Baptism--Why? [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

Pastor_Bob

07-30-2005, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
What's it [baptism] for? 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: (KJV)

This verse tells us that baptism cannot put away the filth of the flesh. What does it do? It is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Baptism will not wash away your sins, but it will give you a clear conscience because you know that you’ve obeyed God. Obedience always produces a clear conscience.

Who's a candidate?Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Philip told the eunuch that he could be baptized, but only if he believed first. Believing needs to come first. All who believe onm the Lord can be and should be scripturally baptized.

What's the proper method?The word "baptize" is the Greek word baptizo. You can ask any Greek scholar in any church regardless of what they believe and they will have to tell you that the word baptizo means, "to plunge, dip, or immerse."

It is not a matter of being baptized by sprinkling or pouring or immersion, because sprinkling or pouring is not being baptized at all. The only scriptural method of baptism is by plunging under the water; by immersion.

Matthew 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan [River], confessing their sins.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Anytime you read of baptism in the Word of God, you never read of sprinkling or pouring on of water. Why? Because that is not baptism. Baptism is a picture of the death of Christ. When you bury someone, you don’t throw a handful of dirt on their head. No, you bury them all the way under the ground. You cannot have a beautiful picture of the death, burial, and resurrection without the proper method of baptism. It simply cannot be pictured with a cup full of water.

What's its' purpose?Baptism is necessary for our submission to the will of God; it is not necessary for salvation. Baptism is the very first step of obedience for the child of God after they have been saved.

bmerr

07-30-2005, 10:30 PM

Pastor_Bob,

bmerr here. Thanks for your reply, sir. I'd have to say I can go along with just about all of it. I especially liked the "you can't bury someone by throwing dirt on their head" illustration. Very true, indeed!

I would like to address your comments on 1 Pet 3:21, though. You said that baptism is not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh, and that's what Peter said, too. But then you said that baptism will not wash away one's sins, and I wonder, is sin the filth of the flesh, or the filth of the soul?

I know lots of rank sinners at work, and a good many of them practice noteworthy personal hygiene. They're not what one might call "trashy people", or anything of the sort. Physically, they're squeaky clean, but their souls are black as coal, and their behavior and speech tell the tale. One need not "look on the heart" as only God can to know it.

So I guess my question to you would be, "Is sin the filth of the flesh, or the filth of the soul, or conscience?"

In Christ,

bmerr

Pastor_Bob

07-30-2005, 10:49 PM

bmerr,

You raise a very good and logical question. Time this evening does not permit me to go into a lengthy answer, but I promise to address this question when I have more time. Perhaps tomorrow afternoon or Monday morning.

For now, I must explain that I do not base my beliefs of any single verse of Scripture. I try and support my position with several. Regarding this belief, allow me to offer this quick response.

Consider this quote from a Roman Catholic catechism: "Baptism is a sacrament which cleanses us from original sin and makes us children of God and of the Church."

A sacrament, as you may know, is a means of receiving the grace of God. The Catholic writing goes on to say, "Holy baptism is the washing of regeneration by which the new birth is wrought."

My position on this matter is that Baptism is not a sacrament to give salvation, it is a symbol of salvation. Baptism is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as we have already agreed upon.

Baptism, IMO, is your raising the Christian flag over your life and saying, "I am a Christian." We couldn’t see inside your heart the day you were saved, so now you declare your salvation by raising your Christian flag. You’ve pictured the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

To support this position, let me offer the following Scripture:
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

The word "into" literally means, "with reference to", or "in relation to." Paul is saying that as many as were baptized "with reference to" Jesus Christ, were baptized "with reference to" His death.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

This verse says that we are "buried" with Him [Jesus Christ] by baptism. Why do you bury someone? Do you bury a person because they are dead, or in order to make them dead? There is a big difference. I certainly hope that my wife understands the difference.

Why do we "bury" someone in the waters of baptism? Is it to bring about their death to sin? No, we bury them because they have already "died" to sin.

Again, I will continue this discussion, as time permits, at a later time.

hillclimber

07-30-2005, 11:51 PM

Baptism--Why?

It was a sign needed by Israel to show that their Messiah was at hand.

Ya'll aren't going to like me so much after this topic. But I'm real tired tonight and maybe I'll let it slide in the AM. But probably not. Good night folks.

bmerr

07-31-2005, 01:45 PM

hillclimber,

bmerr here. You've been away for awhile. Welcome back, sir. I wouldn't worry about folks not liking you much. I get the same thing. I try not to take it personally, and most of the time I don't, but we're all human aren't we?

I hope you'll take the time to comment. It's good to know you've kept yourself safe on the road.

In Christ,

bmerr

hillclimber

07-31-2005, 02:23 PM

Thank you for your good thoughts bmerr. I couldn't keep doing it without my Lord near me all the time. The older I get the less toleration I have for personal sin, and anxiously await His calling me home. But, we must persevere and prosper in the Word, being willing to share our faith.

Timtoolman

07-31-2005, 02:44 PM

Hey lighten up hillclimber. I wonder what the real maryters would say about being blasted on this BB compared to being burned or skinned alived, disemboweled, beheaded, torn in two by horses, impaled etc.
Maybe " bring on your worse." smile.gif

HOpefully you have always been intorerant of sin but remembering where YOU came from ....loving towards the sinner.

I am guessing you don't believe in baptism. Maybe you are a berean or whatever. Have a bro-in-law who is the same way. What a mess.

hillclimber

07-31-2005, 02:48 PM

Water baptism is not for today. It went away with the postponement of the Kingdom that Christ was here to install.

Paul is thankful that he had not baptized more than a handful. I Cor:1

Timtoolman

07-31-2005, 02:58 PM

Yeah, my brother n law is a follower of Paul also.

Frank

07-31-2005, 03:21 PM

Baptism is for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38.

The element specified. Acts 8:38. Water.

The Term defined. Immersion. Acts 8:38. Baptism is an overwhelming or covering. cf. I Cor. 10:1-4.

The candidate. All who have not complied with the conditions of pardon who intellectually can know and reason they have sinned. Acts 2:36,37.

Pastor_Bob

07-31-2005, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
"Is sin the filth of the flesh, or the filth of the soul, or conscience?" 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: (KJV)

Peter very clearly points out that baptism does not wash away the filth of the flesh. It is my opinion, based on other principles taught in the Word of God, that Peter is speaking both in a literal sense, referring to an external washing for the body, and in a figurative sense referring to the washing away the filth of the soul.

Nowhere in the New Testament do we ever find that our soul is affected by outward ceremonialism. It is always a work of God.

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (KJV)

Peter illustrates this by showing the difference between Christian baptism and the Jewish ceremonial washings. The washings were for the removal of outward impurities; Christian baptism is a means ordained of God by which we testify of our faith in Christ, and demonstrate the work that Jesus performed in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Our soul’s salvation is not based on the outward ceremony of baptism. Our salvation is based solely on the finished work of redemption and the grace of God that makes salvation available to each of us.

To answer your question specifically, I believe that sin can be equated with the filth of the flesh as stated in Psalms 14:3 and Psalms 53:3.

For the Christian, sin is not the filth of the soul. Romans 7:25 and Ephesians 4:24

Bro. James

07-31-2005, 05:02 PM

Baptism--for the remission of sins?

My Bible says "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin".

How does one get remission with water? Are you sure?

Selah,

Bro. James

hillclimber

07-31-2005, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
Baptism is for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38.

The element specified. Acts 8:38. Water.

The Term defined. Immersion. Acts 8:38. Baptism is an overwhelming or covering. cf. I Cor. 10:1-4.

The candidate. All who have not complied with the conditions of pardon who intellectually can know and reason they have sinned. Acts 2:36,37. Frank,
I know these things were the rule of the day but when Christ's impending Kingdom was rejected by the nation of Israel, the sign gifts and the attempt at Koinonia, all were for nothing. God raised up a new apostle, Paul, to go to the Jew and to all the world with the new gospel, "All are one before God". Baptism, tongues, gifts of prophecy, healings etc. were done away with. Peter's method for salvation was, "Repent and be Baptised for the remission of sins, and thou shall be saved. Acts 2 Requires action on our part fro salvation.
Pauls's method was, "Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." Acts 16:31 Relies completely on the finished work of Christ on the Cross.

Frank

07-31-2005, 06:14 PM

Hillclimber,
Paul was saved when he acted. Acts 22:16. The gospel of Paul was the same as the one Peter preached. Unless, you are going to accept Peter was to be accursed. cf. Gal. 1:6-8. Please note verse 33 of your text in Acts 16. it reflects the completed work of the cross. cf. Rom. 6:3-6.

prophecynut

07-31-2005, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by hillclimber:

Paul, to go to the Jew and to all the world with the new gospel,
Are you saying there are two gospels?

Baptism, tongues, gifts of prophecy, healings etc. were done away with. Tongues and miraculous healing are sign gifts and have ceased. Baptism as a condition of salvation has ceased but gift of prophecy has not (1 Cor. 13:2; 14:1).

bmerr

07-31-2005, 09:29 PM

To All,

bmerr here. Thanks to all of you so far for your comments. Thanks to Frank for giving book, chapter, and verse references for each point. Others have provided some, and thanks are also in order where applicable.

The temptation to get off the subject is great. Postponed kingdom, two gospels, Peter accursed, etc. Each one would be great as its' own thread. I guess I know what to do next, huh?

Bro, James brought up a good point by referring to Heb 9:22, "...and without shedding of blood there is no remission." He asked about getting remission with water. I believe he makes reference to the idea that water can wash away sin. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It won't be the first time.

If I may be so bold, I'd like to try and set the record straight on something. I'll speak for myself, and some of you may give assent, while others may disagree, but here goes. To affirm that the Bible commands immersion in water to obtain the remission of sins is not, I repeat, NOT the same thing as saying that water washes away sin.

I myself affirm immersion in water (baptism) is esssential to obtain pardon for sins under the New Testament. However, I will strongly oppose anyone who asserts that water washes away sin.

Confusing? It may be, but the two statements are very different.

The reason I want to make this clear is that I believe this issue has been a source of confusion between differing viewpoints, namely those who hold that baptism is esential, and those who don't.

Now that there are a few of us in the discussion, (and perhaps there will be more), I thought it good to make the point as clearly as I could.

I hope this aids us in the discussion.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

07-31-2005, 10:05 PM

Pastor Bob,

bmerr here. I'd certainly agree that ritualistic ceremonialism (there's a mouthful!) is not part of Christianity. On the other hand, baptism (preceded by faith and repentance) is commanded under the New Testament (Acts 2:38; 22:16) with the end result being the remission, or washing away of sins.

I know, I know, Eph 2:8, 9. I believe those verses just as much as any other. I really don't see a conflict between Acts 2:38 and Eph 2:8, 9. I'm sure we'll discuss all this in time. But the topic is baptism, right?

Anyway, another thing I agree with you on is the fact that the salvation of our souls is dependant upon the work of Christ on the cross. Without that, none of the rest of it makes any sense, nor any difference.

Even in baptism, the work that is trusted is not man's work, but the operation of God (Col 2:12).

Baptism is also, as you stated earlier, a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul in Rom 6:17 calls it "...that form of doctrine which was delivered you". Yet another point we agree on, unless I'm mistaken.

Regarding the verses in Psalms, I think the writer was speaking metaphorically. I don't think he spoke of a literal filth, or stink (marginal reading), but figuratively speaking, a filth, or stench in God's sight, in reference to the behavior of the people, as opposed to their hygienic habits.

Looking forward to your response.

In Christ,

bmerr

hillclimber

08-01-2005, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Frank:
Hillclimber,
Paul was saved when he acted. Acts 22:16. The gospel of Paul was the same as the one Peter preached. Unless, you are going to accept Peter was to be accursed. cf. Gal. 1:6-8. Please note verse 33 of your text in Acts 16. it reflects the completed work of the cross. cf. Rom. 6:3-6. If you see that Peter's ministry, and indeed the ministry of Jesus, was solely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Gentiles were far off, and lost. Their only hope was to become a proselyte Jew. Under this Mosaic law, one must confess their sins, repent of them, be baptised.
Pauls ministry was different in that he was to put down any and all barriers between Jew and Gentile. Salvation is simply belief in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Plus or minus nothing. And that is a huge difference in salvation messages.

Pastor_Bob

08-01-2005, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:
...baptism (preceded by faith and repentance) is commanded under the New Testament (Acts 2:38; 22:16) with the end result being the remission, or washing away of sins. bmerr,

I would like to address the statement above in bold letters. I certainly agree with the first part of that sentence, but the second part deviates from what I believe the Bible teaches.

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

This was told to Paul three days after his Damascus Road experience. When did Paul get saved? He testifies in I Corinthians 15 that he was saved on the road to Damascus when he met Jesus. When they told Paul to be baptized, they were encouraging him to demonstrate on the outside what had already taken place on the inside.

As you well know, the Jews required a sign for just about everything (I Cor 1:22). Paul was being encouraged to make a public demonstration of the salvation experience that occurred three days earlier.

Acts 2:38 is very much a similar passage. Peter exhorts these people to take on the public profession of the religion of Christ, by being baptized in His name; and so acknowledging themselves to be His followers.

Clarke says:
In reference to the remission or removal of sins: baptism pointing out the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit; and it is in reference to that purification that it is administered, and should in consideration never be separated from it. For baptism itself purifies not the conscience; it only points out the grace by which this is to be done.

bmerr

08-01-2005, 12:28 PM

Pastor Bob,

bmerr here. 1 Cor 15 is a long chapter, and I may have simply missed it, but where does Paul say he was saved on the road to Damascus?

Indeed, the Jews were notorious for requiring a sign. And many times they still didn't believe when they saw one! But, like Jesus said in Luke 16:31, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose form the dead."

Regarding Paul being told to be baptized as a "public demonstration of the salvation experience that occurred three days earlier", that would be fine with me personally, but it jsut isn't what he was told. He was told to "...be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord". It seems as if it were merely a public demonstration, Ananias wouldn't have told him otherwise.

If I correctly understood Clark, I think I can go along with what he said. Basically, the water of baptism does not in and of itself cleanse the conscience. That is the operation of God. Do I have that right?

At the risk of sounding contradictary, I would go on to say that the cleansing of the conscience (performed by God) does not occur unless or until the believer submits to baptism for that purpose, since that is the purpose for which God has commanded it.

As I said earlier (page 1), I do not acvocate that water washes away sin, but simply that God, under the New Testament, has commanded baptism (immersion in water) for the remission of sins.

I would also agree that baptism is a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, which one must have faith in prior to one's baptism.

I realize I might be asking you to stretch a bit. Can we agree so far?

In Christ,

bmerr

Pastor_Bob

08-01-2005, 03:15 PM

Double post - I hit "quote" instead of "edit."

Moderator, please delete.

Pastor_Bob

08-01-2005, 03:17 PM

bmerr,

First, let me thank you for the very civil demeanor in which our dialog has remained thus far. Sadly, this is not always the case. I have exited, without explanation, many threads that have resorted to inappropriate means.

I believe that Paul is giving testimony of his salvation in verse 8 of I Corinthians 15.
1 Cor 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. (KJV)

I interpret Ananias' statement to Paul in light of other Scriptural truths. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would prompt Ananias to command Paul to do something that would violate Scripture.

Regarding Clarke's comment - I would say that you have taken it one step too far. You said, "Basically, the water of baptism does not in and of itself cleanse the conscience." I would say that baptism in no way cleanses the conscience, in the context that we are speaking, but rather symbolizes or demonstrates the work of Christ in purging our conscience from dead works. Hebrews 9:14

I can agree with you in much of what you posted with the exception of the following statements:

At the risk of sounding contradictary, I would go on to say that the cleansing of the conscience (performed by God) does not occur unless or until the believer submits to baptism for that purpose, since that is the purpose for which God has commanded it.

As I said earlier (page 1), I do not acvocate that water washes away sin, but simply that God, under the New Testament, has commanded baptism (immersion in water) for the remission of sins.
Many have held to this understanding of baptism, but have, in my opinion, taken isolated verses and built a doctrine around them. I believe the Word of God as a whole clearly supports the view that baptism is solely symbolic and commanded as the first step of obedience to God after salvation.

Nevertheless

08-01-2005, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by hillclimber:
If you see that Peter's ministry, and indeed the ministry of Jesus, was solely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Gentiles were far off, and lost. Their only hope was to become a proselyte Jew. Under this Mosaic law, one must confess their sins, repent of them, be baptised. Hmmmmm. . . I guess that's why God didn't use Peter to bring the gospel to the household of Cornelius, a Gentile. And then to defend that action before the Church in Jerusalem.

Or did He?

bmerr

08-02-2005, 01:48 PM

Pastor Bob,

bmerr here. I appreciate your civil tone as well, sir. I've been an active participant in some of the "less than civil" discussions, I'm sorry to say. I try not to start it, but I do sometimes get caught up in it. Chalk it up to youth, I guess.

I thought you may have been referring to 15:8, but I didn't want to comment without knowing. His declaration of having been the last eyewitness to the resurrected Christ was, in my opinion, more of a defense of his apostleship than anything else. That was one of the issues Paul had to adress with the Corinthian church (ie. 1 Cor 9:1; 2 Cor 12:12). Certainly it could also be included as a part of his testimony, though.

That "last of all" statement is also a death knell for so called "modern day apostles", since being an eyewitness of the resurrection was one of the qualifications for an apostle (Acts 1:21, 22). Just in case you ever run into one...

1 Cor 15:3, 4 is certainly the doctrine Paul preached wherever he went. As we have both agreed, baptism is a picture, or form, of what we read in these verses.

If we flip over to Rom 6:17, 18 with that in mind, I think we'll find Paul adressing that very thing.

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

It seems to me, (and I'm probably as biased as the next guy), that Paul is telling the Romans that it was at the point of their baptism, (following their belief of the doctrine), that they were made free from sin.

I would certainly agree that Ananias would not have been directed to violate any Scripture in giving instruction to Paul. From my point of view, he could have meant just what he said and stayed well within the bounds of sound doctrine. Of course, we're coming at this from different perspectives, though. What other truths would you balance Ananias' words with?

In closing, I'd like to express my appreciation for the time you've invested so far in our discussion. The time we spend here cannot be retrieved, but I think it's well spent, for the most part.

In Christ,

bmerr

Pastor_Bob

08-02-2005, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
What other truths would you balance Ananias' words with?Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (KJV)

As I believe that Paul was saved three days prior to this event, I cannot believe that this verse supports baptismal regeneration.

Since, in my opinion, the Bible overwhelming supports that baptism is nothing more than a symbolic external representation of an internal cleansing of the soul by the blood of Christ, and a demonstration of His death, burial, and resurrection, then I could not accept that Ananias was giving Paul instruction otherwise.

Ananias was merely encouraging baptism for the fact that it is an ordinance divinely appointed as illustrative of the washing away of sins, or of purifying the heart.

I believe Paul fully understood Ananias' words in this context, seeing that he (Paul) wrote this in a later epistle: "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." Heb 10:22 (KJV) Obviously, I assert that Paul is the author of Hebrews, but that is another topic altogether.

bmerr

08-03-2005, 09:54 AM

Pastor_Bob,

bmerr here. No problem with listing Paul as the penman of Hebrews. I've not looked into it much, but others more learned than myself have, and that is the conlusion of many of them. You have added yourself to that number.

If I may divert our discussion just for a moment, could you explain the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration"? I've heard it mentioned in reference to the RCC, and I'm pretty sure they teach infant baptism, which amounts to salvation by "baptism only". Of course, what they're doing isn't immersion, so it really fails at that point too...

Anyway, I've been accused of teaching "baptismal regeneration" in the past, and I really don't know if I'm guilty or not! I don't believe what the RCC teaches, and I don't want to teach anything that the Bible doesn't teach. If I'm in error, I want to correct myself.

Since, in my opinion, the Bible overwhelming supports that baptism is nothing more than a symbolic external representation of an internal cleansing of the soul by the blood of Christ, and a demonstration of His death, burial, and resurrection, then I could not accept that Ananias was giving Paul instruction otherwise.Let me say how much I appreciate the phrase, "in my opinion". Unless we can give a direct quote, we really ought to use that phrase as a preface to many of our remarks. I speak in reference to everyone on these boards. Not that truth can't be known, or anything like that, it's just that many (myself too, perhaps) lay out statements based on our understanding as if they're Holy Writ. I commend you on the use of "IMO".

That said, may I ask which passages pertaining to baptism would lead you to this conclusion?

In Christ,

bmerr

Pastor_Bob

08-03-2005, 12:26 PM

…could you explain the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration"? In a nutshell, baptismal regeneration can be defined as, “the belief that baptism is essential to salvation, that it is the means where forgiveness of sins is made real to the believer.”

To illustrate the difference in baptismal regeneration and what I believe, let's suppose that a man, deeply under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, calls upon the Lord, repents of his sin, and trusts Jesus as his Savior. It is my belief that the Bible teaches that at that very moment this man is saved.

Now, suppose that this man rises from where he is kneeling and sees a church across the street. He then walks across the street to get baptized, but in the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Is he saved or is he still lost? If he is saved, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If he is still lost, then trusting in Jesus alone isn't sufficient for salvation.

To declare that baptism is essential for salvation is erroneous because it is saying that there is something that we must do to make salvation complete. In my opinion, this is false doctrine and violates clear Scripture.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
That said, may I ask which passages pertaining to baptism would lead you to this conclusion?For sake of clarity, allow me to cite to the conclusion to which you refer.
“…the Bible overwhelming supports that baptism is nothing more than a symbolic external representation of an internal cleansing of the soul by the blood of Christ…”

Without adding my personal opinion, I will allow these passages to stand on their own merit as a basis for my belief in this matter:

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

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:

Plus the passages in which baptism is used symbolically: I Cor. 10:1-2, I Peter 3:20, Matthew 3:11

RTG

08-03-2005, 12:52 PM

Bmerr, what do you make out of Acts10:43-48?

bmerr

08-04-2005, 06:33 PM

RTG,

bmerr here. Acts 10:43-48? Well, I guess I'd want to base my take on these verses on whatever evidence I can find that might pertain to them. Keep things in context, as we all should.

Unless, of course, you are specifically referring to verse 43 and the phrase "...whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." I've been asked about this passage from a couple of perspectives, but let me look at this angle first.

IMO, the "believeth" is located "in him". In Jesus Christ is the location of the believer. The Bible gives but one way to get "into Christ", that being through baptism (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27).

Corresponding to that are verses like Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21, etc.

Eph 1:3 tells us that all spiritual blessings are in Christ. The remission of sins would certainly be on the list of spiritual blessings, and therefore, would only be available "in Christ".

Since the only way to get "into Christ" is through baptism, Peter commanded these believers to be baptized in the name of the Lord. When they submitted to this command, they would be "in Christ", and would enjoy all spiritual blessings, one of which would be the remission of their sins.

If you were referring to the fact that Cornelius and household spoke in tongues before they were baptized, I would say that indeed, this is a rare case.

But would their speaking in tongues be an indication of salvation? I don't believe so. Here's why. In Acts 11, Peter gives a chronological (by order - 11:4) account of the events surrounding the conversion of Cornelius, the first Gentile conversion. In 11:15, Peter says, "...the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning".

The "beginning", would be a reference to Acts 2, where the Holy Ghost fell on the apostles (2:1-4). The "they" in 2:1 is a pronoun that refers back to the last subject mentioned, which was "apostles" (1:26). IMO, this was a bad spot for a chapter break.

Nevertheless, Peter had to go all the way back to the beginning (approximately 8-10 years), to find another example of the Holy Ghost falling on someone as He did with Cornelius. This was not common to all conversions.

But did their speaking in tongues mean that they were already saved? I'd say "No". Now I understand that speaking in tongues was a spiritual gift, exercised by some in the first century church. But there are a couple of things to consider.

1. It is in baptism that one is added to the church by the Lord, and is saved (Acts 2:40-41, 47; 1 Pet 3:21). They had not yet been baptized, and were not in the church.

2. They were not "exercising" the gift of tongues by choice (1 Cor 14:32). This was not a "gift given to them", but a sign demonstrated through them. This manifestation of the Holy Ghost was, IMO, to convince the Jews present (11:12) that the Gentiles were also to hear the gospel. Remember, this was the first Gentile conversion.

3. They had not yet heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You'll likely want an explanation for #3. Back to Acts 11:15. Peter tells us in this verse that it was, "...as [Peter] began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

The account in Acts 10 tells us what Peter preached first, and then tells us about the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius. But Acts 11 is "by order".

Remember that Peter was sent to tell Cornelius "...words whereby [Cornelius and household] shall be saved" (10:6, 32-33; 11:14). What did Peter say as he began to speak?

10:34, 35 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

These are the words Peter spoke as he "began to speak". Now it could also be the case that Peter didn't get anything said before the Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles, but either way, whether Peter said nothing, or whether Peter said the words in 10:35-35, he had not yet preached the gospel.

Since Peter had not yet preached the gospel, the Gentiles could not yet have had faith (Rom 10:17) by which to be saved.

So the events in order would be:

1. Peter speaks 10:34-35, or nothing,

2. The Holy Ghost falls on Cornelius and household,

3. Peter preaches the gospel,

4. Cornelius and household believe the gospel,

5. Peter asks if there are any objections to baptizing the Gentile believers,

6. Peter commands the new believers to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

If we compare the conversion of Cornelius to the other conversion accounts in Acts, all the basics are the same, the only differences being the fact that this was the first Gentile conversion, and that the Holy Ghost fell on those who hadn't yet been preached to.

