PDA

View Full Version : Where Does The Bible Say...? (HOF thread)



Pages : [1] 2

JustAChristian
August 20th, 2004, 01:18 PM
Many people believe that as long as one accepts Christ as his or her personal savior, he or she will be saved. I ask the question, “What do they mean when one accepts Christ?? In Matthew 7:21-23, we see some people who accepted Jesus, but He never knew them. The Bible likens conversion to a marriage. In every marriage, both parties must consent to the marriage, right? Colossians 2:6 says we must accept Christ and Romans 15:7 says Christ must accept us. I ask you, "Where does the Bible make this statement? Where does it say that if one will only accept Christ as their personal savior apart from ones obedience to the Lord's commandments of faith, repentence, baptism for the remission of sins and enduring to the end of life then he or she will be saved? Hoping in the Lord to receive comments on this thread.

In Christ,
JustAChristian

Aimiel
August 20th, 2004, 01:20 PM
Good point. That'll preach again. Only those in a relationship with Him will be brought in, others will hear, "Depart from Me, I never knew you."

Lighthouse
August 20th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Those who accept Christ will be obedient. Those who claim to accept Christ and are not obedient did not accept Christ. Because accepting Christ means to accpet all He is, and everything He stands for.

LightSon
August 20th, 2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Those who accept Christ will be obedient. Those who claim to accept Christ and are not obedient did not accept Christ. Because accepting Christ means to accpet all He is, and everything He stands for.

Hey lighthouse,
Let's turn that around. Does you statement mean that those who "truly" accept Christ are never disobedient?

Lighthouse
August 20th, 2004, 08:55 PM
No, LightSon, it does not. I said that those who were completely disobedient were not accepting of the truth of God. Pay attention.

LightSon
August 20th, 2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

No, LightSon, it does not. I said that those who were completely disobedient were not accepting of the truth of God. Pay attention.

I asked a simple question to get some clarification and to be friendly. Why the attitude? Your remark of "pay attention" is a statement of your pride. Learn to be gentle and slow to speak down to others.

JustAChristian
August 21st, 2004, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Those who accept Christ will be obedient. Those who claim to accept Christ and are not obedient did not accept Christ. Because accepting Christ means to accpet all He is, and everything He stands for.

lighthouse,

Would you take this short test?

1. Do you believe the gospel account that Jesus is the Son of God? (John 8:24; Acts 15:7)

2. Have you made public confession of that belief? (Matthew 10:32-33; Rom. 10:10).

3. Have you repented of your sins. (Luke 13:3-5; Act 3:19).

4. Have you been baptized for the remission of sins? (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38).

If you feel this is not an accurate test then make the right entries.

In Christ,
JustAChristian

These are commandments from Jesus preached by his apostles

Lighthouse
August 22nd, 2004, 04:00 AM
LightSon-
I did not mean that as an insult. I apologize.

JustAChristian-
1] Yes.
2] Yes.
3] Yes
4] I've been baptized in the Spirit, but my water baptism has nothing to do with the remission of my sins. Christ's blood took care of that.

Frank Ernest
August 22nd, 2004, 05:34 AM
Matthew, Chapter 19

JustAChristian
August 22nd, 2004, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

LightSon-
I did not mean that as an insult. I apologize.

JustAChristian-
1] Yes.
2] Yes.
3] Yes
4] I've been baptized in the Spirit, but my water baptism has nothing to do with the remission of my sins. Christ's blood took care of that.

Sorry, you've failed the test! Jesus said that one must be born again of water and the spirit. You left out an essential part. Do you suppose that God will accept you in your sins? He wouldn't accept Paul (Read Acts 22:16). Do you suppose those who heard Peter and the apostles on the day of Pentecost, if they rejected their preaching (Peter and the other apostles) who said they must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, failed to heed the command that God would accept them? I don't think so! To be baptism for the remission of sins is a command of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). It is the way one gets into Christ (Galatians 3:27). We are buried and raised with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:3-5). The Bible says that Baptism also now saves us (1 Peter 3:21). You read all this and reject the commandment? How then do you contact the cleansing blood of Christ?

JustAChristian

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

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?

Acts 8:38 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.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

billwald
August 22nd, 2004, 10:15 AM
"Accepting Christ as a personal savour" is not a biblical concept.

Zakath
August 22nd, 2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by billwald

"Accepting Christ as a personal savour" is not a biblical concept. :thumb:

I've asked many an evangelical to point out where that "personal savior" passage is and not one has ever found it... :think:

Nineveh
August 22nd, 2004, 10:37 AM
"That 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. "

Christ is who saves, hence, Jesus is Savior. Can one "confess" for another? No, so that's personal. Can one "believe in" someone else's heart? No, so that is personal, too.

JustAChristian
August 22nd, 2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

"That 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. "

Christ is who saves, hence, Jesus is Savior. Can one "confess" for another? No, so that's personal. Can one "believe in" someone else's heart? No, so that is personal, too.

But what have you proven? You have not discounted my premise at all. Furthermore, your verse reference in Romans 10 was told to the church not to the sinner. This is what the Christian is to do; confess daily in our lives that Jesus is Lord and believe daily that God did in deed raise Him from the dead. Only then are we fit for the kingdom of heaven. It is a shame how many "Christians" fail to do these important acts of obedience.

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
August 22nd, 2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

:thumb:

I've asked many an evangelical to point out where that "personal savior" passage is and not one has ever found it... :think:

Zakath,

Thank you for you response. Let me continue by asking, Is it your understanding as it is mine that the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit and those who believed Peter's preaching were baptized in water in the name of Christ on the same day. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit and the same day, likely within the same hour, was baptized in water in the name of Christ. Jesus told Nicodemus that without being "born of water and of the Spirit" one can not enter this spiritual family, the church (John 3:1-8). "Born of water and of the Spirit" refers to the one new birth, accomplished when one is baptized in water according to (or, as directed by) the Holy Spirit (John 3:3-5). Holy Spirit baptism was never meant for all people. Do you see therefore,as I do that many examples are shown in Acts of people who were not Holy Spirit baptized but rejoiced in their relationship to Christ? Have a great rest of the day.

JustAChristian :angel:

Zakath
August 22nd, 2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

"That 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. "

Christ is who saves, hence, Jesus is Savior. Can one "confess" for another? No, so that's personal. Can one "believe in" someone else's heart? No, so that is personal, too. That's an awful lot of verbal gymnastics to get a simple phrase...

If it was so important why didn't Paul or even Jesus say it that way?

BTW, some non-evangelical Christians who believe in covenant theology assert that parents can "confess" for their under-age child.

Nineveh
August 22nd, 2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

But what have you proven? You have not discounted my premise at all.

Mea culpa, I was addressing billwald and Zakath really...


Furthermore, your verse reference in Romans 10 was told to the church not to the sinner.

Seriously now, would anyone be in the Body is they had not already confessed and believed?


This is what the Christian is to do; confess daily in our lives that Jesus is Lord and believe daily that God did in deed raise Him from the dead. Only then are we fit for the kingdom of heaven. It is a shame how many "Christians" fail to do these important acts of obedience.

At the time I confessed and believed, I was Baptised by the Spirit and made part of the Body. Are you saying we need to be resaved every moment?

Nineveh
August 22nd, 2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

That's an awful lot of verbal gymnastics to get a simple phrase...

Well... obviously that simple statement has escaped your (and billwald's) understanding.


If it was so important why didn't Paul or even Jesus say it that way?

Didn't Paul (dramatically hand picked by Jesus) write Romans?


BTW, some non-evangelical Christians who believe in covenant theology assert that parents can "confess" for their under-age child.

Well, fortunately, my faith isn't dictated by men :)

Zakath
August 22nd, 2004, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Well... obviously that simple statement has escaped your (and billwald's) understanding.[/'quote]Perhaps because it's not actually there...

So show me where the term "accept Jesus (or Christ) as personal savior" is used in any bible translation...

I'd be interested in seeing such a simple concept explicitly stated. So would many non-evangelical Christians...

[quote]Didn't Paul (dramatically hand picked by Jesus) write Romans?Are you saying it is in Romans?

If so, please cite chapter and verse...


Well, fortunately, my faith isn't dictated by men :) Your faith is mainly dependent on the veracity of the contents of a collection of copies of books (for which no originals appear to exist).

These copies were allegedly of books written by men (centuries ago) in one or more languages you cannot read.

The copies were then translated by other men you've never met...


It would appear to a casual observer that your faith is very dependent on and dictated by men... ;)

Nineveh
August 22nd, 2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Perhaps because it's not actually there...

Seems to say "you" and "your". Sounds rather personal.


Are you saying it is in Romans?

That verse is in Romans, yes.


Your faith is mainly dependent on the veracity of the contents of a collection of copies of books (for which no originals appear to exist).

These copies were allegedly of books written by men (centuries ago) in one or more languages you cannot read.

The copies were then translated by other men you've never met...


It would appear to a casual observer that your faith is very dependent on and dictated by men... ;)

And I am also quite content not to take "theological" understanding from an apostate turned atheist :)

Lighthouse
August 22nd, 2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Sorry, you've failed the test! Jesus said that one must be born again of water and the spirit. You left out an essential part. Do you suppose that God will accept you in your sins? He wouldn't accept Paul (Read Acts 22:16). Do you suppose those who heard Peter and the apostles on the day of Pentecost, if they rejected their preaching (Peter and the other apostles) who said they must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, failed to heed the command that God would accept them? I don't think so! To be baptism for the remission of sins is a command of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). It is the way one gets into Christ (Galatians 3:27). We are buried and raised with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:3-5). The Bible says that Baptism also now saves us (1 Peter 3:21). You read all this and reject the commandment? How then do you contact the cleansing blood of Christ?

JustAChristian
First of all, where in my post did you see me say that I was not baptized with water? I have been baptized in water. But that had nothing to do with my salvation. Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus, or was it not until he was baptized? What about the thief on the cross? There is only one baptism.


Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
I don't see that saying baptism saves you.


Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
See above.


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?
Ditto.


Acts 8:38 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.
Again, no mention of salvation.


Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And yet again.


Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Just like the rest.

JustAChristian
August 23rd, 2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

First of all, where in my post did you see me say that I was not baptized with water? I have been baptized in water. But that had nothing to do with my salvation. Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus, or was it not until he was baptized? What about the thief on the cross? There is only one baptism.


I don't see that saying baptism saves you.


See above.


Ditto.


Again, no mention of salvation.


And yet again.


Just like the rest.




First of all, where in my post did you see me say that I was not baptized with water? I have been baptized in water. But that had nothing to do with my salvation. Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus, or was it not until he was baptized? What about the thief on the cross? There is only one baptism.

I don't doubt your water baptism. I doubt your purpose in being baptized. If it was not to wash away sins (Acts 22:16) it was not for the right reason. If it was not to get into Christ (Galatians 3:27) it was not for the right reason. If it was not to receive the purchase by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28) it was not for the right reason. If it was not in order to be saved (Mark 16:16) it was not for the right reason. Etc... Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? If he was then he was saved while still retaining his sins (Acts 22:16). What about the thief on the cross? The thief on the cross was not amenable to the gospel of Christ, the New Covenant ratified at Jesus' death, (Hebrews 9:17) for he was subject to the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Law which did not specify baptism. There is indeed only one baptism. If you say that it is Holy Spirit baptism then why were you water baptized?


I don't see where baptism saves you.

You should go to 1 Peter 3:21 for that statement.


See above.

And I say "See above at 1 Peter 3:21."


Ditto.

Do I note a pattern here? Chect 1 Peter 3:21 and Mark 16:16


Again, no mention of salvation.

