How important is knowledge in getting saved?

Tazman:

"You are elevating life experiences above Jesus' design that included everything accompanying God grace."

GE:

You are elevating life experiences - baptism through water by mortal sinners - above Jesus' design that included everything necesaary and accompanying God's grace unto full and final salvation: the Gift of the Holy Spirit = "His baptism to us".

 

Tazman:

"Did you ever stop to think that the use is not up to you to decide?"

GE:

Have you? 'The use' is clear from e.g. Mt28 -- Go ye thereofore ... Who are "you"? You per chance? That would be most audacious to claim, I hear you admit, knowing full well Jesus addressed the Apostles, not 'us'.

 

Knowledge - the knowledge of Jesus Christ and of His resurrection, is important for and in salvation, in fact, is indispensible. Because this very knowledge is inseparable from our baptism in Him, with Him and through Him. The one is the other; without the baptism in and by the Holy Spirit no knowledge - no saving knowledge - is possible; not by a far cry!

 

They did not need to be. Those historical reference works enable us to understand what they understood because of their life and times.

It is a disgrace when Restoration churches call for tell everyone else to be New Testament churches while most adamantly refusing to accept the New Testament churches' historical, linguistic, and cultural setting.

 

Tazman:

"Just because a person may "feel" a heart change does not mean the are saved without baptism, but that is how far you have gone."

GE:

Just because God has given a person 'a heart change', means he is saved -- without baptism. Truth - great truth - is, that God shall not write His Laws upon the heart of any whose heart He has not changed. But that is how far you have gone and stopped.

 

But that is how far you have gone and stopped with baptism, 'using' it to do the work of God.

 

"Not by our own doing" - There is nothing in either passages that would implicitly or explictily address or suggest what you just said. So, again, it is your opinion based on an error prone preception of works.

Heres the point: We may preach a word, but it is from God, so it is God who is preaching (not of ourselves, right?)

We may baptize people, but is it given by God to those who believe (not of ourselves, right?)

Just because God tells us to physically do something doesn't mean it's of ourselves.

Think about it and you find that if you have a problem with this point on some levels and not on others then you are being hypocritical. You then choose what is of God and what is not. Be careful.

 

From Apostles to disciples to disciples to disciples. What is hard to understand if they teach what Jesus taught would not those who learn it teach and do the same thing? It's common sense.

Answer the question. Who are you to decide the use of Jesus' baptism?

I don't need to answer this question because I simply take Jesus at his word:

Matt 28:18-20
Mark 16: all
Acts 2:38-40, 22:16

It is quite simple.

What is your problem with accepting Jesus plain teachings as your translators gave it anyway?

 

Who ever said this needs explaining?

I think it is obviouse by your response that you have a problem with this passage as it reads. So you would be one to have a person read this passage, but not before qualifying it with your interpretation.

You probably do that a lot huh? You have a new student to the bible now ask you questions about scriptures because when they read it, it seems to be contradicting your theology.

It is often silly how people have to acrobat around plain scripture just to get it to fit their own preconceived ideas.

 

Are you talking about pre-Restoration or true early church pre Constantine (before 300 ad)?

The best information you can truley rely on regarding the early church are writing of the Early church bishops and leaders prior to 400 ad.

 

This is not good. I hope no one out there will stop the work of God at baptism, because salvation starts at entering the new covenant through faith in Jesus while being raised in baptism (col 2:12).
Stopping with baptism is not in line with Matthew 28, it says "and teaching them to obey everything I commanded you....." Lord forbid it should stop at baptism.

Everything starts at the cross. Before there was anything to believe in or repent of or be baptized in, there was the gift.

So NOTHING (incuding our faith) would have any value if it were not for the life, death burial and resurrection of my Lord (Period)

If you want to dissect Jesus commands according to your priority you're playing with fire.

 

Well, that was certainly a snotty thing to say. There is no advocacy among fundamental Baptists to `get rid' of Scripture.

One of the most annoying things about the Churches of Christ is their obstinate claim that they are the only ones who make a genuine effort to follow all of Scripture.

On the other hand, I have seen Church of Christ polemicists repeatedly refuse to accept evidence that helps us understand how the New Testament congregations would have perceived the words they were reading and hearing. The New Testament was not written in English with an initial audience of Americans -- but many in the Restoration prefer to pretend that it was. It is too inconvenient to do otherwise.

That baptism is not faith is evident at Ephesians 4:5 in the same epistle. Here, we have “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (NBV). James 2:17 shows that faith is impersonal “it” and “itself” (ASV), but the Lord is a Person, so just as faith is not the Lord, Ephesians 4:5 shows baptism is distinct from faith.

DHK's point is very obvious: Ephesians 2:8-10 says “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may |boast hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).

Very simple: we are saved "through faith" "not a result of works" -- period. Upon salvation by this faith, we are made new people, and works ordained by God, such as baptism, follow. It is very simple: if salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism. That is contrary to this passage. In this passage, good works prepared by God, such as baptism, follow from salvation by faith.

I appreciate you bringing up John 6:28-9. John 6:28-9 says “The people asked Jesus, `What are the works God wants us to do?’ Jesus answered `The work God wants you to do is this: to believe |on him whom he hath sent’” (ICB|ASV). They asked for a plurality of “works” to “do,” but Jesus had just one -- belief on Him. The Gospel of John was written to New Covenant Christians so “by believing you may have life in His name” (HCSB) per John 20:31. There is only one step in obtaining salvation -- Jesus made that clear.