Didn't mean to be so wordy. I hope I answered your question. If not, I'll give it another try.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-04-2005, 07:50 PM

Pastor_Bob,

bmerr here. I'd say that according to the definition you gave,

In a nutshell, baptismal regeneration can be defined as, “the belief that baptism is essential to salvation, that it is the means where forgiveness of sins is made real to the believer.”that I'm guilty as charged. I would emphasize that baptism is for the repentant believer. I do not advocate salvation by "baptism only".

In reference to the Galatians passages, I would agree, for "...by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." (Rom 3:20). I don't see how those verses apply to baptism though. Baptism for the remission of sins is not commanded under the Old Testament, but the New Testament.

Keep in mind that Paul was battling against Judaizers, who would have brought the early Christians under the Mosaic Law. That's what Acts 15 was about. These Judaizers were going around teaching, "...Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).

IMO, the law Paul speaks of in the verses you cited is the Mosaic Law, and the issue was circumcision, not baptism.

In your illustration of our different views, you make mention that the man in question had "called on the Lord". How does one do that?

The other verses you cited do, indeed, stand without need of commentary. I'm not sure how their doing so lends credence to your view of baptism, though, that being that baptism is not essential.

As has been covered earlier, and as we have both agreed, baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. In this respect, I would agree that it is symbolic. But it seems that it is by submitting to baptism that one is freed from sin (Rom 6:17-18), has his sins remitted, or washed away (Acts 2:38; 22:16), puts on Christ (Gal 3:27), and enters "into Christ" (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27) where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3).

I just don't see how any of these things could be optional regarding salvation.

It's time for supper, so I'm off for now. Thanks again for your time.

In Christ,

bmerr

Link

08-04-2005, 07:57 PM

Here are some controversial, but Biblical reasons for baptism:

1. for the remission of sins.

Peter told the people in Acts 2 to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins.

The Ananias who baptized Paul told him to arise and be baptized, and calling upon the name of the Lord, wash away his sins. Paul quoted this while evangelizing Jews in the temple.

2. putting on Christ

For as many as have been baptized into Jesus Christ have put on Christ.

3. Burial into Christ's death

See Romans 6.

hillclimber

08-04-2005, 08:14 PM

bmerr,
Starting with 10:39, Paul gives the complete gospel. This is chronologically before the Holy Spirit falls upon them. This coincides exactly with the gospel today of "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

The reason that the Holy Spirit falls upon them is that, for the first time, the Holy Spirit initiates His Baptism on these new believers. From that time on the Holy Spirit promises to dwell in any and all believers at conversion. They always before had to baptise before any indwelling. We still have baptisms today but the real ones are of God the Holy Spirit.

Now Peter is still practicing baptism as he hasn't been shown that it is to be ceasing. All these sign gifts are still in effect and Israel still has the ability to accept Christ as their Messiah, but of course they don't. It isn't till the end of Pauls ministry that we see some final evidence of the sign gifts being gone. Care to guess what it is?

RTG

08-05-2005, 11:59 AM

Bmerr,while I don't agree with everything you posted,I thank you for your time and reply.

ascund

08-05-2005, 02:36 PM

Hey bmerr

You packed a lot into this paragraph - - -

Originally posted by bmerr:
As has been covered earlier, and as we have both agreed, baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. In this respect, I would agree that it is symbolic. But it seems that it is by submitting to baptism that one is freed from sin (Rom 6:17-18), has his sins remitted, or washed away (Acts 2:38; 22:16), puts on Christ (Gal 3:27), and enters "into Christ" (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27) where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3).I. Rom 6 is often used to support water baptism. I take two serious differences to that view. First, is context. Paul spends five chapters shows the worthlessness of human obedience, Christ as the only basis of righteousness, Abraham as the father of faith for either testament who was justified by faith alone, and parallels between Adam and Christ.

That's five chapters on justification. Only in chapter 6 is baptism mentioned. So baptism comes AFTER justification.

Second, where is the word "water?" since it isn't here, it must be referring to Spirit baptism. It is God's Spirit Who immerses us into Christ (I Cor 12:13). Moreover, the word "water" isn't used anywhere in Romans.

conclusion: Romans 6 baptism is the Spirit's baptism - just like Cornelius!

II. ACTS 2:38 is taken out of context. Peter was preaching to national Israelites who needed to repent in order to receive their promised Messiah Whom they had rejected and crucified. Perhaps it wasn't to late for that "untoward generation" to escape the coming judgment.

It is wrong to take a passage point designed for national Israel and apply it to any Gentile.

I guess this is long enough.
Shalom
Lloyd

Michael52

08-05-2005, 05:15 PM

bmerr

Care to give us your take on Pastor_Bob's question? I'm really interested in hearing your opinion on this.
Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
To illustrate the difference in baptismal regeneration and what I believe, let's suppose that a man, deeply under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, calls upon the Lord, repents of his sin, and trusts Jesus as his Savior. It is my belief that the Bible teaches that at that very moment this man is saved.

Now, suppose that this man rises from where he is kneeling and sees a church across the street. He then walks across the street to get baptized, but in the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Is he saved or is he still lost? If he is saved, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If he is still lost, then trusting in Jesus alone isn't sufficient for salvation.
--- Thanks smile.gif

bmerr

08-05-2005, 08:50 PM

Michael52,

bmerr here. I thought he did a good job of stating my position, so I didn't take time to adress it directly.

For clarity's sake, though, I'd have to say that the man died in his sins, and was lost.

I'd also want to define "trusting in Jesus". The words translated as "trust" in both OT and NT basically mean to "have hope in , or to take refuge in". To take refuge "in Jesus", we have to be "in Jesus". So how do we get in there? What's the door, or entranceway? How does one get "into Christ"?

Rom 6:3-5 and Gal 3:27 say that we are "baptized into Christ". If that is the case, then the man in Pastor_Bob's illustration was not yet "in Jesus", and was therefore lost.

I know this is not a popular position, but it's what the Bible says. I didn't write it, I'm just reading it.

The Bible tells us that three days after Paul believed in Christ, he was still in his sins (compare Acts 9:4-9 with 22:16).

Paul's is the longest recorded delay between faith and baptism in the NT. Three days. Every other conversion account shows that the believer was baptized immediately, no matter what time of day it was.

I think the apostolic teaching about baptism was quite a bit different than what most religious teachers present today. There appears to be an urgency, a real need for it by those to whom they preached.

Too often these days, baptism is presented as an unneccessary, optional, no big deal, "we'll have a baptismal service in a couple of weeks" kind of thing. This seems quite different from the apostle's attitude about it.

I hope this serves as an answer.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-05-2005, 09:54 PM

ascund,

bmerr here. Welcome to the discussion. I think you'll find that I'm in the minority so far, but that's okay. Since you took the time, I'll take the time.

I. Rom 6 is often used to support water baptism. I take two serious differences to that view. First, is context. Paul spends five chapters shows the worthlessness of human obedience, Christ as the only basis of righteousness, Abraham as the father of faith for either testament who was justified by faith alone, and parallels between Adam and Christ.Differences are what these forums are all about.

I think if you'll go back over Rom ch 1-5, you'll find that it is not obedience that Paul speaks against, but the keeping of the Mosaic Law. In fact, the book opens (1:5) with "...obedience to the faith...", and closes (16:26) with the "...obedience of faith..."

Paul himself declared that he was "...not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19). So I don't think he was speaking about obedience being of no profit, but of the keeping of the Mosaic Law.

One topic that comes up quite often when dealing with this is circumcision, which actually was instituted in the Abrahamic covenant, and carried over into the Mosaic (Gen 17:10-14). This is something the Judaizers were trying to bind on the Gentile converts.

Also, the Scripture that said "and Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" was not fulfilled until he offered Isaac (James 2:23). It was only after Abraham did what God told him to do.

The point Paul makes by using Abraham is that he was justified without the Mosaic Law, and so the Jews were "spinning their wheels" by trying to be justified by keeping it.

James makes a different point while using the same man as an example. He points out that one cannot be justified merely by saying he has faith, but by his faith manifesting itself in obedience to God's commands.

Abraham was justified when he obeyed God, but his obedience was not to the Mosaic Law. That's my take on the sum of the two writers' points.

That's five chapters on justification. Only in chapter 6 is baptism mentioned. So baptism comes AFTER justification.I'd have to question your logic in making this statement. By the same reasoning, one could say that Paul came before Jesus Christ, since he is mentioned first in Rom 1:1. I know you wouldn't take things that far, but that's where that logic ends up.

Second, where is the word "water?" since it isn't here, it must be referring to Spirit baptism.Not exactly. The word "Spirit" isn't there either. To assume either way is to reveal one's bias. Let's look at how the baptism Paul speaks of is described in Rom 6 and elsewhere.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into his death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

It appears that the baptism of which Paul speaks is a burial and a raising up again. This is a description of every water baptism I have ever seen, including my own. I don't know if Holy Spirit baptism looked anything like this or not.

It is God's Spirit Who immerses us into Christ (I Cor 12:13).What is the medium into which the Spirit immerses us, and then raises us up out of?

Moreover, the word "water" isn't used anywhere in Romans.A quick look at my concordance affirms this statement. Given the references to it in connection with baptism in Acts, I don't think it is neccessary for the word "water" to be in each text that speaks of baptism for it to be implied by the context.

conclusion: Romans 6 baptism is the Spirit's baptism - just like Cornelius!Again, I'd look at the descriptions of baptism and draw a conclusion from them. Cornelius, though he did speak in tongues before he was baptized, it has been noted earlier that his speaking in tongues preceded his hearing the gospel as well (Acts 11:15). This rare event took place as Peter "...began to speak..." at which point he had said nothing concerning Jesus Christ, or His death, burial, and resurrection. Cornelius could not possibly have been saved. Additionally, Cornelius was "commanded" to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus after the tongues incident.

II. ACTS 2:38 is taken out of context. Peter was preaching to national Israelites who needed to repent in order to receive their promised Messiah Whom they had rejected and crucified. Perhaps it wasn't to late for that "untoward generation" to escape the coming judgment.Contrary to popular opinion, there were more than just Jews present at Pentecost in Acts 2. There is a list given in Acts 2:9-11 of the nations represented in Jerusalem on that day. Included in this list are "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes" (2:10).

"Strangers" is a term for Gentiles, and a proselyte was simply a Gentile who had chosen to bring himself under the Mosaic Law. He was still a Gentile, and could never be a "full Jew". That's why they were listed separately from the Jews.

Reading further, we find that the "...promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (2:39).

The children of those assembled that day did not need to repent of crucifying the Messiah. Nor did "all that are afar off", which is a reference to the Gentiles.

The message preached by Peter that day is good until the Lord returns. There is but one gospel for every creature (Mark 16:15) in all nations (Matt 28:19) in all the world (Mark 16:15). It was first preached in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47) on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, and is recorded in Acts 2.

It is wrong to take a passage point designed for national Israel and apply it to any Gentile.That is correct. It would be wrong for one to try to force Gentiles to keep the Mosaic Law (which was given only to the nation of Israel), which is what Paul was speaking about in Romans and other epistles.

I guess this is long enough.It's gonna seem REALLY long with my comments stuck in there with yours! Peace to you, as well.

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-05-2005, 10:19 PM

hillclimber,

bmerr here.

Originally posted by hillclimber:
[QB] bmerr,
Starting with 10:39, Paul gives the complete gospel. This is chronologically before the Holy Spirit falls upon them. This coincides exactly with the gospel today of "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."[qb]I would agree that the acount in Acts 10 seems to show that the gospel was preached first, with the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius following the message. However, there are two little words in 11:4 that differentiate between the two accounts. Those words are "by order". Acts 10 tells us what happened. The Acts 11 account tells us in what order the events took place.

It is in 11:15 that we find that it was as Peter "..began to speak..." that the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius. This could either mean before he spoke, or at the first part of his speaking. For the sake of arguement, let's say it was during the first part of his speech.

Acts 10:34-35 says nothing about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, nor does it even contain the name of Jesus Christ. I think two full verses is sufficient to be called "the beginning" of Peter's speech. Would you agree?

If, on the other hand, the Spirit fell before Peter started speaking, his words in 10:24-35 would be completely understandable, as he would have finally been convinced of the Gentiles having the right to hear the gospel.

The reason that the Holy Spirit falls upon them is that, for the first time, the Holy Spirit initiates His Baptism on these new believers. From that time on the Holy Spirit promises to dwell in any and all believers at conversion. They always before had to baptise before any indwelling. We still have baptisms today but the real ones are of God the Holy Spirit.This gets into the idea of a "transition" between Acts 2 and Acts 10, which was addressed recently in my response to ascund, I think. Also, there is the issue of the fact that there is "one baptism" as of Eph 4, which means that it's either water baptism, or Holy Spirit baptism, which would mean we should stop baptizing folks in water, since there would then be two, and not one baptism.

I am not familiar with any Scripture which promises that we would be indwelt by the Holy Spirit at conversion, other than Acts 2:38, (which may or may not be speaking of it), and even then it is only after one is baptized that this would occur.

Now Peter is still practicing baptism as he hasn't been shown that it is to be ceasing.He never was shown that water baptism was ceasing, since it hasn't. It was to continue "...unto the end of the world" (Matt 28:20).

All these sign gifts are still in effect and Israel still has the ability to accept Christ as their Messiah, but of course they don't. It isn't till the end of Pauls ministry that we see some final evidence of the sign gifts being gone. Care to guess what it is?Well, 1 Cor 13:8-10 indicates that miraculous gifts would end when God's revelation was written down completely. Also, Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 2:15) to "Study to shew thyself approved...", which indicates that Timothy did not have any miraculous knowledge. That's my guess. How'd I do?

In Christ,

bmerr

Michael52

08-06-2005, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:
For clarity's sake, though, I'd have to say that the man died in his sins, and was lost.

I'd also want to define "trusting in Jesus". The words translated as "trust" in both OT and NT basically mean to "have hope in , or to take refuge in". To take refuge "in Jesus", we have to be "in Jesus". So how do we get in there? What's the door, or entranceway? How does one get "into Christ"?

Rom 6:3-5 and Gal 3:27 say that we are "baptized into Christ". If that is the case, then the man in Pastor_Bob's illustration was not yet "in Jesus", and was therefore lost. A less "hypothetical" case:
I was 12 years old when I believed and received Christ as my Lord and Savior. It was on a weekday while I was alone (except for God) in the woods near my house.

According to what you said, I wasn't actually saved at that time, since I hadn't yet been water baptized, by immersion, "into" Christ subsequent to believing. Of course, I publicly professed my faith in church the first sunday following and was baptized by immersion a few weeks later, as best I recollect. To assure the same fate as the poor hypothetical fellow didn't happen to me, what should a 12 year old have done? Should I have immediately found some body of water and took a plunge? Should I have called the pastor and arranged an emergency baptism?

I'm not trying to be flippant, but the more I ponder the situation, the more the scenario seems a little strange to me. That is, what a great amount of fuss and "work" it would have taken to insure that I would be properly baptized, so that Christ would accept and finally save me, lest I die before baptism.

Obviously, being Baptist, I disagree with baptismal regeneration (yes, it also sounds ironic to me graemlins/saint.gif ). I believe I was baptized by the Holy Spirit, born again and justified by faith that very day in the woods 32 years ago. I got "into" Christ because Christ, and the rest of the Godhead, got "into" me. It is a "heart" thing. The phrase, "a circumcision made without hands" (Col 2:11) comes to mind.

In my church, we love baptisms. We pray that we get to see baptisms, because each baptism represents another soul who is professing saving faith in Christ and is obediently following His commandment. They are proclaiming their entrance into the new life He won for them with the blood of His baptism on the cross. No human work we can do, will or need add anything to Christ's work. Amen.

Sorry to preach. It is late - need sleep... graemlins/sleeping_2.gif

In Christ
Michael

hillclimber

08-06-2005, 08:28 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bmerr:

bmerr here.

Well, 1 Cor 13:8-10 indicates that miraculous gifts would end when God's revelation was written down completely. Also, Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 2:15) to "Study to shew thyself approved...", which indicates that Timothy did not have any miraculous knowledge. That's my guess. How'd I do?

In Christ,

bmerr

That's not bad. I was refering to where Paul tells Timothy, in a letter, "to take a little wine for your stomach." Before there would be no need for treatments because of the gift of healings. By then the sign gifts from God to Israel, were gone.

bmerr

08-06-2005, 09:40 PM

hillclimber,

bmerr here. I hadn't thought of that. Something else for the "evidence" list.

Do you ever get near Clarksville, TN in your travels, or are you local?

In Christ,

bmerr

bmerr

08-06-2005, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Michael52:
A less "hypothetical" case:
I was 12 years old when I believed and received Christ as my Lord and Savior. It was on a weekday while I was alone (except for God) in the woods near my house.Michael52,

bmerr here. It is an account that I can relate to, actually. One's decision to follow Jesus can be quite emotional. The realization of one's lost condition, coupled with the understanding that Jesus came to save such a one, is such a mixture of despair, sorrow, relief, hope, and joy, that words are hard pressed to describe it.

Emotions are natural, and certainly have their place in Christianity. We must understand, however, that they are not trustworthy, nor are they the standard by which we should judge the authenticity of a situation.

The bottom line is, Michael, that the Bible demonstrates a pattern of conversion, which every conversion account we have in Scripture follows, or lines up with. Our own experience, regardless of how powerful, or meaningful it may seem to us, needs to be judged according to what we find in the Bible.

Acts (a book of conversions) shows repeatedly a pattern of hearing the word, believing the word, repentance from sin, confessing Christ as the Son of God, and being baptized in the name of the Lord.

Not every account explicitly records each part of this pattern, but by implication, we understand that they are present.

According to what you said, I wasn't actually saved at that time, since I hadn't yet been water baptized, by immersion, "into" Christ subsequent to believing.What I say is not the standard, unless I'm saying what the Bible says. I can still get things wrong, and sometimes I do.

According to what we see in the Bible, no, you weren't saved in the woods. Please know that I'm not trying to demean you or your story. Like I said earlier, I can relate.

Your story simply does not conform to the pattern we find in the word of God, which is the basis of our faith. God has given men lots of patterns to follow. The ark, and the Tabernacle, just for starters. Noah and Moses are recorded as having done all things whatsoever the LORD commanded them, and God never called them "legalists". They were just being obedient.

Of course, I publicly professed my faith in church the first sunday following and was baptized by immersion a few weeks later, as best I recollect. To assure the same fate as the poor hypothetical fellow didn't happen to me, what should a 12 year old have done? Should I have immediately found some body of water and took a plunge? Should I have called the pastor and arranged an emergency baptism?What you should have done is kind of moot at this point. In the end, you did what you had been taught to do. Your objective now is to compare your conversion to the pattern recorded for us in the Bible, and judge for yourself what you ought to do now.

But to answer your quetion, if you had found your pastor and requested to be baptized for the remission of your sins right away, he probably would have tried to explain that baptism had nothing to do with salvation, and reviewd Baptist doctrine concerning salvation.

I'm not trying to be flippant, but the more I ponder the situation, the more the scenario seems a little strange to me. That is, what a great amount of fuss and "work" it would have taken to insure that I would be properly baptized, so that Christ would accept and finally save me, lest I die before baptism.Likewise, I do not mean to sound dismissive. If I do, it's not intended. But compared to the effort on Christ's part to make salvation available to us, would any effort, no matter how large, be too much to ask of us in order to avail ourselves of the provision of God?

Obviously, being Baptist, I disagree with baptismal regeneration (yes, it also sounds ironic to me graemlins/saint.gif ).When I was a Baptist, that seemed odd to me as well. To be known as a Baptist, and be a part of the Baptist church, and yet to take such a low view of baptism! Of course the method was very important. Full immersion, and nothing less. But essential? Certainly not! Just so you know that you're not the only one who ever saw a disparity there...

I believe I was baptized by the Holy Spirit, born again and justified by faith that very day in the woods 32 years ago. I got "into" Christ because Christ, and the rest of the Godhead, got "into" me. It is a "heart" thing. The phrase, "a circumcision made without hands" (Col 2:11) comes to mind.Not too much now. You get into having two baptisms when Paul said that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Another time, another place...

In my church, we love baptisms. We pray that we get to see baptisms, because each baptism represents another soul who is professing saving faith in Christ and is obediently following His commandment. They are proclaiming their entrance into the new life He won for them with the blood of His baptism on the cross. No human work we can do, will or need add anything to Christ's work. Amen.Too much to get into now. Very tired (pain meds kicking in). "It is finished"--Jesus' part of salvation's plan was done. Man must do his part as well, starting with believing...not earning, just obeying.

Time for bed.

In Christ,

bmerr

Michael52

08-07-2005, 11:03 PM

bmerr

It seems what you are saying is that it wasn't enough that Jesus Christ freely chose, by His infinite grace, to save a lost sinner like me, but that selfsame sinner also had to then follow some prescribed plan or pattern (ie "works") to add to what Jesus had already graciously done.

IMO there is one, and only one, baptism which really counts in salvation and that one is not a baptism which any human being can perform. If a person's salvation depends on the work of someone else, then that some else becomes a "priest" who's grace, plus God's grace, is necessary to affect salvation.

yeshua4me2

08-07-2005, 11:19 PM

why not?

ascund

08-08-2005, 07:29 AM

Hey bmerr

Originally posted by bmerr:
According to what you said, I wasn't actually saved at that time, since I hadn't yet been water baptized, by immersion, "into" Christ subsequent to believing.

According to what we see in the Bible, no, you weren't saved in the woods. All one has to do is examine context! Peter clearly shows that baptism comes AFTER being just and forgiven (Gen 6:8-9).

Water isn't a type of anything. It brought death and destruction. Safety and life were from being INSIDE the ark and out of the water. In fact, the ARK was never ever submerged into the water - it floated on top!

No human hands were involved in the sealing since God sealed the doors of the Ark (Gen 7:16). I bet you've never considered this verse. Col 2:11-12 shows that the baptism that counts is done WITHOUT HANDS.

Last, when Noah disembarked from the Ark, he built an altar to God as an appeal from a cleansed conscience to live in the new world.

CONCLUSION
Justification first, then 120-500 years AFTER, one goes through baptism as an appeal to God to live for Him.

Salvation often happens in the woods.
Lloyd

ascund

08-08-2005, 08:00 AM

Greetings all (& bmerr)
Justification is the key!
Your posts consistently mix sanctification into justification - a most poisonous recipe.

Originally posted by bmerr:
too much now. You get into having two baptisms when Paul said that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Another time, another place... [/QB]Exacto mundo!

Only the Spirit's baptism counts! Water baptism is a mery symbolic act obedience that doesn't count anything toward justification.

If you can see the baptism - it doesn't count!
If it counts, it is done by unseen hands (Col 2:11-12)!

The heart of your error is the confusion of justification with sanctification. Justification is by faith alone. God's Spirit immerses the believing sinner into Christ (1 Cor 12:13) in a baptism done without hands (Col 2:11-12) unto the Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30).

Abraham himself is a great example for believers of either testament. He was NEVER BAPTISED.

Confusion of justification w sanctification is one of the two worst errors a theologian can make.
Lloyd

bmerr

08-08-2005, 11:24 AM

Michael52,

I'm planning to go into the "which baptism is the one baptism" thing in a response to ascund, but I wanted to address your statement referring to man's adding to Christ's work.

There is nothing that man can do to complement, or add to, the atonement that Jesus made available by His death on the cross. Absolutely nothing.

When Jesus said "It is finished", He meant it.

But did He mean that everyone would be saved? Did He mean that His dying on the cross would result in every human being that ever lived spending eternity in Heaven with Him?

Of course not. Jesus had finished His work. He alone could make salvation available to man. His works bore witness to Who He was (John 5:36; 10:25, 38). By rejecting His words, and the evidence of His works, the Jews condemned themselves (John 15:22-24). Jesus even said that he had come to finish His Father's work (John 4:34).

The work finished by Jesus could only have been done by Him. It was the ultimate expression of God's love for mankind. I have often been accused of trying to add to Christ's work, and it's a false accusation. I usually let it slide, but I don't like it.

Okay, with that said, we need to answer the question, "What determines who will be saved, and who won't?"

In the 25th chapter of Matthew, in the Judgement Day scene with the sheep and the goats, what is the main difference between the sheep and the goats? Both called Jesus "Lord", and yet the sheep went into life eternal, while the goats went away into everlasting punishment.

What was the difference?

The difference is in what they did or did not do. Their works determined, in part, their eternal destination. The sheep had works consistent with their professed faith. The goats did not.

The sheep had faith perfected by works (James 2:22), the goats had "faith only" (James 2:24).

My point is that works of obedience are a neccessary part of saving faith. Not works of the law, not works of merit. Obedience. How else would one demonstrate their submission to God's will, but by obedience to His commands?

Obedience adds nothing to the work of Christ. It simply is the manifestation of one's faith in Christ's work. Without it, faith is dead.

If a person's salvation depends on the work of someone else, then that some else becomes a "priest" who's grace, plus God's grace, is necessary to affect salvation.Read Rom 10:14-17. We can't believe unless someone preaches the word to us. Sinners are dependant on Christians being faithful in sharing the word of the grace of God.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-08-2005, 11:42 AM

Hey bmerr

This is a foray into the deep ditch.

Originally posted by bmerr:
In the 25th chapter of Matthew, in the Judgement Day scene with the sheep and the goats, what is the main difference between the sheep and the goats? Both called Jesus "Lord", and yet the sheep went into life eternal, while the goats went away into everlasting punishment.