I hope you want continue to limited yourself so much that you will not be willing to search out the truth. I ask you to be more conscience of Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38, Acts 10: 47-48, Acts 19:1-6, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-5, and 1 Peter 3:21 as you choose to make your entries.


And yet again.

Does not this context show that Peter command the household of Cornelius to be baptized in water? Why? If they were cleansed of sins before water baptism were they still in their sins after they were baptized? Why do you suppose Peter commanded them to be baptized?


Just like the rest.

Check this verse out..."Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently" (1 Peter 1:22 AV) Isn't it showing that obedience to the truth, the gospel, is essential to purifing the soul. How did Peter tell those on Pentecost to react to the preaching of the gospel? Read Acts 2:38 for the enlightening answer. yes, baptism for the remission of sins is essential for salvation.

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
August 23rd, 2004, 04:56 PM
There is only ONE recognized baptism. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," (Eph 4:5)
There is not a spiritual baptism and a water baptism. The baptism recognized is the one instituted by Christ himself, which He said was in order to "fulfill ALL righteousness" (Mt 3:15). Even though Jesus was not baptized for the remission of sins, His baptism is the pattern for the baptism that is now recognized by God; one in which God becomes well-pleased in the one being baptized(Mt 3:17), one in which the Holy Spirit is received(Mt 3:16), one in which in its very form depicts the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus(Mt 3:16: "come UP straight way out of the WATER)--our baptism is validated by the events surrounding Christ's baptism.

JustAChristian

Nineveh
August 23rd, 2004, 05:03 PM
JAC,
Would you say Salvation could be withheld from a person who has repented if a "clergy" refused to baptise them with water?

Lighthouse
August 24th, 2004, 02:16 AM
My water baptism was a way to say that I had chosen to partake in the death and resurrection of Christ. It was not a decleration to God, it was a declaration to mankind. I made my declaration to God with my mouth, when I confessed. You're going to make me throw up. You spew venom like the viper you are.

"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sin."
-Hebrews 9:22

And none of those verses say that baptism is necessary for salvation. All they say is that when one is baptised with the intent of a declaration of faith in Christ, then they are saved. But they never say that baptism has to be a part of that declaration.

"For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord, and believe in your own heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
-Roman 10:9

Searching...searching...searching...nope! Nothing about baptism being necessary for salvation.

JustAChristian
August 25th, 2004, 07:07 AM
Baptism is the point at which a person is IN CHRIST. We are joined to the Lord at this time. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have PUT ON Christ." (Gal 3:27)

The apostle Peter ordered for converts in Cornelius' household to be baptized. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." (Acts 10:47-48)
The apostle Paul commended the believers at Rome for their baptism "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that FORM of doctrine which was delivered you."(Rom 6:17)

At Pentecost, in the midst of Peter's sermon, the adherents to his message were pricked in their hearts and asked Peter, "What shall we do?"--moved to repentance. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

Baptism is not a "good work", meaning that in baptism I am trying to earn my salvation. Baptism is the response of faith. Faith ALWAYS obeys--the "obedience OF FAITH" (Rom 16:26). In Mt 28:18ff, Jesus called for the baptism of all believers, and every TRUE believer seeks to do what pleases Jesus. Baptism is the working of faith in submissive response to the command of Jesus.

Some may say, if baptism saves us, then what about the theif on the cross? This is a special acception. Believe me, if that thief could have come down from that cross to be baptized, he would have done so! Doctrines that shape our consideration of baptism can not be shaped around this single incident. If this was a pattern for sound theology than we might as well start teaching that every person who lies will die instantly, as Ananias and Sapphira did.

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
August 25th, 2004, 01:50 PM
Was my question too long? :o

JustAChristian
August 26th, 2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

JAC,
Would you say Salvation could be withheld from a person who has repented if a "clergy" refused to baptise them with water?

Sorry for the oversight. I just missed this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I wonder why someone would withhold baptism from a requestee. If one has repented of sins and confessed Christ as the Son of God, I am sure that there is some one out there that will baptize him for the remission of sins. Every minister or elder in the Church of Christ would gladly assist that person in obeying the gospel. If you would like more direct information on who to contact please send me an e-mail. You asked if salvation would be withheld if a "clergy" refused to baptize the candidate? God is a God of mercy and grace and I believe that whatever He did would be the right thing to do but as for my understanding, yes, I do believe salvation would be withheld and for this reason. It is essential to complete all the counsel of God in obedience of faith. Cornelius was told to contect Peter in Joppa in order that he could learn what is essential to be saved. It was essential then that he obey the command to be saved in Acts 10. The Ethopian nobleman was show the essentially of being baptized immediatey or at least this is strongly suggested in Acts 8. Baptism was shown to have been done immediately after it was understood by Lydia and the Philippian jailor in Acts 16. I don't find any case where baptism was suggested to be a option or was ever delayed when it was understood by the candidate its intended purpose. I hope I have answered you question satisfactory. Have a great rest of the day.

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
August 26th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Sorry for the oversight. I just missed this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Thank you for replying :)


You asked if salvation would be withheld if a "clergy" refused to baptize the candidate? yes, I do believe salvation would be withheld and for this reason.

So men have control over who is and is not admitted into the Body?

JustAChristian
August 26th, 2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Thank you for replying :)



So men have control over who is and is not admitted into the Body?

Come let us reason together. Does man have control over who is and is not admitted into the body? Not actively for the Lord adds to the church (Acts 2:47), but the Bible does say one must obey the gospel (Romans 1:16; Hebrews 5:8-9; Romans 10:16). Entrance into the body of Christ the church is through obeying the commandment of baptism (Galatians 3:27; Col. 1:18; Acts 2:38). The same thing that saves also puts one into the body (1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-5; Acts 2:41-47; Romans 6:17). If one knows what is essential to be saved and added to the body of Christ the church, and does not do that then to him or her it is a sin (James 4:17). No one with sin shall inherit the kingdom of God in heaven(Revelation 21:27). Jesus set the paramaters of salvation. Man carries them out to the in obedience of faith (Romans 1:5). Disobedience is the only barrier for condemnation (2 Thess. 1:7-10).

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
August 26th, 2004, 05:31 PM
Men do not know the heart of other men. Let's suppose a really bad character has really repented, went through that heart changing moment of his life where he accepts Christ. He then goes to be baptised with water and the "clergy" are not compelled. Does this "cergy" control this man's admittance into the Body or not?

billwald
August 26th, 2004, 05:37 PM
"That 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. "

Then GW Bush is the personal president for every military person who was sworn in this year? And the USofA is the personal country of everyone who says the Pledge of A?

Lighthouse
August 26th, 2004, 08:56 PM
JustAChristian-
John the baptist said, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he [Jesus] who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he [Jesus] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." [Mt. 3:11] You will also find him quoted in Mark 1:7-8 and Luke 3:16. And John 1:33 also has John the Baptist stating that God told him Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

And Paul wrote: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." [Eph. 4:4-6]

And to answer why I was baptized: It was when I was younger. When I did not know Ephesians 4:4-6. But I never thought baptism saved me. I was saved before I got baptised. By at least a couple of years, if not more.

JustAChristian
August 27th, 2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Men do not know the heart of other men. Let's suppose a really bad character has really repented, went through that heart changing moment of his life where he accepts Christ. He then goes to be baptised with water and the "clergy" are not compelled. Does this "cergy" control this man's admittance into the Body or not?

In the heart of man lies many evil devices. I am sure there are "clergy" that would not perform a immersional rite, but one is not compelled to use only one "clergy." I told you earlier of those who would do that which is essential. Baptism is essential and will be done if the intendee seeks the person out that will perform it. The only person that controls entrance into the the church is Jesus (John 10:7). He says that salvation is in the church (John 10:9; Acts 2:47). Please don't limit yourself by believing a black robe and white collar defines who will be saved. God is older than black robes and white collars.

In Christ,
JustAChristian

JustAChristian
August 27th, 2004, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

JustAChristian-
John the baptist said, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he [Jesus] who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he [Jesus] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." [Mt. 3:11] You will also find him quoted in Mark 1:7-8 and Luke 3:16. And John 1:33 also has John the Baptist stating that God told him Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

And Paul wrote: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." [Eph. 4:4-6]

And to answer why I was baptized: It was when I was younger. When I did not know Ephesians 4:4-6. But I never thought baptism saved me. I was saved before I got baptised. By at least a couple of years, if not more.


John the baptist said, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he [Jesus] who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he [Jesus] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." [Mt. 3:11] You will also find him quoted in Mark 1:7-8 and Luke 3:16. And John 1:33 also has John the Baptist stating that God told him Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

I gather that you are one that believes everyone will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Will they also be baptized with fire? How will this be? When will the baptism with fire be? Were first century Christians baptized with fire? If you do not believe all Christians will be baptized with fire, then perhaps all will not be baptized with the Holy Spirit. I believe only the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit to receive power to perform as promised (Acts 1:8), and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 to convenience the Jews that salvation was being offered to the Gentiles (Acts 11:15-17). Context of Peter's discourse with the Jews seems strongly to indicate that no manifestations of the baptism with the Holy Spirit until the time of Cornelius' experience was ever seen. Wouldn't you agree? Thus, want you agree that all Christians were not baptized with the Holy Spirit?


And Paul wrote: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." [Eph. 4:4-6]

This is my understanding also. There is ONE baptism for today. This could not be HOLY SPIRIT baptism for the reason that all Christians are not shown to be baptized. Likewise, the baptism with the Holy Spirit was never to save but to instill power (Acts 1:8) and give evidence to the will of God (Acts 11L15-17).


And to answer why I was baptized: It was when I was younger. When I did not know Ephesians 4:4-6. But I never thought baptism saved me. I was saved before I got baptised. By at least a couple of years, if not more.

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved before you put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved without receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; Romans 8:9).

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved before you were united with Christ (Romans 6:3-5).

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved before you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine which is baptism (Romans 6:17).

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved while still in your sins (Acts 22:16; Romans 6:18).

Do you believe this is the case for you? Do you really believe you have been saved based on the above arguments?

JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
August 27th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian
Baptism is essential and will be done if the intendee seeks the person out that will perform it.

Either a "clergy" ( or whatever word you need to use ) has control to open and close the gates of heaven or they do not. Which is it?


The only person that controls entrance into the the church is Jesus

I think so... yet you feel the need to include a "right men perform" + Jesus.


He says that salvation is in the church

I understand Church = the Body of Christ.

Do you really believe water has the power to change a man's heart, make him repentant, and make him accept Christ?

JustAChristian
August 27th, 2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Either a "clergy" ( or whatever word you need to use ) has control to open and close the gates of heaven or they do not. Which is it?



I think so... yet you feel the need to include a "right men perform" + Jesus.



I understand Church = the Body of Christ.

Do you really believe water has the power to change a man's heart, make him repentant, and make him accept Christ?



Either a "clergy" ( or whatever word you need to use ) has control to open and close the gates of heaven or they do not. Which is it?

Let me suggest you review the commission of Matthew 28:18-20. You will see that Jesus sent his apostles into all the world to make disciples by baptizing and teaching them. The person is only performing the will of God. They have no authority beyond that commissioned by Christ. No individual other than Christ opens or closes any door into the kingdom of God as you seem to want to argue.


Do you really believe water has the power to change a man's heart, make him repentant, and make him accept Christ?

