How important is knowledge in getting saved?

Okay Eli the Teacher, may a humble student dare ask you a question and all your host of 15th century scholars?

Do you have any reliable sources to support your faith prior to the 1st millinium? I mean you reference these people like that are apostles or bishops that died a martyer death or something.

True early church leaders would basically view you and your teachers more along the line of ..... well, you'll figure it out if you do serious study

You "Taught" me??? As a teacher you fail to be a student. What teacher do you think you are that you can take scripture out of context and avoid the totallity of passages to make a false point. And then when questioned by possibly the only people who is trying to get you back to the text, you don't answer.
Titus 2:6-8 (New International Version)

6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.


Three things you lack teacher (in any version of the bible):

Integrity - you will not answer simple questions and provide sound contexual proof of your opinions. You are only interested in airing your own opinons. Your trump card with the theif on the cross was complete debunked and you will not reconsider your obvious flaw.

Seriousness - Well, you cannot be serious if you are only interested in ariing your own opinion. Stick to the question, before, throwing in people who are far removed from the early church as your witness. Don't do it again, its pointless. Those people mean very little to me, but they mean a great deal to you. I guess they are all you got. Paul would have been better if your points were sound, but....

Soundness that cannot be condemned - you're not sound and that's a fact and the rest is history

 

DHK,

bmerr here. You'd have gone to hell.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

To All,

bmerr here. For your consideration:

Prov 30:12 - There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Eliyahu,

bmerr here. You seem to think that I am advocating that a person must have an in-depth knowledge of the Scriptures in order to be saved. If I have given you this impression, please accept my apology, it was not my intention to do so.

When I make a case for knowledge being required for one to be saved, I simply mean that one must know:

- His need for a Savior

- The facts of the gospel

- How he is to respond to the gospel

This knowledge must come from the word of God. One must have knowledge in order to have faith, for apart from one's knowledge of the truth, he cannot be made free.

Again, I'm not saying a 4 year degree is neccessary, or anything like that. But through the faithful preaching of God's word, sinners can gain knowledge of:

- Their need for a Savior

- The facts of the gospel

- How they are to respond to the gospel

That's all I'm saying, dear.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

OK, the difference can be how to express the understanding the message of the truth. I have no objection that one need to understand the truth before he or she accept it. Also, one should not exaggerate what you are meaning by knowledge, I know.
My goal is to present and explain the Gospel as easy as possible to every group of people.
In my youth, I took the examination for basic doctrines of Christian belief such as Trinity, Deity of Jesus, Sin and Sins, Cross, Redemption, Forgiveness of Sin, Crucifixion and Resurrection, Pentecost, Second Coming, Apsotles' Decree, Baptism, Lord Supper, Being Born Again, etc. Then I got the excellent mark, then I was baptized by sprinkling at the Methodist church in May 1969. There was no change of my life since then. But what has to come had come in 1973. I started to find the sinful natures of human beings, the whole world is corrupted and sinful, everyone is selfish and do not live for the justice, then there was another voice " what about you ?" then I realized I myself is also sinful and corrupted, thereafter I found the whole world and myself were crucified at the Cross. It happened on Sept 2, 1973 which changed my life.
Someone argue that John Wesley must have been born again much earlier than May 24, 1738, namely before he went to Georgia as a missionary, as a priest of COE. But his own confession is important and he would have remained fameless if he had no experience of 1738. Today many people celebrate his conversion on May 24.
Martin Luther was born again when he read Rom 1:17 after he became a priest, after he had the fellowship with Staupitz before he started be involved in the reformation in 1517.
In many cases, one may raise the question of timing of the salvation in such cases. However, it is clear that the knowledge cannot be a criteria for the salvation. I passed the examination for such catechism which covers all the knowledges mentioned on this thread, but it was not the knowledge that led me to the Lord. Repentence, humbleness, broken heart, wholehearted seeking, these led me to the Lord by believing and accepting Him. This is why we find only , Repent and Believe, or Hear and believe, or Believe and be saved. Christianity is very simple to start, but it has profound meaning and has a great power changing the life.

 

Eliyahu,

bmerr here. From what you said, it sounds like you (at your "first conversion") may have missed the first bit of required knowledge, the fact that you needed a Savoir.

Without that realization, the facts and doctrines you had learned didn't mean much to you personally. But when it dawned on you that YOU were as wretched as everyone around you, the other knowledge you had gained before became important, and life changing.

