of what he stood for and have never read or mastered one sentence of what he wrote.
Take for example his statement on the Sabbath - great; absolutely unsurpassed except perhaps by Schilder. Despite, I differ with him on his final conclusions as pertains Sunday-worship!

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 07:51 PM

This exactly illustrates what I mean with the Bible truly speaking to the believer IN THE CHURCH. Karl Barth - as an example- has thoroughly "listened" ("Gehorsamkeit") to the Confessions of the Church through history. This is how the Holy Spirit has operated throughout history - that it 'inspired' and guarded God's Word even though the men through whom He so dispensed, were sinners and just ordinary men.
I still though believe the Church harbours some false doctrine. The Word through the Holy Spirit is still speaking in the Church, and will keep on speaking untill the end of time and sin. It will always be a return - a Reformation- until Christ has come.

bmerr

08-13-2005, 08:17 PM

DHK,

bmerr here. Getting back to the origin of the name "Christian"...

The comments by A.T. Robertson do lend support for the idea that the name "Christian" was given by men. I had not read that before, and I would agree that the circumstances he brought to light may have played a part in the name being given.

My thinking against the idea of "Christian" being of (solely) human origin is based on the word translated "called" in Acts 11:26. It is defined by Strong's as,

"...to utter an oracle...divinely intimate...(gen.) bear as a title:-be called, be admonished (warned) of God, reveal, speak."

Other places this word is used, but translated differently are:

Matt 2:12, 22 - "being warned of God"

Luke 2:26 - "revealed" (by the Holy Ghost)

Acts 10:22 - "was warned of God"

Rom 7:3 - "she shall be called" (an adulteress)

Heb 11:7 - "being warned of God"

Heb 12:25 - "him that spake"

In each of these instances, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is God who is speaking, and with the same word being used in Acts 11:26, it seems reasonable to believe that it was God who gave the disciples the name "Christian".

His doing so would be a fulfillment of Isaiah 62:1, 2, which reads,

1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

You know, sitting here thinking about it, I suppose it wouldn't be the first time God had brought about His will, or fulfilled prophecy by means of wicked men. I guess there may be some truth to both views.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-13-2005, 09:06 PM

Like I mentioned, it is not the Greek that I go by here (though I did quote Robertson), it is more history than anything else. Historical sources point to the calling of Christians in a dergoatory manner as Robertson pointed out in the case of King Agrippa.

In another example, the Baptists often claim their heritage from the Anabaptists. This also was a derogatory name. The word "ana" simply means "again." Most converts were either Catholic or Anglican and had already been baptized as infants. True believers didn't consider that baptism, as a baptism at all. Thus they Scripturally baptized the believer after they had been born again. For this act they were persecuted, and even killed. They were called, mockingly so, "Anabaptists," those who baptized again, or re-baptizers.

Many names throughout history are given out of derision and in scorn. I believe that "Christian" was also one of those names.
We consider it an honorable name today, just as I consider the name "Baptist" as an honorable name today. But from the beginning it was not so.
DHK

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-15-2005, 03:05 PM

Maybe like the word "sect" was used - "the sect of the Nazarene"?

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-15-2005, 03:11 PM

Coming to think about it, DHK, your idea - I've never thought of it that way - is most meaningful!
The Christians derided "the Christians"! Ah! Just maybe, those worldy-wise Gentiles added a little refrain to this scornful reference to the believers in and followers of Christ? I wonder if you can read my mind?

bmerr

08-19-2005, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
Maybe like the word "sect" was used - "the sect of the Nazarene"? Gerhard,

bmerr here. That word translated "sect" is also found in Acts 24:14 translated as "heresy". The Scripture shows how quick those in error are to label the way of truth as "heresy".

In Christ,

bmerr

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-20-2005, 08:18 PM

You know bmerr, I lately have come strongly under the impression Christ's words, "Where two or three come together in my Name", was prophetic of His Church, as saw he our own day and people of certain conviction being excluded by their very faith in and about Him!
I am becoming more and more isolated through some simple points I hold in faith, and am really feeling the brunt of it through loneliness mostly. But Jesus Christ is my hope as He is my longing.

D28guy

08-21-2005, 02:26 AM

Gerhard,

You quoted me...

"Referreing back to the beginning of this thread, "The following is EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT!!!: Its wise to consult wiser ones as long as they understand justification through faith alone, and the principle known as "sola scriptura". Meaning, those wiser ones hold to those same priciples themselves, and they NEVER expect you to take anything they say to be the truth simply because of who they are, but rather they encourage you to go to the scriptures yourself, TRUSTING only the Holy Spirit to teach you truth.
And...in the same vein...we are to never, under any circustances allow any religious organisation to take the place of the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth. Rather, the believer should flee any organisation as that like the plague."And then said...

"Now I, being a believer that confesses: "I believe the Church ..." WITH the catholic Church, reject everything here asserted, because there is no such thing as either "the Bible and the Bible only",...""All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

(just one among hundreds of course)

"...or, "the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth"...""However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, he will guide you into all truth"

(just one among hundreds of course)

"...outside and without this Church of the Congregation of Christ's."Then you believe there was no Holy Spirit led teaching during the 1st 300 years of the church?

The joining or *some* christian truth with a monumental amount of paganism, false teaching, superstition, and demomic control mechanisms known as the Catholic Church of Rome did not come into being until the middle of the 3rd century.

For over 300 years prior to the invention of the Catholic Church of Rome Gods people found it to be truth that...

"My sheep hear my voice. They know it. And the voice of a stranger they will not follow"

"For it never is 'the Bible only' but I, and, the Bible - second!"Totally false. It is the Holy Spirit and the scriptures and the born again believer.

"And it never is the Spirit, if a spirit "witnessing of himself", but a false spirit not of God!"And how can you tell whether its the true Holy Spirit of a false spirit?

The only way is to have an unchanging standard to use as a test.

That unchanging standard is the scriptures, and the scriptures alone...

"And these were more fairminded than those in Thessolanica, in that they searched the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so"

(just one among hundreds of course)

"We are TAUGHT "Gehorsamkeit" - 'obedience' or "to listen to one another" (as Karl Barth has said), IN THE CHURCH. No true Christian forms his own ideas of what the Word of God is because he will always form and base his understanding through the 'PROCLAMATION' of Jesus Christ that goes on in and through THE CHURCH."Of course you believe "the church" is not what the scriptures teach that it is...

(all born again people, nothing more)

...but rather it is supposedly the Catholic Church of Rome. You erroniously belief that the all knowing and all seeing "Hieararchy" of the Catholic Church, through the cultic "Teaching Majesterium" doctrine is "The Church", and they are supposedly commissioned by God to spoon feed the compliant and ever helpless and dependant "lay people" what they must believe. And of course, one of the things they must believe is...

((("You must never leave the Church of Rome!")))

And that is precisely the tactic that ALL the major cults teach their people.

Lets take a look at a few, along with a couple of individual cult leaders who used the same lie to decieve their victims...

* The Jehovahs Witnesses

* The Mormons

* David Koresh

* Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)

* Jim Jones

* Tha Roman Catholic Church

Not a good crowd to run with.

"So, for me, away with anything boasting uniqueness in the Faith especially when bolstered by some 'spiritual gift'!"Sadly, thats your choice. However, until the day you pass into eternity the door will always be open for you to turn to the truth.

God Bless,

Mike