Water only acts as the medium through which the will of God is performed. It has no cleansing power of itself. It is the "burial source" in obedience. Jesus shed his blood in his death. One is united to Christ in his death through baptism. When one obeys from the heart the form of the doctrine (the fact being actual dying) then he or she is obedient to the command of Christ to be baptized (Acts 10:47-49; Acts 2:38; Acts 19:1-6). It is the act of baptism in water to contact the spiritual application of the cleansing blood that saves (Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21) and not the water. I hope you come to see this

By the way, do you check the scriptural references I give you or am I wasting my time?

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
August 27th, 2004, 03:58 PM
JAC,
"the medium through which the will of God is performed"

The Holy Spirit that Baptised me did not come through a "medium". I was alone, repentant, and humbled before a Mighty God.

"When one obeys from the heart the form of the doctrine ..."

That 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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

"It is the act of baptism in water to contact the spiritual application of the cleansing blood that saves."

This sound like outright paganism, do you realize that?

Lighthouse
August 28th, 2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

I gather that you are one that believes everyone will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Will they also be baptized with fire? How will this be? When will the baptism with fire be? Were first century Christians baptized with fire? If you do not believe all Christians will be baptized with fire, then perhaps all will not be baptized with the Holy Spirit. I believe only the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit to receive power to perform as promised (Acts 1:8), and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 to convenience the Jews that salvation was being offered to the Gentiles (Acts 11:15-17). Context of Peter's discourse with the Jews seems strongly to indicate that no manifestations of the baptism with the Holy Spirit until the time of Cornelius' experience was ever seen. Wouldn't you agree? Thus, want you agree that all Christians were not baptized with the Holy Spirit?
John the baptist was not talking to the disciples, he was talking to everyone present. And the fire he was speaking of is the fire of God. Not a physical fire. All christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire.



This is my understanding also. There is ONE baptism for today. This could not be HOLY SPIRIT baptism for the reason that all Christians are not shown to be baptized. Likewise, the baptism with the Holy Spirit was never to save but to instill power (Acts 1:8) and give evidence to the will of God (Acts 11L15-17).
Not all Christians are shown to be baptized with what? The Holy Spirit, or water?



If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved before you put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved without receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; Romans 8:9).

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved before you were united with Christ (Romans 6:3-5).

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved before you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine which is baptism (Romans 6:17).

If you were saved before you were baptized for the remission of sins then you were saved while still in your sins (Acts 22:16; Romans 6:18).

Do you believe this is the case for you? Do you really believe you have been saved based on the above arguments?

JustAChristian :angel:
Yes. I was asaved before being baptized. And, in my salvation, I put on Christ...and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

is there a reason you don't want to address Romans 10:9?

OMEGA
August 28th, 2004, 12:50 AM
People do NOT accept Jesus .

Jesus accepts and chooses them.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;

and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father

which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


Acts 24:3 We accept it always, and in all places,

most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.

OMEGA
August 28th, 2004, 12:52 AM
Lighthouse ,

What were you saved from

and what will you be saved from ?

JustAChristian
August 28th, 2004, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

JAC,
"the medium through which the will of God is performed"

The Holy Spirit that Baptised me did not come through a "medium". I was alone, repentant, and humbled before a Mighty God.

"When one obeys from the heart the form of the doctrine ..."

That 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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

"It is the act of baptism in water to contact the spiritual application of the cleansing blood that saves."

This sound like outright paganism, do you realize that?



The Holy Spirit that Baptised me did not come through a "medium". I was alone, repentant, and humbled before a Mighty God.

You may think you received a manifestation of the Holy Spirit in baptism, but let me assure you that what you received has no foundation from the New Testment. If you could find one example of Holy Spirit baptism for salvation You could expand upon your premise. However, the Holy spirit does not come to save, but came to the saved (Acts 2:38). Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit to extend power to the apostles (Acts 1:8), and to the household of Cornelius to show the Jews that salvation had come to the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-48). No one is ever shown to have been baptized with the Holy Spirit for any other reason.





"The act of baptism in water to contact the spiritual application of the blood of Christ"...This sound like outright paganism, do you realize that?

It is plainly pictured in Romans 6:3-5 as a cleansing process. While God has made the plan of cleansing and salvation available, man must take advantage of the plan in order to be saved. The evidence has been given that Jesus, the Son of God, is the atoning sacrifice. Lost man must believe in the deity of Jesus (Acts 8:37), repent of living a lifestyle of sin (Acts 17:30), confess faith in the deity of Jesus (Acts 8:37) and be baptized in order to contact the cleansing blood of Jesus and thus be saved (Acts 2:38).

God's truth reveals His love which motivated His amazing grace and mercy to man (Eph. 2:5,6). The truth makes known the possibility of salvation, or deliverance from the world (Gal. 1:4). The truth declares both the power and our access to the cleansing blood of God's Son, the sacrifice for our sins (Rom. 6:1-6). It is hardly paganism.

JustAChristian

billwald
August 28th, 2004, 11:03 AM
Primary problem is that the Bible doesn't "say" anything. It presents texts that can be interpreted in various ways, ergo the existance of denominations.

JustAChristian
August 28th, 2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by billwald

Primary problem is that the Bible doesn't "say" anything. It presents texts that can be interpreted in various ways, ergo the existance of denominations.

Oh, but the Bible does say a lot. All that it says is "truth." (John 17:17). Man comes along and denies truth for a fable (Galatians 3:1). If man would "rightly divide" truth (2 Timothy 2:15) there would not be any denominations. Man is accountable to obey (believe) the only truth which is the word of God rightly discerned (1 Thessw. 2:13). Only an unrighteous God would couse us not to know truth and to hold us accountable for that action. This is not the God that I serve through Jesus Christ.

JustAChristian :angel:

Lighthouse
August 28th, 2004, 09:25 PM
JustAChristian-
Address Romans 10:9!

Nineveh
August 29th, 2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

You may think you received a manifestation

No, in fact I don't think I had a "manifestation" in the classical pagan use of the term.


of the Holy Spirit in baptism, but let me assure you that what you received has no foundation from the New Testment.

Rather, no man had any say if my heart was repentant, if I accepted God, or if I was humble before God. This was between God and myself alone, as it is for everyone. No "clergy" lead me to Christ. The Law convicted me straight from the pages of Scripture.


If you could find one example of Holy Spirit baptism for salvation You could expand upon your premise.

Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Rather, I would say it's you that needs to provide an example of water changing a man's heart.


However, the Holy spirit does not come to save, but came to the saved (Acts 2:38).

What a coincidence! It wasn't until I was humbled and repentant that the Holy Spirit baptised me! :)


Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit to extend power to the apostles (Acts 1:8), and to the household of Cornelius to show the Jews that salvation had come to the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-48). No one is ever shown to have been baptized with the Holy Spirit for any other reason.

"John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

I further contend the Spirit was present at the first Pentecost as well.


It is plainly pictured in Romans 6:3-5 as a cleansing process. While God has made the plan of cleansing and salvation available, man must take advantage of the plan in order to be saved. The evidence has been given that Jesus, the Son of God, is the atoning sacrifice. Lost man must believe in the deity of Jesus (Acts 8:37), repent of living a lifestyle of sin (Acts 17:30), confess faith in the deity of Jesus (Acts 8:37) and be baptized in order to contact the cleansing blood of Jesus and thus be saved (Acts 2:38).

God's truth reveals His love which motivated His amazing grace and mercy to man (Eph. 2:5,6). The truth makes known the possibility of salvation, or deliverance from the world (Gal. 1:4). The truth declares both the power and our access to the cleansing blood of God's Son, the sacrifice for our sins (Rom. 6:1-6). It is hardly paganism.

Out of all that, you did not address what you said which is pagan. You are implying one can "contact the spiritual" through a "ritual". That most certainly is paganism.

billwald
August 29th, 2004, 06:09 PM
"Man is accountable to obey (believe) the only truth which is the word of God rightly discerned (1 Thessw. 2:13). Only an unrighteous God would couse us not to know truth and to hold us accountable for that action."

First problem is that no man obeys all the truth he knows because of our sin nature.

Second, then those who misinterpret the truth are not held accountable? Including Mormons?

Lighthouse
August 30th, 2004, 02:01 AM
I'm still waiting on your explanation of Romans 10:9, JAC. And what do you think Jesus meant when he said, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." [John 3:5]?

JustAChristian
August 30th, 2004, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

JustAChristian-
Address Romans 10:9!


lighthouse,
I don't do much computer work on Sunday. I don't have much time because of my worship activities. I am posting my comments on Romans 10:9 for your consideration. It is in agreement with the writer that I quote in this posting.

First of all, a better understanding of verse nine is seen when one considers the entire context in which it is contained.

"But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 10:8-11 AV)

Robert Whiteside, says, “We are told that the Jews spoke of a difficult or impossible thing as a thing afar off; an easy thing, as nigh. It was of impossible, a thing afar off, to be justified by the law of Moses. To be justified by law requires perfect obedience, and no one rendered such obedience. But the Jews expected their Messiah to be here on earth in person – to remain here. This gospel system of righteousness by faith in Christ does not demand that he be brought down from heaven; nor does it, as if he were yet in the tomb, demand that he be brought up from the dead. It does not demand, nor require, his personal presence here on earth. But what does the gospel system of righteousness by faith say? “The word is night thee?; it is not a difficult matter – not a matter afar off. On the evidence given by his inspired teachers, you believe in he heart that he is the Messiah, and confess that faith with the mouth. That is the word of faith which the apostles preached, and that is the way of righteousness through Christ. To believe in Christ is to recognize him for what he is – to put our full trust in him; to confess him is to pledge our allegiance to him. A mere lip confession is worthless; we must acknowledge him by word and deed as our Lord – our Prophet, Priest, and King, as well as our Savior. This sort of confession brings us finally to eternal life, eternal salvation." Commentary On Romans, Guardian of Truth, Foundation Publications, 420 Old Morgantown Road, Bowling Green, KY 42101. ppg 217-218

Secondly, one should always remember that the letter to the Romans was written to people who had already obeyed the gospel. It is not principally addressed to those outside of Christ and should not be used to try to proved a point unto forgiveness of sins initially.

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
August 30th, 2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm still waiting on your explanation of Romans 10:9, JAC. And what do you think Jesus meant when he said, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." [John 3:5]?

lighthouse,

This is a verse that requires one to be obedient to the gospel, the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). The fact of the new birth is stated in verse 3; here, details of it are given. There is one birth; there are two elements, “water,?and “the Spirit.? Thus, both are essential to the new birth; and the new birth is essential to entering the kingdom. What, then, is meant by being born of water and the Spirit? To enter the kingdom is to be saved (Col. 1:13,14). To be saved one must believe, repent, confess and be baptized for the remission of one's sins. Confess one’s faith in Christ and be baptized for the remission of sins. John 3:5 figuratively states what is literally affirmed in Acts 2:38. To be born “again? is simply to obey the gospel. It is not surprising that those who deny to baptism its proper place among the conditions of pardon would interpret “water? in John 3:5 to mean something other than baptism; in so doing, they are in conflict with the scholarship of the world, both ancient and modern. Henry Alford, one of the translators of the American Standard Version wrote that “all attempts to get rid? [of baptism in the passage,] “have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which the views of expositors have been warped.? One is begotten of the Spirit by believing the Word which the Spirit gave, and born of water by coming forth from the waters of baptism. Have a great rest of the day!

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
August 30th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by billwald

"Man is accountable to obey (believe) the only truth which is the word of God rightly discerned (1 Thessw. 2:13). Only an unrighteous God would couse us not to know truth and to hold us accountable for that action."

First problem is that no man obeys all the truth he knows because of our sin nature.

Second, then those who misinterpret the truth are not held accountable? Including Mormons?