What was the difference?

The difference is in what they did or did not do. Their works determined, in part, their eternal destination. The sheep had works consistent with their professed faith. The goats did not.First, even the best of human righteous deeds are viewed by God as filthy rags (Isa 64:6). If you make your theology dependent upon perfected works, then no one will ever get saved (Rom 3:19, 23; 6:23). Please pay special note to Rom 3:19. Your so-called differentiation is based on aspects of sanctification which is one of the two worst mistakes a theologian can make.

Second, the differentiation is in justification - alone. One group believes in Jesus and goes to heaven (justification). Another group trusts that their human-centered, self-righteousness will please God and they all go to hell (sanctification).

Jesus Himself warned of the seriousness of trusting in the fleeting fickle foibles of human obedience when He declared "I AM the WAY" (John 14:6). Luke declared that No other name given under heaven leads to eternal life (Acts 4:12).

Your appeal to sanctification as the basis of justification is a most serious theological error.
Lloyd

bmerr

08-08-2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings all (& bmerr)
Justification is the key!
Your posts consistently mix sanctification into justification - a most poisonous recipe.ascund,

bmerr here. Greetings to you, as well. I think the mix of sanctification and justification is only posonous to the doctrine of justification by "faith only", meaning "belief apart form works of any kind".

Originally posted by bmerr:
too much now. You get into having two baptisms when Paul said that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Another time, another place...

Exacto mundo!

Only the Spirit's baptism counts! Water baptism is a mery symbolic act obedience that doesn't count anything toward justification.

If you can see the baptism - it doesn't count!
If it counts, it is done by unseen hands (Col 2:11-12)!I've often heard the argument, "We're supposed to baptize believers in water, but Spirit baptism is the only real baptism..."

It seems to be grounded in a desire to have or do more than the Scriptures authorize, in an effort to avoid what God has commanded.

Since the writing of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, there has only been "one baptism". There may have been more before that time, and there may be another one coming at the Lord's return, but from that day until the 2nd coming, there's only "one baptism" that is Scriptural.

So which one is it, Spirit or water? Let's investigate.

First off, let's recognize the fact that HS baptism was never commanded, but was promised by Jesus to the apostles (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-15; Luke 12:11-12; Acts 1:5,8).

We see this promise fufilled in Acts 2:1-4, when the kingdom came with power.

The only other time we see anything like this is in Acts 10 with Cornelius, and there it occurred before Cornelius heard the gospel, and thus before he was saved (Acts 11:15).

The baptism commanded by Christ, which was to continue "...to the end of the world" (Matt28:20),

was to be administered by men (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15-16),

required water (Acts 8:36-39; 10:47),

was in the name (or authority) of Jesus Christ (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5),

was preceded by faith and repentance (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:37),

was for the remission, or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16),

is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12),

is the only way that the Bible says one gets "into Christ" (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27),

is the response of those who receive the message to "save yourselves" (Acts 2:40-41),

and is the point at which one is saved and added to the Lord's church (1 Cor 12:13; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:41, 47).

Please forgive me for not typing out all of these Scripture references. You're likely familiar with most of them.

The heart of your error is the confusion of justification with sanctification.I believe it may be your error in separating them.

Justification is by faith alone. You speak in direct conflict with James 2:24.

God's Spirit immerses the believing sinner into Christ (1 Cor 12:13)Please tell me what the Spirit immerses one in. Men are commanded to baptize in water. Jesus promised to baptize with the Spirit. What does the Spirit baptize in or with?

...in a baptism done without hands (Col 2:11-12)Please notice there are two separate things mentioned in Col 2:11-12, those being a circumcision made without hands, and a baptism described as a burial and a raising up again.

If anything, the text tells us that we are circumcised without hands when we are "buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God."

The circumcision made without hands is the operation of God, performed when we are buried and raised with Christ in baptism.

Abraham himself is a great example for believers of either testament. He was NEVER BAPTISED.Nor was Abraham ever commanded to be baptized. We, under the NT of Jesus Christ, are. Abraham's example lies in the fact that he did what God commanded him to do, even when it didn't make sense.

I urge you all to examine the evidence and judge for yourselves. In the end, we all ought to do one of two things:

- Decide that HS baptism is the "one baptism", and stop baptizing in water, or

- Decide that water baptism is the "one baptism", and start doing it for the reasons God ahs commanded it.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-08-2005, 12:50 PM

Greeting

You put a lot (too much) into this post. I'll respond with separate posts one issue at a time.

First, Biblical harmony. You do not rightly divide God's Word because you do not see or admit to the distinctiveness between justification and sanctification.

Therefore, to preserve your denominational creeds you go to unsound measures. Is it right to pit the Bible against itself? You have compiled several verses showing human activity in water baptism. Are these to be pitted against the verses that show that spiritual baptism is done only and solely by God's Spirit? Is it right to appeal to ONE BAPTISM and then use a human-centered act of obedience to choose between the two? This is silliness for it sets fickle imperfect sanctification ahead of God's righteous declarations of justification.

Biblical harmony uses both! There are many examples of both/and theology. The Trinity is but the greatest.

The "both/and" hermeneutic works well with justification/sanctification. One is justified by God's Spirit. One is also sanctified by works. These are easy truths verified by several verses. It is a bad hermeneutic to pit the Bible against itself.

God's Spirit is the only saving baptism that counts. Water baptism is commanded for sanctification but is not an absolute requirement for heaven. Proof of this are the millions, perhaps billions, of OT saints who were never baptized or circumcized. Enoch, Noah and Job for example. Since there is but ONE FAITH, the OT demands that saving faith is without baptism. NT theology cut apart from the OT is not rightly dividing God's Word.

But this does not eliminate water baptism either. One must align the verses according to the justification / sanctification dimension. Failure to do this results in great error.

Lloyd

ascund

08-08-2005, 01:03 PM

Greetings

This is my second response to your lengthy posting.

Originally posted by bmerr:
The only other time we see anything like this is in Acts 10 with Cornelius, and there it occurred before Cornelius heard the gospel, and thus before he was saved (Acts 11:15).Your appeal eliminates the OT. Yet in the exact same post you appeal to Eph 4:5 for ONE FAITH. Thus, you contradict yourself in the same post. Which is it? Do we use the OT or ignore it? You cannot do both.

If we use the OT, then it does not matter whether or not Cornelius heard the gospel. Furthermore, I simply disagree with your statement because Peter preached the gospel quite well to Cornelius and never ever touched on water baptism until AFTER Cornelius was saved.

You change the rules of hermeneutic interpretation to suit your needs. Since the Bible declares ONE FAITH, do you now have two (or more)? Is there ONE FAITH for you and me, ONE FAITH for Cornelius, and ONE FAITH for the OT saints? Why not throw in ANOTHER FAITH for the Thief on the Cross. Be consistent! If there is truly one faith, then it applies to the OT as well.

When you look to the OT you avoid the trappings of sanctification associated with water baptism. Since there was no OT circumcision or water baptism that saved Enoch, Job or Abraham, it must be true also for the NT!

Consistency is the hallmark of good theology.
Lloyd

ascund

08-08-2005, 01:07 PM

Greetings

Here, you have drawn an errant conclusion by ignoring context. Context rules!

Originally posted by bmerr:
Salvation was preceded by faith and repentance (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:37),

was for the remission, or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16)You completely ignore the context of this verse. In Acts 1:6, the disciples asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?” In Acts 3:19, Peter’s second sermon, he preaches, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the TIMES OF REFRESHING shall come from the presence of the Lord.”

If Peter is looking for the restoration of national Israel BEFORE and AFTER Acts 2, then he is IN Acts 2. With proper context in mind Peter first shows his fellow countrymen that they have crucified their Messiah (2:23). Jesus rose from the dead, will return, and execute Messianic vengeance upon His enemies (2:35; Psa 110:1-2; Isa 61:1-2;l; Jer 46:10). He reminds them that they are the ones who crucified the One (2:36) Who is both “Lord and Christ.” So, repent and be baptized (2:38). Save yourselves “from this untoward generation” (2:40).

It is deceptive manipulation to misrepresent the great weight of scripture by a verse intended only for 1st century Jews looking for national restoration and wishing to avoid God’s wrath on their UNTOWARD GENERATION before judgment falls in AD 70. Acts 2:38 is not a normative principle today.

Lloyd

ascund

08-08-2005, 01:13 PM

Greetings

This is yet another response to your lengthy post. This much confusion requires many short responses.

Originally posted by bmerr:
[Baptism] is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12)Have you ever examined Romans 6 is context? Context rules!

A. ROMANS 1:19-3:19 – HUMAN DEPRAVITY
Adam’s one sin spread death to the entire race (Rom 5:17-19; 1 Cor 15:22). The entire race is dead in sin (Eph 2:1,5). We are helpless to change our plight for our hearts are so desperately wicked that they are beyond knowing (Jer 17:9). Indeed, even in our best of states, we are still nothing but vanity (Psa 39:5) for all – every one – of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags (Isa 64:6).

In Romans, God purposefully and with great elaboration builds an airtight case against all ungodliness, unrighteousness, and those who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). God condemns: the perverts and the immoral (Rom 1:19-32), the moral Gentiles with or without the law (Rom 2:1-16), the self-righteous Jew (Rom 2:17-3:9), and all humans in general (Rom 3:10-18). In the final Day of Judgment, God’s case will so convincing that no one will be able to say one word in self-defense (Rom 3:19).

B. ROMANS 3:19-31 – CHRIST’S RIGHTEOUSNESS: THE BASIS OF SALVATION.
The Bible declares that Christ is the center of redemption. He is the basis of salvation from start to end – period. The power of the gospel unto salvation is God’s righteousness – apart from corrupted human obedience (Rom 1:16,17; 3:21-22a) – through Christ (Rom 3:22b-25, 5:21, 10:4; Phil 1:11; 2 Pet 1:1).

C. FAITH: THE INSTRUMENT OF JUSTIFICATION.
The basis of Christian salvation is Jesus Christ and His righteousness. Human faith is not the reason that God accepts those who believe. Faith is merely the instrument that appropriates Christ’s righteousness and God’s subsequent favor (Rom 3:26-31) God justifies whether or not the sinner has gone through any sacramental rite (3:30).

Salvation occurs when God IMPUTES Christ’s righteousness to the believing sinner simply and only because of faith in Christ. The word IMPUTE (Ps 32:2; Rom 4:6, 8, 11, 22, 23; 2 Cor 5:19; and Jam 2:23) is a cardinal aspect of this presentation. Impute is an accounting term that means “to reckon” and has nothing to do with activity.

“The righteousness of faith is declared to be our only righteousness before God. This righteousness consists in the obedience of the divine-human Christ in both life and death, by which He fulfilled and satisfied the law on behalf of poor, condemned sinners. God imputes this righteousness to all who believe the gospel, and by it they are justified and saved. Justification is a declaration or verdict of God that the sinner is acquitted and counted as righteous for the sake of the obedience and death of Jesus Christ.”

The only righteousness that pleases God is Christ’s righteousness. In 2 Cor 5:21, God clearly shows that He Himself and nobody else has effected this two-way IMPUTATION. Our sins are imputed to Christ; His righteousness is imputed to us.

The relation between salvation and faith denies the question of human activity and/or merit because God reckons faith as righteousness (Rom 4:3, 5, 9, 13, 24). God is pleased to do this on the basis of Christ’s ALIEN righteousness – not because of intrinsic human worth. Saving faith, and that alone by itself, is the key to receiving Christ’s IMPUTED righteousness. If anything human (including commanded baptism) is included in this simple passive faith, then faith is converted to a work (Rom 11:6).

D. ABRAHAM – THE FATHER OF OUR FAITH (ROMANS 4).
Paul’s entire object lesson using Abraham begins with the fact that Abraham was declared to be righteous BEFORE his sacramental rite of circumcision (4:2,3,5,9). Abraham is presented as a proper example for both Jews (12a) and Gentiles (12b). Paul takes great care to emphasize that Abraham’s sacramental rite of circumcision came AFTER his salvation and through IMPUTATION of Christ’s righteousness (10-11). Abraham is a fitting example for all those who would receive the righteousness of faith in either testament (13).

E. ROMANS 5: JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
Chapter 5 begins with “being justified by faith.” Faith gives access to grace (v2). Whereas the entire race was plunged into death by Adam’s one sin, the free gift of eternal life comes by Jesus alone (v18). Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life (v21). In context, the only righteousness being spoken of is Jesus’ righteousness – not human righteousness. Chapter 5 is a mini summary of everything that has proceeded using the Adam – Christ contrast as a metaphor. Baptism isn’t mentioned.

F. ROMANS 6: SPIRIT BAPTISM
Only here,
AFTER denial of human obedience,
AFTER Christ’s righteousness,
AFTER faith as the instrument of justification,
AFTER Abraham’s example,
does Paul mention baptism. Since the word “water” is not used anywhere in the chapter or the entire book, this baptism must be seen as the saving spiritual baptism that comes at the moment of faith (justification).

Any move to force common sense spiritual baptism to mean earthly water baptism is heresy.

Any attempt to move baptism out of the Bible sequence (faith – justification – baptism) is high heresy.

Context rules!
Baptism only AFTER justification.
Lloyd

ascund

08-08-2005, 01:20 PM

Greetings again!

Originally posted by bmerr:
... and is the point at which one is saved and added to the Lord's church (1 Cor 12:13; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:41, 47).Nowhere does the Bible say that the Church started at Pentecost. What would you do with all the OT saints? Father Abraham is used as a fine example of the Church (Romans 4). Jesus used the murmuring Israelites as an example of NT saving faith (John 3). Peter used Noah (Gen 6-7; I Pet 3). Moses used Enoch. There are many more (Grieviously sinning suicidal Samson).

The failure to look at the OT has deleterious effects to your theology of human righteousness.

All these little errors make your machine gun posts hard to address in one response. Please try to stick with one topic per post.
Lloyd

ascund

08-08-2005, 01:27 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
and is the point at which one is saved and added to the Lord's church (1 Cor 12:13; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:41, 47).Here, you lump verses about Spirit Baptism as proof of justification. Do you realize how you blend Spirit baptism and water baptism with justification and sanctification. Worse yet, you confuse the context of Acts 2 by trying to force the culture of national Israel upon us Gentiles. This is a truly topsy turvy hermeneutic.

Peter shows that the analogy of baptism rests upon Noah. But Noah was declared to be JUST and PERFECT BEFORE the saga. Just because water is used somewhere in the Flood narrative does not mean that water saves anyone. Context rules! Context dictates that water baptism happens AFTER justification.

Here is where short posts are really beneficial. Try to answer the context here without hiding behind a bunch of other verses or running to another aspect of theology. What is the common sense reading of Gen 6:6-8? How much theologizing does it take to convert BEFORE into AFTER?

Confusion of justificaiton with sanctification is a grave error.
Lloyd

ascund

08-08-2005, 01:37 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by ascund:
Justification is by faith alone. Originally posted by bmerr:
You speak in direct conflict with James 2:24.Here again, after several posts showing the vital contextual clues, you ignore context.

Actually, you ignore both contexts of this verse.

The overarching context is James writing to believers. He urges them to provide works worthy of their standing in Christ. It is an error to make spiritual growth of faith + obedience sanctification a requirement of justification. We expect the baby to talk + walk sometime after birth. We don’t make the baby talk + walk as a requirement for birth.

The immediate context is James 2:23. Abraham was saved by faith (Gen. 15:6) twenty years before he offered up Isaac (Gen. 22; James 2:24). Romans 4 uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith (4:2-3,13) apart from any obedience and sacrament (4:4-12). The promise is voided by faith + obedience (4:14). Can God be any clearer? In 4:16, justification is by grace through faith [fn4]. Justification was IMPUTED to Abraham (4:22) by passive faith; EVENT – not process.

James 2:23 with 24 shows the total picture. Justification by passive faith is the new birth; sanctification by active faith is spiritual growth. Believers, therefore, are righteous by works, just because they are righteous without any merit of, or without any respect to works, seeing that the righteousness of works depends on the righteousness of faith. These two must not be confused. Error forces the sanctification part of Abraham’s life to be a requirement for justification oblivious that Abraham was already justified. It is wrong to endorse a system that makes the baby prove itself before birth. Proof of life happens AFTER birth.

This is your error. No baby can ever prove itself worthy of birth. No human can ever be self-righteous - - - even with the indwelling Spirit's assistance.

“Faith without works is dead” can only be used as a means for JUSTIFIED BELIEVERS to verify their justification before others. Faith and works cannot mix to produce or maintain justification before God (Rom. 4:14, 11:6; 1 Cor 1:17c). All faith + obedience verses fit into this harmony.

One must use ALL of God's Word - not just the parts that are conducive to one's denominational creeds.
Lloyd

Michael52

08-08-2005, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:
My point is that works of obedience are a neccessary part of saving faith. Not works of the law, not works of merit. Obedience. How else would one demonstrate their submission to God's will, but by obedience to His commands?

Obedience adds nothing to the work of Christ. It simply is the manifestation of one's faith in Christ's work. Without it, faith is dead.
bmerr

My point is that works of obedience are not a necessary part of saving faith. It does not matter how we classify a "work", whether law, works of merit, obedience, etc. They are all physical or mental acts and activities that can also be performed by an unbeliever. If an unbeliever is “obedient” to the laws of God, is he saved? No! Does the meritorious act of an unbeliever justify him in the sight of God? No!

If both a believer and an unbeliever perform the identical meritorious act, which is justified by the act? Neither!

What is the difference that has caused one to be saved and the other condemned, very simply, one believes and is justified, the other does not believe and is condemned!

All disobedience is sin. If we are judged on our obedience, we are all doomed for hell, because there was only One who obeyed perfectly and merited salvation by works, Jesus Christ. That is why our only hope is to be dressed in His righteousness.

Obviously, God wants us to be obedient. Perfect obedience is not possible for us, but faith is. Saving faith, which comes first, allows and compels us attempt the things God desires us to do. Not to obtain salvation, but to please the One who saved us. It is God and God alone who gives us the ability and desire do what pleases Him. This is stated plainly in the passage from Eph., which we sometimes leave out.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Your answer to the hypothetical situation where someone comes to saving faith and then is prevented by circumstance beyond his control from receiving water baptism brings up a pivotal question. If we come to saving faith in Jesus Christ, doesn’t the Bible tell us that will give us the strength and ability to do what he asks us to do? Will he ask of us something that is humanly impossible for us to do? Certainly we all (me, anyway) are called to do things, which are in our power to do; yet we fail for various reasons (chiefly, sin) to accomplish them. Isn’t this the reason we need a Savior?

You ask, “how does God choose who He will saved – isn’t there something we have to do to be saved?” Yes, the Bible says we have to believe. Period. When we believe, Jesus will help us carry our burdens and enable us to accomplish His will. His will for us is the only law and/or work with which we need concern ourselves. His will, will be done in us, whether we like it or not!

I pray He gives all of us the grace to "like it." ;)

Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mt 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mt 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Doubting Thomas

08-08-2005, 04:20 PM

One must use ALL of God's Word - not just the parts that are conducive to one's denominational creeds.
Lloyd Pot...kettle.... :cool:

A one-time, once-for-all imputed forensic justification is the doctrinal novelty and is not the true biblical teaching, but don't let that stop you from claiming otherwise. tongue.gif

Michael52

08-08-2005, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
A one-time, once-for-all imputed forensic justification is the doctrinal novelty and is not the true biblical teaching, but don't let that stop you from claiming otherwise. tongue.gif To borrow a phrase, "If it was good 'nough fer Paul..." tongue.gif graemlins/saint.gif

ascund

08-08-2005, 08:53 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
A one-time, once-for-all imputed forensic justification is the doctrinal novelty and is not the true biblical teaching, but don't let that stop you from claiming otherwise. tongue.gif All you have to do is look up words like:

"impute" Psa 32:2, Rom 4 (6 times), Rom 5:13 and 2 Cor 5:19.

Where are the words "infuse" or "impart?" Gotcha!

Try the word "pardon." It shows up 20 times. This is a court room word. By the way, the word "forensic" is a synonym for the court room.

You haven't read your Bible if you can't see forensic justification anywhere. Sad!

Lloyd

hillclimber

08-09-2005, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:
hillclimber,

bmerr here. I hadn't thought of that. Something else for the "evidence" list.

Do you ever get near Clarksville, TN in your travels, or are you local?

In Christ,

bmerr West coast only but with a few sorties into Pheonix and Las Vegas. I did actually fly into Nashville for a convention several years ago.

bmerr

08-09-2005, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Michael52:
It does not matter how we classify a "work", whether law, works of merit, obedience, etc. They are all physical or mental acts and activities that can also be performed by an unbeliever.Michael52,

bmerr here. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I don't know if it's somewhere good or not, but we're getting somewhere!

Does the New Testament command, either implicitly or explicitly, that we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God if we would avoid damnation? Certainly it does. (I'm going to try and keep this short, so no verse list for this point.)

Can an unbeliever hear God's word? Happens all the time.

Can an unbeliever believe? Not without becoming a believer.

Can an unbeliever repent? Yes, but not toward God.

Can an unbeliever confess Christ as the Son of God? Not without lying.

Can an unbeliever be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins? No, since belief and repentance are prerequisite to baptism.

If an unbeliever is “obedient” to the laws of God, is he saved? No! Michael, were you not an unbeliever at one time? I was. Did you not hear the gospel and believe it? I did. In believing the gospel, did I not obey the law of God?

If an unbeliever cannot be saved by turning to God in faithful obedience, how can he be saved at all? You're not going "Calvin" on me, are you?

Does the meritorious act of an unbeliever justify him in the sight of God? No!No, it does not. No amount of good works can earn salvation.

If both a believer and an unbeliever perform the identical meritorious act, which is justified by the act? Neither!Correct. The saint is no more able to "earn" God's favor than the sinner.

What is the difference that has caused one to be saved and the other condemned, very simply, one believes and is justified, the other does not believe and is condemned!And how is the belief of the one manifested? In obedience! How about the other's unbelief? In continued disobedience.

All disobedience is sin. If we are judged on our obedience, we are all doomed for hell, because there was only One who obeyed perfectly and merited salvation by works, Jesus Christ. That is why our only hope is to be dressed in His righteousness.Where do you get the idea that I'm saying we earn our salvation? I've stated as plainly as I know how that our obedience to Christ does not earn us salvation. To be dressed in the righteousness of God is to have had the kind of faith that obeyed His commands.

Obviously, God wants us to be obedient. Perfect obedience is not possible for us, but faith is.Faithfulness is what is required of man by God (1 Cor 4:2). Can one be a faithful spouse? Certainly one can. Does their doing so mean that they were perfect? Obviously not.

Saving faith, which comes first, allows and compels us attempt the things God desires us to do. Not to obtain salvation, but to please the One who saved us.That's what I've been getting at: What is "saving faith", if it is not obedient?

It is God and God alone who gives us the ability and desire do what pleases Him. This is stated plainly in the passage from Eph., which we sometimes leave out.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.Why does God not give all men the "ability and desire do what pleases Him", then? Is God a respecter of persons? Please tell me you're not going "Calvin" on me!

Your answer to the hypothetical situation where someone comes to saving faith and then is prevented by circumstance beyond his control from receiving water baptism brings up a pivotal question. If we come to saving faith in Jesus Christ, doesn’t the Bible tell us that will give us the strength and ability to do what he asks us to do?You seem to be arguing from the point that is being discussed. We are discussing (last I checked anyway), the nature of "saving faith". The person in your illustration aparently has "saving faith", yet we are still discussing what "saving faith" is.

That's what I keep going back to: what is the "saving faith" of the "faith only" doctrine? Is it intgellectual assent of the facts of Jesus, and our need for redemption, or faith without works, which the Bible says is dead, or is it a faith in Christ and an acknowledgement of our need for redemption that demonstrates itself in obeying God?

If it's the former, then we are saved by a dead faith, and the baptism verses all have to be explained away.

If it's the latter, then it lines up neatly with everything else the Bible says.

Will he ask of us something that is humanly impossible for us to do? Certainly we all (me, anyway) are called to do things, which are in our power to do; yet we fail for various reasons (chiefly, sin) to accomplish them. Isn’t this the reason we need a Savior?There seems to be two extremes in your thinking. It's as if God asks nothing of man, or else God asks EVERYTHING of man. Either no obedience, or absolute perfection.

God demands FAITHFULNESS. Not perfection, for only Jesus achieved that. Not no obedience, for then everyone would be saved. Just faithfulness.

His will, will be done in us, whether we like it or not!That sounds pretty fatalistic. I'm sure you didn't mean it to.

I pray He gives all of us the grace to "like it." ;) "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." (1 John 5:3)

Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mt 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mt 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.God gives us a choice. We're not forced in any direction.

In Christ,

bmerr

leesw

08-09-2005, 03:07 PM

Baptism. Why? Because God's Word says to!

Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27, and others.

A good study about objections to baptism is at: http://www.bible.ca/baptism-objections-refuted.htm

ascund

08-09-2005, 03:18 PM

Greetings

bmerr asks, "And how is the belief of the one manifested? In obedience!"

Well - yes. But this is not justification alone. It is justification plus sanctification together in the total life picture of salvation. This is the exact same presentation as given in Mark 16:16. Because you cannot keep justification distinct from sanctification, you wrongly make works (acts) of obedience salvific.

Justification is by faith - alone. Sanctification is by faithful obedience.

