How important is knowledge in getting saved?

Did the Ethiopian start to believe before Baptism or after Baptism?

 

Eli,

bmerr here. Before, but he didn't rejoice until after.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Eli,

bmerr here. One wonders why the eunuch would request baptism at all, if Phillip only preached unto him Jesus (Acts 8:35)?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Then he was saved already before Baptism.

 

Baptism is very very important for the life after Salvation. This must have been preached by Philip already.

 

That is okay bmerr. In the radical majority of the Churches of Christ, they often hardwire people into believing that everyone else desires to disobey Scripture. I am sure that this prejudice is very hard to overcome even when one knows different.

I appreciate your apology on the matter. A willingness to apologize in a religious debate is also unusual in the Churches of Christ, and you should be commended for rising above that as well.

 

Correct. I do not know a Christian without seeing the Christian's works in reflection of faith. I am a mortal.

At Acts 15:8 has “And God, who knows all hearts, gave them evidence by granting them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us” and 15:9b “He cleansed their hearts by faith” (NBV). That is God under the New Covenant. God does not need us to complete acts to be external signs for Him to know faith; He knows the heart and acts on it. In fact, in this case it was He Who gave the evidence for others.

Now, as for us mere mortals, James 2:18b says “I will show you my faith by my works” (NASB). This is an approved example. Jesus said at Matthew 7:20 “Similarly, you will know people by the deeds they do” (NBV).

A person who claims to believe that Jesus is Lord, yet disregards His commands in overall life, and/or His first command of a new convert, does not genuinely believe Him to be Lord. I call such a person an "assenter," not a believer.

 

That's quite a bold statement, But it is one that I asked you to make based on your theology. Since it was some time ago I will post the original question:

Your answer is, Yes I would have gone to Hell.

However you have a problem. In answering in that way how do you account for:
1. The drastic change in my life during those two years before my baptism.
2. The Holy Spirit bearing witness to my spirit that I was a child of God.
3. A love for the Word of God; whereas before that time I was a devout Catholic and had only read from a "Missal" and had never owned a Bible.
4. I began to spend more time with Bible-believing Christians than even my own family.
5. My thirst and hunger for the Word of God just kept growing, as did a desire to share my faith with others
6. My parents saw the change that had come over my life and wondered what had come over me. Why had I changed so much? What was the cause of it?
7. Was there any good reason if I had not been saved yet, that "God" would clean up my "foul language" and other bad habits.

How could God change such a person as I without the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit? Do you think that this was just all will power of mankind, or the power of suggestion, or what? How do you attribute all the change to my life, if I was not truly saved. How do you attribute the answers to prayer that I saw during that time.

Secondly, how does baptism bring about such changes in a person life? To my knowledge, all that baptism ever did for a person is get them wet. The molecular make up of H2O cannot change anyone spiritually.

 

Why? if after "salvation"

 

The most important job to do before Salvation is to be saved( Salvation)
After the Salvation, the Baptism is the start of all the obedience and the confirmation of what the person believes, and the declaration of the belief that the person died with Jesus Christ and is resurrected with the new person Jesus Christ. Read Romans 6 and Galatians 2:20

 

"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."

GE:

Mt28:20 says "teaching", not 'baptise'. And even had it said "baptising", it speaks of the "baptising" just before mentioned, namely, "in the Name ..." - not, 'in water / with water'.
The Apostles were the addressed, the commanded - their proclamation ('teaching') is what is going on and has been going on since AD 30 to the present, and Jesus has kept true His promise to be with them, without having missed a single occasion of the Apostles' "teaching" and the Apostles' 'baptising, being taught.
Grace is effective; it realises the presence of Christ in the heart of the believer - never failing. If we say Christ is with us until the end of the world, then we appropriate His promise spiritually. Why should it be different with His baptism?
I see it, the preaching of the Gospel, is the Congregation (us humans) doing the work of God and baptising people --- to this very day --- "in the Name of God". Not because it's our work or teaching or baptising, but that of Christ and of the Apostles.
Think about it, if we could but understand baptism in this way, there would not have been one case of churches getting at each other's throat, and no boasting or judgment, but peace and unity. And a very intimate and real presence of Christ with His disciples.

 

Darron, everything that you shared is widely accepted, however, specifically wrong.