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 AV)

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
August 30th, 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

No, in fact I don't think I had a "manifestation" in the classical pagan use of the term.



Rather, no man had any say if my heart was repentant, if I accepted God, or if I was humble before God. This was between God and myself alone, as it is for everyone. No "clergy" lead me to Christ. The Law convicted me straight from the pages of Scripture.



Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Rather, I would say it's you that needs to provide an example of water changing a man's heart.



What a coincidence! It wasn't until I was humbled and repentant that the Holy Spirit baptised me! :)



"John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

I further contend the Spirit was present at the first Pentecost as well.



Out of all that, you did not address what you said which is pagan. You are implying one can "contact the spiritual" through a "ritual". That most certainly is paganism.


Rather, no man had any say if my heart was repentant, if I accepted God, or if I was humble before God. This was between God and myself alone, as it is for everyone. No "clergy" lead me to Christ. The Law convicted me straight from the pages of Scripture.

The Bible tells us to "prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:21). Again, the Bible tell us that we are to know disciples based on the fruit they produce (Matthew 7:20). I know from study what the Bible says on obeying the gospel (Romans 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:8). I know it tells me to believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah (John 8:24). I know it tells me that I must repent of my sins (Luke 13:3-5). I know it tells me that I must confess Christ before man (Matthew 10:32-33). I know it tells me that I must be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38). I know it tells me that I must rise from baptism to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:5). I know that it tells me that I have to endure in faith until death or until Christ returns to receive a crown of life (Rev. 2:10). With all this, I know what is expected of me in order that God will bless me with his saving grace (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 2:11-12). My conclusion is not based on a subjective status, but a "thus saith the Lord." I can't say that I believe yours is based on a "thus saith the Lord." Would you like to prove that it is?


Faith is the evidence of things unseen. Rather, I would say it's you that needs to provide an example of water changing a man's heart.

said earlier that if you could find one example of Holy Spirit baptism for salvation you could expand upon your premise. You failed to show one single example. Instead you challenge me to show an "example of water changing a man's heart." I can not do so because water does not change one's heart. Water is the medium that God chose to exercise His cleansing and washing away of sins by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16), and it is the "tomb" of burial as one puts off the "old man of sin." (Romans 6:3-6). Remember, God sets the parameter for salvation and we must comply to that parameter.


What a coincidence! It wasn't until I was humbled and repentant that the Holy Spirit baptised me!

You do not find any example of your conclusion. The Holy Spirit is a token of salvation not the cause of salvation. One is only saved by the grace of God through faith and is cleansed of sins by the blood of Christ. Holy Spirit baptism was never meant to be the medium of salvation.


"John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

I further contend the Spirit was present at the first Pentecost as well.


As I showed earlier, Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit to extend power to the apostles (Acts 1:8), and to the household of Cornelius to show the Jews that salvation had come to the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-48). No one is ever shown to have been baptized with the Holy Spirit for any other reason. In fact, if you look closely at the conversions of Acts, you will not see the Holy Spirit in any case except that mentioned above (The apostles in order to be equipped with power from on high, and the Household of Cornelius ). The apostles transferred the gifts of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands not Holy Spirit baptism. When John told the multitude that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire, he did not intend that all would be baptized for there were Scribes and Pharisees, and sinner that would never repent within in an "all inclusive" parameter. Do you believe Jesus baptized the Scribes and Pharisees that came to John's baptism? The statement is definitely a limited measure baptism (of you – second person plural) and not all inclusive.

The converts on Pentecost received the measure Holy Spirit as a gift (Romans 8:9). They were not baptized with the Holy Spirit


God's truth reveals His love which motivated His amazing grace and mercy to man (Eph. 2:5,6). The truth makes known the possibility of salvation, or deliverance from the world (Gal. 1:4). The truth declares both the power and our access to the cleansing blood of God's Son, the sacrifice for our sins (Rom. 6:1-6). It is hardly paganism.

Then do you understand the truth revealed through the New Testament tell you to believe Jesus is the Messiah, requires you to repent of your sins, requires that you confess Jesus as the Son of God, requires you to be baptized for the remission of sins, and requires you to walk according to the precepts of the New Testament until death or Christ returns when all that are living will be changed to immortality for judgement of the "quick and the dead?"


Out of all that, you did not address what you said which is pagan. You are implying one can "contact the spiritual" through a "ritual". That most certainly is paganism.

I only showed you what the New Testament says giving scriptural references where I felt it was needed. Your conclusion is based on the measure of your heart to receive the gospel. I regret that you see the New Testament as a "ritual" . I see it as the Will of God unto salvation(Heb. 5:8-9; Eph 6:6; Heb. 10:36).

JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
August 30th, 2004, 06:09 PM
JAC,

"My conclusion is not based on a subjective status, but a "thus saith the Lord." I can't say that I believe yours is based on a "thus saith the Lord." Would you like to prove that it is? "

Faith is the evidence, is it not?

1. The Bible tells us to "prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:21)

2. the Bible tell us that we are to know disciples based on the fruit they produce (Matthew 7:20)

3. obeying the gospel (Romans 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:8)

4. I know it tells me to believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah (John 8:24)

5. I know it tells me that I must repent of my sins (Luke 13:3-5)

6. I know it tells me that I must confess Christ before man (Matthew 10:32-33)

7. I know it tells me that I must be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38)

8. I know it tells me that I must rise from baptism to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:5)

9. I know that it tells me that I have to endure in faith until death or until Christ returns to receive a crown of life (Rev. 2:10)

I know what is expected of me in order that God will bless me with his saving grace "

You listed 9 things you must "do" "in order that God will...". What is the "Gospel"? Is it those 9 things that are "expected" of you, some? All? Which ones, if not "done" will cost your Salvation?

"I said earlier that if you could find one example of Holy Spirit baptism for salvation you could expand upon your premise."

I believe the Spirit is the one Baptism Paul speaks about saying, "There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism;..."

"I can not do so because water does not change one's heart."

I know. Nor can water make one repentant, nor can it make one accept Christ.

"Water is the medium that God chose to exercise His cleansing and washing away of sins by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16),"

God doesn't need mediums. It's weird you use the term "medium" instead of "sacrament" or "symbol". I can't believe you would use that verse to support the idea God was choosing water. It's a story of events being related.

"Then do you understand the truth revealed through the New Testament tell you to believe Jesus is the Messiah, requires you to repent of your sins, requires that you confess Jesus as the Son of God, requires you to be baptized for the remission of sins, and requires you to walk according to the precepts of the New Testament until death or Christ returns when all that are living will be changed to immortality for judgement of the "quick and the dead?" "

I understand I needed to repent and accept Christ as my Savior. When I did, I was finally able to throw off the shackles of "religion". It took a while, but it's liberating to know I am not required or demanded to perform rituals for salvation, Christ is enough.

"I regret that you see the New Testament as a "ritual" . "

I regret you teach people it requires rituals to be a Christian.

Lighthouse
August 31st, 2004, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

lighthouse,
I don't do much computer work on Sunday. I don't have much time because of my worship activities. I am posting my comments on Romans 10:9 for your consideration. It is in agreement with the writer that I quote in this posting.

First of all, a better understanding of verse nine is seen when one considers the entire context in which it is contained.

"But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 10:8-11 AV)

Robert Whiteside, says, “We are told that the Jews spoke of a difficult or impossible thing as a thing afar off; an easy thing, as nigh. It was of impossible, a thing afar off, to be justified by the law of Moses. To be justified by law requires perfect obedience, and no one rendered such obedience. But the Jews expected their Messiah to be here on earth in person – to remain here. This gospel system of righteousness by faith in Christ does not demand that he be brought down from heaven; nor does it, as if he were yet in the tomb, demand that he be brought up from the dead. It does not demand, nor require, his personal presence here on earth. But what does the gospel system of righteousness by faith say? “The word is night thee?; it is not a difficult matter – not a matter afar off. On the evidence given by his inspired teachers, you believe in he heart that he is the Messiah, and confess that faith with the mouth. That is the word of faith which the apostles preached, and that is the way of righteousness through Christ. To believe in Christ is to recognize him for what he is – to put our full trust in him; to confess him is to pledge our allegiance to him. A mere lip confession is worthless; we must acknowledge him by word and deed as our Lord – our Prophet, Priest, and King, as well as our Savior. This sort of confession brings us finally to eternal life, eternal salvation." Commentary On Romans, Guardian of Truth, Foundation Publications, 420 Old Morgantown Road, Bowling Green, KY 42101. ppg 217-218

Secondly, one should always remember that the letter to the Romans was written to people who had already obeyed the gospel. It is not principally addressed to those outside of Christ and should not be used to try to proved a point unto forgiveness of sins initially.

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:
No kidding lip service doesn't do anything. That's why ther verse also says, "believe in your heart." Faith is not belief in the head, but belief in the heart. It is trust. And it is love. And in love there is obedience, but obedience is born out of faith, whch saves us...the obedience is an afterthought. And it has no bearing on our salvation.

Lighthouse
August 31st, 2004, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

lighthouse,

This is a verse that requires one to be obedient to the gospel, the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). The fact of the new birth is stated in verse 3; here, details of it are given. There is one birth; there are two elements, “water,?and “the Spirit.? Thus, both are essential to the new birth; and the new birth is essential to entering the kingdom. What, then, is meant by being born of water and the Spirit? To enter the kingdom is to be saved (Col. 1:13,14). To be saved one must believe, repent, confess and be baptized for the remission of one's sins. Confess one’s faith in Christ and be baptized for the remission of sins. John 3:5 figuratively states what is literally affirmed in Acts 2:38. To be born “again? is simply to obey the gospel. It is not surprising that those who deny to baptism its proper place among the conditions of pardon would interpret “water? in John 3:5 to mean something other than baptism; in so doing, they are in conflict with the scholarship of the world, both ancient and modern. Henry Alford, one of the translators of the American Standard Version wrote that “all attempts to get rid? [of baptism in the passage,] “have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which the views of expositors have been warped.? One is begotten of the Spirit by believing the Word which the Spirit gave, and born of water by coming forth from the waters of baptism. Have a great rest of the day!

JustAChristian :angel:
I brought this up because you said that the baptism of the Spirit was not for everyone, or for all instances of salvation. I posted this to show that it is.

Now, address this:
"Indeed, under the law almost everything was purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
-Hebrews 9:22

It is Christ's blood that is for the remission of our sins. And I have been baptized in that blood. That is the baptism that saved me.

Nineveh
August 31st, 2004, 09:34 AM
Acts 19:1-6
Paul in Ephesus

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

That seems an odd question to ask, unless one does receive the Spirit "when they believe".

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

Notice Paul asked what "baptism" they received since they didn't receive the Holy Spirit upon believing?

"John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

On hearing they needed to "believe in Christ", not the "water baptism of repentance", they were "baptized into the Name" aka the Body of Christ. I notice there is no mention of water here, only hearing what they needed to know.

When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

Of course one could argue Paul ran out and got his hands wet, but that wasn't the way baptism was done with water at that time.

JustAChristian
August 31st, 2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh



My conclusion is not based on a subjective status, but a "thus saith the Lord." I can't say that I believe yours is based on a "thus saith the Lord." Would you like to prove that it is? "

Faith is the evidence, is it not?