You are maneuvering to define justification in terms of sanctification - again. This is big error.
Lloyd

webdog

08-09-2005, 04:21 PM

Curious...if baptism were required to "complete" salvation, why would someone who is not saved want to be baptized? In other words, I accept Christ, I want to be baptized. If salvation was not through faith alone, my "faith" would not be genuine and I would have no desire to be baptized. To use a previous analogy, if the person who is saved walks across the road to the church, he has a desire to be baptized because he is a "new creature". If he wasn't saved as bmerr would have us to believe, why then would he want to be baptized? Sorry if this is confusing, I know what I'm trying to say if nobody else does. :D

Michael52

08-09-2005, 05:23 PM

bmerr

It seems you are saying:

saving faith = obedience
and
obedience = saving faith

IMO this is not a true equivalence. All obedience is a work and any unbeliever can perform the same works a believer can perform (“…did we not prophesy? …did we not cast out demons?…).

Again, if the criterion for salvation is obedience, then what advantage has the believer? NONE! (bmerr, I’m not going “Calvinistic” on you, just Biblical ;) ) The Bible says, “without faith, it is impossible to please Him.”

Jn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

So what is the criterion? --- FAITH (belief), plus NOTHING!

We must first and above all, believe. If we believe, and are saved, then the Holy Spirit will work in us so that our works (obedience) will be pleasing to God. I think the Bible is plain that if there is no “fruit”, the Holy Spirit is not indwelling us and we are not saved. If we are saved and there is no “fruit”, then we have been disobedient, where it counts, and will be chastened by God. We are responsible in our sanctification, as ascund has pointed out.

Salvation is a gift that we can’t earn. Until we are saved by grace, through faith there is nothing we can do to merit the favor of God. After we are saved, God’s grace enables us to be obedient and do the things that please him.

I think that if a person confuses saving faith and obedience, then the above discourse does sound rather confusing. I personally reconcile it by asking myself the question, “What ‘good’ thing have I ever done that God did not first give me the ability and desire to do? What ‘good’ thing can I do that would put God in my debt, so that he is compelled to act in response? The answer is - NOTHING! (see Job)

Michael52

08-09-2005, 05:38 PM

webdog

I know what ya mean! graemlins/thumbs.gif

Though, I imagine there are people, who are unbelievers, that confuse water baptism with salvation. They may believe that the baptismal ceremony will merit for them God's grace and "punch their ticket" to heaven. graemlins/tear.gif

Frank

08-09-2005, 07:29 PM

Michael:
I have not read one post advocating that one is saved by baptism alone. I do not believe anyone has promulgated this doctrine. I have not read one post that advocates salvation by meritorious works.
The bible does teach that baptism is a PART of an obedient active faith in the redemptive work of Christ that accesses God's grace that saves. Romans 5:1,2;6:3-5,17,18 Eph. 2:8,9, Eph. 1:7, Rev. 1:5,Col. 1:14; 2:12, John 8:24,Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30, Mat. 10:32,Mark 16:16.

In every dispensation of time an obedient active faith saves accessed God's grace that saves. Always has. Always will. Hebrews 11:30, Joshua 6.

ascund

08-09-2005, 07:52 PM

Greetings Frank & others

Your post is pretty good. I'd like to see you tighten up your terminology.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank:
In every dispensation of time an obedient active faith saves accessed God's grace that saves./QUOTE]

This otherwise good posting fails to clearly identify with justification. In fact, it is so vague that it could be used by Catholics and CoCers equally well.

The evangelical way of saying this would be that obedient active faith of sanctification accesses God's grace AFTER justification.

Lloyd

DHK

08-09-2005, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Frank:

The bible does teach that baptism is a PART of an obedient active faith in the redemptive work of Christ that accesses God's grace that saves. The Bible teaches no such thing.
To equate baptism to faith is absurd. Look up the words in a dictionary. They are different for a reason. Baptism is not faith, nor even a part of it. Baptism is a work. It is performed by Hindus, Mormons, COC, and many others. It does not require faith. It requires action. It is a work.

Therefore you have a works-salvation by making it a part of your "faith." You believe then, that salvation is by works and not by grace. You have denied the Word of God.

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.
DHK

Frank

08-09-2005, 07:58 PM

Ascund:
The scriptures speak for themselves. They do not need to be cleaned up. However, to set the record right, I am a christian as per Acts 11:26. There is no such thing as a Cocer. You should follow your own advice and cleanup your terminology.

DHK

08-09-2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
Ascund:
The scriptures speak for themselves. They do not need to be cleaned up. However, to set the record right, I am a christian as per Acts 11:26. There is no such thing as a Cocer. You should follow your own advice and cleanup your terminology. Why the unnecessary rebuke Frank?
The "COCer" terminology used by Ascund is right in your own profile used by yourself. If you define yourself as COC, are you not being hypocritical to deny others to call you the same? Or are you trying to hide under a facade of "Christianity" without the shame of being a COC?
DHK

Frank

08-09-2005, 08:43 PM

DHK:
Quote/
The Bible teaches no such thing.
To equate baptism to faith is absurd. Look up the words in a dictionary. They are different for a reason. Baptism is not faith, nor even a part of it. Baptism is a work. It is performed by Hindus, Mormons, COC, and many others. It does not require faith. It requires action. It is a work.

Therefore you have a works-salvation by making it a part of your "faith." You believe then, that salvation is by works and not by grace. You have denied the Word of God.

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.
DHK
Baptism is an act of faith. Col. 2:12. Buried with him in baptism wherein we are also risen with him by faith in the operation of God who raised him from the dead. You need more than a dictionary.
Furthermore, there are different types of work in the bible.Gal. 3:11, Titus 3:5. A faith that is obedient an active always saves. Always has, always will. No exceptions. Every example of conversion in the bible required an obedient active faith, no exception.Acts 2;38, 8:12-14,35-40; 10:48:11:1-5, 16:12-16,30-33; 18:8; 19:1-5; 22:16.Every example of salvation in every dispensation of time required an obedient active faith. Always has, always will. No exceptions. The grace that saves is always accessed by an obedient active faith. Roms. 5:1,2;6:3-5,17,18,Acts 22;16.

Our inheritance is dependent upon conditions stipulated in the will of Christ. No exceptions. Rev. 2:10, I Peter 1:1-5. No exceptions.

Abraham looked for a city that hath foundations whose builder and maker is God. Hebrews 11:10 cf. 11. His obedient active faith got him into the kingdom of heaven. Mat. 8:11,12. Jesus said And I say unto you that many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

The reception of a gift( grace) does not preclude CONDITIONS. Joshua 6, the whole chapter. cf. Hebrews 11:30. God told Joshua in verse two he had given into thine hand Jericho. However, until Joshua did all God asked the walls of Jericho and the city stood firm. Noah was saved by grace because he did all that God commanded him so did he, Gen. 6:7,22. This is the type grace and faith that saves. No exceptions.

Baptism is one conditon of an obedient active faith that saves. The bible says in Gal. 3:26, for ye are all the children of God by( how?) by faith (where?)in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have ( when?) been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Always has, always will be.

You can search the bible today, tomorrow, and for a thousand years with the mind of Einstein and never find someone being saved by God without an obedient active faith, not one time.

DHK

08-09-2005, 08:54 PM

A work is a work is a work. You can put as many adjectives aa you want before "work" but it wont change the definition any. We are not saved by works. There are no such things as "meritorious works." No work is meritorious.
For by grace are ye save through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, Not of works. You either believe that statement or you don't.

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.

There is no such thing as meritorious works. If works (the work of baptism) is included in salvation, then salvation is not of grace, and you have a works-based salvation, which according to this verse you have.
DHK

Frank

08-09-2005, 08:57 PM

DHK:
I never have used the term cocer in reference with my identification with Christ. I am a member of the church ( the saved) of Christ. Acts 2:47; 11:26.

Please provide any post of mine where I have made reference to myself or my brethren as cocer's.

Strange, I call you a baptist because that what you claim to be. Are you offended by being called a baptist. If so, I will not call you one. It is shameful on your part not to show the same courtesy to others.

ascund

08-09-2005, 09:00 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by Frank:
You can search the bible today, tomorrow, and for a thousand years with the mind of Einstein and never find someone being saved by God without an obedient active faith, not one time.The Bible is loaded with prime verses that say that one is justified by PASSIVELY by faith in Jesus Christ and having God impute to us sinners Jesus' external righteousness. Here is a partial list:

As a passive voice, dikaiow is used in the present (5x), aorist (16x), future (3x), and perfect (3x). Regardless of tense, no passive voice supports conditional justification. Believers passively receive God’s imputed justification by faith without the deeds of law (Rom 3:28) and apart from the law (Gal 3:11). Passive justification is in parallel with historic passive sanctification (I Cor 6:11). Significantly, the Perfect Tense demolishes conditional justification because it shows the permanence of a historic past event. The publican (Luke 18:14) went and remained totally justified. The believer who died in Christ is and permanently remains freed from sin (Rom 6:7). What condition is needed where there is no sin?

My dad's favorite verses were Rom 5:1-2 "being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.

Here, justified is an aorist passive but the second "we have" and "we stand" are both in the perfect tense. The results of PASSIVE justification continue on and on and on . . .

Verb tenses are a rather elementary subject. It is not good to proceed to higher theology if one cannot handle these easy basics.

Lloyd

The active faith of sanctification happens only AFTER the passive faith of justification. Unless your statements clearly reflect biblical views of justification and sanctification, they are prone to big error and confusion.

Lloyd

DHK

08-09-2005, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
DHK:
I never have used the term cocer in reference with my identification with Christ. I am a member of the church ( the saved) of Christ. Acts 2:47; 11:26.

Please provide any post of mine where I have made reference to myself or my brethren as cocer's.

Strange, I call you a baptist because that what you claim to be. Are you offended by being called a baptist. If so, I will not call you one. It is shameful on your part not to show the same courtesy to others. You identify yourself with:
Bartley Rd. church of Christ

That is what is in your profile. You are a COCer. You belong to the COC. You belong to the COC of Bartley Rd. Why are you just trying to deny it now? You have claimed to be a member of the COC ever snce you joined this board, and have never denied being one. So now what is your issue. I ask you again. Are you in some way ashamed of the COC of which you are ashamed of, that now you don't want to be identified with them?
DHK

Frank

08-09-2005, 09:05 PM

DHK:
I do not believe webster makes judgments for God as to what he has said in the scriptures. This is a feeble attempt to validate your personal theology. I am glad Jesus will judge me by his words, not merriam-webster. John 12:48.

Furthermore,the bible does not teach one is saved by meritorious works. You are arguing with yourself. An obedient active faith is required of God. Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10;17;15:26.Always has, always will.

Frank

08-09-2005, 09:11 PM

DHK:
I am a member of the saved of Christ( Acts 2:47) who assemble at ( location) the Bartley Rd. By your logic this makes those in Thessalonica the cogincers. I Thes. 1:1. This is foolishness on your part. I believe you were raised better than this.

DHK

08-09-2005, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
h one is saved by meritorious works. You are arguing with yourself. An obedient active faith is required of God. Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10;17;15:26.Always has, always will. If you are saying that "an obedient active faith is required of God for salvation, then you are stating heresy.

If you are saying that "an obedient active faith is required of God for sanctification of the believer then I agree with you.
DHK

DHK

08-09-2005, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
DHK:
I am a member of the saved of Christ( Acts 2:47) who assemble at ( location) the Bartley Rd. By your logic this makes those in Thessalonica the cogincers. I Thes. 1:1. This is foolishness on your part. I believe you were raised better than this. Now you are just playing semantics. Everyone has a label. You have labeled yourself Church of Christ, and further identified yourself by your geography, Bartley Rd. You piously say that you are the saved of Christ that assemble at this location, as any local church can describe themselves as such, for that is the general definition of a local church. So that isn't news to anyone. In order to differentiate yourself from Baptists, Methodists, SDA's, etc. you have labeled yourselves as COC, the abbreviation for the Church of Christ. Surely you are not ashamed to admit this on the board, which also has an abbreviation of BB.
DHK

Michael52

08-09-2005, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Frank:
Michael:
I have not read one post advocating that one is saved by baptism alone. I do not believe anyone has promulgated this doctrine. I have not read one post that advocates salvation by meritorious works.
Frank

I was just responding to webdog. He said he didn't think someone who was not saved would desire baptism. I was pointing out that certainly there are "unchurched" people who may falsely think that getting baptized is equivalent to being saved.

Hey, lots of people have "strange" notions. No doubt I qualify for that also. ;)

I hope to learn better, Lord willing. graemlins/saint.gif

ascund

08-10-2005, 07:31 AM

Greetings Michael52

Originally posted by Michael52:
I have not read one post advocating that one is saved by baptism alone. I do not believe anyone has promulgated this doctrine. I have not read one post that advocates salvation by meritorious works.[/qb]Frank

You have fingered a key concept in the discussion of water baptism. There is only one verse that links faith and baptism. However, Bible students recognize that the link is to salvation - NOT JUSTIFICATION. Those who embrace error glibly continue forcing their denominational creeds upon the text and convert "salvation" into "justification."

The great weight of scripture links justification to faith alone. Nothing else is ever added or implied. Your observation is a vital building block of systematic theology.

Kudos to you!
Lloyd

Frank

08-10-2005, 01:51 PM

Loyd:
To state a thing has been accomplished does not tell us how or when as it relates to others. Context will tells us these things. Furthermore, the totality of what is written should be considered before one makes his conclusions. It is called rationality. Again, you cannot provide one example of a person being saved without an obedient active faith, not one. It seems you fail to grasp this concept.

ascund

08-10-2005, 02:28 PM

Greetings

Why Frank - this is an easy lexical exercise. Have you never considered examining the rudamentary verbs in the Greek? Let me help you.

PASSIVE VOICE of DIKAIOW (justification)
Acts 13:39; Pres Pass Ind; All who believe are justified
Rom 3:24; Pres Pass Ptcp; Being justified freely by his grace through Jesus’ redemption.
Rom 3:28; Pres Pass Infin; We are justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:5; Pres Act Ptcp; Those who believe in Jesus are justified. Faith is counted for righteousness.
Gal 2:16; Pres Pass Ind; We are not justified by the works of the law.
Gal 3:11; Pres Pass Ind; No one is justified by the law. The just (dikaios) shall live by faith.
Gal 5:4; Pres Pass Ind; Christ is of no effect if you are justified by the law. Ye are fallen from grace.
Matt 11:19; Aor Pass Ind; Wisdom is justified of her children.
Luke 7:35; Aor Pass Ind; Wisdom is justified by her children.
Rom 3:4; Aor Pass Subj; God’s Word is given that you might be justified.
Rom 4:2; Aor Pass Ind; If Abraham was justified by works he can boast.
Rom 5:1; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.
Rom 5:9; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by Jesus’ blood, we shall be saved from God’s wrath.
I Cor 6:11; Aor Pass Ind; We are justified and sanctified in Jesus’ name by God’s Spirit.
Gal 2:17; Aor Pass Infin; If we seek to be justified by Christ and found to be sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? God forbid!
Gal 3:24; Aor Pass Subj; The law brought us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
I Tim 3:16; Aor Pass Ind; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, believed in the world, and received up into glory.
Tit. 3:7; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs.
Rev 22:11; Aor Pass Imper; He who is righteous, let him be righteous still.
Matt 12:37; Fut Pass Ind; You will be justified by your words.
Rom 2:13; Fut Pass Ind; The doers of the law will be justified.
Rom 3:20; Fut Pass Ind; No one will be justified by the deeds of the law.
Luke 18:14; Perf Pass Ptcp; The publican went away justified.
Rom 6:7; Perf Pass Ind; He that is dead is freed (justified) from sin.
I Cor 4:4; Perf Pass Ind; I am not yet justified (because of stewardship).

So Frank, I left out a few active voice verses. But they all point to God's activity in justification alone! There is not one verse in scripture that refers in the active voice to human activity. The insistence on human activity is your denominational creed that stands in blatant opposition to the easy to see truths of scripture.

These verses clearly show that justification is a passive event. I'm not making it up - but I have used ALL of God's Word - not just the parts that are conducive to my denominational bias. Did you read the list?

This is the reason why I challenge you on adding human activity to faith. Your unbiblical view of required human activity in obedience makes faith the measure of justification. The Bible treats it as the instrument that enables God to impute Christ's righteous to the believing sinner.

The difference is substantial and alarming. Alarming? Yes! because God clearly condemns all human righteousness as filthy rags (Isa 64:6) and condemns all to hell left to their own means (Rom 3:19).

If faith is active, then all go to hell.
If faith is passive, then Christ's righteousness prevails!

Why would you embrace a system of death?
Lloyd

bmerr

08-10-2005, 02:59 PM

Originally by ascund:
However, Bible students recognize that the link is to salvation - NOT JUSTIFICATION.ascund,

bmerr here. You seem to be the one with the formal education, am I right? Perhaps you could explain how one could be justified without being saved, or saved without being justified. Either way is fine, but since you want to separate justification and salvation, I thought you might show everyone how this is done.

In Christ,

bmerr

Doubting Thomas

08-10-2005, 03:20 PM

Lloyd:
If faith is active, then all go to hell.
If faith is passive, then Christ's righteousness prevails!That's the most ridiculous, antibiblical statement I've ever read in my life. :rolleyes:

Faith without works is dead (James 2:17), and the only thing that avails for anything is faith working through love (Gal 5:6).

ascund

08-10-2005, 04:17 PM

Greetings

Your Bible ignorance is showing quite readily here.

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Lloyd:
If faith is active, then all go to hell.
If faith is passive, then Christ's righteousness prevails!That's the most ridiculous, antibiblical statement I've ever read in my life. :rolleyes:

Faith without works is dead (James 2:17), and the only thing that avails for anything is faith working through love (Gal 5:6). [/QUOTE]Gal 5:6
First, you misquoted Gal 5:6. Paul is talking about circumcison or uncircumcision as two manners of salvation. Neither way works because they don't include faith.

Second, faith does work by love. The dynamo behind saving faith is God's love for us sinners - even while we hated Him (Rom 5:8). We love God because He first loved us (I John 4:7,10,19).

Third, you missed the context - again. When will you ever read the passage from which you violently yank the verse? Paul exhorts ALREADY SAVED BELIEVERS to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free (Gal 5:1). Believers are called to liberty to serve one another (Gal 5:13). This is an issue of sanctification that you are abusing by trying to blend it with justification.

One of the two worst errors a theologian can make is to confuse justification with sanctification.

ACTIVE FAITH
Here is the complete list of active voice verses that involve justification (sorted by tense).

Luke 10:29; Pres Act Inf; The lawyer, willing to justify himself, said to Jesus …
Luke 16:15; Pres Act Ptcp; You are those who are justifying yourselves before men.
Rom 3:26; Pres Act Ptcp; God is the One justifying those who believe in Jesus.
Rom 8:33; Pres Act Ptcp; God is the One Who justifies.
Gal 3:8; Pres Act Ind; God would justify the heathen through faith.

Rom 3:30; Fut Act Ind; God will justify by faith.

Rom 8:30; Aor Act Ind; Those who he called, he justified and glorified.
Luke 7:29; Aor Act Ind; The publicans justified God.

These show that only God is active in justification. For you to deny this shows that you have never read your Bible. When will you stop throwing denominational rhetoric around without checking it out against God's Word?

Ignorance of easy Bible facts is no excuse for heresy.
Lloyd

Doubting Thomas

08-10-2005, 04:51 PM

Lloyd:
These show that only God is active in justification. For you to deny this shows that you have never read your Bible. When will you stop throwing denominational rhetoric around without checking it out against God's Word?

Ignorance of easy Bible facts is no excuse for heresy.
Lloyd It's quite amusing hearing a proponent of a doctrine invented in the 16th century accusing someone else of "heresy" and "denominational rhetoric". :cool: But anyway...

God is indeed the one who justifies--declares righteous. I don't believe I've said otherwise. However, you are mistaken by saying God is the only one "active" in justification. For our faith to be the kind that God will justify it has to be working through love, and not dead. It is in Christ through faith that one can do works of love by His grace, but that one is still doing the works. If he doesn't continue to abide in Christ and quits bearing fruit, he will be cast off from the vine. At that point that one is most certainly not justified.

ascund

08-10-2005, 05:26 PM

Greetomgs

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
It's quite amusing hearing a proponent of a doctrine invented in the 16th century accusing someone else of "heresy" and "denominational rhetoric". :cool: What a laugher! I've never referenced any author from the 16th century. Instead, I've listed the results of the authors from the 1st century who wrote the Bible. Really, you have to get a grip on your denominational ego and get into God's Word. Justification is all over the Bible. Do you only read denominational magazines?

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
God is indeed the one who justifies--declares righteous. I don't believe I've said otherwise. However, you are mistaken by saying God is the only one "active" in justification.I'll need a verse better than your confused appeal to Gal 5:6. Context dictates that Gal 5:6 is written to ALREADY SAVED believers. Hence, it has no application to justification. Instead, it is relevant to sanctification. One of the two worst mistakes a theologian can make is to confuse justification with sanctification. Apparently, you have no clue as what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
If he doesn't continue to abide in Christ and quits bearing fruit, he will be cast off from the vine. At that point that one is most certainly not justified.This is from Jesus' Upper Room Discourse. Have you not read that in context either? Jesus delievered this AFTER Judas left. The only ones remaining were believers. The whole discourse is about AFTER JUSTIFICATION. Will you ever learn that this is sanctification and not related to justification?

Apparently, you don't know much about viticulture either or you wouldn't have made such an outlandish error about pruning.

If the grape vine has too few growing points, it produces only vegetative growth with few grape clusters. If the plant has too many growing points, it grows extensively and wastes it nutrients on growth and produces few grape clusters. The vine dresser needs to keep a careful balance of growing points for maximum fruit production.

The vine dresser maximizes fruit production by pruning, which occurs twice a year. Immediately after harvest, the vine is severely pruned to reduce the number of growing points. Later, in early spring, the vine is pruned to remove excess shoots. Significantly, the vine dresser leaves a number of non fruit-bearing branches on the vines. These non fruit-bearing branches serve several purposes. Some non fruit-bearing branches become the main trunk for future growth while others are used for structural support to keep the fruit bearing branches from contacting the soil and being ruined. Since Jesus spoke this during the Passover, it is likely that He had a visible illustration in the spring pruning that was well known in that culture.

Cultural context dictates that spring pruning was for the purpose of maximizing growth. Both fruit-bearing and non fruit-bearing branches were pruned removing only small sprouts. Branches that had grown off of existing support beams needed to be lifted up off the soil to avoid rotting. The implications are quite clear. Since the Passover and crucifixion happened in the spring, Jesus intends His followers to abide in Him and bear much fruit. Those who do not bear fruit will be subject to severe pruning for the express purpose of producing fruit.

When - oh when indeed - will you ever use context?
Lloyd

bmerr

08-11-2005, 10:35 AM

To All,

bmerr here. I'm not opposed to chasing a few rabbits now and then, but we've wandered far from the topic under discussion. Most of what is being said here is also being said on other threads. So if we could, let's return to the topic of "Baptism--Why?"

I'm as guily as anyone else, so I won't be pointing any fingers.

The original goal was to show from the Bible the reasons for water baptism. I've found it's best to use verses that mention, or describe a topic when discussing that topic. So, If we could...

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-11-2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:
So if we could, let's return to the topic of "Baptism--Why?"Sounds good here. Let's start with Jesus' baptism.

Q1: Did Jesus get baptised to get saved?
A1: Silliness! Jesus, as the Author of eternal life, didn't need justification.
So: baptism is NOT for justification.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptised?
A2: Just prior to His public ministry. Jesus was 30 some years old.
So: We should get baptised at the beginning of our Christian ministry.

Observation: Jesus waited 30 years to get baptized. Thus, the Bible denies an immediate need to get baptized after justification.

So why did Jesus get baptised? As a pattern to fulfill all righteousness showing the sequence
justification - large time period - baptism - sanctification.

Well, your turn. Hope it doesn't lead to more rabbit trails. There are many sanctification verses for you to choose. What is your comment on Jesus' baptism without an appeal to CoC theology?

Good luck on this difficult endeavor.
Lloyd

Frank

08-12-2005, 02:10 PM

The why of the baptism of Jesus has little to do with ours. It is a false propostion to say we are baptized for the same reasons Christ was baptized.

1. Christ had no sin. I Pet. 1:22. We do. Romans 3:23.
2. Jesus had no need to confess which was a condition of John's baptism. Mt. 3:6-8. We do. Mat. 10:32.
3. John's baptism was for the remission of sins. Jesus needed no redemption. We do. Mk. 1:4, Col. 1:14.
Therefore, my friend makes a false propositon. Things that are equal to each other are equal to the same thing. In the case of the baptism of Chriat as it relates to our baptism, the above logical consequence is not applicable. Your conclusions are wrong.

One who purports we are baptized because we are already the children of God contradicts the plain teaching of Gal. 3:26,27. He imperils his soul by believing a lie. II Thes. 2:9-11;1:6-9.
The baptism of Christ is similar to ours in that both are submissive acts to God. Furthermore, it was a picture of the redemption of Christ by way of the cross. Col. 1:20, Romans 6:3-6.

ascund

08-12-2005, 03:16 PM

Greetings Frank

Originally posted by Frank:
The why of the baptism of Jesus has little to do with ours. It is a false propostion to say we are baptized for the same reasons Christ was baptized.Whoa! I personally have heard many CoC sermons that appeal to Jesus' baptism for proof of the need for water baptism. See Dan Corner's confusion at:
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/baptism.htm .

A simple search finds lots of links that say the same: http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR230.htm .

