Featured An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

1 Cor. 1:17 ¶ [B]For Christ sent me not to baptize, [/B]but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

If baptism were necessary for the LITERAL remission of sins, Paul could NEVER say this as the gospel would be incomplete apart from baptism.

He is not denying baptism is part of his commission, but he is denying it is essential to gospel salvation as the power of salvation is found in the gospel and not in baptism just as in the Great Commission going with the Gospel is found in the Aorist tense assuming evangelization is finished prior to administering baptism to "them" who received the gospel.

The reason he is not sent to baptize is because the gospel takes precedence because it is the gospel that is necessary for literal salvation as the gospel is "the power of God". The gospel takes precedence in the Great Commission.

God did not send him to baptize as the priority of the Great Commission becuase literal salvation or "the power of God" to salvation is not found in baptism but in the gospel.

We have his record for what Christ sent him to do in Acts 26:17-18 concerning preaching the gospel:

17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

1. Christ did not send me to baptize but Christ did send him to "open their eyes" and therefore their eyes can be open without baptism by preaching the gospel as "the power of God" to open their eyes.

2. Christ did not send Paul to baptize but Christ did send him "to turn them from darkness to light" and therefore they can be turned without baptism by preaching the gospel as "the power of God" to turn them from darkness.

3. Christ did not send Paul to baptize but Christ did send him "to turn them...from the power of Satan unto God" and therefore they can be turned without baptism by the preaching of the gospel as "the power of God" to turn them from Satan to God.

4. Christ did not send Paul to baptize but "that they may receive forgiveness of sins" and therefore remission of sins can be received without baptism by the preaching of the gospel as "the power of God" to receive remission of sins.

5. Christ did not send Paul to baptize "but to receive inheritance" and therefore inheritance can be received without baptism by the preaching of the gospel as "the power of God" to obtain inheritance with the saints.

6. Christ did not send Paul to baptized but to preach the gospel which is "the power of God" to receive all these things "by faith that is in me"

Hence, Paul's point is simple. In regard to LITERAL salvation baptism must give way to the gospel as baptism provides only a SYMBOLISM of salvation and therefore is inconsequential as compared to the gospel where the "power of God" obtains LITERAL salvation. Hence, baptism will always take a lower role when compared to the gospel. Hence, baptismal administrators should not divide the congregation at Corinth as baptism is SECONDARY to the gospel and it is the gospel that takes precendence.

 

There are many threads in other sections of Calvin-free will debates. The differences are pretty clear. Lutherans like to play mix and match. While they maintain that confession, repentance, and salvation are gifts of God, because of our fallen state, those God has predestined. Then they turn right around and maintain that after a person is saved, in response to what was ordained, that man has the free will to turn away from the Lord and thereby lose his salvation. I suppose the power of the cross and the shed blood of Jesus expires after so many years.

 

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Same Chapter:
1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Because it is!!!!
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe...

If you are rich enough pull a twenty dollar bill out of your wallet? What is on it? Well look there! I see Andrew Jackson! That is incredible isn't! There is Andrew Jackson right on that twenty dollar bill. Do you see him there? That is Andrew Jackson! There is no denying that. It isn't Bill Clinton; it is Andrew Jackson; don't argue with me! Andrew Jackson is on the face of the American twenty dollar bill. I have one; I am looking at it right now. "That is Andrew Jackson"

But it isn't is it? It is a picture of him; an image. Andrew Jackson is dead and has been for a long time. Jesus did not offer his flesh and blood. It was a picture. Just as Andrew Jackson was a picture or representative of the real so was the flesh and blood of Jesus that he offered his disciples a representative of the real. The disciples knew that. And whoever partook of him had everlasting life.
He had just finished speaking in a number of metaphorical statements. Why should this one be any different? Only because some silly Lutherans say so?? I trow not! Are you so foolish to think they actually believed in cannibalism?? Do you not have any better sense than that when exegeting a passage of Scripture. Or do you simply go with the usual "the blind leading the blind." Don't use your brain, just follow the already blind.

The entire Christian world. Excuse me, but I am a Christian and I don't believe that. The Apostles were Christians and they didn't believe that, as evidenced right by the context.

 

Please don't quote from statements from the Lutheran Church statements of faith, etc. If you can't express what you believe in your own words, then it is not worth expressing. You don't need to fill up the space on this thread with Lutheran propaganda.