Would that be a fair observation?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

"O that I may know Him and the power of his resurrection" --- without which knowledge any and every soul heads for eternal damnation.

 

Jeremiah laughs at your interpretation of that verse and at your theology:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

Take a bath; baptize yourself scrub with the strongest possible soap that you could possibly buy; get baptized by the COC; but try as you may, and as wet as you will get, you cannot wash away your sins with water. Not in a bathtub, not in a baptismal tank, not in the Ganges River, not in any river, or lake, or stream or in any body of water. Your superstitious belief of water washing sin is just as supersitious as the Hindus who bathe in the Ganges River for the same reason. It is similar to the RCC who baptize their infants for the same reason. It is a superstition and nothing more. It has nothing to do with Scripture. Take a good bath and use plenty of soap but it won't wash away your sins. Even Jeremiah mocks at your beliefs.

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Sir, you are comparing ritual washings under the Old Testament and pagan superstitions to the "one baptism" commanded under the New Testament of the Lord Jesus Christ. The old "apples and oranges" thing...

In fact, 1 Pet 3:21 makes it plain for any honest person that baptism, which "...doth also now save us...", is not a bath for the body, but an appeal for a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not water removing dirt from one's flesh that saves us, but obedience to God's command for the removal of that which mars the conscience, or sin.

When a person submits to baptism under the NT, he does not baptize himself. He does not wash himself. He does not scrub himself. He is buried in water, in the likeness of Jesus' burial, and raised up out of the water in the likeness of Jesus' resurrection, trusting in the promise of God that in submitting to such, by the operation of God, his sins will be washed away, or, remitted.

BTW, I did not interpret Prov 30:12. I simply typed it out.

My take, or interpretation of that verse, if you want it, is that in every generation, there have been, are, and will be, those who see themselves as pleasing to God, yet who have not submitted to the righteous commands of God, and are, in the sight of God, just as vile and wicked as the people they look down upon.

Biblical examples might be Job's friends, Amaziah, who withstood Amos, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes of Jesus' day, etc.

Also, in citing Prov 30:12, I was not pointing at anyone. If it doesn't apply, let it pass over you. The old saying is true, though, when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, they all scatter, but the one that's hit will be the one that's yelping.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. I've taken the liberty of bolding some portions of your post to illustrate the fact that you're not following your own advice. [noting your dissatisfaction with the KJV, I will cite the ASV (1901) in this post.]

If we follow your advice (which is good advice), and go beyond Acts 16:31, we can notice a few things.

In 16:30, the Phillipian Jailor (PJ) asks Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They answer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house."

In the course of this thread, we have been discussing the importance of knowledge in salvation. My stance has been that one must know:

1. his need for a Savior,

2. the facts of the gospel, and

3. how to respond to the commands of the gospel.

At this point in the conversion account of PJ, we can easily see that he has the knowledge of:

1. his need for a Savior, in that he has asked what he must do to be saved. Everyone on board so far?

Now, from the Scriptures, can we determine if he had knowledge of:

2. the facts of the gospel? No, we can't, but I'm going to say he did not know the facts of the gospel. From the evidence in the text, the best I can figure is that he probably knew that Paul and Silas were servants of the Most High God who were proclaiming the way of salvation (Acts 16:17). Since the demon-possessed woman shouted this for "many days", PJ may have heard about it, thus his question, "what must I do to be saved?" Am I stretching? Am I being illogical? Am I missing anything? Go on, tell me, I can take it.

Can we, from the Scriptures, determine if PJ had knowledge of:

3. how he was to respond to the commands of the gospel? Yes we can. He did not know how to respond to the commands of the gospel. If he did, he would not have asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved", would he? Compare PJ's question with that of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:36, "Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" The eunuch already knew what to do in response to the gospel. PJ didn't.

Alright. Continuing on in our text to 16:32 and following, we read,

32 And they spake the word of the Lord unto them, with all that were in his house.

What would be included in "the word of the Lord" as applies to the question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved"? Peter's sermon in Acts 2 might be a good place to look. In short, Peter presented the proofs of Jesus' deity, OT prophecies that spoke of His sufferings, the facts of His death, burial, and resurrection, the fact that the sins of men were what brought about His death, and the commands (to those who believed and asked what to do), to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

Let's see if PJ's actions line up with this.

33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes [repentance]; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.
34 And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.

It would seem logical that Paul and Silas spoke words similar to those that Peter spoke in Acts 2, since PJ's actions are strikingly similar to the actions of Peter's audience.