Your theology is completely opinionated and is not sustained within Matthew 29, Mark 16, or specifically as Peter taught Acts 2:38

Any of these scripture read an most translations will not give you the understanding that you now have. just the plain scripture!

You folks cannot preach the same message without adding your own exceptions.

Where does the bible say that repentance - baptism is a work? NO WHERE! but you constantly insist that it is. I would be more than willing to believe you, but the bible is not supporting the opinions.

Have you ever deeply examined how the true early church continued with what the Apostles taught?

 

Modern works?

Lets look at some early works of Irenaeus (book one Chapter XXI) against heretics regarding baptism:

And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.

so there were heretics claiming that Jesus' baptism was NOT the regeneration of God.

There were actually heritics that taught that you were "Clean" before entering the baptismal waters

 

How did you get "not water" from that? You are making an issue where there is none.

Could the purpose of the scripture be to encourage people who believe in Christ but has NEVER physically seen him but only heard of Him through the Apostles?

Could the "Not seen" also refer to Heaven/redemption/the promised hope?

"Water"???? You are placing an issue within text that is not the issue

 

Eliyahu,

bmerr here. If baptism is not necessary for salvation, why is it important?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. I've not heard anyone teach that the denominational world desires to disobey scripture. Many in denominations have a strong desire to please God and are truly sincere in their beliefs and practice. I know lots of people in denominations who live exemplary lives in regards to morality, integrity in business, etc.

Unfortunately, these same good people often are unwilling to lay aside the man-made doctrines they and their families have been taught for the simple words of the Bible.

Well, an apology was in order given my conduct, which you rightly reproved. I make no apology for the doctrine of Christ, however. Let's continue!

In Christ,

bmerr

 

While not doubting your experiences, I would not wager everything on them either. Do you think the people that Jesus turned away in Matthew 7:22 actually lived lives that they thought would not be approved by Jesus? Most likely no, they thought they were doing right.

Jesus doesn't get into anymore detail, but one thing for sure, none of us desire to hear those words, but some of us will. But I would hate for the reason to be that I elevate my experiences above His command even such to the point that I tell others that Jesus' command of baptism really is optional and has no eternal value. Or some other opinion like that.

True, baptism without a repentant heart will not produce a forgiven changed person. Why would Jesus fogive a person who does not believe?

Baptism is the seal. Spiritually wash you clean in faith in Jesus.


Baptism is given to those who respond to the cross just as the 1st converts did. Simple.

The message
Convicted response
Repentance (mind change)
Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

Acts 2:all
John 3:6 "Born of water and the spirit" not the "Spirit then Water"
John 4:24 "Worship in Spirit and Truth"

Stop thinking separtly and start thinking collectively. (col 2:12)

 

Gerhard,

bmerr here. My point in citing Matt 28:20 was that the apostles were to teach the disciples "all things" that Jesus had commanded them, one of which was to make disciples by baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. As these things were carried on, Jesus would be with them even until the end of the world.

Something else I'd like to point out is that the phrase, "in the name of", or "into the name of" simply refers to in or into the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Like, "Stop in the name of the law", just means, "stop", which the officer is commanding, "in the authority of" the law, which the officer represents.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

You are scripturally void of the understanding of these verses, and need to take heed to the admonition of Peter who said:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

Eli,

bmerr here. I guess I missed this one. Sorry.

Baptism is described in the Bible as a burial (Rom 6:3; Col 2:12). When someone is buried, they're supposed to be dead, aren't they? You don't bury live people, do you?

However, baptism is also described in the Bible as being raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). So the old, dead man of sin is buried, and the new man rises up, having put on Christ (Gal 3:27), to walk in his new life in Christ.

If only belief were necessary, the chief rulers in John 12:42 would have been saved. Do you say that they were?

Acts 8:37 makes it quite clear that one must believe if they want to be baptized. Baptism without belief would be worthless, just as belief apart from obedience to teh command to be baptized.

You are assuming that your belief is correct. The debate is not over, Eli.

Remember that one must be born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). Don't leave half of it out. And another way to say "born again" is born of "...incorruptible seed, by the word of God..." (1 Pet 1:23). Remember when Jesus said, "...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63)?

It is the word of God that shows us the Christ in Whom we are to believe, and it is the word of God that commands us to be baptized for the remission of sins.

So the chief rulers in John 12:42 were saved? I wouldn't say that...

In Christ,

bmerr