 

I would be interested in knowing how you would describe election doctrine in the Lutheran church. Presbyterians seem closer to pure Calvinism, and Methodists seems closer to free will doctrines. Lutheran seems like a mix somewhere in the middle. Of course, when one adds the doctrine of eternal security, there are different combinations. One would think that a Calvinist would tend to be more for eternal security, and an Arminian would tend to think that one can lose their salvation. It only makes sense if you can choose one, you can choose the other. Tell me if I am wrong, but do Lutherans believe in predestination, but also can lose salvation. To be fair, there are Baptists who believe in free will as far as salvation goes, but then hold to once saved, always saved.

I would also be interested to know if most Lutherans practice open or closed communion.

Thanks.

 

What is the title of this thread; what is the OP?
This is an ongoing debate or study of the NT not of the Lutheran Confession of Faith! You are off topic and derailing the thread. As a rule of thumb, and even as a rule of the board, you cannot post and/or spam the board with your propaganda. You are allowed to reference to a confession every once in a while. I did not read the entire thread. I went back just a few pages and found three pages full of long quotes from the Lutheran Confession of Faith or from other church documents. That is not permitted. It puts you into the category as one who is proselytizing. Why else would you be doing that?

There are limits to freedom in any place.
"Your fist stops at my nose." "Freedom" is confined to the rules that you agreed to when you registered here.

That tradition exists within certain boundaries. Those boundaries must be kept. They are not as free as you may think they are.

 

That makes more sense. I think another term for that is they were never saved in the first place.

 

Read 2 Thessalonians 2:13 carefully. We are not merely chosen by God before the world (beginning) but we are chose "TO" something - "to salvation."

We are not merely chosen "to salvation" but the means to obtain salvation is equally chosen - "THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth." Hence, salvation is not obtained apart from "sanctification of the Spirit" or "setting apart by the Holy Spirit." This setting apart is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit of God. Neither is this salvation obtained until there is "belief of the truth." No unbelievers will enter heaven regardless at what point they die.

The act of regeneration is not completed until a person is CHANGED in regard to their belief - from unbeliever to beleiver. Conversion is the product of regeneration. Regeneration changes the heart from a love of darkness to hatred of darkness (repentance) and from a hatred of light to love of light so that one comes to the light (faith) - Jn. 3:16-20.

The relationship between regeneration and conversion is inseparable and that inseparability is stated in Old Testament language in these words: "Turn us O Lord and we shall be turned." God turning them is the cause/power which is regeneration but if He TURNS them then they are turning (conversion). So justifying faith is regenerative faith.

This is why according to the new covenant none under this covenant need to be taught to "know" God (Jer. 31:34;Heb. 8) because even from the "least" under this covenant "know" God by direct revelation (Mt.16:17) through regenerative faith. Hence, all under this covenant do not need catechism or confirmation or need men to teach them about God and salvation. Hence, baptism gives no "promise" of salvation nor does it remit their sins or saves literally at all.

You were raised in a Baptist church until you were 18 and still have to ask this question? It is obvious you were nothing but a "nominal" Baptist if you have to ask this question - you knew nothing about Baptist doctrine if you have to ask this question. You can't be serious about this question and serious that you claim to know Baptist doctrine?

 

No, you don't! When you say they were really saved and then lost you are rejecting the redemptive work of Christ as both sufficient and finished. You are rejecting substitutionary atonement. You are rejecing the doctrine of justification by faith WITHOUT WORKS.

If not, then tell me whose fault is it that a person loses salvation - Christ's fault or theirs? Who is the Savior? Christ or them?

If so, then tell me your definition of "works"? I define works to be inclusive of both the INTERNAL actions (motive and intent) and EXTERNAL actions (words and physical acts) - Mt. 15.

Apparently that is not your definition of "works"! If you claim a saved person can lose their salvaiton it can only be by "works" and thus you deny justification by faith WITHOUT WORKS.

 

One thing you are forgetting is that predestination, Calvinism if you will, is not divided along denominational lines, as you can tell from the ad nauseum threads on the subject in the Baptist only section. The Protestant denomination that comes closest to believing 100% in election is the Presbyterians. To me, it is an interesting subject, but does not determine someone's eternal destiny. The only thing that determines that is faith in Jesus Christ.