Quote:
1. The Bible tells us to "prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:21)

2. the Bible tell us that we are to know disciples based on the fruit they produce (Matthew 7:20)

3. obeying the gospel (Romans 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:8)

4. I know it tells me to believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah (John 8:24)

5. I know it tells me that I must repent of my sins (Luke 13:3-5)

6. I know it tells me that I must confess Christ before man (Matthew 10:32-33)

7. I know it tells me that I must be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38)

8. I know it tells me that I must rise from baptism to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:5)

9. I know that it tells me that I have to endure in faith until death or until Christ returns to receive a crown of life (Rev. 2:10)

I know what is expected of me in order that God will bless me with his saving grace "

You listed 9 things you must "do" "in order that God will...". What is the "Gospel"? Is it those 9 things that are "expected" of you, some? All? Which ones, if not "done" will cost your Salvation?

I said earlier that if you could find one example of Holy Spirit baptism for salvation you could expand upon your premise."

I believe the Spirit is the one Baptism Paul speaks about saying, "There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism;..."

"I can not do so because water does not change one's heart."

I know. Nor can water make one repentant, nor can it make one accept Christ.

"Water is the medium that God chose to exercise His cleansing and washing away of sins by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16),"

God doesn't need mediums. It's weird you use the term "medium" instead of "sacrament" or "symbol". I can't believe you would use that verse to support the idea God was choosing water. It's a story of events being related.

"Then do you understand the truth revealed through the New Testament tell you to believe Jesus is the Messiah, requires you to repent of your sins, requires that you confess Jesus as the Son of God, requires you to be baptized for the remission of sins, and requires you to walk according to the precepts of the New Testament until death or Christ returns when all that are living will be changed to immortality for judgement of the "quick and the dead?" "

I understand I needed to repent and accept Christ as my Savior. When I did, I was finally able to throw off the shackles of "religion". It took a while, but it's liberating to know I am not required or demanded to perform rituals for salvation, Christ is enough.

JAC - "I regret that you see the New Testament as a "ritual" . "

I regret you teach people it requires rituals to be a Christian.


JAC - My Latest Responses Are In Bold...

Quote:

"My conclusion is not based on a subjective status, but a "thus saith the Lord." I can't say that I believe yours is based on a "thus saith the Lord." Would you like to prove that it is? "

Faith is the evidence, is it not?

Faith is not just believing but something else. Jesus said, " Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21 AV) It is evident that there will be many at the judgement that believed but did not do the will of God unto salvation. Take the warning and do God's will.

Quote:

1. The Bible tells us to "prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:21)

2. the Bible tell us that we are to know disciples based on the fruit they produce (Matthew 7:20)

3. obeying the gospel (Romans 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:8)

4. I know it tells me to believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah (John 8:24)

5. I know it tells me that I must repent of my sins (Luke 13:3-5)

6. I know it tells me that I must confess Christ before man (Matthew 10:32-33)

7. I know it tells me that I must be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38)

8. I know it tells me that I must rise from baptism to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:5)

9. I know that it tells me that I have to endure in faith until death or until Christ returns to receive a crown of life (Rev. 2:10)

I know what is expected of me in order that God will bless me with his saving grace "

You listed 9 things you must "do" "in order that God will...". What is the "Gospel"? Is it those 9 things that are "expected" of you, some? All? Which ones, if not "done" will cost your Salvation?

I could have listed many more things that I must do in my spiritual life and service, but it is all inclusive as "God's Will." The gospel is God's power (right) unto salvation to everyone that believes; to the Jew first but also to the Gentile....(who both) shall live by faith(Romans 1:16-17). All spiritual blessing (of which salvation is included) is in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). We get into Christ when we put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27), when we are buried with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:3-5), when we are "born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:3-5). There are no spiritual blessings outside of the spiritual body of Christ the church of Christ (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 1:30). The apostles were told to preach the Gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Cor 15:1-5), a make disciples, teaching and baptizing them as a result of the gospel being preached. Which will cause a person to be lost? When one denies any portion of the will of God that person will be eternally lost. James McGarvey, a noted 19th century preacher, commenting on Matthew 7:23...

"Through life Christ appeared to them to be accepting them and approving their lives, but he now confesses that this appearance was not real. It arose from a misconception on their part and on that of others. Many works which men judge to be religious really undermine religion. The world esteems him great whose ministry begets Pharisees, but in Christ's eyes such a one is a worker of iniquity."

Quote:

"I said earlier that if you could find one example of Holy Spirit baptism for salvation you could expand upon your premise."

I believe the Spirit is the one Baptism Paul speaks about saying, "There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism;..."

Then you are practicing two baptism today, Holy Spirit and Water Baptism. This is contrary to Ephesians 4:5. You can't have two today!

Quote:

"I can not do so because water does not change one's heart."

I know. Nor can water make one repentant, nor can it make one accept Christ.

This has never been a part of my argument.

Quote:

"Water is the medium that God chose to exercise His cleansing and washing away of sins by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16),"

God doesn't need mediums. It's weird you use the term "medium" instead of "sacrament" or "symbol". I can't believe you would use that verse to support the idea God was choosing water. It's a story of events being related.

Call it what you may. Immersion is the point chosen by God that Christ's cleansing blood affects(Acts 22:16). Likewise, as has been said by James, Faucett and Brown in their Commentary on Ephesians 5:26: "As the bride passed through a purifying bath before marriage, so the Church (compare Rev. 21:2). He speaks of baptism according to its high ideal and design, as if the inward grace accompanied the outward rite; hence he asserts of outward baptism whatever is involved in a believing appropriation of the divine truths it symbolizes, and says that Christ, by baptism, has purified the Church."

Quote:

"Then do you understand the truth revealed through the New Testament tell you to believe Jesus is the Messiah, requires you to repent of your sins, requires that you confess Jesus as the Son of God, requires you to be baptized for the remission of sins, and requires you to walk according to the precepts of the New Testament until death or Christ returns when all that are living will be changed to immortality for judgement of the "quick and the dead?" "

I understand I needed to repent and accept Christ as my Savior. When I did, I was finally able to throw off the shackles of "religion". It took a while, but it's liberating to know I am not required or demanded to perform rituals for salvation, Christ is enough.

Where do you find the phraseology, "...I need to repent and accept Christ as my Savior?" What does all that mean? Sounds all too subjective to me. Jesus said, "...and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). Freedom consists in conformity to that which, in the realm of intellect, is called truth, and in the realm of morality, law. The only way in which we know truth is to obey it, and God's truth gives freedom from sin and death.

Quote:

"I regret that you see the New Testament as a "ritual" . "

I regret you teach people it requires rituals to be a Christian.

If you can show me that preaching one needs to hear the gospel, believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, repent of sin, confess Jesus as the Son of God, be immersed in water for the remission of sins and enduring in service to God through Christ is unbiblical then I will cease to preach it.

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
August 31st, 2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

No kidding lip service doesn't do anything. That's why ther verse also says, "believe in your heart." Faith is not belief in the head, but belief in the heart. It is trust. And it is love. And in love there is obedience, but obedience is born out of faith, whch saves us...the obedience is an afterthought. And it has no bearing on our salvation. Then rip Hebrews 5:8-9 out of your Bible for according to your conclusion you don't need it. Go ahead, rip it out! Rip it out!!!

Nineveh
August 31st, 2004, 02:47 PM
JAC,

"I could have listed many more things that I must do in my spiritual life and service... "

So there is even more you must do to be saved than those 9 things? Will you remain saved if you fail to do any of those things?

Then you are practicing two baptism today, Holy Spirit and Water Baptism. This is contrary to Ephesians 4:5. You can't have two today!

No, I didn't feel compelled to jump up and get wet after I repented. So I'm only practicing and promoting one baptism. Just as I only promote one Church. I hardly know you, but I know Christ, and Christ chose Paul. For spiritual guidence, I'll choose Paul's over yours.

"Call it what you may."

I don't know anyone else that refers to baptism as a "medium", you are the first I know of.

"Immersion is the point chosen by God that Christ's cleansing blood affects(Acts 22:16). "

In Acts 22:16? Paul is speaking to a crowd and you believe this is the point God "chose" a "medium"? I am truly baffled with your use of this verse to support that view, it makes no sense.

"Where do you find the phraseology, "...I need to repent and accept Christ as my Savior?"

I find the *idea* of men needing to repent and turn to God from Genesis to Revelation. I find in the NT Jesus is the Lamb prophesied who will take away the sins of the world. I see John say, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Is semantics what you want to argue?

"If you can show me that preaching one needs to hear the gospel,"

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. Rom 10:17

"believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah,"

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

"repent of sin"

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. Acts 20:21

"confess Jesus as the Son of God"

That 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. Rom 10:9

"be immersed in water for the remission of sins"

Please refer to post 56 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=584468#post584468)

"enduring in service to God through Christ"

Perhpas you could provide some verses that support this so I know what you mean by "endure".

Lighthouse
September 1st, 2004, 01:41 AM
JAC-
Does the context of Romans 9 sya that water baptism has anything to do with salvation?

JustAChristian
September 1st, 2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

JAC-
Does the context of Romans 9 sya that water baptism has anything to do with salvation?


lighthouse,

Not specifically, but neither does it directly cover repentance, does it? But, I am sure that you would agree that repentance is essencia before one can be saved. You've got to understand that Paul is addressing the church at Rome which had already obeyed baptism.

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 1st, 2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

JAC,

"I could have listed many more things that I must do in my spiritual life and service... "

So there is even more you must do to be saved than those 9 things? Will you remain saved if you fail to do any of those things?

Then you are practicing two baptism today, Holy Spirit and Water Baptism. This is contrary to Ephesians 4:5. You can't have two today!

No, I didn't feel compelled to jump up and get wet after I repented. So I'm only practicing and promoting one baptism. Just as I only promote one Church. I hardly know you, but I know Christ, and Christ chose Paul. For spiritual guidence, I'll choose Paul's over yours.

"Call it what you may."

I don't know anyone else that refers to baptism as a "medium", you are the first I know of.

"Immersion is the point chosen by God that Christ's cleansing blood affects(Acts 22:16). "

In Acts 22:16? Paul is speaking to a crowd and you believe this is the point God "chose" a "medium"? I am truly baffled with your use of this verse to support that view, it makes no sense.

"Where do you find the phraseology, "...I need to repent and accept Christ as my Savior?"

I find the *idea* of men needing to repent and turn to God from Genesis to Revelation. I find in the NT Jesus is the Lamb prophesied who will take away the sins of the world. I see John say, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Is semantics what you want to argue?

"If you can show me that preaching one needs to hear the gospel,"

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. Rom 10:17

"believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah,"

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

"repent of sin"

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. Acts 20:21

"confess Jesus as the Son of God"

That 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. Rom 10:9

"be immersed in water for the remission of sins"

Please refer to post 56 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=584468#post584468)

"enduring in service to God through Christ"

Perhpas you could provide some verses that support this so I know what you mean by "endure".



So there is even more you must do to be saved than those 9 things? Will you remain saved if you fail to do any of those things?

The nine things I listed in my post are not all inclusive of my spiritual salvation or spiritual service. The New Testament consist of 29 books in the canon of scripture. Where there are commandments (directly made, or inferred) that apply to my spiritual life then I must include them in service to the Lord. This is because I desire to do the Lord's will and not my own. (Matthew 7:21-23).


No, I didn't feel compelled to jump up and get wet after I repented. So I'm only practicing and promoting one baptism. Just as I only promote one Church. I hardly know you, but I know Christ, and Christ chose Paul. For spiritual guidence, I'll choose Paul's over yours.

You still have not shown one example of Holy Spirit baptism for salvation. What are you waiting for? Did Paul ever baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit for salvation? Did he ever baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit? Did anyone other than Jesus ever baptize in the Holy Spirit?


I don't know anyone else that refers to baptism as a "medium", you are the first I know of.