You and your theologians should at least try to speak in union.

The key is that Jesus didn't need to get baptized yet commanded that we follow His baptism. Hmm. A common sense reading would indicate that it be done for the same reason. Otherwise, we need to look for a secondary explanation. Where is it? Until then, let's simply use a common sense reading.

Lloyd

bmerr

08-13-2005, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bmerr:
So if we could, let's return to the topic of "Baptism--Why?"Sounds good here. Let's start with Jesus' baptism.

Q1: Did Jesus get baptised to get saved?
A1: Silliness! Jesus, as the Author of eternal life, didn't need justification.
So: baptism is NOT for justification.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptised?
A2: Just prior to His public ministry. Jesus was 30 some years old.
So: We should get baptised at the beginning of our Christian ministry.

Observation: Jesus waited 30 years to get baptized. Thus, the Bible denies an immediate need to get baptized after justification.

So why did Jesus get baptised? As a pattern to fulfill all righteousness showing the sequence
justification - large time period - baptism - sanctification.

Well, your turn. Hope it doesn't lead to more rabbit trails. There are many sanctification verses for you to choose. What is your comment on Jesus' baptism without an appeal to CoC theology?

Good luck on this difficult endeavor.
Lloyd [/QUOTE]ascund,

bmerr here. Not so difficult, perhaps. There is still the rabbit trail of how one can be justified without being saved, or saved without being justified for you to answer, though. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. My understanding of justification as it relates to salvation may be wrong. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it.

Q1: Did Jesus get baptised to get saved?
A1: Silliness! Jesus, as the Author of eternal life, didn't need justification.
So: baptism is NOT for justification.Concerning Jesus'baptism, we both understand that Jesus had no sin to be remitted. So you are correct in pointing out that His baptism was not for salvation.

Jesus told John, "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt 2:15). The commandments of God are righteousness (Ps 119:172). God had commanded baptism. Jesus obeyed the commands of God. It was the proper thing to do.

Under the NT however, sinful men like you and me are commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins. In submitting to this, we are fulfilling the righteousness (commandments) of God.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptised?
A2: Just prior to His public ministry. Jesus was 30 some years old.
So: We should get baptised at the beginning of our Christian ministry.So when does our "Christian ministry" start? Is it not when we become a Christian? Do we not have the Christian duty to study and grow from the moment we obey the gospel? That's all part of our "ministry". Unless you know of some authorization for one to just "chill out" for a peroid of time after he is saved...

Observation: Jesus waited 30 years to get baptized. Thus, the Bible denies an immediate need to get baptized after justification.

So why did Jesus get baptised? As a pattern to fulfill all righteousness showing the sequence
justification - large time period - baptism - sanctification.(With due respect for the education that is yours, I still think your view of justification is incorrect. I haven't got to any response you may have given to my post looking at Gen 22 yet, so don't feel obligated to rehash the issue if you've already hashed it.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here (I like it out here): Since John's baptism was commanded by God, and justification is not by "faith only", but by faith with appropriate works, could Jesus be Who He was, and as such justified, if He had not submitted to it?

I'm not saying either way, it's just a thought that crossed my mind.

Aside from that, Jesus was about 30 years old when He was baptized of John. That's not the same as saying He waited 30 years to be baptized. I don't know if we can determine how long John had been preaching when Jesus came to him. We do know that John was about 6 months older than Jesus (Luke 1:36).

Also, we see that Jesus made the trip from Galilee to Jordan for the purpose of submitting to John's baptism (Matt 3:13).

If anything, I'd say the fact that Jesus was baptized shows the importance of obeying God's commands. We also need to remember that the baptism commanded by God since Acts 2 is not the same as John's baptism, which Jesus submitted to.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Sinners are commanded to be baptized for the remission of their sins.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-14-2005, 08:00 AM

Greetings

Great question!
Originally posted by bmerr:
Perhaps you could explain how one could be justified without being saved, or saved without being justified. Either way is fine, but since you want to separate justification and salvation, I thought you might show everyone how this is done.Sure thing. Salvation is the overarching concept that embraces the entire life of the believer.

Justification is associated with the new birth.
Sanctification is the after birth spiritual growth.

One who is justified is saved. One who is saved is justified. It is not an exact two way concept. Justification is a proper subset of salvation for one can be saved without being sanctified.

Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Salvation is far more than being saved (justification). It includes the walk of obedience (sanctification) in God's light (I John 1:5) with Jesus and other believers.

Hope this helps a bit.
Lloyd

ascund

08-14-2005, 08:20 AM

Greetings

You wrote:
Under the NT however, sinful men like you and me are commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins. In submitting to this, we are fulfilling the righteousness (commandments) of God. I most heartily reject this statement for it is founded on a serious linguistics violation. Let me illustrate this using the following two sentences.
__1. My nose is running.
__2. I run a race.

Just because the same word “run” is used in both sentences does not mean that the two words have the same meaning. Incidentally, this word has the largest semantic domain in the English language with some 57 uses. Yet English speakers aren’t confused because they understand the word IN CONTEXT.

A 100% survey of remission of sins yields the following verses.
Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Here is the 1 remaining inexact match:

Mat 26:28, Luke 24:47 and Acts 10:43 are the generic invitations given to the entire world. Acts 10:43 is Peter coming out of his ethnic pride and preaching even to gentile heathen.
Luke 1:77 is a prophetic utterance of Jesus’ salvation and is associated with this generic invitation.

Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, and Acts 2:38 are given pointedly and solely to national Israel so that they would accept Messiah Jesus.

Rom 3:25 shows how the sins of the past were put on a charge account and paid at the cross with all other present and future sins (Rom 6:7; Col 2:13; I John 2:2, 12).

Hence remission of sins has at least three semantic definitions. It is a violent abuse of God’s Word to take the definition of “remission of sins” from any one group and thrust it upon the other groups. It would be like the abuse of the word “run.” In the same fashion as we understand the word “run” in context, so also must we understand the phrase “remission of sins” in context.

Only national Israelites were commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins – and that only to accept Messiah Jesus in order to avoid the punishment coming on that “untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Context rules!

Your whole system of human obedience requiring water baptism for process salvation depends on breaking known rules of semantics.
Lloyd

bmerr

08-14-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally by ascund:

Only national Israelites were commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins – and that only to accept Messiah Jesus in order to avoid the punishment coming on that “untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Context rules!Lloyd,

bmerr here. Off the top of my head I can't recall which thread it's on, but I've attempted to show that Acts 2 was not applicable to national Israel only.

This is due to the presence of Gentiles (Acts 2:10 - "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes") while Peter preached, and the extension of the "promise" to those present, their children, and all that are afar off (Gentile reference), even as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:39).

This is the short version. Again, if you've already responded, you need not feel obligated to do so again. I'm sure I'll find it eventually.

And I'm not sure what the "rules of semantics" are, but God has always demanded obedience from men, and blessed those who obeyed.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-14-2005, 07:05 PM

Greetings

lol! you sound like me. I'm sure I've responded to your response. It was where ever you posted it!

Originally posted by bmerr:
And I'm not sure what the "rules of semantics" are, but God has always demanded obedience from men, and blessed those who obeyed.I noted that Paul taught that the HEARING OF FAITH is all that is required for justification in Gal 3:5. This by itself is rather hard on your view.

Have you noted that your overall apologetic pits one set of verses against another set. You never propose a unifying theological harmonization of these verse. If ALL of God's Word is true, then it isn't right to pit one set of verses that you like against another set that you don't like.

With this in mind, my theological system of justification in parallel with - yet distinct from - sanctification handles all these verses rather seamlessly and smoothly. Justification is by faith and the Spirit's baptism; sanctification is by faithfulness and obedience which includes water baptism.

But it is a huge decision to awaken to the fact that you've clung to an errant system. It requires humility to admit error. Moreover, what will your family and friends think? It is sort of like starting over. We don't that very well. It is a hard decision but one you need to make in light of the difficulties you face in true biblical harmony.

Just a thought. Hope that the sheer repetition of the same thoughts will sooner or later be used by God's Spirit to show you that water baptism isn't part of the gospel message.

Shalom
Lloyd

Frank

08-14-2005, 08:47 PM

Lloyd:
I do not subscribe to any theologian. I study and decide for myself in all matters of faith. I am not obligated to defend any preacher and what he espouses as doctrine. He will be held in account for himself just as I will. Romans 14:12. You appear foolish and arrogant when you try to tell others what they believe. My duty is to defend the truth.
The baptism of Christ was a submissive act to God. In simple terms he obeyed the one who had authority to command. This makes his action a RIGHTeous thing to do. In this repect, I would imitate Christ's example. The second point made in my post is also true. The baptism of Christ was a picture of his death, burial and resurrection. Romans 6:3-5.

Furthermore, if you want to debate a "theologian" brother of mine about salvation, I suggest you try David Brown in Spring,Texas. I do not know if his schedule would permit, but he has defended the truth against many of your ilk.
By the way, try not to take things out of context such as your quote of mine. You been preaching a lot about context. Follow your own advice.

ascund

08-15-2005, 08:08 AM

Greetings

Please don't get unduly ruffled.

Originally posted by Frank:
You appear foolish and arrogant when you try to tell others what they believe. My duty is to defend the truth.Well, if so, I'm not doing it on purpose. I think I'm presenting the truth as much as you think you are.

I simply present that Jesus was not baptised for justification - yet He is the pattern. Hmmmm - common sense dictates that there is a one-to-one correspondence. You have done nothing but sling mud to answer the proposition. Who now is foolish and arrogant? At least I use Bible and common sense.

Furthermore, if you want to debate a "theologian" brother of mine about salvation, I suggest you try David Brown in Spring,Texas. I do not know if his schedule would permit, but he has defended the truth against many of your ilk.
By the way, try not to take things out of context such as your quote of mine. You been preaching a lot about context. Follow your own advice. [/QB]I'd like that a lot. Unfortunately, I'm not going to fund my own trip to Texas.

With regard to context, I use context in every refutation of your human-centered system-of-death posts.

Have you noticed that you've never yet tried a response to Isaiah 64:6, Jer 17:9 or Rom 1:19-3:19?? But you quickly yank Rom 6 out of context to make up.

Do you not know that if you can see the baptism, then it is only temporal - not eternal (2 Cor 4:18)? This is yet another easy common sense Bible verse that you cannot properly address without appealing to denomination rhetoric.

These type of angry responses usually come when the person realizes that what they have been relying upon is wrong - - - but they are so sold on their denominational creeds that it is difficult to denounce them and return to the Bible truths. Once a person puts denominational creeds ahead of God's Word, the only recourse is personal ego-soothing diatribes. I fear you are reaching this point. Perhaps God's purpose in bringing you to this forum for His truth is passing you by. Now is the time to see how much you cannot answer, how little you can use for support that isn't denominational rhetoric.

Every verse you bring is met with a Bible response. What I bring, you struggle with (like Isaiah 64 or Jesus' baptism).

Hope you have a genuine change of heart.
Lloyd

Frank

08-15-2005, 11:14 AM

Lloyd:

I did not say Jesus was baptized to be justiifed. Why make such statements. I wrote clearly about this question. If you read my post, you will see that is not true.

I posted an explanation about the baptism of Jesus. You do not like it. My answer is in harmony with the totality of the new testament of Christ.

I did not sling mud. I simply stated things as I see them. You seem to think it is appropriate to label people and represent their belief at your discretion. Then, you act offended when some one questions you about it. I choose to allow others to proclaim their beliefs without preconceived notions. It is called respect.

Funny, I could say you pit scripture against scripture by your theology. This label works both ways. If you think I am unduly ruffled, you give yourself too much credit!

Frank

mman

08-15-2005, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
I simply present that Jesus was not baptised for justification - yet He is the pattern. Hmmmm - common sense dictates that there is a one-to-one correspondence. You have done nothing but sling mud to answer the proposition. Who now is foolish and arrogant? At least I use Bible and common sense.Jesus did not use faith for His justification either. Follow that logic trail of yours and see where it leads.

Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16

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

This verse is so simple it takes help to misunderstand it.

This was the commission, to go into all the world and preach the gospel. The apostles were to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Acts 1:8.

That message began to be preached in Jerusalem in Acts 2.

Baptism was "for the remission of sins". Acts 2:38.

Since baptism is for the remission of sins, Jesus statement in Mark 16:16 is even more clear, if that is possible.

Can one be justified or sanctified while still in their sins? Surely you don't teach that?

Saul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16). This all fits together, whether you want it too or not. It takes mental gymnastics to attempt to explain away these clear teachings.

webdog

08-15-2005, 11:44 AM

Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16 You are right. The words are so plain. Believe and be baptized (obedience to God) = saved, believe NOT (oh...where's batism here?!?) = NOT SAVED! You would like Mark 16:16 to read "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not and is BAPTIZED NOT, shall be condemned." Sorry, it's not there.

riverm

08-15-2005, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16 You are right. The words are so plain. Believe and be baptized (obedience to God) = saved, believe NOT (oh...where's batism here?!?) = NOT SAVED! You would like Mark 16:16 to read "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not and is BAPTIZED NOT, shall be condemned." Sorry, it's not there. [/QUOTE]IF one believeth not, one wouldn’t be baptized to begin with. How can you be baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Sprit and not believe?

webdog

08-15-2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by riverm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16 You are right. The words are so plain. Believe and be baptized (obedience to God) = saved, believe NOT (oh...where's batism here?!?) = NOT SAVED! You would like Mark 16:16 to read "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not and is BAPTIZED NOT, shall be condemned." Sorry, it's not there. [/QUOTE]IF one believeth not, one wouldn’t be baptized to begin with. How can you be baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Sprit and not believe? [/QUOTE]Not true. I know plenty of people who have been "baptized" (term used loosely) and "believe not".

mman

08-15-2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16 You are right. The words are so plain. Believe and be baptized (obedience to God) = saved, believe NOT (oh...where's batism here?!?) = NOT SAVED! You would like Mark 16:16 to read "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not and is BAPTIZED NOT, shall be condemned." Sorry, it's not there. [/QUOTE]No, it says what it says. It plainly tells us what it takes to be saved and what it takes to be condemned.

What does it take to be saved?

What does it take to be condemned?

DHK

08-15-2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by mman:

What does it take to be saved?John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:
What does it take to be condemned? and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

but he that believeth not is condemned already, John 3:18

ascund

08-15-2005, 02:46 PM

Greetings

It is easy to fall into the negative fallacy trap with Mark 16. For instance let's add another something for emphasis. Believe + baptize + brushing teeth to be saved. I guarantee that if everyone believes, gets baptized and brushes their teeth, then they will be saved. Are you getting the picture.

Brushing teeth isn't needed for justification but fits within the general care of the body as part of sanctification. One can get justified even without brushing teeth. The negative fallacy error says that failure to brush ones teeth is the equivalent of not being saved.

The same fallacy holds for Mark 16 with respect to baptism. It is part of sanctification - not justification.

Anything that is associated with sanctification is part of salvation but not justification. If one cannot keep the simple terms straight, then big error happens at once.

Faith (justification) alone saves a person and fixes ones destiny with Jesus in heaven. Obedience (sanctification) adds rewards to the certain destiny. Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Why is this so hard?
Lloyd

Frank

08-15-2005, 07:33 PM

Lloyd:

Peter said in I Pet. 1:18,19, Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things such as silver and gold from the vain conversation received by the tradtion of your fathers but withthe precious blood of Christ as Lamb without blemish or spot.

Peter said in Acts 2:38, The Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shalll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter said in I Pet. 3:21, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us not the putting away of the flesh but the answer to a clean conscinece toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

John writes in Revelation 1:5, And from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness and the first begotten from the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth . Unto him who loved us and washed us form our sins in his own blood.

Paul writes in Romans 5:9, Much more being justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Peter Paul and John state one is justified by the blood of Christ. When? They are washed. How? By baptism. I Pet. 3:21, Acts 22:16, Col. 2:12.

Paul said in Ephesians 5:25, Husbands love your wives as Christ also loveed the church and gave himself for it; that he might SANCTIFY IT ( How?) by the washing of water by the word. Why? That he might present it to himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Peter and Paul both teach that one is justified and sanctified by the blood of Christ when we are baptized into Christ. cf.I Pet. 1:2, Gal. 3:26-29.

The doorway into Christ where all spiritual blessings are located is through baptism into Christ. Eph. 1:3, Col. 1:14, Eph. 1:7 Gal. 3:26,27. It will read that way on the day of judgment, too.

Frank

08-15-2005, 07:59 PM

Lloyd:
The grammatical construction of Mark 16:16 teache sus the following:
1. One that believes and is baptized shall be saved. And is a coordinating conjunction. This conjunction links belief and baptism in oneness or likeness in order to be saved.
2. But is a conjunction of contrast. It makes a distinction between things. It makes things dissimilar or incompatiable to one another. In short, the first clause is different from the second. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. ( first clause). But, contrast the first and second clause. He that believeth not shall be damned.And links ideas in oneness ( belief and baptism). But contrasts the first clause from the second. It would be redundant for the Lord to say but he that believeth not and is baptized not shall be damned. The Lord is not an illiterate.

ascund

08-15-2005, 08:54 PM

Hey Frank

Your whole post is built up using verses out of context. Do you purposely do that or is the denominational blinders so powerful that you can't see?

Originally posted by Frank:
Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized.The context is Peter preaching to Jews. He urges them to avoid the coming judgment on the "untoward generation" (Acts 2:40). It is a terrible mistake to apply this to Gentiles.

Originally posted by Frank:
I Pet. 3:21Context in Gen 6:8-9 shows that Noah was just and perfect BEFORE the Flood. Baptism points backward to the fact of faith.

Originally posted by Frank:
Romans 5:9 and Revelation 1:5This is almost blasphemous. Jesus' blood alone washes from sin. No way should anyone think that they can raise themselves up to His perfection and apply His saving work to themselves. Near kin to blasphemy! Jesus saves - not us!

cCol. 2:12.Context Frank!
Did you notice the circumcision of Jesus?
Did you see the WITHOUT HANDS?
Did you contemplate THE OPERATION OF GOD?

Nothing here applies to human activity. It is all of God. Baptism is an act of sanctification. Col 2:11-12 is God's activity in preparation of the plan of redemption.

It is near blasphemy to confuse this as well.

Originally posted by Frank:
Ephesians 5:25, ... Christ also loveed the church and gave himself for it; that he might SANCTIFY IT ( How?) by the washing of water by the word. Even the verse you used disproves your system of death. You even used SANCTIFY in uppercase. You see it to type it - but you don't see it! Sanctification is not justification.

This is a most amazingly string of verses abused by context. Yet it seems to be a standard technique to obsfuscate God's Word.

Context. Use it rightly!
Lloyd

bmerr

08-15-2005, 09:07 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. I'm trying to figure out how it is that you wrote this,

Originally by ascund:

Faith (justification) alone saves a person and fixes ones destiny with Jesus in heaven.and then you, seemingly in the same breath, follow it up with your equation,

Justification + sanctification = salvation.Do you see the discrepancy, or do I have a misunderstanding of what you're saying?

There was also this between the two:

Obedience (sanctification) adds rewards to the certain destiny.So, justification = salvation, but justification + sanctification also = salvation?

As I've said before, hats off to you for your educational efforts and all, but I think you may have a less-than-accurate view of the "justification/sanctification" thing.

I don't mean that in a "you're so stupid" way. I just think you might have sincerely believed some wrong things that were taught to you by men who sincerely believed them, too. It could happen to anyone.

If I could, I too, would like to encourage you to not be so sure that you know what others believe. Whether you mean for it to, or not, it does come across as a bit "know-it-all-ish", if you know what I mean. I haven't said anything about it up to now, but since Frank brought it up...

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-15-2005, 09:15 PM

Greetings

I think you might almost be ready to grasp this justification thing.

Let's try it using set language. Draw a circle. This is salvation. Now draw a line down the center of the circle. The left side is justification; the right side is sanctification.

The left half and the right half make up the whole. Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Justification settles salvation with respect to destiny. Sanctification deals with obedience which relates to rewards. It is also a part of salvation, but alas, not associated with justification.

Sanctification only counts if justification has been imputed by faith. Otherwise, they are just noble non-salvific good works that still lead the good-doer to hell.

Sanctification depends on justificaiton. Sanctification is important; justification is primal.

I think you might have a chance of getting this!
Lloyd

Originally posted by bmerr:
Lloyd,

bmerr here. I'm trying to figure out how it is that you wrote this,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally by ascund:

Faith (justification) alone saves a person and fixes ones destiny with Jesus in heaven.and then you, seemingly in the same breath, follow it up with your equation,

Justification + sanctification = salvation.Do you see the discrepancy, or do I have a misunderstanding of what you're saying?

There was also this between the two:

Obedience (sanctification) adds rewards to the certain destiny.So, justification = salvation, but justification + sanctification also = salvation?

As I've said before, hats off to you for your educational efforts and all, but I think you may have a less-than-accurate view of the "justification/sanctification" thing.

I don't mean that in a "you're so stupid" way. I just think you might have sincerely believed some wrong things that were taught to you by men who sincerely believed them, too. It could happen to anyone.

If I could, I too, would like to encourage you to not be so sure that you know what others believe. Whether you mean for it to, or not, it does come across as a bit "know-it-all-ish", if you know what I mean. I haven't said anything about it up to now, but since Frank brought it up...

In Christ,

bmerr [/QUOTE]

bmerr

08-15-2005, 11:22 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. If I dissect a circle with a line, then I end up with two semi-circles, which only make a complete circle if they're brought together. One half does not make a whole.

Honestly, I think you may be the one making the mistake by trying to have one without the other.

The Bible seems pretty clear on the idea that an obedient faith is the faith that justifies man before God, for obedience to God is the manifestation of one's faith in God.

God didn't tell Abraham "...for now I know that thou fearest God..." until He was able to say, "...seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen 22:12).

It is at this point that James tells us that "...the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the friend of God" (James 2:23).

After Abraham's obedience, not before. I know we've been over this, but the point cannot be made too many times. Justification was imputed by faith, but "not by faith only".

As far as all the "good works" men may do to try to justify themselves before God, I tried to cover that on the "faith only" thread in a belated response to your inquiry about Is 64:6. I can agree with you to a point, but I think Paul was not ruling out works of obedience in his writings. Context usually indicates he is speaking about the works of the law (Mosaic).

Time for bed.

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

08-15-2005, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by bmerr:

The Bible seems pretty clear on the idea that an obedient faith is the faith that justifies man before God, for obedience to God is the manifestation of one's faith in God.
What the Bible says:

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Bmerr's version (imaginary)
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by obedient faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

But adding to the Bible makes the Bible of none effect. That is what Jesus taught.
It becomes your COC Tradition, which Jesus condemned.
DHK

ascund

08-16-2005, 07:59 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Lloyd, If I dissect a circle with a line, then I end up with two semi-circles, which only make a complete circle if they're brought together. One half does not make a whole.Sigh. The set (Venn Diagrams) didn't go so well if you can make that statement.

Salvation in truth is both parts. But faith in Christ is the switch that puts/makes/creates both of them at once. For you, as a process of works theologian, salvation is not complete until the sanctification half is good enough to please God. You desperately work to satisfy both halves not willing to fully trust in Christ.

For me, God is pleased with faith in Christ so that final justification is awarded. God seals the believers, translates them to heaven, and personally indwells them. Sanctification is also pleasing in any degree because what we lack, Christ as the faithful covenantal SURETY makes up what is lacking. Faith in Christ generates both halves at the same time - complete, total, sufficient, and permanent.

From God's point of view, we are totally perfect and as righteous as is Christ (2 Cor 5:21). We've been declared righteous (justified), set apart unto God (historic sanctification) through adoption.

From the human point of view, we are still a work in process. Our faithlessness will diminish our rewards; our faithfulness will increase our rewards (1 Cor 3:11-15).

You put humans on par with Christ. I depend wholly upon Christ.

God didn't tell Abraham "...for now I know that thou fearest God..." until He was able to say, "...seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen 22:12).Yes! But this comes after his justification in Gen 15 by faith. In Romans 4, Paul describes Abraham's faith as sufficient for justification apart from sacrifices or sacraments. For Paul, Abraham was justifed when he believed God without works (Rom 4:5-6). The promise comes by the righteousness of faith (4:13). In Galatians 3:2,5 Paul describes it as "the hearing of faith." This is no action.

Did you not also read my 100% survey of justification? Every verse in the Bible that speaks of justification in the active voice refers to God's activity alone. Every verse in the Bible that speaks of justification with respect to humans is in the PASSIVE voice.

Faith is not associated with obedience with respect to justification. Faith produces the obedience of sanctification. You make faith the measure of salvation. I make faith the instruement of salvation. Big difference.

When you confuse justification with sanctification, you commit a grave error.
Lloyd

mman

08-16-2005, 08:44 AM

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

What does it take to be saved?John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:
What does it take to be condemned? and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

but he that believeth not is condemned already, John 3:18 [/QUOTE]Is that all God said about this subject? Does this verse negate all others that deal with this subject?

Also, a closer inspection of John 3:36 reveals he used two distinct Greek words, which are both translated as believe in the KJV.

Let's look at some other literal translations;

(NAS) "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

(ESV)Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

(RSV)He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

mman

08-16-2005, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

It is easy to fall into the negative fallacy trap with Mark 16. For instance let's add another something for emphasis. Believe + baptize + brushing teeth to be saved. I guarantee that if everyone believes, gets baptized and brushes their teeth, then they will be saved. Are you getting the picture.