Having looked beyond Acts 16:31, we can see that PJ was able to gain parts 2 and 3 of the knowledge required for salvation, and that he faithfully obeyed, praise be to God.

To avoid having a post that is insanely long, let's look at the other verses separately.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. The Gospel of Mark begins with these words:

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (ASV 1901, KJV)

"Gospel" means, "good tidings", or "good news".

It is a fact that some of the oldest manuscripts available do not include Mark 16:9-20. Those manuscripts that were used until they were worn out were copied, replaced, and disposed of. The replacement copies of these often used MSS were, therefore, newer than the MSS that were not often used for whatever reason.

Older doesn't always mean better or more accurate.

Also, which ending would seem more appropriate to you, and more in keeping with the other gospel accounts, to a document that was supposed to be "good tidings"?

Mark 16:8 ASV 1901 - And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.

or,

Mark 16:20 ASV 1901 - And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. You are correct in observing that the context of Rom 6:3-5 is 6:1-14. The point Paul makes in verses 3-5 is that what he is telling them is something they should have already known, indicated by the words, "Know ye not" (KJV), or "Or are ye ignorant" (ASV 1901).

Paul points out that they and he had been baptized into the death of Christ when they were "baptized into Christ". This baptism, the "one baptism" of Eph 4:5, is then described as a burial and raising in the likeness of the burial and resurrection of Christ. It is a picture, or form of the teaching of the gospel.

It was only when they had obeyed from the heart the form of this teaching that they had been delivered from the bondage of sin (6:17-18).

It was only when they had obeyed from the heart this form of the teaching of the gospeol that they could walk in newness of life.

Since they had obeyed the gospel, they should not continue in sin.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. I agree. I hate it when people misrepresent this passage, as we see above. Specifically in the fact that Peter never speaks of repentance in this verse, though you have inserted it for some reason.

Let's back up a verse and see Peter's illustration of the flood "...wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

What is the "filth of the flesh? Is it sin? Does sin get our bodies dirty? No, it doesn't. Our bodies might get dirty while we sin, but what does sin affect? Is in not the conscience?

When we are baptized are we going with the intent of having a clean body when we are raised out of the water? If so, then we have not understood Peter's words in this verse.

Peter very clearly states that baptism is not the removal of flith from the flesh, but the interrogation, or inquiry, or appeal (ASV margin), or answer (KJV) of a good conscience toward God.

The Bible says that baptism is for the remission, or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16). Sin is what mars the conscience.

Finally, the text in question undeniably states that this "...true likeness doth now save you, even baptism..."

If salvation from sin is not in view here, what is Peter talking about?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. Before I go on looking at the Scriptures you mentioned, I wanted to adress your comments here.

You say that you are following how New Testament churches understood these verses, yet the commentaries you cited were not available to the NT churches. All they had was the word of God, and they obeyed it. They were not hindered in their understanding by the commentaries of men whose beliefs were at odds with what is written.

I agree, there is no contradiction in Scripture. Did you know that John 6:28-29 identifies belief in Christ as a "work"? It does. That means that even if one could be saved only by believing, he would still be saved by a work. I think we might need to take a look at "work" in the NT.

It certainly is, since I am simply taking these passages at their word. That's how the early church did it, too.

When a "fundamentalist" says, for example, that baptism is not for the remission of sins, while the Bible quite plainly states that baptism is for the remission of sins, then that "fundamentalist" is denying Scripture. My poointing it out doesn't make him guilty, his denial of Scripture makes him guilty. Don't shoot! I'm just the messenger!

Would you advocate that the rulers in John 12:42 were saved?

This would be a blatant denial of Mark 16:16 and 1 Pet 3:21, just to name a few.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

One thing we should make clear is that Baptism is not the pre-requisite for the Salvation.
Roman Catholic claims that the Baptism is necessary for the Salvation. Some baptists have such superstition.
The Robber at the Cross was not baptized but saved.
Many people misunderstand about Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved- I asked the question to such people " what if someone believeth, but was not baptized?" No one answered to me. But the answer can be found in the same verse:

He that believeth not shall be damned! ( doesn't say He that believeth and be baptized not shall be damned)
Do you see? The condition for the punishment to send to the hell, is Not to Believe, Baptism is not mentioned there.

