Churches of Christ

:applause: :thumbs:

Excellent post, Eric.

 

capro,

bmerr here. Did you notice that not a single one of these alternate translations of eis used "because of"? Each one used a word that indicates unquestionably that repentance and baptism move the believer unto, into, or to the remission of sins.

I think you made mman's point.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

The reason for baptism is changed in each case.

The CoC has picked the one that meets their test of exclusivity.

It's false doctrine and doesn't work well with the rest of the Bible.

 

:thumbs:

You make your points much more eloquently than I.

To the CoC, Peter must have been lying when he said inActs 3:19. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out..."

I guess he just "forgot" to mention baptism.

 

carpro,

bmer here. Peter either "lied", or "forgot" to mention baptism while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, (which would mean that God was at fault), or, perhaps he said the same thing in a different way.

Notice the similarities between Acts 2:38, and 3:19.

Both are preceded by the presentation of the gospel.

Both contain the command to repent.

Both speak of the removal (remission - blotting out) of sins.

Both are in the context of what is commonly referred to as an "invitation".

Now, honestly, why would Peter preach the same gospel to a group of the same people (Jews), and command a different response? He wouldn't.

He simply said the same thing using different words.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Let's just see if these statements are true or false.

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

What is the logical conclusion of this simple passage?

Baptism of the believer is a requirement to be saved.

2) Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What is the logical conclusion of this passage?

Repentance and baptism of the believer is required to obtain the remission of sins.

Does this violate the logical conclusion Mark 16:16? No, rather it is in perfect harmony.

3) Acts 8:5-6,12 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. 6And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip...(vs12) But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

What is the logical conclusion of this passage? That when people believed the good news about Jesus, they were baptized.

Does this violate any of the prior examples? No, in fact, this is exactly what Jesus said they were to do, to go and preach the good news to all people and those who believed and were baptized would be saved.

4) Acts 8:35-36, Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Does the logical conclusion of this passage violate any of the prior passages? No. Again, the preaching of Jesus results in water baptism.

5) Acts 16:30-34, Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Here again, we have the word of the Lord spoken, a repentative heart, a baptism at once, then rejoicing that "he had believed in God.", all in harmony with the other verses.

6) Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

What is the logical conclusion of this passage? This believer who had been praying for three days was told to "be baptized and wash away his sins".

This is in perfect and complete harmony with the other passages dealing with baptism.

7) Rom 6:3-4 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Baptism puts us INTO Christ where there is salvation (II Tim 2:10). This agrees perfectly with the prior verses dealing with baptism.

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

In Christ is where we are sons of God through faith and we get INTO Christ through baptism, which agrees perfectly with the other verses dealing with baptism.

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

and then just a few verses later, " Col 3:1-2, If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.

Clearly this is a reference to baptism. Only those who have been raised with Christ in baptism are to seek the things that are above. Does this agree with the other passages dealing with baptism? Yes it does!

10) I Pet 3:20-21 ... in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

What is the logical conclusion? Baptism now saves us. Does this agree with the other passages dealing with baptism? Yes it does.

Do any of these verses contradict other NT verses? No, of course not. Are any of these verses negated by other NT verses? No, of course not.

Now if you do not like the wording used by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, should the grammer be dismissed based on your theology? Is this the only place this is taught? No, the above examples show that.

There was a reference to Acts 3:19 not mentioning baptism. Let's compare the two verses?

Acts 2:38 = Acts 3:19

Repent = Repent
be baptized = be converted
for the forgiveness of sins = that your sins may be blotted out

Peter did not change his message. As bmerr pointed out, he is saying the same thing using different words. Notice, if you compare the two verses, that baptism is equated to conversion.

That is when we die and are buried and raised to walk in a new life (Rom 6:3-4, when our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), when we become a child of God by faith because we have been baptized INTO Christ (Gal 3:26-27), when we are raised with Christ and seek the things that are above (Col 2:12, 3:1-2).

If one should discount the purpose of baptism because it conflicts with their understanding of other scriptures, then one of two things is happening.

1) Either the baptism scriptures don't mean what they say and are forced to be explained away from their obvious meanings

or

2) The baptism scriptures do mean what they say and their understanding of other passages need to be brought into harmony with them.