Do you understand the purpose for a medium? It is not hard to understand. The Ethiopian eunuch saw water (Acts 8:36), and understood how important, at the time, it was. So important was that body of water that he asked what prevented him from then being baptized. Philip sensed his eagerness to obey God's will. Philip said, If you believe you can be baptized. He replied, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Then they departed the chariot, both Philip and the eunuch, they both went down into the water and Philip baptized him. Straightway the eunuch came up out of the water and went on his way rejoicing. Why, because he was taught that the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:14; Acts 22:16). He knew he was now cleansed and able to celebrate by rejoicing.


In Acts 22:16? Paul is speaking to a crowd and you believe this is the point God "chose" a "medium"? I am truly baffled with your use of this verse to support that view, it makes no sense.

Yes, he is relating his conversion to a party of people. Paul is recalling his conversation at the time he was in Damascus of Syria with Ananias the preacher (Read also Acts 9). He saw the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus. He was told by the Lord to go into the city and he would be told what he must do (Acts 9:6). He had been praying for three days but was still in his sins. He was never told that he must pray into salvation, so this is not what he was told he must do. The only thing that Ananias told him that he must do is "...arise and be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16). What do you suppose Philip said to the eunuch that so caused him to seek an immediate baptism in the water by the wayside? If it wasn't so important, as so many believe, then why did he seek it so urgently?


I find the *idea* of men needing to repent and turn to God from Genesis to Revelation. I find in the NT Jesus is the Lamb prophesied who will take away the sins of the world. I see John say, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Is semantics what you want to argue?

I find the idea of men needing to repent and turn to God from Genesis to Revelation also, but that is not the question I asked. The theme of this thread is Where does it say that man needs to repent and accept Christ as their personal savior. I asked you to explain its location. You failed to deliver. Your scriptural reference(s) does not negate the need to obey the gospel in baptism for the remission of sins one bit. Paul told Timothy to "...study to show yourself approved unto God..." ( 2 Tim. 2:15). Now, if this inspired apostle meant for us to study the meanings of words, which is exactly what I believe he meant, then I believe we should debate semantics.


Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. Rom 10:17

I agree.


For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

I agree.


have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. Acts 20:21

I agree


That 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. Rom 10:9

Romans 10:9 is said to the church. The church has it command to confess Christ as Lord and believe that He has been raised from the dead but not unto salvation but while they are in salvation. It is not intended for the alien sinner. You could have referenced Matthew 10:32 which includes the alien sinner.


Please refer to post 56

I don't want to sound brash or unsympathetic, but, I am rather dissapointed with your short statement. Did Jesus say to refer to post 56? There are people who are reading our posts who what a running account of your understanding of the immediate subject. They don't want to be told to check post 56. You should have given a courteous entry of your understanding of "be immersed in water for the remission of sins", not ask me and others to refer to post 56.


"enduring in service to God through Christ"


Perhpas you could provide some verses that support this so I know what you mean by "endure".

Endure and being faithful until death are two terms used in the NT and are synonymous with each other. (See Matthew 24:13, 2 Thess. 1:4, 2 Tim. 2:3, James 5:11 and Rev. 2:10 for my meaning).

In all sincerity I insert my opening statement to this thread...

Many people believe that as long as one accepts Christ as his or her personal savior, he or she will be saved. I ask the question, “What do they mean when one accepts Christ?? In Matthew 7:21-23, we see some people who accepted Jesus, but He never knew them. The Bible likens conversion to a marriage. In every marriage, both parties must consent to the marriage, right? Colossians 2:6 says we must accept Christ and Romans 15:7 says Christ must accept us. I ask you, "Where does the Bible make this statement? Where does it say that if one will only accept Christ as their personal savior apart from ones obedience to the gospel on matters of faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins and enduring to the end of life he or she will be saved? How may one be saved and not obey the gospel on matters of salvation?

JustAChristian


I will be away from this thread for a week or so. I will not have access to a computer. I have urgent business in Missouri from my home in Tennessee. Please keep me and my family in your prayers while we are away. I hope to post again by the 11th of September.

JustAChristian
September 1st, 2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Acts 19:1-6
Paul in Ephesus

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

That seems an odd question to ask, unless one does receive the Spirit "when they believe".

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

Notice Paul asked what "baptism" they received since they didn't receive the Holy Spirit upon believing?

"John's baptism," they replied. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

On hearing they needed to "believe in Christ", not the "water baptism of repentance", they were "baptized into the Name" aka the Body of Christ. I notice there is no mention of water here, only hearing what they needed to know.

When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

Of course one could argue Paul ran out and got his hands wet, but that wasn't the way baptism was done with water at that time.

Paul was at Ephesus, Apollos having departed to Corinth. While there he met these disciples of Apollos who at an earlier time only knew the baptism of John. Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. The Holy Spirit become an inward manifestation to all baptized believer of the baptism of Christ (Acts 2:38; Romans 8:9). Since they had not known that there was a Holy Spirit to indwell them Paul reasoned that they had not been baptized with the baptism of the commission of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). He baptized them the baptism for the remission of sin. (Acts 10:43). He then imparted the gift measure of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands as did Peter and John of Acts 8:14-17. It is simple when you understand that the gift of the Holy Spirit is for all as a surity of our salvation in Christ (Eph. 1:13-14).

JustAChristian :angel:

Good Night!! Back on or about the 11th of Sept.

Lighthouse
September 1st, 2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

lighthouse,

Not specifically, but neither does it directly cover repentance, does it? But, I am sure that you would agree that repentance is essencia before one can be saved. You've got to understand that Paul is addressing the church at Rome which had already obeyed baptism.

JustAChristian :angel:
Repentance is an effect of salvation. It comes afterward.

Lovejoy
September 1st, 2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Repentance is an effect of salvation. It comes afterward.

Is this a total depravity discussion, in which faith and repentance have to come from God? I have always found this line of discussion very interesting, and have not come to a conclusion of my own. Perhaps Luther was right, perhaps not. It has always seemed a good explanation of the "elect".

Lighthouse
September 2nd, 2004, 12:30 AM
I don't believe that faith comes from God. I just believe that repentance is an effect of salvation. Or an effect of faith. Salvation comes beofer repentance. God's grace and love effects His children...causing them to obey [morally]. For in the Spirit there is no sin, therefore, if you are in the Spirit there is no sin in you.

Nineveh
September 2nd, 2004, 12:32 PM
JAC,
"The nine things I listed in my post are not all inclusive of my spiritual salvation or spiritual service. "

That's why I asked which ones are necessary and/or which ones might cost you salvation. Care to share at this point?

"Do you understand the purpose for a medium? "

Yes, I do. I used to be a pagan

"Yes, he is relating his conversion to a party of people. "

Yes, that "he" is Paul, not introducing anything new to the crowd. Baptisms roots are much older than Paul.

"I find the idea of men needing to repent and turn to God from Genesis to Revelation also, but that is not the question I asked. '

I'm not going to argue semantics.

"Romans 10:9 is said to the church."

"The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That 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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

"Endure and being faithful until death are two terms used in the NT and are synonymous with each other."

Being faithful, as in? Enduring, as in?

"Since they had not known that there was a Holy Spirit to indwell them Paul reasoned that they had not been baptized with the baptism of the commission of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). He baptized them the baptism for the remission of sin. "

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

"No..."

"Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism"

"John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

What you "reason" and what the Bible says aren't the same.

I will keep you in my prayers, be safe :)

LightSon
September 4th, 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

LightSon-
I did not mean that as an insult. I apologize.

JustAChristian-
1] Yes.
2] Yes.
3] Yes
4] I've been baptized in the Spirit, but my water baptism has nothing to do with the remission of my sins. Christ's blood took care of that.

lighthouse,
I did take it as an insult. I haven't been on much lately and have gotten thin skin. I accept your apology :) and my heart is made glad.

And you answered JustAChristian's questions correctly! :up:

LightSon
September 4th, 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by billwald

"Accepting Christ as a personal savour" is not a biblical concept.

It is a Biblical concept. I have a ways to go to catch up in this thread and am sure others will cover the issue better than I could.

Yes it is "conventional" in a sense, just like "asking Jesus to come into your heart." So in a technical sense you may have a point.
Nevertheless:
Jesus is my savior.
I must to believe in Him (hence "accept Him" as it were the premise).
His is my savior.
And His salvation is applied to me personally (i.e. individually) and not as a function of joining some manmade group.
Surely you accept these points?

Delmar
September 4th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Those who accept Christ will be obedient. Those who claim to accept Christ and are not obedient did not accept Christ. Because accepting Christ means to accpet all He is, and everything He stands for. Not trying to start a fight here but it would seem to me that a lot of Christians have a pretty limited understanding of all Christ is.

Lighthouse
September 5th, 2004, 12:33 AM
If you accept Christ into your life, and He lives in you, then you have accepted all He is, even if you don't know what that "all" is. But, for the sake of understanding, I meant accepting all we do know [all that is offered us in His word].

JustAChristian
September 9th, 2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Repentance is an effect of salvation. It comes afterward.

I'm back!!!!!!!!!!



Poor exegesis to say that repentance comes after salvation. Peter said, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins? in Acts 2:38. Likewise, in Acts 3:19 he commanded the listeners to “repent and be converted that your sins might be blotted out? In the matter of a child of God sinning within his salvation, one needs to repent when they do sin as in Simon’s case (Acts 8:22), but one needs to understand that unless there was initial repentance of the heart when sins wefirst washed away (Acts 22:16) there is no salvation.

JustAChristian :angel:

“...(Paul and Silas ) showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.? (Acts 26:20 AV)

Aimiel
September 9th, 2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I don't believe that faith comes from God. I believe it does, because of this scripture: "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." I don't believe that anyone is 'left out' of that dealing out from The Lord of their faith, but that some take it lightly, duck it or otherwise discount it.

JustAChristian
September 9th, 2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

JAC,
"The nine things I listed in my post are not all inclusive of my spiritual salvation or spiritual service. "

That's why I asked which ones are necessary and/or which ones might cost you salvation. Care to share at this point?

"Do you understand the purpose for a medium? "

Yes, I do. I used to be a pagan

"Yes, he is relating his conversion to a party of people. "

Yes, that "he" is Paul, not introducing anything new to the crowd. Baptisms roots are much older than Paul.

"I find the idea of men needing to repent and turn to God from Genesis to Revelation also, but that is not the question I asked. '

I'm not going to argue semantics.

"Romans 10:9 is said to the church."

"The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That 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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

"Endure and being faithful until death are two terms used in the NT and are synonymous with each other."

Being faithful, as in? Enduring, as in?

"Since they had not known that there was a Holy Spirit to indwell them Paul reasoned that they had not been baptized with the baptism of the commission of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). He baptized them the baptism for the remission of sin. "

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

"No..."

"Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism"

"John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

What you "reason" and what the Bible says aren't the same.

I will keep you in my prayers, be safe :)

Thanks to all who kept us in your prayers. It is great to be baxk home.

Where does the bible say that one should or must accept Jesus as their "personal savior?" Many use this expression and discount the real important thing which is obedience to the gospel (Romans 1:16; Romans 10:16). They believe and teach that the Holy Spirit is effective in salvation when the bible speaks nothing to this. They believe that repentance comes after salvation when the bible plainly teaches that one must repent before baptism (Acts 2:38; 3:19). In fact, they fail to give water baptism its proper place at all.

Are we baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in water or the Spirit? Everyone understands that Jesus was referring to water baptism when He commanded the apostles to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..." (Matthew 28:19-20). When Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, we should not be surprised to see Peter commanding water baptism in the name of the Son.

