Conversion-Immersion

I laugh at this response of yours.
You have been my judge, jury and executioner. Do you read your own posts?

This was in direct response to the question: "Was I saved between the period of time when I called upon the name of Christ and two years later when I was baptized. You said: no. You the judge, told me I was unsaved. That is what this post indicates--at least by inference.

You say that forgiveness follows baptism. That is heresy. You also say, that in stating the same, that I was unsaved before that time. You just called me unsaved even though I called upon the name of the Lord two years previous. You just said I had no forgiveness of sins. You also called God a liar in making such a statement.



You have become your own Judge, jury and executioner.

 

Acts 9:17 relates the visit of Ananias (a member of the church at Damascus) to Saul of Tarsus. He went at the direct command of the Lord in a vision.

Saul had been blinded in his encounter with Jesus. The Lord told Ananias that Saul was a "chosen vessel to bear my name before the Gentiles...."

When Ananias arrived, he said "Brother Saul...the Lord has sent me so you might receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost."

Chosen vessel. Brother Saul. Filled with the Holy Ghost. Before baptism.

 

You are my Judge again, and even worse. You act as God.
You don't know me. You don't know what my life was like before my salvation as a Catholic. You have no idea. You have no idea of any trials that I may have gone through. You know nothing about me. Yet in your "omniscience" you pretend to know all about me. Only God can do that, so why do you pretend? You are a charlatan.

Now who is the one making false accusations in your above post. You had better read it again, for you know nothing about me.

 

Wayne Jackson is a Church of Christ apologist, relied on and admired by Church of Christ ministers everywhere. Although I agree with much of what he says, most people here do not. Don't you think it would be appropriate to disclose where he is coming from?

 

A More Extensive Response to the Hyper-Sacramentalist


Now keep in mind, the hyper-sacramentalist has claimed that “causal eis” has been rejected by Greek scholarship: “Mantey’s claim of a ‘causal’ use of eis is without grounds, and is rightly rejected as unlikely by most scholars.” But that’s just not what Greek scholarship has concluded at all, and this point demonstrates the lack of familiarity with Greek studies on the part of the hyper-sacramentalist. What has been overturned is Mantey’s appeal to instances of causal eis outside of NT literature alone. As we have already noted, Carson recognizes NT examples of causal eis more than 30 years after the debate between Mantey and Marcus. And Turner recognizes the use of causal eis in the NT, even though he also notes that the examples of causal eis in Hellenistic Greek brought forward by Mantey were sufficiently overturned by Marcus. What he does not do is go on to make the point that the NT examples have been overturned. Indeed, Marcus himself conceded Mantey’s NT examples of this use of eis when he wrote:


It is quite possible that eis is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eis cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.
The hyper-sacramentalist has relied solely upon Wallace’s conclusion rather than the actual evidence of Mantey-Marcus. While it is true that Wallace rejects causal eis in the NT (though unjustly, based as that rejection is on the Mantey-Marcus debate), it is certainly not the case that NT scholarship has rejected it.
http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/more-extensive-response-to-hyper.html

 

Let others judge as well.
Go back and read Dr. Walters posts.
You will find that he agrees. You have judged me as an unsaved person, if not now, at least up to the point that I was baptized. And that was two years after I professed faith in Christ. Don't be a hypocrite and go back on what you have already said. Do we need to repost it for you?

 

I have dealt with "adisciplerlearner" long enough that it does not matter what kind of hard Biblical evidence you place in front of him - he is spiritually blind to truth - and will just ignore his dilemmas and start back at you with the same parrotting statements that have already been disproven. If he cannot win the theological argument he attacks your Christian "love" simply because you identify his doctrine for what it is - heresy.

Notice, he has not been able to answer the dilemma I have placed before him as of this date. He cannot answer it and yet it DESTROYS his whole interpretative position on both the church and salvation.

Notice, he cannot find a single solitary passage in the New Testament that supports his necessary belief that regeneration, repentance and faith occurs IN baptism as EVERY NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLE and PRECEPT demands repentance and faith PRIOR TO baptism and the prerquisite to baptism. Yet, his candidates for baptism BY NECESSITY must be unreprentant, unbelieving and unregenerate persons.