Regardless of which way one believes, when eternal security is added to election, your posts and many Baptist posts are inconsistant. If one is quickened, predestined, elected to salvation, it was the choice of the Lord. Then how can that same person decide to reject Christ and "become unsaved" for lack of a better term. On the other hand, if one believes God has put it within each man to choose or reject Jesus Christ, with only God's foreknowledge, then how can that person believe in eternal security. He had the ability to choose salvation, but has no choice to reject it down the line. Both positions seem to contradict themselves.

As far as denominations go, the only two I know that believe in eternal security, "preservation of the saints," or whatever you call it, are Baptists and Presbyterians.

You keep bringing up the fact that you were brought up in an IFBC. You imply that this gives you a better perspective. I was raised in a PCA church (conservative Presbyterian), and while I to admit it helps understand the difference, you conclusion to me is totally backwards. Granted, as a child one does not have much choice in which church they attend, and also acknowledging that Presbyterian is as close to Baptist as one can get in another denomination, but as an adult, studying Scripture as well as I know how, it is obvious on issues like Baptism and hierarcy, Baptists are spot on.

That brings up another point you mentioned in relation to communion. You said that one part of the Lutheran church practiced open communion, and the conservative section practiced closed with the exception of a few other denominations. Lets get serious here. Doesn't it seem odd to you, if one is going to practice closed (which I am totally against in any church), that one of the denominations that your faith would allow, is the RCC, the very church you claimed to have broken away from? Talk about a red flag!!! Are you saying by this that Lutherans have more in common with the RCC than the SBC???

This brings up another question about Lutheran doctrine. What other denominations would a Lutheran church accept baptism from with a transfer of a letter?

More later...............

 

I think if you will reveiw our posts it was not I who introduced the word "decsion" but YOU! You introduced it to interpret my position that regeneration was concluded in faith. I do not believe in decisionism as the cause of regeneration but the consequence so all the following arguments based on the rationale are mute.

If your "free will" Baptist church denied and rejected the doctrine of eternal security than it was an apostate Baptist church. Remember, this was my response to your question concerning if a regenerate person could become unregenerated!



"

Death is by appointment only. God chose these to die at the particular time they died - Heb. 9:27

The babies that died among the heathen Canaanite when Israel killed women, children and infants - utterly destroying all that breathes were by divine appointment. They were not circumcised babies. They were not baptized babies but babies born among parents who were the most ungodly and false religionists of that time. Hence, all your arguments for infant baptism, infant circumcision, regeneration, remission of sins is all mute and void in this Biblical example - right?

Now, did these canaanite babies go to heaven or hell? My position on these babies is the same as my position on adult believers salvation. They must be regenerated - meaning regenerative change - meaning regenerative faith as defined in 2 Thes. 2:13 so that they are CHANGED from unregenerate to regenerate, from unbelief to belief must occur or they will not enter heaven.

The Bible has three different kind of preachers of the gospel listed in the Word of God:

1. Human Preachers
2. Angel preachers - Gal. 1:8-9, Rev. 14:6
3. God Himself - Gal. 3:8

We know from the story of Lazerus and the rich man that "angels" transport the soul of the saved to heaven and therefore must be present at the death of God's elect.

We also know there is no salvation for anyone at anytime OUTSIDE of Christ and only those chosen "IN CHRIST" are chosen "to salvation" and the means of salvation is chosen as well "through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth."

This rules out external ordinances as the chosen means and that should be obvious in the case of dying infants and especially that should be easily seen in the case of these canaanite infants - no baptism, no cirucmicision - nothing.

The only difference between dying infant elect and living infant elect is the TIME when they are regenerated. Dying infant elect are regenerated either at death as defined by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and living elect are regenerated at the appointed time in their life as defined by 2 Thessalonians 2:13. In neither case are external ordinances the defined means or essential means as is obvious with these dying canaanite infants.

The bottom line in my first versus second Adam argument is that dying infants are the elect and their salvation is secured by Christ's representative action apart from any individual personal action in their own life time where as the living elect receive regenerative faith in life rather than at the point or in death previous to entrance into heaven.

 

I don't believe that God gives faith to any person in order to believe. That doesn't make sense and cannot be backed up by Scripture. It also makes infant baptism totally unnecessary, and even foolish in the sight of God. It even looks very superstitious. Salvation is by faith in God, not God's faith, but your own. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It is your decision not God's. It is your faith, not God's. Thus infant baptism is the most ridiculous concept ever invented by Christendom and parallels rituals in paganism, on par with Hinduism.