There is no `easy' about this. Genuine faith described at Ephesians 2:8-10 is not easy. Acts 16:31a says “Believe on the Lord Jesus|, and you will be saved” (ASV|NASB). Following Jesus as Lord requires us to deny our own wills and submit ourselves to His will. Galatians 5:6 describes such faith as “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, |but only | the kind of faith that works through love” (NASB|ESV|ICB).

 

Tazman: to answer your question:

From post #72 to bmerr

In post #72, I cited a list of modern works that provide information on New Testament Greek, as well as on the cultural norms and common views of the New Testament era in the New Testament churches' region.

This information helps us, as modern English-speaking Americans, to know how the ancient Greek-speaking Christians of the ancient Mediterranean region would have understood those passages.

Such information is often inconvenient to Church of Christ polemicists and they prefer to downplay it.

 

Darron,

bmerr here. My apologies for being snotty. I told myself that I wasn't going to resort to sarcasm and such, but I let myself get drawn into it anyway. I haven't felt right about that post since I submitted it. I should have gone back and edited it to a blank page, but I didn't. Humanity strikes again.

That being said, let's continue the discussion.

What is the evidence of one's belief? Their works, right? Their actions. If a person believes that Jesus is the Son of God, but they never do what He commands, what good is their belief? No good at all. That's the whole point that James makes in James 2:14-26. Faith apart from works is dead, worthless, of no avail.

Heb 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith, as accepted by God, is evidence of things not seen. One's belief cannot be seen, but one's actions corresponding to that faith, can be seen.

Abraham believed God's promise to bless all nations through Isaac. Even when he was commanded to offer Isaac, Abraham still believed God's promise. But it was only after Abraham obeyed God, and offered Isaac that God said, "...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen 22:12).

In the NT, those who believed in Jesus as the Son of God were commanded to be baptized in water. When they obeyed God's command (Rom 6:17-18), they received the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), were buried and raised with Christ (Col 2:12), put on Christ (Gal 3:27), were added to the church (Acts 2:47), were, in a word, saved (Mark 16:16).

As you said, the faith which avails is

(Gal 5:6)

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr:

"In the NT, those who believed in Jesus as the Son of God were commanded to be baptized in water. When they obeyed God's command (Rom 6:17-18), they received the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), were buried and raised with Christ (Col 2:12), put on Christ (Gal 3:27), were added to the church (Acts 2:47), were, in a word, saved (Mark 16:16)."

GE:

Those who believed
were baptized in the Name of Jesus;
being co-buried and co-raised with Him;
they have put on Christ
and received the remission of sins.
Then they obeyed God's command,
and were added to the church
... were, in a word, saved.

It shows baptism is spiritual and the work of God. (Now I see I actually agree with some one on this thread who maintained baptism is not a work (of man).)

Again, I cannot find the word or concept 'water' in any of the texts you have made mention of.

 

In fact, in your own words, bmerr, "Heb 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.""

Not, 'water'.

 

What the people who claim that Salvation depends on the Baptism or Baptism is the pre-requisite for the Salvation must think about is this:

Do they baptize the unsaved people?
In our concept, Unbelieving=Unsaved.

If they baptize the believing people, then it means that the person is already saved. If the person is not believing, then they are baptizing unsaved people, then they believe that the Holy Spirit comes into the person at the moment when ther person is immersed into the water.
In that case the Holy Spirit is at the hand of the baptizer. I wonder how many centi-mter the person should be immersed into the water:wavey:

If anyone doesn't believe in the Truth, even though he or she dive into the water 10 times every morning, he or she will remain unsaved.

Think about this and find how much ridiculous that theory is.

bmerr,
If you baptize the saved ( believing ) person, you are admitting that my belief is correct.
If you baptize the unsaved ( unbeliever) person, you are baptizing non-believers.

Which one is your belief? Does Baptism make the person be born again ny Holy Spirit in that moment?
Are you separating between 2 concepts, Believing doesn't mean Saved? Someone may not be saved yet even though he/she believe, is this what you are saying?

 

GE,

bmerr here. It is true that the word "water" is not found in any of the texts I cited. However, if we keep in mind that the baptism that was to continue until the end of the world (Matt 28:20) is one that is to be adminstered by man, and turn to Acts 8:36-39, we can see that water is what the early church baptized in.

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 Phillip 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.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Phillip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water...

We can also see this in Acts 10:47-48, where Peter, who first commanded baptism in the NT, said,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

It's not necessary to specify in each account that a person hears the word, believes, repents, confesses Christ, and is baptized in water for the remission of sins. I believe the term is "synecdoche", when a part is given for the whole. The other parts are implied, or understood as being present.

Since baptism in water is the only kind that can be administered by man, it's gotta be water.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

GE,

bmerr here. When Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac, the evidence of his unseen belief in God's promise to bless the world through Isaac was his offering Isaac.

Gen 22:12 - And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Abraham was commanded to do something and he did it. Thus, his faith was made perfect by his works. They were not works of the Law, for the Law had not yet been given. They were not works of merit, since nobody in their right mind would count offering their only son as a burnt offering as a "good deed".

It was simply a work of obedience which was the evidence of his faith in God's promise.

For us in the New Testament, when someone believes the promises of the gospel, they obey the commands of the gospel, and their baptism, which can be seen, is the evidence of their belief in the redemptive offer of Christ, which cannot be seen.

GE, you seem like a pretty reasonable fellow more often than not. This isn't hard. Can you not see?

In Christ,

bmerr