Many people hold onto Eph 2:8-9, at the exclusion of all other passages. Eph 2:8-9 does not conflict with any of the passages mentioned above. If you would read and study Gal 3:26-27, you will be able to see the wonderful harmony of Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Rom 6:3-4, I Pet 3:21 and Eph 2:8-9, otherwise, the passages dealing with baptism conflict with Eph 2:8-9, and we know God's word does not contain such contradictions.

 

Churches of works?

The Church of Christ believes that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Therefore if a person believes that baptism is a "work"(anything in addition to beliveving) that places the Church of Christ denomination among those who believe, in works, that something extra is needed. It is just that simple, either you believe that work s something extar is needed for salvation or you believe what the Bible says, that none will be justified in the eyes of God by works.

 

Your logic is false from the very beginning.


This is what we find in the first half of the verse.

Belief + baptism = salvation


Here's the 2nd half.

No belief = no salvation


Belief and salvation are found in both halves, but baptism is only in the first half. Salvation is contingent upon belief, not baptism.

 

You have stated the common misconception.

First, you will not find where baptism is ever called a work of man, however, you will find that it is a work of God (Col 2:12).

Baptism is done in faith (Gal 3:26-27), just as confession (Rom 10:10-17). Do you also argue that confession is a work, therefore unnecessary for salvation.

Using your logic, confession requires effort, it is something that man does, therefore it is a work. Since it is a work, it cannot be required for salvation.

By faith, a person is baptized into Christ. Why would anyone be baptized? God said so (Mark 16:16, Matt 28:18-20, Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38, I Pet 3:21, Gal 3:26-27, Rom 6:3-4).

What is the source of all faith? God said so (Rom 10:17).

When we obey God, that is biblical faith. Just because obedience is required, does not mean that obedience is meritorious.

Looking at a brass snake did not earn a cure, but was in response to God's instructions. If it was meritorious, then anyone bitten today could look upon a brass snake and God, being a just God, would owe them a cure.

Dipping 7 times in the Jordan river did not earn Naaman a cure, but was done in response of the instruction given to him. If it was meritorious, then anyone with leprosy could dip 7 times in the Jordan river and God would owe them a cure.

Baptism for the remission of sins does not earn the remission of sins, but it is done in response to the instructions of God (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Acts 8, Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12, 3:1-2, Rom 6, I Pet 3:21). If it were meritorious, then God would owe remission of sins to anyone who was ever dipped in the the water for any reason.

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

There is just one baptism (Eph 4:5). Preaching the good news about Jesus will result in water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). The good news has not changed and is for all creation and every nation (Mark 16:15-16).

How can anyone say they truly believe the bible when they reject "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"? - Mark 16:16

 

If you were relying on logic, you would understand that both were required for salvation.

If one does not believe, they are condemned already (Jn 3:18). Not being baptized does not condemn them more. The person who does not believe would not be baptized. Neither would that person repent.

Using your logic, repentance is therefore unnecessary.

One who does not believe, would not confess either, therefore confession is unnecessary, using your logic.

If I made a statement, he that eateth and digesteth shall live, but he that eateth not shall starve, could you understand that?

Using your logic, digestion is unnecessary for life.

If I made a statement, if you have access to a computer and send me an email, I will give you a billion dollars, whoever does not have access to a computer will not receive the money.

Is sending the email a requirement for the money?

Logic dictates that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned".

 

If I didn't know for certain that you are sincere in your answer, I would roll in the floor laughing.

Rationalization is a wonderful thing if you can make it work for you.

 

Here's another memory lapse for you:

Romans 10:9-10

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

 

carpro,

bmerr here. I just love how you completely dismiss another's point without dealing with it, and present a "trump verse" as an answer. The Scriptures do not conflict with themselves. Rom 10:9-10 goes hand in hand with Acts 2:38, 3:19, 22:16, 17:30, etc, etc.

One verse does not override any other. The translation you're using might cause some confusion for you, though. The KJV reads,

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

One might consider this alongside Acts 11:18, where we find that "...God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

But all spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph 1:3). We know that belief, repentance, and confession are unto righteousness, salvation, and life, respectively. How does the Bible say that one gets into Christ, where all spiritual blessings, including those listed above, are?