His heresy is so OBVIOUS and so CLEAR and yet he is blinded to it. Titus 3:10 is the appropriate text for him.

 

"smooooooth as oil and slippery as a snake"

Your own conclusions are directly opposed to your own theology. However, that is no big deal as that seems to be your MO for escaping obvious contradictions with yourself.

 

"smooooth as oil and slippery as a snake."

Obviously, you don't like to be treated that way. You can redeem yourself by providing just ONE text in the book of Acts where ANYONE did not repent and believe BEFORE they were baptized? Just one example please!

 

A. What about Acts 2:38-41? Should verse 41 read:

"As many as were baptized received the word" -

OR

"As many as received the word were baptized"

"adisciplerlearner" position requires the first as his candidate for baptism is the unrepentant, unbelieving, unregenerate as his position says repentance and faith do not occur until IN baptism.


B. What about Acts 8:36a-37? - should it read:

"and the enuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If you will believest with all thine heart WHILE BEING baptized thou mayest..." OR

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.
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.


C. What about Acts 9:17-18 - Shoud it read -


And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, UNREGENERATED CHILD OF SATAN Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

OR

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.


D. What about Acts 16:30-31 - Should it read:

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe when baptized on the Lord Jesus Christ IN and THROUGH baptism, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

OR

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I keep on doing in order to be saved?
31 And they said, Having once believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

The Jailor used the incompleted action "keep on doing" whereas Paul and Silas in unison answered in with the Aorist tense "At the point of faith in Christ you will be saved at that point."


E. What about I Corinthians 1:17? should it read?

17 ¶ For Christ sent me to administer gospel savlation in connection with baptism 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 in baptism.

OR

17 ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
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.


F. What about 1 Pet. 3:21? Should it read:

21 ¶ 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:
OR

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 complete omission of "The like figure whereunto even" makes no difference in "adisciplelearner" soteriology. In fact, it only produces a problem for him to explain away.

 

Mere hot air and fiction! The mantra's without fact. Find ONE text where repentance and faith does not PRECEDE baptism? Just ONE! Your position requires, demands, that your candidate for baptism does not repent or believe or be regenerated until IN baptism.

 

Your use of John 3:5 is at best a misapplication of scripture and most likely a lack of exegetical ability in one of the most obvious areas.

John 3:6 clears up your poor hermeneutics:

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


When Jesus was speaking of the water He was not speaking of "baptidzo" "hudor" which is generic for water. When you place that generic word in the context of v. 6 it is clear Jesus was referring to the "water" of physical birth.

 

So does Romans 10:10 occur in baptism? If so, then how do YOU know who you are to baptize?

Rom. 10: 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. - DW

Yes, Romans 10:10 is carried out in baptism, during which a sinner repents, believes, and confesses Christ......
Sinners repent, believe, and are baptized in order to have their sins forgiven, or to be justified. Upon their baptism, they are New Covenant Christians. - adiscipelearner

 

Not so! The first participle "go" is found in the Aorist tense as a completed action prior to the action of the main verb (Aorist). Mark 16:15 shows the "go" is with the gospel to "all nations" - thus gospelization has been completed prior to baptism. Indeed, "them" identify those who have already been gospelized out from among "the nations" and it is this "them" which are fit candidates for baptism.

I know grammar and syntax means nothing to you unless it fits your theology but any good Greek grammarian will verify what I said.

So again, find one example where repentance and faith did not occur BEFORE baptism!

Common sense dictates that confession with the mouth is essential to identify who should be baptized and thus must occur before baptism.

However, your position requires that all candidates for baptism are not repentant, not believers, not confessors of Christ, not regenerate until IN baptism.

Rom. 10: 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Yes, Romans 10:10 is carried out in baptism, during which a sinner repents, believes, and confesses Christ......
Sinners repent, believe, and are baptized in order to have their sins forgiven, or to be justified. Upon their baptism, they are New Covenant Christians. - adiscipelearner