Of course Baptism is the most important procedure for the spiritual growth and the confession of the faith. In the war, so many prodigal soldiers accepted Lord only at the time of their death. They simply confessed that they thought their lives would last for thousand years and never thought about their Creator and the Savior, and repented a lot weeping and accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but had no chance to be baptized. Will they go to the hell? I visited a woman dying of the ovary cancer, and finally she accepted the Lord, then had no chance of Baptism, will she go to the Hell ? Do we have to check whether she believes in the Trinity, what is the meaning of Baptism etc?

The idea that the Baptism existed only in NT period is very much ignorant one.
Mikveh in Hebrew meant the Immersion which is shown in Lev 11:36, Isa 22:11 etc. But we notice Lev 14 :8-9 commands the lepers should wash themselves in the water( Rahats),and the Jewish custom was to bathe the lepers in the flowing water. This was done by ther taking bath in the water. We were the sinners like Lepers.

So, the baptism has the origin from the OT teachings.
Noah's ark was floating on the top of the water, and the water symbolized the death, and in case of Noah's family, the death meant the redemptive death of Christ. The Ark was the church which floats on top of the death of Christ, made of Gopher ( Gen 1:14) which has the meaning of Redemption as well.
Paul mentioned Israelites were baptized when they crossed the Red Sea ( 1 Cor 10:2). Jesus was baptized under the OT rituals. Though we know that the people baptized under John the Baptists needed another Baptism(Acts 19:2-5), the two baptisms, OT's and NT's are the same by its nature, the death of the old person, and a new life with the newness in Christ.

 

Eliyahu,

bmerr here. When discussing baptism in the NT, we cannot equate it with other baptisms or washings that may have been present in the Old Testament. They are two different systems of worship.

Paul writes in Eph 4:4-6 the seven "ones" of the unity of the Spirit. Among these we find that there is "one baptism" in effect under the New Testament of Jesus Christ. This Testament came into effect after the death of Christ on the cross. In Heb 9:16-17 we read,

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The thief on the cross (TTOC) is often used as an example of conversion/salvation without baptism. I used it when I was a Baptist, too. But there are a couple of problems with this argument.

First off, since Jesus had not yet died, the Old Testament was still in effect (See Heb 9:16-17 above). TTOC was saved, but he was not saved under the New Testament.

Second, we cannot be sure if TTOC had been baptized or not. Speaking of John the Baptist, Matt 3:5 says, "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan." Likewise, Mark 1:5 says, "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."

We simply cannot be sure whether or not TTOC was among those who submitted to John's baptism.

Concerning Mark 16:16, it is not necessary to state "He that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned". Man is condemned by unbelief already (John 3:18).

Bottom line: Jesus has been given all authority (Matt 28:19). Jesus has commanded baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Until one submits to this baptism by faith, he is still in his sins, and therefore lost.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

You continue to give the credits to the human works on the salvation issues, either Knowledge or Baptism.
Salvation has nothing to do with Baptism. period.
Even during the OT times, the shadow of Christ worked. Do you know that Moses believed in Christ? Read Heb 11:26, then Luke 16:31, John 5:46

 

Eliyahu,

bmerr here. Moses did not live under the New Testament. You and I do.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr,
You are obssessed with the human works. Gospel is very sime and easy for everybody.
Repent, Hear the Gospel, Believe, and you will be saved.

The contents of Gospel is this

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but has the everlasting life.

Jesus Christ has paid all the price for the sins of the people by shedding the Blood and dying at the Cross, and thereby God forgave all the sins of the people.

Is this a lot of knowledge? Simple and Good News for everybody. This truth was hidden in OT but the principle of the salvation was the same.

Read this:
2 Tim 3:
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


Do you see this?
Which testament is Paul talking about by the Holy Scriptures? Wasn't it Old Testament? Doesn't he say that the scriptures make thee wise unto salvation thru faith in Jesus Christ? Why does Paul refer to the OT during the NT times?

What does make you ignore the Old Testament?

You never presented your own interpretation about Exodus 20:23-24.
I exepcted you cannot, because you are obssessed with works.

Those verses tell you this. The altars are the shadows of Jesus Christ and His Crucifixion, you cannot add anything onto what Jesus has done, that's it. You should not make the stone Altar with the hewn stone, because no human works can be added.
Now you are trying to build an altar with hewn stone, which is nonsense to the view of God. No one can add anything to what Jesus has done at the Cross. Could you understand?

 

Your present audience wouldn't know anything about this. They feel they are closer to the apostles than the early church.


That is why Eli cannot accept Pauls full testamony about his own conversion. He has to interject his opinion where the scripture is silent.

And is not willing to answer direct questions because he fears that he will be found out.