You probably won't say, so I'll go ahead and give the answer.

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

Gal 3:26-27 "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

The Bible says we are baptized into Christ, which is where all spiritual blessings are. In fact, it says it twice.

I didn't have a "memory lapse", as you suggested. We were talking about baptism, so I talked about a verse dealing with baptism. What a concept! If you wanted to talk about belief and confession, you should have asked about them.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

"He simply said the same thing using different words."

You accuse me of not dealing with the verses you quote and this is how you dealt Acts 3:19?

Now you start throwing around the litte Greek preposition "eis" again, however now you want it to mean "unto" and "into" and "in" but reject those meanings entirely in Acts 2:38, instead opting for "for" because it suits your purpose.

I agree that the scriptures do not conflict with each other in
Rom 10:9-10 , Acts 2:38, 3:19, 22:16, 17:30," etc, etc." unless one interprets them to mean that baptism is required for salvation.

Christ clearly stated to several individuals that their faith had saved them without mentioning baptism. Did He also misspeak himself?

 

carpro,

bmerr here. I asked if you thought it reasonable that Peter would preach the same gospel message to a group of the same people and then command a different response. Do you?

In dealing with Acts 3:19, I compared it to Acts 2:38, given that they were used in the same context. Is that not a reasonable way to examine the Scriptures?

I said nothing about the greek preposition "eis". This little preposition is actually translated as "unto" in Acts 2:38 in the ASV 1901. I don't have a problem with that, or with "for" as is found in the KJV. I don't understand your point here.

Question: Can one be saved apart from having his sins remitted, or washed away?

No, Christ did not "misspeak" Himself. He did, however, speak under the Old Testament, before baptism for (or "unto", if you prefer) was commanded. The faith that saved the individuals He spoke to was made known by their works, without which, faith is dead (James 2:20).

Under the New Testament, baptism is commanded, for the purpose of the remission (Acts 2:38), or the washing away (Acts 22:16) of sins.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

I was expecting the "old covenent" or "old testament" crutch to come out at just about this time.

It, of course, had to be that way since there is no disputing that Christ never required baptism for salvation, instead baptizing with the Holy Spirit as a result of faith only.

"The faith that saved the individuals He spoke to was made known by their works, without which, faith is dead " is an incorrect statement. The faith that saved those that I spoke of was purely faith in Christ. No works involved at all.

 

carpro,

bmerr here. Sometimes it's hard to know where to start. I'll adress your post one point at a time, I guess.

Jesus never commanded baptism as a requirement for salvation before the cross. After the cross, (when the New Testament came into force - Heb 9:16-17) Jesus made this notable statement, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16).

This was promised, never commanded. And it was promised to the apostles (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-8, 13-15), not to believers of all time. The Scriptures only record it one time, and imply it one other time. It is recorded in Acts 2:2-4, and implied in the case of Paul.

The house of Cornelius is the only time anything like it ever took place aside from these, and Peter had to remember way back at the beginning (Acts 11:15) for something to compare it to.

It was to guarantee that the apostles would be an error-free witness of the things Jesus had done and said. Today, we have to study (2 Tim 2:15), since the Holy Spirit no longer guides anyone into all truth directly.

Example: Luke 7:50, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." How did Jesus know of her faith? What had she been doing up to this point?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Now you're putting words in the mouth of Jesus.

If He had intended to say "your works demonstrating you faith have saved you" He would have.

He intended to say exactly what He said. Her faith saved her and nothing else.

 

Wow!
Quote:
instead baptizing with the Holy Spirit

"This was promised, never commanded. And it was promised to the apostles (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-8, 13-15), not to believers of all time. The Scriptures only record it one time, and imply it one other time. It is recorded in Acts 2:2-4, and implied in the case of Paul. "


It sounds as if you don't believe Christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit and you apparently are disregarding the words of John the Baptist.

Is that true?

 

Eph 4:5 says there is one baptism.

Which is it? Baptism with the Holy Spirit or baptism in water?

Yes, there have been many, but now there is just one. I can prove, though the scriptures, that the one baptism is a baptism in water.