In Acts 8, we are told of Philip teaching the Samaritans
about Jesus. In verse twelve, the Samaritans were baptized when they believed what Philip taught. Later in the text
we can read, "Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:14-17). Notice why Peter and John prayed for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus!
Baptism "in the name of the Lord" cannot be Spirit baptism, otherwise the apostles would not have had to come to Samaria to lay their hands on them so they could receive the Spirit! The only alternative is that baptism "in the name of the Lord" is water baptism, and Peter taught that we are to be baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. In Acts 19, the apostle Paul met twelve men in Ephesus who had only been baptized into John's baptism. He taught them about Jesus and
we are told, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied" (Acts 19:5-6).

Once again, we need to notice the order of events. The twelve disciples of Apollos were first baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus," and afterwards, the apostle Paul laid his hands on them so they could receive the Holy Spirit. If baptism "in the name of the Lord" is Spirit baptism, then why did Paul have to lay his hands on them and give them the Spirit? The claim that baptism "in the name of the Lord" is Spirit baptism is false. Baptism for the remission of sins in the name of the Lord can only be water baptism. Those who argue that it is Holy Spirit baptism are refusing to accept the plain simple words of an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ.

I trust you will not be quick now to discount the purpose of water baptism and will continue to study the subject.

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 9th, 2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

If you accept Christ into your life, and He lives in you, then you have accepted all He is, even if you don't know what that "all" is. But, for the sake of understanding, I meant accepting all we do know [all that is offered us in His word].


James 1:22 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves."

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 9th, 2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by LightSon

lighthouse,
I did take it as an insult. I haven't been on much lately and have gotten thin skin. I accept your apology :) and my heart is made glad.

And you answered JustAChristian's questions correctly! :up:



And you answered JustAChristian's questions correctly!

How do you figure that? He has denied the written word!

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 9th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I brought this up because you said that the baptism of the Spirit was not for everyone, or for all instances of salvation. I posted this to show that it is.

Now, address this:
"Indeed, under the law almost everything was purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."
-Hebrews 9:22

It is Christ's blood that is for the remission of our sins. And I have been baptized in that blood. That is the baptism that saved me.

Romans 6:3-5 alludes to what you have said. We are united into the death of Christ, where he shed his blood, when we are baptized into him. It is the blood of Christ that covers our sins. It can not be attained outside of immersion (Acts. 22:16). It is my mission to get this message into all the world.

In Christ,
JustAChristian

Lighthouse
September 10th, 2004, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

I'm back!!!!!!!!!!



Poor exegesis to say that repentance comes after salvation. Peter said, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins? in Acts 2:38. Likewise, in Acts 3:19 he commanded the listeners to “repent and be converted that your sins might be blotted out? In the matter of a child of God sinning within his salvation, one needs to repent when they do sin as in Simon’s case (Acts 8:22), but one needs to understand that unless there was initial repentance of the heart when sins wefirst washed away (Acts 22:16) there is no salvation.

JustAChristian :angel:

“...(Paul and Silas ) showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.? (Acts 26:20 AV)
Repentance is an effect of grace. Salvation is by grace. Because the Spirit is in us, we repent of our disobedience. All we repent of, initially, is our unbelief. Thenm by grace, we live in repentance.

Lighthouse
September 10th, 2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

I believe it does, because of this scripture: "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." I don't believe that anyone is 'left out' of that dealing out from The Lord of their faith, but that some take it lightly, duck it or otherwise discount it.
I meant initial belief. I was actually just arguing against the idea of "election."

Lighthouse
September 10th, 2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

James 1:22 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves."

JustAChristian
:liberals::confused:

Lighthouse
September 10th, 2004, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

How do you figure that? He has denied the written word!

JustAChristian :angel:
What do I deny?

JustAChristian
September 10th, 2004, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Repentance is an effect of grace. Salvation is by grace. Because the Spirit is in us, we repent of our disobedience. All we repent of, initially, is our unbelief. Thenm by grace, we live in repentance.

Then it is obvious that an inspired apostle of Christ did not understand that repentance comes after salvation, when he preached on Pentecost for them to "Repent and be baptized for (in order to) the remission of sins", if repentance comes after or as a result of grace and salvation. You need to sustain your premise with a scriptural passage. I have mine here: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."-- 2 Cor. 7:10. Also, I do affirm that salvation is by grace through faith. However it is not by grace that we live in repentance. God does not cause us to remain in repentance but gives us free will to act as we so desire.

JustAChristian

Aimiel
September 10th, 2004, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I meant initial belief. I was actually just arguing against the idea of "election." The Bible says that every good and perfect gift comes from above. I don't believe that anyone has anything that's worth keeping that didn't come from God. He gives the measure of faith to every man, and that would include their 'initial' beliefs. We wouldn't even come to Him, except He draw us. We wouldn't believe that He existed, except He gives us the faith to do so.

JustAChristian
September 10th, 2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

What do I deny?


I've been baptized in the Spirit, but my water baptism has nothing to do with the remission of my sins. Christ's blood took care of that.

Here, you affirm that you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. I deny that to be true. Jesus does not baptize anyone today with the Holy Spirit. The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism was to give power to the apostles to do their work...

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Acts 1:8

...and to show the Jews that Gentiles were accepted into the fellowship of Christians...

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them (the Gentile family of Cornelius, JAC), as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" Acts 11:15-17

Further, you deny that water baptism has nothing to do with remission of sins. You fail to understand and accept Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; or 1 Peter 3:21 all of which teach remission of sins, cleansing of sins and salvation from sins through water baptism.

You are correct to say that Christ's blood cleansing and takes away sins, but at what point and where has God made the seperation? It is in baptism for the remission of sins.

JustAChristian :angel:

Aimiel
September 10th, 2004, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Here, you affirm that you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. I deny that to be true. Jesus does not baptize anyone today with the Holy Spirit. The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism was to give power to the apostles to do their work...Then why were others baptized, and not just the twelve?
...and to show the Jews that Gentiles were accepted into the fellowship of Christians...

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them (the Gentile family of Cornelius, JAC), as on us at the beginning. Then why aren't the Jews of today seeing this and repenting. Did God simply respect first-century Jews more than those of today? Has He forgotten how to baptize people with The Holy Ghost? Did He take back The Gift that He gave? Is it because we're not good enough?
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" Acts 11:15-17Well, what are you, JaC, that YOU withstand God? If He chooses to fill with His Holy Spirit someone who has been sprinkled, dunked or (Heaven forbid) not baptized at all, why should you resist The Hand of God? Do you enjoy the idea of possibly waking up one day and desiring to tear off your clothes and crawl around in your yard and eat grass? Don't you see the handwriting on the wall? You're 'holier-than-thou' attitude is hated by God, and you have become a stench in His Nose!!! :nono:

JustAChristian
September 10th, 2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Then why were others baptized, and not just the twelve?Then why aren't the Jews of today seeing this and repenting. Did God simply respect first-century Jews more than those of today? Has He forgotten how to baptize people with The Holy Ghost? Did He take back The Gift that He gave? Is it because we're not good enough?Well, what are you, JaC, that YOU withstand God? If He chooses to fill with His Holy Spirit someone who has been sprinkled, dunked or (Heaven forbid) not baptized at all, why should you resist The Hand of God? Do you enjoy the idea of possibly waking up one day and desiring to tear off your clothes and crawl around in your yard and eat grass? Don't you see the handwriting on the wall? You're 'holier-than-thou' attitude is hated by God, and you have become a stench in His Nose!!! :nono:

Aimiel

I am happy to answer your questions.




Then why were others baptized, and not just the twelve?

As I have pointed out, the only other than the twelve that received the baptism with the Holy Spirit was the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) some ten years after Pentecost. You will find no evidence or implication that anyone else was baptized. The apostles did convey the Spirit with the laying on of their hands on many but that was not baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6). Can you see the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8 having received Holy Spirit baptism? Do you even see or understand if he even knew anything about Holy Spirit baptism? Find someone in the New Testament that received Holy Spirit baptism for the remission of sins or for salvation and I have no argument.


Then why aren't the Jews of today seeing this and repenting. Did God simply respect first-century Jews more than those of today? Has He forgotten how to baptize people with The Holy Ghost? Did He take back The Gift that He gave? Is it because we're not good enough?

“Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.? (Isaiah 6:10 AV)

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4 AV)

These two verses show plainly that the Jews as a whole would not hear the gospel of Christ. They had hardened their hearts to the gospel. Why? For many reasons. Jesus was not their image of Messiah was the primary reason, I believe. However, a remnant did accept Christ in the first century and continued to accept throughout history and today.


Well, what are you, JaC, that YOU withstand God? If He chooses to fill with His Holy Spirit someone who has been sprinkled, dunked or (Heaven forbid) not baptized at all, why should you resist The Hand of God? Do you enjoy the idea of possibly waking up one day and desiring to tear off your clothes and crawl around in your yard and eat grass? Don't you see the handwriting on the wall? You're 'holier-than-thou' attitude is hated by God, and you have become a stench in His Nose!!!

It is not my intent to present a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I didn't think that was what I may have conveyed. I appreciate your question, but may I ask you, Who in the NT or OT has God filled with the Holy Spirit that was not first of all His spiritual child? Do you not imply that God puts the Spirit in those that He chooses in order that He may save them. Is that not right? If that is your understanding then what is the purpose of preaching the gospel? (Read Romans 1:16; Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). Again, I request that you or anyone to show one convert to Christ that was baptized with the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. Show us one and I have no argument.

InChrist,
JustAChristian

Aimiel
September 10th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

As I have pointed out, the only other than the twelve that received the baptism with the Holy Spirit was the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) some ten years after Pentecost. You will find no evidence or implication that anyone else was baptized. I find plenty of implication in Acts 1--2 that at least 120 were baptized when The Holy Ghost was first poured out. I also find evidence of Him in His Word, as well as in my life, being Spirit-filled, myself. Jesus said that our Heavenly Father knows how to give Good Gifts to them that ask Him, and I asked Him.
The apostles did convey the Spirit with the laying on of their hands on many but that was not baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6).Yes, it was.
Can you see the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8 having received Holy Spirit baptism? Do you even see or understand if he even knew anything about Holy Spirit baptism? I believe he might have, but we aren't told whether or not that ever happened to him.
Find someone in the New Testament that received Holy Spirit baptism for the remission of sins or for salvation and I have no argument.I've never said that is His Purpose, or that anyone did any such nonsense. Where did you get that?
Who in the NT or OT has God filled with the Holy Spirit that was not first of all His spiritual child?No one I've ever read (or heard) about.
Do you not imply that God puts the Spirit in those that He chooses in order that He may save them. Is that not right?I believe that it is His Purpose to draw us to Himself, and those that respond to that drawing are different. Some allow Him to work them on His Wheel (He's The Master Potter) and mature them, more than others allow. This results from the amount of hunger that He gives to us. Those redeemed from much will love much.

The baptism in The Holy Ghost is not for salvation, it is for sanctification. He gives much more personal guidance and direction to those who are open to this baptism, and will fill them, if they only believe Him for it. I have seen many who have never even heard of Holy Spirit Baptism become filled, without even being water baptized. God is not a legalist, since all things are legal to believers. We are under the perfect law of liberty. The Spirit of The Lord is still The One that spreads the only Perfect Liberty.