Brushing teeth isn't needed for justification but fits within the general care of the body as part of sanctification. One can get justified even without brushing teeth. The negative fallacy error says that failure to brush ones teeth is the equivalent of not being saved.

The same fallacy holds for Mark 16 with respect to baptism. It is part of sanctification - not justification.

Anything that is associated with sanctification is part of salvation but not justification. If one cannot keep the simple terms straight, then big error happens at once.

Faith (justification) alone saves a person and fixes ones destiny with Jesus in heaven. Obedience (sanctification) adds rewards to the certain destiny. Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Why is this so hard?
Lloyd Wow, look at the mental gymnastics. It's not hard. Just read and understand it for what it says. You obviously don't like the logical conclusion of Mark 16:16, therefore, you try to change it's meaning.

So, basically you are saying that Jesus didn't really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

He really meant to say, "He that believeth is saved and shall be baptized and brush his teeth."?

ascund

08-16-2005, 01:05 PM

Greetings

Again, Mark 16 shows the total picture, not just the requirements for justification.

Belief belongs to justification.
baptism belongs to sanctification.

Even the second part of verse 16 shows how you fall into the negative fallacy error.

"he that believeth not shall be damned."

If baptism were required for justification, the only correct understanding of damnation would be the negative of both.

But since Mark only denies the first, the second is not a requirement for justification - just like brushing your teeth.

Really! You need to understand the second half of the verse upon which you build your human-centered system. It is not proper Bible methods to pick and choose just the half of a verse that is conducive to your denominational dogma.

Justification + sanctification is salvation.
Justification is a proper subset of salvation.
Sanctification has no part of justification.
How hard can this be?

Context - again - and again - ever only!
Lloyd

Frank

08-16-2005, 02:02 PM

Lloyd:
The context of the passages posted is justification and sanctification. The bible says so in the verses posted. The context links these to our baptism into Christ being washed in his blood. Again, the bible says so in the verses posted. Furthermore, ALL men are justified and begin sanctification the same way. The bible says so in Romans 1;16,Gal. 3:26,27. Paul stated that Gentiles were made nigh by the blood of Christ.cf. Eph. 2,3. One must logically conclude ALL men are justifed and begin sanctification by the same method, as the blood of Christ and baptism are linked together in the bible. You would do well to learn and apply the terms remote context, and the law of rationality. This would prevent you from making erroneous conclusions. As Jeremiah would say, your doctrine is a broken cistern that holds no water. No pun intended.

Furthermore, the baptism of Gal. 3 is not Spirit baptism. Spirit baptism happened twice. Acts 2,10. You believe it happens everyday as men are saved. The bible teaches it is the WORD that saves , not the Spirit. James 1;18,21. The Spirit uses the WORD to save. Eph. 6:17, Hebrews 4:10-12. Faith comes from the WORD , not the Spirit. Romans 10:17. There is not one example of conversion where one is saved by spirit baptism.

ascund

08-16-2005, 02:32 PM

Greetings Frank

You really can't mean this post. Just think of the glaring contradictions you thrust upon yourself.

Originally posted by Frank:
The context of the passages posted is justification and sanctification.This is what I have been trying to get you to see for quite some time now. Just when it appears that you understand what you say, you say . . .

Originally posted by Frank:
Furthermore, ALL men are justified and begin sanctification the same way.Yes! This too I've been trying to teach you. Petera appeals to Noah as an example of how water baptism comes AFTER being declared just and perfect. Paul appeals to Abraham as the father of all who believe in Jesus without sacrament or sacrifice. Jesus appeals to the murmuring Israelites are a great example: Look and live!

Originally posted by Frank:
The bible says so in Romans 1;16,Gal. 3:26,27. Paul stated that Gentiles were made nigh by the blood of Christ.cf. Eph. 2,3. One must logically conclude ALL men are justifed and begin sanctification by the same method, as the blood of Christ and baptism are linked together in the bible.Here, you botch the context. These verses talk about Jesus - alone. There is no human activity in focus here. Jesus is being presented as the WAY of eternal life - alone. Your so-called logical conclusion can only come from these verses by way of denominational rhetoric. We must use the biblical data showing exactly how one is both immersed into Christ and immersed into water. There are relatively few of these examples. but all the examples show the temporal sequence of Spirit baptism leading to justification followed by the optional water baptism of sanctification.

Finally, this guffaw.
Originally posted by Frank:
Spirit baptism happened twice. Acts 2,10.While you botched the context of Acts 10, this exactly shows that Acts 2 is not a normative principle for the Church today.

Why would you so willingly embrace my theology against yourself so many times in the same post?
No wonder you go in circles!
Lloyd

bmerr

08-16-2005, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Sigh. The set (Venn Diagrams) didn't go so well if you can make that statement.Lloyd,

bmerr here. You know, I had a feeling that "sigh" might be a part of your reply. Ain't I the hard-headed one! As for the Venn Diagrams, I haven't a clue what they are. Like I said, I have no formal education, either secular, or religious. You might find yourself talking over my head at times.

Salvation in truth is both parts. But faith in Christ is the switch that puts/makes/creates both of them at once.Okay. I'm going to try this bit by bit. It is my faith in Christ that puts/makes/creates both justification and sanctification at the same time, correct?

If it is my faith that does this, what kind of faith is it that I must have for this to occur? To my knowledge, I can choose between a faith without works of any kind, which the Bible says is dead and cannot save (James 2:14, 17), or I can choose a faith that manifests itself in obedience to God's commands, which is the kind that the Bible says justifies us (james 2:21-24).

Do you know of any other kinds of faith that I might have by which I might be justified? Lloyd, if you can show me what kind of faith one is supposed to have in order to be justified before God, you will have gone a long way to answering the opening question of the "faith only" thread.

For you, as a process of works theologian, salvation is not complete until the sanctification half is good enough to please God. You desperately work to satisfy both halves not willing to fully trust in Christ.Now this is what I was talking about when I said you ought not be so sure you know what everyone believes. Your understanding of my belief is at least poorly worded, if not completely innaccurate.

I have no illusions about my being able to be "good enough" for God to let me into heaven. That's just not going to happen. Christ has made redemption available to all who will trust Him enough to obey Him (Heb 5:8, 9).

For someone to say they believe in Christ, and understand their need for forgiveness, and then refuse to obey His commands is, well I can't word it any better than Scripture does, "Can faith save him?" The obvious answer is, "NO!"

Even Jesus asked, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?" (Luke 6:46)

This is what I find so confusing about your beliefs. The idea that God will justify you simply because you are convinced of the facts of Jesus. I know you call it "trusting Christ", but how is that "trust" worth anything if nothing changes but your mind?

Well, I've been called away for a while. Talk to you later.

In Christ,

bmerr

mman

08-16-2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

Again, Mark 16 shows the total picture, not just the requirements for justification.

Belief belongs to justification.
baptism belongs to sanctification.

Even the second part of verse 16 shows how you fall into the negative fallacy error.

"he that believeth not shall be damned."

If baptism were required for justification, the only correct understanding of damnation would be the negative of both.

But since Mark only denies the first, the second is not a requirement for justification - just like brushing your teeth.

Really! You need to understand the second half of the verse upon which you build your human-centered system. It is not proper Bible methods to pick and choose just the half of a verse that is conducive to your denominational dogma.

Justification + sanctification is salvation.
Justification is a proper subset of salvation.
Sanctification has no part of justification.
How hard can this be?

Context - again - and again - ever only!
Lloyd The second half of the verse does not negate the first half.

I fully understand the second part of the verse, and your futility in trying to explain away the first part of the verse.

This is probably the weakest argument possible to try and explain away the clear teaching of Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Let's say your building is on fire, you are on the second floor, there are no windows to escape from and your only method of escape is the stairs. From a loud speaker you hear, "He that goes down the stairs and leaves the building will be saved, but he that does not go down the stairs will be killed.”

What is necessary to save your life, just going down the stairs, or going down the stairs and going outside. You cannot go outside, if you don't go down the stairs. There is no need to say, "but he that does not go down the stairs and leaves the building will be killed." since you can't go outside if you don't go down the stairs.

What good is baptism without faith. Biblical baptism is an act of faith (Gal 3:26-27). Baptism without faith??? Most people would call that swimming. It is certainly not biblical baptism. The only reason one would be baptized is because God said to, or in other words, by faith. If done for the wrong reason, it is useless and must be done again for the right reasons (Acts 19:1-6).

The word AND ties baptism together with belief. In order for the statement, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” to be fulfilled, baptism must happen. It does not state, “He who believes will be saved.” Nor does it say, “He who is baptized will be saved”. It says, “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.”

Even a third grader can understand this verse, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he who believeth not shall be condemned." - It does take help to misunderstand this verse.

ascund

08-16-2005, 06:51 PM

Hi

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy where the premise is part of the conclusion. Really, can't you find a better illustration?

Originally posted by mman:
The second half of the verse does not negate the first half.

Let's say your building is on fire, you are on the second floor, there are no windows to escape from and your only method of escape is the stairs. From a loud speaker you hear, "He that goes down the stairs and leaves the building will be saved, but he that does not go down the stairs will be killed.”Leaving the building is the equivalent of escaping the fire. Wake up!

Then you asked the wrong question and asked it without the appropriate discriminator.
Originally posted by mman:
What good is baptism without faith?
First, which baptism is it that you refer to? If it is the Spirit's baptism, then this never happens without faith. Water baptism is performed lots of times without faith.

The right question is as follows: "What good is water baptism with faith? Water baptism by itself is nothing. But when it follows the faith of justification, it is a pleasing act to God and counts for sanctification and rewards.

Water baptism without faith is blatantly worthless.

Then you go about missing Jesus' teaching. YOu are only able to parrot your denominational creed. You said:
Originally posted by mman:
The only reason one would be baptized is because God said to, or in other words, by faith.Well - yes. But it is a half truth. The full truth would be that it announces the beginning of the new life in Christ - just like Jesus' baptism. Not for justification - but for an identification of God's child in a public announcement. Anything else is heresy.

Then you go showing blindness to salvation. You said:
Originally posted by mman:
The word AND ties baptism together with belief.You miss that justification by faith enables sanctified baptism. While sanctification is important; justification is primal. One is justified by faith. One is never justified by sanctification. That this one verse seems to say so should awaken you to the pitfalls of ignoring key terms and the negative fallacy into which you plunge headfirst.

Originally posted by mman:
Even a third grader can understand this verse, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he who believeth not shall be condemned." - It does take help to misunderstand this verse. well. at least you got this part right.
Justification (faith) + sanctification (baptism) = salvation. My 9 year old grandson understands this perfectly.

Why would you try to twist this into faith + baptism = justification. Not one verse in scripture says such a thing. Not even Mark 16.

Lloyd

mman

08-18-2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hi

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy where the premise is part of the conclusion. Really, can't you find a better illustration?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
The second half of the verse does not negate the first half.

Let's say your building is on fire, you are on the second floor, there are no windows to escape from and your only method of escape is the stairs. From a loud speaker you hear, "He that goes down the stairs and leaves the building will be saved, but he that does not go down the stairs will be killed.”Leaving the building is the equivalent of escaping the fire. Wake up!

Then you asked the wrong question and asked it without the appropriate discriminator.
Originally posted by mman:
What good is baptism without faith?
First, which baptism is it that you refer to? If it is the Spirit's baptism, then this never happens without faith. Water baptism is performed lots of times without faith.

The right question is as follows: "What good is water baptism with faith? Water baptism by itself is nothing. But when it follows the faith of justification, it is a pleasing act to God and counts for sanctification and rewards.

Water baptism without faith is blatantly worthless.

Then you go about missing Jesus' teaching. YOu are only able to parrot your denominational creed. You said:
Originally posted by mman:
The only reason one would be baptized is because God said to, or in other words, by faith.Well - yes. But it is a half truth. The full truth would be that it announces the beginning of the new life in Christ - just like Jesus' baptism. Not for justification - but for an identification of God's child in a public announcement. Anything else is heresy.

Then you go showing blindness to salvation. You said:
Originally posted by mman:
The word AND ties baptism together with belief.You miss that justification by faith enables sanctified baptism. While sanctification is important; justification is primal. One is justified by faith. One is never justified by sanctification. That this one verse seems to say so should awaken you to the pitfalls of ignoring key terms and the negative fallacy into which you plunge headfirst.

Originally posted by mman:
Even a third grader can understand this verse, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he who believeth not shall be condemned." - It does take help to misunderstand this verse. well. at least you got this part right.
Justification (faith) + sanctification (baptism) = salvation. My 9 year old grandson understands this perfectly.

Why would you try to twist this into faith + baptism = justification. Not one verse in scripture says such a thing. Not even Mark 16.

Lloyd [/QUOTE]Is that it? If you would stop with your rationalization as to why Jesus didn't really mean what he said, and just read the verse, maybe you would understand it.

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

What did Jesus say it took to be saved? Believe and be baptized.

What did Jesus say it took to be condemened? Not believing.

Simple, isn't it.

You try to deny the fact that he is talking about water baptism. It is evident in Acts 2, when this commission was beginning to be carried out, while the Apostles experienced HS baptism, yet they commanded water baptism.

In fact, those were told to repent and be baptized... for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Now, if he really meant what he said, and Jesus really meant what he said in Mark 16:16, it is easy to see that these are in complete harmony.

Acts 8:35-36, anyone can see that preaching Jesus included instructions for water baptism. How could preaching Jesus include instructions for water baptism? Because Jesus himself said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Do you preach this same Jesus that Philip preached? If so, does your preaching/teaching include instructions for water baptism? There is just one baptism today (Eph 4:5). You need to accept one and totally reject the other as invalid for today.

You want to misunderstand the term "baptism". You want to take it out of its ordinary meaning and make it an obscure meaning. The burden of proof lie with you to show that the baptism is NOT water baptism.

You say Gal 3:26-27 doesn't mention water therefore it can't be water. Well, it doesn't mention the Spirit either. One fundamental principle in understanding scripture is to take the simple most obvious meaning, unless there is evidence to the contrary as to why you shouldn't.

You say there is no water in Rom 6. Explain to me how "spirit" baptism resembles a death, burial, and resurrection. It is easy to show with a baptism in water and does not take any mental gymnastics. Rom 6:17 says they had "obeyed form the heart that form of doctrine". Is HS baptism something you obey or something that just happens to you.

HS baptism was a promise from Jesus, never a command to obey.

Water baptism is something we can obey.

For someone who claims others take things out of context, you are the king of taking things out of context.

Lastly, you know that I do not follow any creed, yet you claim I do. Why? To attempt to bring me to your level? To show that I am no different than you? To somehow belittle my beliefs? Why do you continue to make false statements? The bible is all sufficient, I don't need a creed.

ascund

08-18-2005, 09:59 AM

Hey mman

Only one verse (mark 16) appears to link baptism to salvation. This against the great weight of scripture that declares justification by faith. This ought to be a clue that you cannot misread your creeds into the verse. Only the Reformation harmony can properly integrate this verse with the great weight of scripture. Believes = justification; baptism = sanctification.

Just a simple read is all it takes. You don't describe the overall life of a person by just the moment of birth. You describe it using the significant acts of life. Baptism is a significant act - not of birth, but of spiritual growth.

acts 2:38 is Peter's message to national Israel urging them to avoid the coming judgment on that "untoward nation" (2:40). Context. Another misapplication of context.

Not only is there one baptism, there is one faith. This is the same faith illustrated by all the OT saints, Zacheus, the weeping woman, the parlytic, even Cornelius. Justification by faith alone; (optional) water baptism comes AFTER.

My view harmonizes scripture. Your view pits one set of Bible verses against another set. Which method sounds like God? Which method sounds like humans?

When you elevate the human urge to do something above God's plan solely and only in Christ, grave heresy results.
Lloyd

mman

08-18-2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

Only one verse (mark 16) appears to link baptism to salvation. This against the great weight of scripture that declares justification by faith. This ought to be a clue that you cannot misread your creeds into the verse. Only the Reformation harmony can properly integrate this verse with the great weight of scripture. Believes = justification; baptism = sanctification.

Just a simple read is all it takes. You don't describe the overall life of a person by just the moment of birth. You describe it using the significant acts of life. Baptism is a significant act - not of birth, but of spiritual growth.

acts 2:38 is Peter's message to national Israel urging them to avoid the coming judgment on that "untoward nation" (2:40). Context. Another misapplication of context.

Not only is there one baptism, there is one faith. This is the same faith illustrated by all the OT saints, Zacheus, the weeping woman, the parlytic, even Cornelius. Justification by faith alone; (optional) water baptism comes AFTER.

My view harmonizes scripture. Your view pits one set of Bible verses against another set. Which method sounds like God? Which method sounds like humans?

When you elevate the human urge to do something above God's plan solely and only in Christ, grave heresy results.
Lloyd How many times does God have to say something for you to believe it?

Obviously more than once.

You say, "Believes = justification; baptism =sanctification"

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.

Hence, sanctification = faith

Since baptism = sanctification, all are equal to each other, baptism=sanctification=justification=faith.

Also, baptism = faith. That is just what Paul said in Col 2:12, and Gal 3:26-27.

This is like the unified field theory and you only have the equation for gravity.

Acts 2 was the first time the Gospel was preached. The same gospel was preached to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 1:16), but you must not accept this.

Jesus told them to go into all the world and preach to the whole creation. Why do you think something different was preached to part of creation? (Mark 16:15-16) Context rules!

This parallel passage is in Matt 28. Here Jesus said to teach all nations. Teach them what? To baptize and them them to go teach others this same message.

What part of "all nations" limits this to the Jews only? Context rules.

If you really understood my views, you would see the real harmony of the scriptures. You are the one who cannot accept Mark 16:16 because it clashes with your other views, therefore it must be explained away. You cannot accept the obvious conclusion of Acts 2:38, so you try to limit "all creation, all nations" to the Jews only.

I have no contradictions in my beleifs.

By the way, what creed are you talking about, the bible? That is my only creed.

Frank

08-19-2005, 01:03 AM

Lloyd:

Noah was saved by water in the ark. He was overwhelmed by water. He had water above and all around him. The children of Israel were saved by baptism. Yet, the bible teaches they walked through on dry ground. I Cor.10:2. They were overwhelmed by the clouds( water vapor) and the sea. The Eunoch went down into the water and came up out of the water. He was overwhelmed. Acts 8:36-39. You seem to imply some believe that there is power in the act of baptism itself. This is a false notion. A burial or baptism is an overwhelming .It is simply an instrument(s) God uses to save. The blood of Christ is an instrument that saves. However, not one person has ever been literally washed in his blood. Rev. 1:5.
God used many things as instruments to save. He used the blood of a lamb on the lintel to passover Israel. Exodus 12:5-7. He used the brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. Jesus uses the same illustration to show how he saves. John 3:14. How does he save. When we accept him by faith. A biblical faith. In the wilderness, they had to look at the serpent upon the pole. We mustlook to Christ and put Jesus on in baptism. Gal. 3: 26,27, Mark 16:16.

Just because an instrument is used to save does not make it non- essential. ie. blood, baptism, serpent, the ark. Regardless of the instrument used it is still the power of God to save. Romans 1:16.

No one has argued salvation by meritorious works. You build a straw man and beat it to a pulp. Applause!!! The bible is a system of justification by faith. However, it is not a system of a dead faith. You cannot find this any where in the bible in any dispensation of time.

Your Greek argument of passive voice does not preclude man from accepting the conditions of justification God has provided. Gal. 3:26-29.
Dr. Hugo McCord, who has translated the new testament from the original greek, would concur with me. I doubt you have translated the new testament from the original language. I could be wrong. However, I doubt it. By the way, brother Hugo received his doctorate from the Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Ky. Imagine that. It just goes to show your blindness about "our church theologians". You should always check out your sources before making statements that will embarass you.

The bible does not teach what you claim it does. In every dispensation of time, man was and is always blessed spiritually when he received God's graciousness toward him by his faith in him who loves him. Men must do right to receive the grace of God. No exceptions. Noah was a RIGHTEOUS MAN and found grace in the eyes of God. Gen. 6:7. By your teaching he earned his salvation by building the ark. This is foolishness of the highest order. Who believes this. However, he did do ALL that God commanded and he was saved by the instrument's GOD PROVIDED. The Bible says so. Gen. 6;22. Peter agrees with this assessment. I Pet. 3:19-21.
Man is blessed spiritually when he acts upon the commands of God. There is no merit in submitting to the proper authority. This is a duty of all servants of any persuasion. The bible says, in Luke 17:10, So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. cf. Col. 3:22.

Your concept of justification by faith would best be illustrated by the following:
Hebrews 11:30, By faith the walls of Jericho fell after they were compassed about seven days. Excuse me, according to your system it should read they fell BEFORE. In short, you would have Joshua still sitting on his hands and saying God you have already made the walls fall, I can do nothing. Those walls would still be standng had he not compassed them, and did all God asked.

Noah would not have worried about rain or building the ark. After all, God does it all. Yeah, and Noah would have went oops, it is raining, help, and blub, blub! I believe you educated folk call this reducing the argument to ad absurdeum!!

There has been a lot of talk about Abraham. Let's get the rest of the story from the beginning. Abram departed his home by faith. Gen. 12:1-4. He acted. This is the only type faith that God justifies. No exceptions.

By the way, I have been educating children for 26 years. I can say without equivocation most of them have a better understanding of the grammar of Mark 16:16 than you. By the way, my students are eighth graders.

bmerr

08-19-2005, 01:30 PM

Originally by ascund:

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy where the premise is part of the conclusion. Really, can't you find a better illustration?Lloyd,

bmerr here. Maybe we could illustrate this way: What if Mark 16:16 said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall receive a new Cadillac, but he that believeth not shall not receive a Cadillac"?

What would one have to do to get the Cadillac?

What would one have to do to not get one?

Exegesis is drawing out the meaning of a Scripture, isn't it? It seems many try to remove the meaning from Scripture.

In Christ,

bmerr

eschatologist

08-19-2005, 04:56 PM

Mark 16:16 says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Believing and baptism is here directly linked to salvation! Trying to separate them is changing the Word of God. The idea that because Mark omitted baptism in the second part of the verse signifies that baptism was not important is totally incorrect, and saying one part is "justification" and one part is "sanctification" is using the same strategy of severing one meaning into two different conclusions! A really good analogy for the reason the second part of Mark 16:16 omits baptism would be to word it like this:

"Whoever eats and digests will live, but whoever does not eat will die."

Why was digest left out of the second part? well it is obvious, if you don't eat there will be nothing to digest and you will starve and die!

The smae thing is inferred in Mark 16:16. If you don't believe there is nothing to be baptized for! Sure believing is a must and precedes baptism for the reasons stated above. Also believing precedes confessing, because who will confess their sins to Christ who does not believe in Him? It starts with belief but does not end there. It is mention beief saves. It is mentioned confessing unto salvation. It mentions repentance and salvation together. It mentions baptism saves. So how can you apply the one while denying the others?

I believe it is about faith. Belief, repentance, confession, and baptism are ALL a part of FAITH! You must apply them together. It is like cutting a pie into four equal sections, then designating each section as belief, repentance, confession and baptism. Together they all translate to forgiveness of sins -- salvation. Together they are a whole, remove one piece and there is no longer a whole.

In light of what the bible says regarding each one of these sections for salvation, do you feel good to remove one and defy the Word of God?

bmerr

08-19-2005, 05:11 PM

eschatologist,

bmerr here. Well said, sir. Welcome to the discussion.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-20-2005, 07:02 PM

Greetings

you might like to follow my debate with Mr. Ethan Longhenry (CoC preacher) at the Religious Debates Yahoo group. The web address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Religiousdebates/

We have already gone through round 1: he affirming water baptism salvation; me denying it.

We are allowed a full week per response and six posts for each person in total.

Lloyd

DHK

08-21-2005, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by eschatologist:
It is like cutting a pie into four equal sections, then designating each section as belief, repentance, confession and baptism. Together they all translate to forgiveness of sins -- salvation. Together they are a whole, remove one piece and there is no longer a whole.

In light of what the bible says regarding each one of these sections for salvation, do you feel good to remove one and defy the Word of God? In the light of the above statements the Word of God is defied. Salvation is cut up like a pie into several "works," and has therefore become a works based salvation. There are, as you say, many "works" that the COCer must "do" before he becomes saved. But that is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that one needs to do nothing, for salvation is a gift to be received by faith. When receiving a gift you don't earn it, work for it, do anything for it--you simply receive it by faith. That in and of itself excludes the action of baptism--a work of man!

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.

ascund

08-21-2005, 08:45 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by eschatologist:
Mark 16:16 says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Believing and baptism is here directly linked to salvation! Trying to separate them is changing the Word of God. ...

"Whoever eats and digests will live, but whoever does not eat will die."

Why was digest left out of the second part? well it is obvious, if you don't eat there will be nothing to digest and you will starve and die!Your redo of Mark 16 is wrong for both eating and digesting are required for life. In this manner you make baptism a requirement for eternal life ignoring the millions of OT saints who were never baptised.

Your view is also discredited by the apostle John. He wrote his Gospel for the express purpose that sinners might believe in Jesus and have eternal life through His name (John 20:31). Yet, incredulously, there is not one reference to either water baptism or repentance. Not one!

This is not an argument from silence. If someone writes a book on the top 10 golfers of all time and leave out John Daly, then he will purposefully omit John Daly in that list. He only talks about the 10 that fulfill his purpose.

Mark 16 is abused by the negative fallacy error. A better way to understand this is as follows. Whoever wins the Super Bowl and celebrates shall be champions; but whoever doesn’t win they shall not be champions. No celebration does not imply no victory! One can be champion without celebration.

In the same fashion, neither baptism nor repentance is required for eternal life. John only talks about the things that are important - like faith/belief in Jesus.

While baptism seems to be linked with faith for salvation, the denial of faith by itself (Mark 16:16b) is enough to condemn a person to an eternity in hell. John 3:18 also severs the link between faith and water baptism.

While believing (justification) and baptism (sanctification) certainly lead to salvation, only believing is required for sanctification depends on justification. The negative fallacy error amplifies your confusion of justification and sanctification with respect to salvation.

This isn't carving up God's Word. It is understanding it to avoid the error of a progressive salvation that points to Jesus in word but denies Him in reality. There will many at the final judgment crying "Lord, Lord" but who are turned away for their human-centered self-righteous theology of baptism.

Lloyd

Frank

08-21-2005, 09:14 PM

Many times writers of the new testament used a grammatical vehicle called synechdoche to make a point about salvation. Synechdoche is used as a part for a whole or the whole for it's parts. Examples of the use of this grammatical method are the following:

Acts 11:18, *When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. The rest of the conditions are implied.

I John 4;2 *Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: The rest of the conditions are implied.

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: The rest of the conditions are implied.

By the way, even old testament characters were baptized. The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 10:1, 2 *¶Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 *And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

bmerr

08-21-2005, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by ascund:

Greetings

Your redo of Mark 16 is wrong for both eating and digesting are required for life. In this manner you make baptism a requirement for eternal life ignoring the millions of OT saints who were never baptised.Lloyd,

bmerr here. If I may jump in for a moment, I'd like to address a couple of your points.

Something to remember about OT saints is that they were not commanded to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." We who are amenable to the NT are.

Your view is also discredited by the apostle John. He wrote his Gospel for the express purpose that sinners might believe in Jesus and have eternal life through His name (John 20:31). Yet, incredulously, there is not one reference to either water baptism or repentance. Not one!Let's look at the verse.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

It is common knowledge that not everyone who hears the words of John, or reads them themselves, will believe them. Thus, "...ye might believe..."

It is likewise true that not everyone who believes will obey Christ, and be partaker of the salvation of which He is the author (Heb 5:8-9).

Repentance and baptism are both commanded under the NT of Jesus Christ. To deny that is to deny the word of God. The authority for these commands rests in Christ (Matt 28:18).

Those who believe on His name are given the power (right, or priviledge) to become the sons of God (John 1:12). They become the sons of God through the new birth (John 3:3-5).

And really, to require the Bible to list every requirement involved in the faith each time it's mentioned is absurd. It's like a waitress requiring a customer to make their order by asking for each individual ingredient that the dish is made up of.

We can't assume something is not required for salvation simply because it's not mentioned in every passage that speaks on the topic.

In the same fashion, neither baptism nor repentance is required for eternal life. John only talks about the things that are important - like faith/belief in Jesus.

While baptism seems to be linked with faith for salvation, the denial of faith by itself (Mark 16:16b) is enough to condemn a person to an eternity in hell. John 3:18 also severs the link between faith and water baptism.John 3:18 explains why Jesus didn't have to say, "But he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned." Apart from faith, baptism is meaningless.

Let me ask you, if you had not wanted people to think that baptism was essential to salvation, how would you have worded Mark 16:16?

While believing (justification) and baptism (sanctification) certainly lead to salvation, only believing is required for sanctification depends on justification.Surely you see the contradiction here. How can two things be required to lead to salvation, but only one thing be required to get there?

The negative fallacy error amplifies your confusion of justification and sanctification with respect to salvation.Again, I think you may be the one in error by trying to separate justification and sanctification.

This isn't carving up God's Word. It is understanding it to avoid the error of a progressive salvation that points to Jesus in word but denies Him in reality. There will many at the final judgment crying "Lord, Lord" but who are turned away for their human-centered self-righteous theology of baptism.If baptism were the idea of man, then you would have a point. But it's not. It is Jesus who commanded baptism. Fulfilling His requirements is not "self-righteous", but simply working the righteous commands of God.

How can one's faith in God be known apart from their obedience to His commands? What kind of faith has not works?

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-21-2005, 10:21 PM

Greetings bmerr

I am slighty taken back. How is it that you can still make such statements?

Originally posted by bmerr:
It is common knowledge that not everyone who hears the words of John, or reads them themselves, will believe them. Thus, "...ye might believe..."

It is likewise true that not everyone who believes will obey Christ, and be partaker of the salvation of which He is the author (Heb 5:8-9).I looked the verses up. What don't you understand about the adverb "ALL"? Eternal salvation to ALL who believe.

Please don't get up in the air about the word obey, because Christ Himself says that the only obedience required for justification is to believe (John 6:28-29; I John 3:23, 5:4-5).

Faith in Jesus is the only obedience that leads to eternal life.

Originally posted by bmerr:
Repentance and baptism are both commanded under the NT of Jesus Christ. To deny that is to deny the word of God. The authority for these commands rests in Christ (Matt 28:18).I think you are trying to combine Luke 24:47 with matt 28:18. Here, you violate basic context. These great commissions are given to the whole world. Peter's Acts 2:38 is given specifically and only to national Israel. It is a terrible linguistics error to take the definition from one context and violently thrust it upon another context.

Remission of sins in Luke 24 is just like the remission of sins in Acts 10. It is equated with the Spirit's baptism and precedes water baptism. Context rules!

Originally posted by bmerr:
Let me ask you, if you had not wanted people to think that baptism was essential to salvation, how would you have worded Mark 16:16?You miss the point I've been telling and retelling. Justificaiton is by faith. Salvation is both justification and sanctification.

He who believes (justification) and is baptised (sanctification) shall be saved. Justification determines sanctification. You show no learning of these critical key terms.

Lloyd

bmerr

08-22-2005, 10:32 PM

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Again, the question gets down to, "What kind of faith justifies"? Is it a faith manifested by obedience, or is it a dead faith, apart from works of obedience?

I believe more strongly with each post that you are the one who is in error by trying to separate justification and sanctification. They are two sides of the same coin. One without the other is only half of the coin, not the whole.

I am unable to understand how you are still promoting the idea that Acts 2 was a message of repentance only for national Israel. When was such a message commanded to be preached? By what authority did Peter preach such a message, when Christ commissioned him and the rest of the apostles to preach the gospel?

It is only natural that Peter would adress Jews in his preaching, since it was primarily a Jewish audience. This would not limit the message of the death, burial, and resurrection to the Jews only. Jerusalem was the starting point.

I find your claim, "Remission of sins in Luke 24 is just like the remission of sins in Acts 10" to be very inconsistent. Why must the remission of sins in Acts 2 be excluded from that commanded in the great commission?

If we were to lump together all of Christ's words in the context of the great commission, it would read something like this:

"Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

In Acts 2, we find the gospel preached, as well as repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. Those who gladly received the word were baptized, and the Lord added daily to the church those who would be saved.

The same thing is found in every conversion account, including that of Cornelius in Acts 10.

You almost seem to get it right, and then you get it wrong. Dig this:

Originally by ascund:

Justificaiton is by faith. Salvation is both justification and sanctification.

He who believes (justification) and is baptised (sanctification) shall be saved. Justification determines sanctification.You say it yourself; salvation depends upon both justification and sanctification. Somehow you ignore the fact that justification is "not by faith only" (James 2:24). You make the claim that half of salvation (justification) = all of salvation (justification + sanctification). It's like saying 2+2=4, but 2=4, and leads to the other 2. It makes no sense, either Biblically, or in the common type.

Has much learning made you mad, Lloyd?

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-23-2005, 08:00 AM

Greetings

Originally quoted by bmerr:
Again, the question gets down to, "What kind of faith justifies"? Is it a faith manifested by obedience, or is it a dead faith, apart from works of obedience?I don’t like your word “manifested.” I would use the phrase faith is verified by obedience. Your phrase makes faith the result of a blending of justification and sanctification. While salvation is both justification and sanctification, the distinction must be maintained. Your view makes final justification depend on human faithfulness. Who can comply? Rom 1:19-3:19 makes it perfectly clear that no category of human faithfulness satisfies God. Every mouth will be stopped in the judgment because the guilt will be so overwhelmingly clear (3:19). Your view is an unwitting system of death. We all will go to hell.

My phrase makes faith the instrument of righteousness. Justification by PASSIVE faith in Jesus Christ allows God’s declaration of forgiveness, imputation of righteousness, bestowal of eternal life, and acceptance into His family. Sanctification is the ACTIVE obedience that imprecisely verifies justification.

All of your concern for human obedience is well and good but belongs to the theological category of sanctification. You blend this with justification thus unwittingly denying the completeness of Jesus and His Cross. Your zeal for human faithfulness unwittingly denies Jesus’ acceptability before God.

Originally quoted by bmerr:
You say it yourself; salvation depends upon both justification and sanctification. Somehow you ignore the fact that justification is "not by faith only" (James 2:24). You make the claim that half of salvation (justification) = all of salvation (justification + sanctification). It's like saying 2+2=4, but 2=4, and leads to the other 2. It makes no sense, either Biblically, or in the common type. It isn’t 2+2=4. At the moment of faith one is completely justified and sanctified. Justified means all that I’ve listed above. Sanctified (past tense) means set aside in God’s family. The position of being set aside into God’s family is imprecisely verified by good works.

God the Judge is totally satisfied with both aspects. God our Father is yet displeased with continuous sins. Sanctification (present tense) is an operation of mostly failures and continuous sins on our part (Heb 10:14 again). However, while continuous sin will be judged, God does not kick His children out of the house.

Your comments show that you still are defining justification and sanctification from your human-centered urge to be self-righteous before God. You can NEVER please God this way. Jesus Christ is the only WAY to God. If you add, change, modify, or supplement His Cross you unwittingly deny the very Jesus you claim to worship.

Lloyd

mman

08-23-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by eschatologist:
Mark 16:16 says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Believing and baptism is here directly linked to salvation! Trying to separate them is changing the Word of God. ...

"Whoever eats and digests will live, but whoever does not eat will die."

Why was digest left out of the second part? well it is obvious, if you don't eat there will be nothing to digest and you will starve and die!Your redo of Mark 16 is wrong for both eating and digesting are required for life. In this manner you make baptism a requirement for eternal life ignoring the millions of OT saints who were never baptised.
[/QUOTE]"eating and digesting are required for life" - Yes, I think you understand, the same way "believe and baptism are required for salvation."

"you make baptism a requirement for eternal life ignoring the millions of OT saints who were never baptised"

First of all, argue with Jesus, He is the one who said it.

I am amazed that you cannot see the distinction between the old and new covenants. Baptism was never a requirement under the old covenant. Confession that Jesus is Lord was never a requirement under the old covenant either. The old law was nailed to the cross. No wonder you have such confusion.

There were symbolic baptisms in the old law. When the childern of Israel left Egyptian bondage, they were baptized INTO Moses, the lawgiver of that day, by the cloud and Red sea - I Cor 10:1-2. God delivered them, but action was required on their part when they went through the sea. They left bondage. We leave bondage of sin when we are baptized into Christ, the lawgiver of today. We are no longer slaves to sin (Rom 6:1-6).

Of course there is the example of Noah, how he was saved through water which symbolizes the water in baptism, which saves us (I Pet 3:21).

mman

08-23-2005, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
Faith in Jesus is the only obedience that leads to eternal life.That doesn't even make sense. How is belief in Jesus equal to obedience?

John 12:42, the rulers belived in Jesus, yet they would not confess Him.

Are you saying they were obedient? Their belief was obedience that leads to eternal life.

This is in direct contradiction with Matt 10:32.

I think you are trying to combine Luke 24:47 with matt 28:18. Here, you violate basic context. These great commissions are given to the whole world. Peter's Acts 2:38 is given specifically and only to national Israel. It is a terrible linguistics error to take the definition from one context and violently thrust it upon another context.

Remission of sins in Luke 24 is just like the remission of sins in Acts 10. It is equated with the Spirit's baptism and precedes water baptism. Context rules!So, what you are saying is that National Israel was not part of the world? How ridiculous! The same gospel was preached to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 1:16).

Gal 3:28 states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

All are one in Christ. How did the Jews and Greeks get into Christ? The previous verses tell us, baptism (Gal 3:26-27). So the Jews were baptized into Christ. How did the Jews in Acts 2 get into Christ? The same way, water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Only in Christ is there remission of sins (Eph 1:7).

"Spirit's baptism and precedes water baptism".

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

Which came first, water baptism or the Holy Spirit? What a strange question for Paul to ask in verse 2 if the Holy Spirit was automatically given at belief. Paul did not have to ask "if" they had been baptized (in water) because that was understood.

Ok, how about Acts 8. Which came first for the Samarians, water baptism or the Holy Spirit? (Acts 8:12,16).

You miss the point I've been telling and retelling. Justificaiton is by faith. Salvation is both justification and sanctification.

He who believes (justification) and is baptised (sanctification) shall be saved. Justification determines sanctification. You show no learning of these critical key terms.Acts 26:18, "who are sanctified by faith in me". Paul said sanctification is by faith. This is not consistent with your claims. Maybe you need to go back and re-study.

mman

08-23-2005, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
In the same fashion, neither baptism nor repentance is required for eternal life. John only talks about the things that are important - like faith/belief in Jesus.Should I believe you or should I believe God?

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized ... for the remission of sins

Acts 22:16 - Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins

Luke 13:3 - Unless you repent you shall likewise perish

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

Acts 17:30-31 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

II Pet 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

I Pet 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I Pet 4:11 If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.

It doesn't matter what you say or I say, but what does God's word say? That is truth!

ascund

08-23-2005, 10:03 AM

Greetings

Originally posted by mman:
[overlooking ascund's reference to John 6:28-29] That doesn't even make sense. How is belief in Jesus equal to obedience?Sigh. This is what happens when you only read far enough into a post to jump on a word or phrase to launch your own presuppositions. Your oversight failed to use John 6:28-29.

Here, in John 6:28, worldly humans with your self-righteous philosophy asked Jesus what they could do to work the works of God. It was totally human-centered wreaking of works-righteousness.

Jesus took their errant human based question and converted it into the correct Christ-centered response. The only "work of God" is believe on Jesus.

In Matt 10:32, you botched context. Context shows that Jesus is referring to the time of trouble before Israel's national reign. If one confesses Jesus, then Jesus will confess them in His national world-wide Kingdom. Otherwise, take a seat and watch!

Originally posted by mman:
So, what you are saying is that National Israel was not part of the world? How ridiculous! The same gospel was preached to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 1:16).Another confusion of Bible. God's plans for national Israel were not terminated. God can do two things at once. He will restore national Israel to world prominence. This has nothing to do with the gospel message of faith in Jesus apart from water baptism.

National Israelites will be saved just as Gentiles. There is no contradiction here unless you hold to an "either/or" mentality. There are plenty of "both/and" examples in theology.

Originally posted by mman:
Which came first, water baptism or the Holy Spirit? What a strange question for Paul to ask in verse 2 if the Holy Spirit was automatically given at belief. Paul did not have to ask "if" they had been baptized (in water) because that was understood.These guys believe John's message about Messiah Jesus and received the remission of sins with respect to their national repentance. John's baptism was not the gospel message of salvation. His message was get ready for the Promised Seed your Messiah. Some believed to salvation as in Acts 2:38 in spite of the restricted message.

This observation is of vital significance to seeing that Acts 2:38 is point designed to national Israel and not a representative norm for Gentiles. You have violated linguistics by ignoring context. The word "believe" means different things in different contexts. In Acts 2:38, it means believe with respect to the Promised Messiah. In most other places it means believe with respect to Jesus' saving work on the Cross.

Violation of basic rules of linguistics leads to BIG ERROR.

Originally posted by mman:
Acts 26:18, "who are sanctified by faith in me". Paul said sanctification is by faith. This is not consistent with your claims.Goodness - what a statement! Justification is by faith alone apart from works. This faith passively accepts God's free offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Sanctification is by active faith - you call it obedience. Your so-called refutation reveals you lack of understanding the differences between: active and passive faith, justification and sanctification, destiny and rewards.

Through this all, you cling to human-centered denominational rhetoric to interpret scripture rather than using scripture to build a Christ-centered theological system.

Really, you need to stop thrusting your denominational creeds upon scripture.
Lloyd

mman

08-23-2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
[overlooking ascund's reference to John 6:28-29] That doesn't even make sense. How is belief in Jesus equal to obedience?Sigh. This is what happens when you only read far enough into a post to jump on a word or phrase to launch your own presuppositions. Your oversight failed to use John 6:28-29.

Here, in John 6:28, worldly humans with your self-righteous philosophy asked Jesus what they could do to work the works of God. It was totally human-centered wreaking of works-righteousness.

Jesus took their errant human based question and converted it into the correct Christ-centered response. The only "work of God" is believe on Jesus.

In Matt 10:32, you botched context. Context shows that Jesus is referring to the time of trouble before Israel's national reign. If one confesses Jesus, then Jesus will confess them in His national world-wide Kingdom. Otherwise, take a seat and watch!

Originally posted by mman:
So, what you are saying is that National Israel was not part of the world? How ridiculous! The same gospel was preached to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 1:16).Another confusion of Bible. God's plans for national Israel were not terminated. God can do two things at once. He will restore national Israel to world prominence. This has nothing to do with the gospel message of faith in Jesus apart from water baptism.

National Israelites will be saved just as Gentiles. There is no contradiction here unless you hold to an "either/or" mentality. There are plenty of "both/and" examples in theology.

Originally posted by mman:
Which came first, water baptism or the Holy Spirit? What a strange question for Paul to ask in verse 2 if the Holy Spirit was automatically given at belief. Paul did not have to ask "if" they had been baptized (in water) because that was understood.These guys believe John's message about Messiah Jesus and received the remission of sins with respect to their national repentance. John's baptism was not the gospel message of salvation. His message was get ready for the Promised Seed your Messiah. Some believed to salvation as in Acts 2:38 in spite of the restricted message.

This observation is of vital significance to seeing that Acts 2:38 is point designed to national Israel and not a representative norm for Gentiles. You have violated linguistics by ignoring context. The word "believe" means different things in different contexts. In Acts 2:38, it means believe with respect to the Promised Messiah. In most other places it means believe with respect to Jesus' saving work on the Cross.

Violation of basic rules of linguistics leads to BIG ERROR.

Originally posted by mman:
Acts 26:18, "who are sanctified by faith in me". Paul said sanctification is by faith. This is not consistent with your claims.Goodness - what a statement! Justification is by faith alone apart from works. This faith passively accepts God's free offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Sanctification is by active faith - you call it obedience. Your so-called refutation reveals you lack of understanding the differences between: active and passive faith, justification and sanctification, destiny and rewards.

Through this all, you cling to human-centered denominational rhetoric to interpret scripture rather than using scripture to build a Christ-centered theological system.

Really, you need to stop thrusting your denominational creeds upon scripture.
Lloyd [/QUOTE]Wow, where do I begin?

God's plans for national Israel were not terminated. God can do two things at once. He will restore national Israel to world prominence.Rom 7:1-4, that would be spiritual adultery for the old law and new law to be valid at the same time.

Rom 7:1-4 Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. 4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

The old law with it's requirements was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col 2:14).

Some claim that Acts 2 was only for the Jews. Others claim that baptism was because their sins had already been forgiven. I'm not sure how others try to explain it away, but I'm sure there are other methods.

What is clear in Acts 2 is the establishment of the Church. Prior to Acts 2, it is a future event. In Acts 2, people were added to the church.

Acts 2:41 says at baptism, they were added. Added to what? Acts 2:47 tells us they were added to the Church? Who? The saved (Acts 2:47). When? Verse 41, at baptism. Who added them? The Lord.

When Jesus said in Mark 16:15, "all the world" and "the whole creation", do you think it included the Jews in Acts 2? What was this message that they were to preach? Verse 16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Lukes account, Luke 24:47 "and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

Notice, this message was for all nations. Where was it to begin? In Jerusalem.

Jesus said in Acts 1:8, "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth".

What was preached in Acts 2? Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

This message is for all nations, all creation, to the end of the earth.

I expect you to use your usual, all this is out of context routine, but I think any honest reader can see how this fits together.

Do I expect you to accept this. No, based on your previous comments. Truth is always truth, regardless of my acceptance or rejection of it.

I say this with all sincerity. I study God's word to know the truth, not to prove a point or win an argument. God's word is a mine that can never be mined dry. The treasures are endless.

God's word is also simple. I can understand completely what is required to put me into Christ, to have the forgiveness of my sins.

II Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Mark 16:15-16 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned

What could be simpler to understand?

ascund

08-23-2005, 02:57 PM

Hey mman:

Originally quoted by mman:
Rom 7:1-4, that would be spiritual adultery for the old law and new law to be valid at the same time.What a laugher! graemlins/laugh.gif Israel was a nation way before the Old Law was given. Furthermore, the New Law was promised to national Israel (Jer 31, 33).

Originally quoted by mman:
The old law with it's requirements was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). A second laugher! graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif Context says that sins are being discussed (v 13). The handwriting of ordinances in verse14 is what is nailed to the Cross. Paul is telling us here that the LEGAL INDICTMENT which contains all the charges and crimes and sins that are against us is what is blotted out at the cross. Scripture is replete on how Jesus paid for our sins at the Cross, not eliminating the law. Even when the New Law is discussed, the Old Law is not abolished – just considered old and ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13).

Originally quoted by mman:
Luke 24:47 "and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."Here, you violate linguistics. Context is for the world. This by default includes Israel. This is part of the “both/and” theology that you wish to convert into an errant “either/or” theology. In Acts 2, Israel (a nation) needs to repent (change their mind) about Messiah Jesus so that they can receive Him. The world (individuals) needs to repent (change their mind) about Jesus for salvation. Two different contexts; two different meanings. When will you not break these simple linguistics rules?

It is amazing to see you deny the truth by resorting to these hermeneutical errors. It is truly sad that you believe your errors are truth.

Behind all of these methodology errors lies the real confusion of justification.

Lloyd

eschatologist

08-23-2005, 06:01 PM

ascund

I can not believe that the meaning of my analogy bounced so high over your head! What I was referring to was the FACT that if you don't eat there is no cause for digesting! So, digesting is required to sustain life only if there is consumption(eating)-- plain and simple. Yet, in an attempt to stretch your traditional opinion, you took my statement and its meaning totally out of context!

Also 'baptism' was NOT a part of Old Testament needs to have sins removed, just as, because of Christ's sacrifice, we do not need to sacrifice goats and bulls to have sins removed. They were required to abide by the requirements of the Law(which they failed to due many times), just as we are REQUIRED to obey our covenant with Christ(Heb.5:9). Faith is part of that covenant and is NOT a work. Neither is believing, confession, repentance, and baptism a work but they are a parts of faith! Just because there is an action one must do or take in order to believe does mot make it a work to believe, repent, confess, or be baptized, unless someone totally erases the spiritual meaning of these actions as you have done.

ascund

08-23-2005, 08:13 PM

Greetings

Originally posted by eschatologist:
I can not believe that the meaning of my analogy bounced so high over your head!Don't be so egotistical. I was correcting your errant analogy!

The verse clearly refers to salvation - not justification. It is clear you cannot define salvation or you would understand how justification (believes) and sanctification (baptised) relate to salvation.

This is Theology 101 stuff.

What I was referring to was the FACT that if you don't eat there is no cause for digesting! So, digesting is required to sustain life only if there is consumption(eating)-- plain and simple.Yep! This was the foolishness that I was correcting. You put two requirements together where the passage links justification (required) with sanctification (optional but we want to do it as faithfully as possible). Plain and simple!

Yet, in an attempt to stretch your traditional opinion, you took my statement and its meaning totally out of context!What a laugher. This is the only verse in the Bible that hints of such a misinterpretation. The real sadness is that you wish to build a theology on one wildly stretched verse yanked out of context and then use it to repudiate the great weight of scripture. You were being corrected. I didn't miss it - how could I miss something like that which is so way of target? Huh?

Also 'baptism' was NOT a part of Old Testament needs to have sins removed, just as, because of Christ's sacrifice, we do not need to sacrifice goats and bulls to have sins removed. They were required to abide by the requirements of the Law(which they failed to due many times), just as we are REQUIRED to obey our covenant with Christ(Heb.5:9).Now you get really ignorant. Romans 4 clearly shows that Abraham was justified by faith apart from the works of the law and without sacrament. In fact, the Law wasn't even given then. What will you do about Adam and Eve? Get real! Since there is but ONE FAITH (Eph 4:5) everybody gets saved the same way. Since Adam, Eve and Abraham were saved without sacraments, we also are saved without sacraments. Get the picture yet?

Faith is part of that covenant and is NOT a work. Neither is believing, confession, repentance, and baptism a work but they are a parts of faith!Where do you come up with this error? Faith is the requirement to get into the covenant. Faithfulness is the required after you are in the covenant. The faith of justification is PASSIVE; the faith of sanctification is ACTIVE. Have you never done a simple and easy word study on either dikaiow or hagiadzw?? This is pre Theology 101 that you are stumbling over.

No wonder you write such silliness. You didn't get any one part even close.

Justification is the chief article by which the Church stands or falls.
Lloyd

mman

08-24-2005, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally quoted by mman:
Rom 7:1-4, that would be spiritual adultery for the old law and new law to be valid at the same time.What a laugher! graemlins/laugh.gif Israel was a nation way before the Old Law was given. Furthermore, the New Law was promised to national Israel (Jer 31, 33).

Originally quoted by mman:
The old law with it's requirements was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). A second laugher! graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif Context says that sins are being discussed (v 13). The handwriting of ordinances in verse14 is what is nailed to the Cross. Paul is telling us here that the LEGAL INDICTMENT which contains all the charges and crimes and sins that are against us is what is blotted out at the cross. Scripture is replete on how Jesus paid for our sins at the Cross, not eliminating the law. Even when the New Law is discussed, the Old Law is not abolished – just considered old and ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13).

Originally quoted by mman:
Luke 24:47 "and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."Here, you violate linguistics. Context is for the world. This by default includes Israel. This is part of the “both/and” theology that you wish to convert into an errant “either/or” theology. In Acts 2, Israel (a nation) needs to repent (change their mind) about Messiah Jesus so that they can receive Him. The world (individuals) needs to repent (change their mind) about Jesus for salvation. Two different contexts; two different meanings. When will you not break these simple linguistics rules?

It is amazing to see you deny the truth by resorting to these hermeneutical errors. It is truly sad that you believe your errors are truth.

Behind all of these methodology errors lies the real confusion of justification.

Lloyd [/QUOTE]Laugh all you want. Argue with Paul, he made the statement. You said nothing of significance or relevance to explain away Rom 7.

If a wise man contends with a foolish man, Whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace. - Prov 29:9

Let's try to keep this amicable. Your condesending statements do not promote peace or a friendly environment.

No interpretation can be forced upon Hebrews 8:13 that brings it into conflict with other clear passages, even in this very epistle.

For example, “Now if perfection had been [imperfect tense – activity in the past] attainable through the Levitical priesthood. . . ” (Heb. 7:11).

Notice he did not say perfection is attainable, but "had been".

The oath by which Christ was appointed high priest was “after the law,” i.e., in the post-Mosaic period (Heb. 7:28).

Christ was not appointed high priest during the law, but after the law.

“If the first covenant [law of Moses] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb. 8:7).

The first covenant “had ordinances” (Heb. 9:1), etc. These phrases obviously view the Mosaic regime as a by-gone system – from the divine viewpoint.

In Heb 8, the inspired writer had just quoted from Jeremiah that foretold the coming of a “new” covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). The writer of Hebrews, therefore, might well have been constructing an argument in the following vein.

When Jeremiah spoke of the coming of a ‘new’ covenant, he implied that the covenant ‘made with the fathers’ was the ‘old’ one. It was "new" as opposed to something "old". Now it is a well known fact that anything ‘old’ is near to the point of passing away. Even the prophet Jeremiah, then, hinted that the Jewish covenant would not abide perpetually.

Perhaps no verse is as clear as Heb 10:9, "then He said, "'Behold, I have come to do your will.' He abolishes the first in order to establish the second."

He is clearly talking about taking away the first law in order to establish the second.

When you compare Col 2:14 to Eph 2:14-15, it makes it even more plain, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

What divided the Jews and Gentiles? The law. The great mystery was how the wall that separated the Jews and Gentiles (old law) would be removed so making peace.

Eph 3 talks about the mystery how the Gentiles were fellow heirs through the gospel and this is accomplished through the church.

The Jews in Acts 2 were added to the church at baptism (Acts 2:41, 47). I Cor 12:13 tells us that we are baptized into one body (church). This is a fulfillment of the commission Jesus gave, "And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Christ has truly torn down that wall (the old law) that once was a source of enmity, thus making peace.

[ August 24, 2005, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: mman ]

ascund

08-26-2005, 09:18 AM

Hey mman

Are you so blind. Many laws exist at the same time.

Has the Old Law ended? Let's see what Bible says.

Paul establishes the law! Rom 3:31.

Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The law exists until the last jot or tittle is fulfilled (Mat 5:17-18). There is a lot of unfulfilled prophecy regarding Israel in God's Word.

Even when the New Covenant is the focus, the law is not dead. It is described as old and ready to vanish away (Heb 8:8).

The Law is holy, spiritual and good (Rom 7:12-14).

The law is not against the promises of God (Gal 3:21).

The law is good, if used lawfully (1Tim 1:8).

You have a wrong view of the law, covenants and dispensations if you think the law is dead or cannot comprehend how God can do two things at once.

The holy, righteous and perfect law exposes our sin and depravity. It then drives us to Christ. The law provides guidance for all believers. Calvin saw this as the third major aspect of the law.

The law does not contradict grace. Don't be fooled. Justification by the law is in sound opposition to justification by grace.

I expext errant replies only if you cannot comprehend the basics.

So which one are you wedded to ?
Lloyd

bmerr

08-28-2005, 04:39 PM

Originally by ascund:

Are you so blind. Many laws exist at the same time.Lloyd,

bmerr here. So which law is mankind amenable to today? Should we observe the Lord's supper alongside the ritual sacrifice of bulls and goats?

Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The law exists until the last jot or tittle is fulfilled (Mat 5:17-18).Question: Did Jesus fulfill the law? If He did, what prevents it from being taken out of the way? If He did not, what part of the law did Jesus fail to fulfill?

Gotta run.

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

08-29-2005, 07:49 AM

hey bmerr

Originally posted by bmerr:
So which law is mankind amenable to today? Should we observe the Lord's supper alongside the ritual sacrifice of bulls and goats?We should look at each of the covenants in CONTEX (what else?).

The Mosaic Law was given to national Israel. So not applicable to us today. It is still alive and well though.

The Noahic covenant was give to all. So we need to do all that it commands.

The Abrahamic covenant was given to Abraham in three parts: worldwide promise of blessing, national Israel, personal blessings. We Gentiles only fit in on the worldwide promise of blessing via the Promised Seed.

The Adamic Covenant. The Promised Seed.

So when Paul established the Law (Rom 3:31), whaat did he mean? Not the sacrificial system, but only as it reflects the Law Giver. We can use the holy, good and perfect law (Rom 7:12) wisely (1 Tim 1:7) in our lives.

Believers only are under the law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21, Gal 6:2). Your instance upon the law of Christ prevents you from seeing the riches, glory, personal application, and the Mosaic Law's reflection of its Law Giver. The either/or hermeneutic has many pitfalls.

Lloyd

mman

08-29-2005, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

Are you so blind. Many laws exist at the same time.

Has the Old Law ended? Let's see what Bible says.

Paul establishes the law! Rom 3:31.

Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The law exists until the last jot or tittle is fulfilled (Mat 5:17-18). There is a lot of unfulfilled prophecy regarding Israel in God's Word.

Even when the New Covenant is the focus, the law is not dead. It is described as old and ready to vanish away (Heb 8:8).

The Law is holy, spiritual and good (Rom 7:12-14).

The law is not against the promises of God (Gal 3:21).

The law is good, if used lawfully (1Tim 1:8).

You have a wrong view of the law, covenants and dispensations if you think the law is dead or cannot comprehend how God can do two things at once.

The holy, righteous and perfect law exposes our sin and depravity. It then drives us to Christ. The law provides guidance for all believers. Calvin saw this as the third major aspect of the law.

The law does not contradict grace. Don't be fooled. Justification by the law is in sound opposition to justification by grace.

I expext errant replies only if you cannot comprehend the basics.

So which one are you wedded to ?
Lloyd Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Jesus fulfilled the old covenant. He did not destroy it, he fulfilled it. What is the difference in destroying a contract and fulfilling a contract. Is a contract binding after it has been fulfilled.

Gal 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

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

This clearly teaches that the law was added till the Seed would come and after Jesus came, we would no longer be under the tutor (law).

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

What divided the Jews and Gentiles? The law. The great mystery was how the wall that separated the Jews and Gentiles (old law) would be removed so making peace.

Eph 3 talks about the mystery how the Gentiles were fellow heirs through the gospel and this is accomplished through the church.

And Hebrews, and previously addressed, shows that the old law was done away and talks of it in past tense.

Jesus' commission to the apostles was to go the whole creation, all the world, and all nations beginning at Jerusalem. What were they to preach? The Gospel. What was the proper response to the gospel? Belief, repentance, and baptism (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:46-47).

What did they begin to preach at Jerusalem? The Gospel? What were the believers (Acts 2:37) instructed to do? Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, JUST ACCORDING TO JESUS' COMMISSION .

Again, this was to be preached to all nations, the whole creation, all the world, and all nations beginning at Jerusalem.

Who could possibly be excluded from this list?

ascund

08-29-2005, 11:09 AM

Hey mman

You miss the thrust of my post regarding the law.

I do not preach the LAW. Christian have been crucified to the Law and become alive to Christ. It is we who have died - not the LAW.

This is why Paul can wish to establish the law (Rom 3:31) and use it wisely (1 Tim 1:8). The Law is holy, and good and perfect (Rom 7:12). Or have you cut these verses out of your theology?

One must use all of God's Word!
Lloyd

mman

08-29-2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

You miss the thrust of my post regarding the law.

I do not preach the LAW. Christian have been crucified to the Law and become alive to Christ. It is we who have died - not the LAW.

This is why Paul can wish to establish the law (Rom 3:31) and use it wisely (1 Tim 1:8). The Law is holy, and good and perfect (Rom 7:12). Or have you cut these verses out of your theology?

One must use all of God's Word!
Lloyd You say the Law didn't die. Paul said it did. In fact, Jesus put it to death.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

What separated the Jews from the Gentiles? The law. That law died because Jesus put it to death!

DHK

08-29-2005, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by mman:
That law died because Jesus put it to death! If the Law died why are you so legalistic in trying to keep it. Why do you require the "law" of baptism for salvation. Jesus never required that. He didn't require it of Nicodemus. He didn't require it of the thief on the cross. He didn't require it of the man he healed in the synagogue in Mark 2, when he said to him: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." There was no baptism there. Christ was near the beginning of his ministry there when both John and his disciples were baptizing. Why didn't he require baptism then?

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Why didn't he say: Son, go and be baptized?? hmmmm
DHK

mman

08-30-2005, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mman:
That law died because Jesus put it to death! If the Law died why are you so legalistic in trying to keep it. Why do you require the "law" of baptism for salvation. Jesus never required that. He didn't require it of Nicodemus. He didn't require it of the thief on the cross. He didn't require it of the man he healed in the synagogue in Mark 2, when he said to him: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." There was no baptism there. Christ was near the beginning of his ministry there when both John and his disciples were baptizing. Why didn't he require baptism then?

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Why didn't he say: Son, go and be baptized?? hmmmm
DHK [/QUOTE]All the examples you give are under the old law. Yes, John baptized in preparation for the kingdom (church) which was at hand.

I don't keep the old law. Jesus lived and died under the old law. He had the power to forgive sins. Baptism was never a requirement under the old law.

When Jesus gave Nicodemus instructions, it was for the coming kingdom. One must be born of water and the Spirit to enter that kingdom (church).

That is EXACTLY what happened on the day of Pentecost.

When you say, "Jesus never required that", it is true, before his death. After His death, HE DID REQUIRE IT!

Something occured at his death. Heb 9:16-17 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

After Jesus death, when the old law was taken out of the way and under the new law, he said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:15-16

That is why baptism was not a requirment for the examples you used, because the new law was not in effect.

Fast forward to Acts 2. EVERY example, not some, not a few, not most, BUT EVERYexample of conversion included water baptism at the first opportunity. That fact is undeniable and undisputed. Neverdid anyone wait, not 2 days, not 2 weeks, not 2 months, not 2 years.

When I accept what Jesus said under the new covenant as truth, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", some may call me a legalist. When I follow the new testament examples, some may call me a pharisee. When I, by faith, accept Jesus plain teaching, some say I am trying to earn my way to heaven by works. Jesus said the way was narrow and few there be that find it. Some teach that anything goes, as long as you "only believe". That doesn't sound like a very narrow way to me.

Rom 6:3-4, our baptism in water is a death, burial, and resurrection.

We are baptized into his death. Rom 6:3-4
We are buried WITH Him. Rom 6:4
We are raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4)
We are united with him in death (Rom 6:5)
We are united with him in resurrection (Rom 6:5)

People (under the old law) could not be united with Him in death, before his death.

People (under the old law) could not be united with Him in resurrection before his resurrection.

People (under the old law) could not be buried with Him, before he was buried.

But, under the new covenant, we CAN do those things.

ascund

08-30-2005, 11:46 AM

Hey mman:

Nice try!
[quote]Originally posted by mman:
You say the Law didn't die. Paul said it did. In fact, Jesus put it to death.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

What separated the Jews from the Gentiles? The law. That law died because Jesus put it to death
[quote]

What you miss is that Christ eliminated it "IN HIS FLESH." Believers die to the law only when they are united with Christ by the Spirit's baptism.

We die to the law - not the law dieing to us.
Gal 2:20 For I have been crucified with Christ - it is no longer I who live ...

In Rom 7:4, Paul presents the same analogy where the woman is freed from one husband (the law) and lives to another husband (Christ).

The law is only old and ready to vanish (Heb 8:8).

Do not pit the Bible against itself without the proper harmony. This is really bad hermeneutics.

Lloyd

mman

08-30-2005, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman:

Nice try!
[quote]Originally posted by mman:
You say the Law didn't die. Paul said it did. In fact, Jesus put it to death.

Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

What separated the Jews from the Gentiles? The law. That law died because Jesus put it to death
[quote]

What you miss is that Christ eliminated it "IN HIS FLESH." Believers die to the law only when they are united with Christ by the Spirit's baptism.

We die to the law - not the law dieing to us.
Gal 2:20 For I have been crucified with Christ - it is no longer I who live ...

In Rom 7:4, Paul presents the same analogy where the woman is freed from one husband (the law) and lives to another husband (Christ).

The law is only old and ready to vanish (Heb 8:8).

Do not pit the Bible against itself without the proper harmony. This is really bad hermeneutics.

Lloyd If you will re-read the text, you will see that Jesus put to death the enmity. What was the enmity? The law (Eph 2:15).

Your attempt to use Gal 2:20, totally out of it's context, to say that we die to the law is really absurd.

Let's look a little closer at Heb 8.

Heb 8:7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Verse 13 is the one I think you were intending to reference, not verse 8. Anyway, it says, 'In speaking of a new covenant".

Notice, this is a reference to Jer 31. When God made mention of a new covenant, by default, the existing covenant was "old" and "obsolete". Therefore, when he made the statement originally of a new covenant, he was showing that existing covenant was becoming obsolete, growing old, and ready to vanish away.

Ephesians tells us, "13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. - Eph 2:13-16 ESV

This clearly teaches that the law of commandments and ordinances was abolished. Yes, He broke down that wall, in his flesh. How? Through the cross. When his flesh was nailed to the cross, so was the old law. Both were put to death, thereby "killing the hostility." At his death, the new covenant went into effect (Heb 9:17).

There are no contradictions, only complete harmony in what I believe. Your perception or understanding must be the source for your preceived lack of harmony.

Now, go to Eph 2 and tell me what was abolished and how peace was accomplished? You can make the hollow claim, "This is really bad hermeneutics" all you want, but it does not change the simple truth of God's word.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-31-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

You miss the thrust of my post regarding the law.

I do not preach the LAW. Christian have been crucified to the Law and become alive to Christ. It is we who have died - not the LAW.

This is why Paul can wish to establish the law (Rom 3:31) and use it wisely (1 Tim 1:8). The Law is holy, and good and perfect (Rom 7:12). Or have you cut these verses out of your theology?

One must use all of God's Word!
Lloyd Now I do NOT disagree with you, Lloyd, by maintaining, that CHRIST had been crucified to the Law and became alive to the Law. It is HE, Christ, who have died - THE Law to us for whom HE, was nailed to the cross - THE LAW!

I find NO difficulty in the divine truth, THE LAW was nailed to the cross, and was abolished, and extinguished - as long as it actually, happened, and occurred, in the body of HIM who died and was raised. Never forget the "was raised"! "IN HIM" The Law, revived to live for ever the Eternal Word and the Eternal Law of God in PERSON - even the person of Jesus Christ.
NO contradiction, no opposition, no disagreement IN, the Law WHO, IS, God's Word incarnate from the dead through the power of the Spirit of God.
God is not divided against Himself. There cannot be war between the Law and The Law - only when in the hands of men the Old no longer serves the glory of the New.

bmerr

08-31-2005, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
If the Law died why are you so legalistic in trying to keep it.DHK,

bmerr here. mman is not proposing that we keep the Mosaic Law. There were aspects of the Mosaic Law (Levitical priesthood, sacrificial system, diverse feast days, etc.) that were peculiar to that system of worship, that were only applicable to the Jews.

These are the things spoken of when the law is said to be taken out of the way.

There are also things that have been part of God's law since the Creation. For example, murder has always been a sin. These aspects of God's law are still applicable to all men today.

Additionally, there is a different system of worship in place under the NT, and it also has laws. These laws have to do with how man is to approach God, just as the Mosaic Law governed how the Israelites were to approach God.

mman, Frank, and I are not advocating the keeping of the Mosaic Law, but of the Law of Christ.

Why do you require the "law" of baptism for salvation. Jesus never required that. He didn't require it of Nicodemus.Actually, Jesus did tell Nicodemus that one would have to be born of water and of the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Born of water is a reference to baptism.

He didn't require it of the thief on the cross.As has been discussed before, it cannot be proved whether the thief had been baptized or not.

Also, the thief died under the OT, as did Jesus, and so the gospel of Christ was not what saved men at that time. Heb 9:16-17 would be recommended reading.

He didn't require it of the man he healed in the synagogue in Mark 2, when he said to him: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." There was no baptism there. Christ was near the beginning of his ministry there when both John and his disciples were baptizing. Why didn't he require baptism then?Again, it can't be proved that this man had not been baptized by John. It can't be proved that he had been, either. Regardless, the forgiveness of sins was something Jesus could grant to whomever He chose, under any conditions He chose, up until His death. After His death, these things are only granted under the conditions of the New Testament.

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Why didn't he say: Son, go and be baptized?? hmmmm
DHKHow did Jesus see their faith? Was it not by their works? I think it was. Not much help for the "faith only" crowd, huh?

In Christ,

bmerr

DHK

09-01-2005, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by bmerr:
How did Jesus see their faith? Was it not by their works? I think it was. Not much help for the "faith only" crowd, huh?
In Christ,
bmerr Read the chapter.
The Pharisees were correct in asserting that "Only God can forgive sins. In that they spoke truthfully, though they would not admit that Christ was the Messiah, God come in the flesh. He was the one able to forgive sins, as he demonstrated.
Recognize also that almost every world religion is able to do good works: Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. Living among Muslims I have seen some of the most sacrificial good works done in the name of Allah that would put Christians to shame. Do their good works demonstrate their faith in Christ? Of course not. Neither did Christ ascertain their faith by their good works. He knew they had faith in Him as Messiah because Christ was God and He knew the hearts of all men, not because he saw their good works. It is man that looks on the outward appearance; but God that looks on the heart, not as man sees.
DHK

ascund

09-01-2005, 08:38 PM

Greetings bmerr

I've been away for a while. I've been concentrating on that water baptism debate. You should rush over and help my opponent. He is in ICU. He crossed swords with a tiger and got a bad whipping.

Meanwhile, how is it that you can't learn? I've shown you at least twice that your narrow look at just one verse (John 3:5) ignores the rest of context.

In context, Jesus makes three attempts to teach about the new birth.

First, He shows that the new birth is “from above” (anwthen). Thus, the new birth is not associated with human activity. In 3:6, Jesus continues the contrast ELDV misses from just looking at v5. Physical life is contrasted with eternal life. Physical life comes through the waters of birth; spiritual life comes by God’s Spirit! Verse 7 supplies the bookend to verse 5 showing that the new birth is spiritual from above and not from human activity below. You ignore this contrast and wrongly redefine it as water baptism.

Second, Jesus shows that the new birth is like the unseen wind. You can’t see it but you can see the results. 2 Cor 4:18 shows that anything seen is temporal; anything unseen is spiritual. Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual nature of the new birth. No water here at all!

Third, Jesus uses the brazen serpent. When the murmuring Hebrews were disciplined with snakes, God had Moses build a brazen serpent on a pole. For salvation, all the people needed to do was LOOK at the brazen serpent. Jesus equates this look with “whosoever believeth” has everlasting life (John 3:16)! No water here.

These three illustrations are ONE. How is it that none of the three specifically says “water baptism” yet you force this upon the text? How is that the last two don’t mention water baptism at all, but you think water is a proper interpretation for the unsaving physical aspect from below that stands in stark contrast to the saving spiritual birth from above?

They show justification is spiritual, from above. Your wayward appeal to John 3:5 is really a support for God’s activity alone in justification and a denial of your conditional human-centered process justification.

How many times will you need to see God’s Word before you put down denominational creeds?

Wishing for nothing but the best to go your way!
Lloyd

Gerhard Ebersoehn

09-02-2005, 01:02 PM

Quoting bmer, "Actually, Jesus did tell Nicodemus that one would have to be born of water and of the Spirit to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Born of water is a reference to baptism."

You mis-apply the words of Jesus! Did He say, one would have to be baptised with or in water to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Born of water is NOT a reference to baptism, but to one's natural birth; the "born of the Spirit" is reference to one's spiritual birth - "regeneration".

Gerhard Ebersoehn

09-02-2005, 01:05 PM

One of the pillars of RC Error: "baptismal regeneration" - away with it!

ascund

09-03-2005, 08:44 AM

Hey Gerhard

Most of these guys only want to use John 3:5 apart from context. This verse is "book ended" by John 3:3 and 3:7 which show that the new birth is "from above." Verse 6 explains verse 5 as a contrast between physical and spiritual.

They cling to the water part which is clearly shown to be physical. They want this to be the physical waters of baptism that have spiritual significance. But the contrast denies the spiritual significance!

The waters tie into the errant idea of getting back into the womb and being born through the breaking of water (placenta).

There are several things rolling in these few verses. Only a blinded self-righteous human-centered theology can miss it all.

Good Post!
Lloyd

bmerr

09-03-2005, 11:29 PM

Lloyd + Gerhard,

bmerr here. Sorry I've been absent so much lately. My back is felling better, so my schedule is getting back to it's usual hectic pace. I may not be able to spend as much time here as I have been lately.

Gerhard, concerning the RC "baptismal regenration" thing, please bear in mind that their sprinkling of babies and such is rooted in "original sin", yet another false doctrine. Please don't mistake the NT command to be baptized for the remission of sins found in Acts 2:38 for what they do. What the papists teach and what I teach concerning baptism are very different things.

Getting back to John 3:3-7, I still say it's ridiculous to maintain that "born of water" is a reference to physical birth. It forces Jesus to correct Nicodemus by saying he's right.

I don't know who ever held the idea of "getting back into the womb and being born through the breaking of water (placenta)", that you mentioned, Lloyd. I've never heard of such a thing, except for Nicodemus' mention of it, which was a result of Jesus' statement the "ye must be born again".

Imagine being there. If "born of water" does not mean physical birth, the conversation might have gone like this:

Jesus - "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nic - "You mean go back into my mother's womb and be born? How can a man do that?"

Jesus - "No, of course I don't mean that. But, except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Even Nicodemus knew that "born again" meant something other than his own birth.

On the other hand, if "born of water" is a reference to physical birth, the conversation might have gone like this:

Jesus - "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nic - "You mean go back into my mother's womb and be born? How can a man do that?"

Jesus - "Yes, Nicodemus, you must first be born through natural childbirth by your mother. Except a man be born of water at his birth, and of the Spirit later on by some mystical operation of God on his heart, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

You know, I can't even make that view make sense. Like I said, even Nicodemus understood that born of water didn't mean the water breaking at his own birth. That's why he asked about going back into his mother's womb to be born again. Come to think of it, Nicodemus didn't even ask his question in John 3:4 about "born of water". He asked it about "born again".

I try not to insult people, but you guys holding the view that "born of water" refers to the water breaking at childbirth really makes you look, let's just say, not as educated as I know you are.

Okay, as you know, I'm not formally educated, but I think I've got decent "horse sense". I think I've made a pretty good case showing that "born of water" is not a reference to childbirth.

If nothing else, you must admit that being born of water is a prerequisite to seeing or entering the kingdom of God, right? "Born of water and of the Spirit" is simply an expanded version of "born again". "Born again" = "born of water and of the Spirit". Fair statement?

So if it's not childbirth, (and it's not), and it's not baptism (which I believe it is, but I'll allow that it might not be for the sake of investigation), then what is it?

In Christ,

bmerr

ascund

09-04-2005, 08:55 AM

Greetings bmerr

Originally posted by bmerr:
You know, I can't even make that view make sense. Like I said, even Nicodemus understood that born of water didn't mean the water breaking at his own birth. That's why he asked about going back into his mother's womb to be born again. Come to think of it, Nicodemus didn't even ask his question in John 3:4 about "born of water". He asked it about "born again".I didn't realize that your back was as serious as you now mention. My 33 year old son has had multiple back surguries to no avail. He is now getting shots directly to the pain spot every 3 months. Next step is the pain pump. There is nothing after this that they can do for him. I hope you are not so trapped by the ineptness of doctors.

But friend - you are wrong about Nicodemus. He did realize that the water referred to physical birth. That's why he asked about a rebirth from the womb. One can't pass through those waters unless you get back into the womb.

Verse 6 amplifies this with the contrast between physical birth and spiritual. This whole thought is surrounded by two "born again" which are actualy "born from above" verses. The new birth has nothing to do with "from below."

The next two illustrations deal with spiritual birth without further reference to water. All three illustrations teach the same thing.

So it is easy to see that your interpretation of the first illustration is patently wrong.

May your back heal.
Lloyd