JustAChristian
September 10th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

I find plenty of implication in Acts 1--2 that at least 120 were baptized when The Holy Ghost was first poured out. I also find evidence of Him in His Word, as well as in my life, being Spirit-filled, myself. Jesus said that our Heavenly Father knows how to give Good Gifts to them that ask Him, and I asked Him.Yes, it was.I believe he might have, but we aren't told whether or not that ever happened to him.I've never said that is His Purpose, or that anyone did any such nonsense. Where did you get that?No one I've ever read (or heard) about.I believe that it is His Purpose to draw us to Himself, and those that respond to that drawing are different. Some allow Him to work them on His Wheel (He's The Master Potter) and mature them, more than others allow. This results from the amount of hunger that He gives to us. Those redeemed from much will love much.

The baptism in The Holy Ghost is not for salvation, it is for sanctification. He gives much more personal guidance and direction to those who are open to this baptism, and will fill them, if they only believe Him for it. I have seen many who have never even heard of Holy Spirit Baptism become filled, without even being water baptized. God is not a legalist, since all things are legal to believers. We are under the perfect law of liberty. The Spirit of The Lord is still The One that spreads the only Perfect Liberty.


I find plenty of implication in Acts 1--2 that at least 120 were baptized when The Holy Ghost was first poured out. I also find evidence of Him in His Word, as well as in my life, being Spirit-filled, myself. Jesus said that our Heavenly Father knows how to give Good Gifts to them that ask Him, and I asked Him.

It is alleged by some that the 120 also received Holy Ghost baptism in Acts 1--2, and they argue for a wide basis of baptism in the Holy Ghost. But the persons assembled together in Acts 2 that were filled with the Holy Spirit were not, as some have supposed, the one hundred and twenty disciples mentioned in a parenthesis in the previous chapter (Acts 1:15), but the twelve apostles. This is made certain by the grammatical connection between the first verse of chapter two and the last of the preceding. Taken together they read as follows: "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." This is also seen in Acts 2:14, "But Peter, standing up with the eleven..."


Yes, it was.

Peter remembered saying, “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.? Unless you can prove that Jesus conveyed the power to baptize with the Holy Spirit to the apostles and that laying on of hands was the same then you are only assuming which is not proof. No where does Jesus tell the apostles that they too will baptize with the Holy Spirit.


I believe he might have, but we aren't told whether or not that ever happened to him.

It is your premise that he was, isn’t it? But, now you want everyone to be sidetracked with assumption. Either prove your premise or drop it.



I've never said that is His Purpose, or that anyone did any such nonsense. Where did you get that?

You had earlier said, “Then why aren't the Jews of today seeing this and repenting. Did God simply respect first-century Jews more than those of today? Has He forgotten how to baptize people with The Holy Ghost? Did He take back The Gift that He gave? Is it because we're not good enough?? This clearly infers that you believed that Holy Spirit baptism has affect towards remission of sins. Do you believe or not believe Holy Spirit baptism was for the remission of sins? If not, then what baptism was Peter speaking of in Acts 2:38?



No one I've ever read (or heard) about.

You said earlier, “...If He chooses to fill with His Holy Spirit someone who has been sprinkled, dunked or (Heaven forbid) not baptized at all, why should you resist The Hand of God?? You clearly say that God has potential to instill anyone with the Holy Spirit even the unsaved. However, the gift of the Holy Spirit (not the baptism) was given to the saved (Acts 2:38- 47).



I believe that it is His Purpose to draw us to Himself, and those that respond to that drawing are different. Some allow Him to work them on His Wheel (He's The Master Potter) and mature them, more than others allow. This results from the amount of hunger that He gives to us. Those redeemed from much will love much.

The baptism in The Holy Ghost is not for salvation, it is for sanctification. He gives much more personal guidance and direction to those who are open to this baptism, and will fill them, if they only believe Him for it. I have seen many who have never even heard of Holy Spirit Baptism become filled, without even being water baptized. God is not a legalist, since all things are legal to believers. We are under the perfect law of liberty. The Spirit of The Lord is still The One that spreads the only Perfect Liberty.

You said, “The baptism in The Holy Ghost is not for salvation, it is for sanctification.? However, the text of John’s gospel has Jesus saying,?Santify them through thy truth thy word is truth.? So, by Jesus’ own words we see that God’s truth or word is the sanctifying agent and not the Holy Spirit. It is the fact though that the Holy Spirit was the guide into truth for the apostles (John 16:13). Further you say, “He gives much more personal guidance and direction to those who are open to this baptism, and will fill them, if they only believe Him for it.? To this I say, Pure assertion without scriptural basis. Still further you say, “I have seen many who have never even heard of Holy Spirit Baptism become filled, without even being water baptized.? All to which I say, Show one person from the scriptures that was “filled? with the Holy Spirit that was not first a child of God and I have no argument. The Holy Spirit does not work in that way.


JustAChristian :angel:

"...In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (2 Timothy 2:25-26 AV)

Aimiel
September 10th, 2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

This is also seen in Acts 2:14, "But Peter, standing up with the eleven..."I don't think that the other 108 would have any desire, inclination or nearly enough knowledge to wish to stand up in front of strangers and speak about something which is so new and easily mis-understood by the most experienced of believers. I know when I was filled, I didn't have the first clue of what was happening, other than the fact that I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was God, because I had asked Him for this baptism, only a few moments before, and I was totally alone in my living room, at about 1:30 AM. I wasn't expecting anything like what happened, and didn't (for some time) know what to think or how this might effect my life or ministry.
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Unless you can prove that Jesus conveyed the power to baptize with the Holy Spirit to the apostles and that laying on of hands was the same then you are only assuming which is not proof. No where does Jesus tell the apostles that they too will baptize with the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that anyone 'baptizes' with The Holy Spirit, except God. We minister, by the laying on of hands, which is obedience to Him, praying and believing God. He always responds to faith.
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Do you believe or not believe Holy Spirit baptism was for the remission of sins?I do not, I have never said or meant to imply that I do. His duty and purpose (IMHO) is to convict, and then (in Spirit-filled believers) to lead, guide and direct us in all Truth. If you look at my signature, you'll see that God leads us by His Eye. The Holy Spirit 'brooded' upon the face of the deep before creation. He is The Eye.
Originally posted by JustAChristian

If not, then what baptism was Peter speaking of in Acts 2:38?Water. The Gift is His Presence, inside. Jesus said (to believers) that He was already 'with' them, but would (soon) be 'in' them. He meant that, after Pentecost, they would be 'filled' or baptized in His Presence.
Originally posted by JustAChristian

You clearly say that God has potential to instill anyone with the Holy Spirit even the unsaved. No, I clearly didn't say or mean to imply and don't believe that anyone who is an un-believer can be filled with God's Presence. He has (to my knowledge) never filled anyone with The Holy Ghost who was not first a believer. I have seen them get saved, and speak in tongues instantly. The Power of God is awesome, and many who are convicted often repent and become filled right away.
Originally posted by JustAChristian

However, the gift of the Holy Spirit (not the baptism) was given to the saved (Acts 2:38- 47).Amen and amen. He is The Earnest of our inheritance.
Originally posted by JustAChristian

You (Aimiel) said, “The baptism in The Holy Ghost is not for salvation, it is for sanctification.? However, the text of John’s gospel has Jesus saying,?Santify them through thy truth thy word is truth.? So, by Jesus’ own words we see that God’s truth or word is the sanctifying agent and not the Holy Spirit. Yes, that is one part of what God can use to bring some sanctification to men, but I believe that you're limiting God. Maybe you should read just a few more Scriptures:

1 Thessalonians 5:23
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

1 Peter 1:2
...who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

After reading those, carefully, do you still wish to say that sanctification ONLY comes from The Word of God? Why are you so quick to jump on a simple printed page, which men have learned to twist to their own use, by careful manipulation of demons over centuries of plotting and much spiritual warfare and bloodshed? Why not believe that God's Spirit is still alive and that He is Omniscient and is perfectly capable of filling and indwelling believers, as He wills? He is, by the way, whether you believe that He is or not.
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Further you (Aimiel) say, “He gives much more personal guidance and direction to those who are open to this baptism, and will fill them, if they only believe Him for it.? To this I say, Pure assertion without scriptural basis.Really? No Scriptural basis? Assertion? Do you believe that He gives The Holy Spirit to those who are saved but don't want to be filled? He doesn't work like that. That would be forcing Himself upon us, and He is A Perfect Gentleman. He is Good, and there is not even a shadow of turning in Him. Here is a Scripture, which provides a base for believing that you have to ask to receive:

Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Still further you (Aimiel) say, “I have seen many who have never even heard of Holy Spirit Baptism become filled, without even being water baptized.? All to which I say, Show one person from the scriptures that was “filled? with the Holy Spirit that was not first a child of God and I have no argument.Apparently you are a 'legalist' and don't believe that someone is saved until they are baptized in water. I don't believe that God places us back under the law, after liberating us from it with His Own Blood. We're saved by grace, through faith, not by works or any other formula that you or anyone else might hold to because of your dogma.
Originally posted by JustAChristian "...In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (2 Timothy 2:25-26 AV) Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Daniel50
September 10th, 2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Many people believe that as long as one accepts Christ as his or her personal savior, he or she will be saved. I ask the question, “What do they mean when one accepts Christ?? In Matthew 7:21-23, we see some people who accepted Jesus, but He never knew them. The Bible likens conversion to a marriage. In every marriage, both parties must consent to the marriage, right? Colossians 2:6 says we must accept Christ and Romans 15:7 says Christ must accept us. I ask you, "Where does the Bible make this statement? Where does it say that if one will only accept Christ as their personal savior apart from ones obedience to the Lord's commandments of faith, repentence, baptism for the remission of sins and enduring to the end of life then he or she will be saved? Hoping in the Lord to receive comments on this thread.

In Christ,
JustAChristian

Jn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name:

Galatians
3:26For you are all children of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. 3:27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 3:28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 3:29If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise.

Lighthouse
September 11th, 2004, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Then it is obvious that an inspired apostle of Christ did not understand that repentance comes after salvation, when he preached on Pentecost for them to "Repent and be baptized for (in order to) the remission of sins", if repentance comes after or as a result of grace and salvation. You need to sustain your premise with a scriptural passage. I have mine here: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."-- 2 Cor. 7:10. Also, I do affirm that salvation is by grace through faith. However it is not by grace that we live in repentance. God does not cause us to remain in repentance but gives us free will to act as we so desire.

JustAChristian
there is initial repentance that appears to be before salvation, but you can't really call it repentance, until you have actually not done the sins you used to do... And salvation is given to those who have made the decision to repent. Before they actually live in that repentance. And once you are in Christ, you live in repentance. Living in repentance is a reaction to God's grace and love. And that love effects us in a way that we return it. God's love causes us to love Him back, and by that love we obey/live in repentance.

Lighthouse
September 11th, 2004, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

The Bible says that every good and perfect gift comes from above. I don't believe that anyone has anything that's worth keeping that didn't come from God. He gives the measure of faith to every man, and that would include their 'initial' beliefs. We wouldn't even come to Him, except He draw us. We wouldn't believe that He existed, except He gives us the faith to do so.
Initial belief is not from God, or it would not be free will. And faith [trust and love], which is different than belief, is affected by God's grace and love. He draws all men, but not all men believe.

Lighthouse
September 11th, 2004, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Here, you affirm that you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. I deny that to be true. Jesus does not baptize anyone today with the Holy Spirit. The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism was to give power to the apostles to do their work...

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Acts 1:8
:vomit:


...and to show the Jews that Gentiles were accepted into the fellowship of Christians...

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them (the Gentile family of Cornelius, JAC), as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" Acts 11:15-17
Only for these things?


Further, you deny that water baptism has nothing to do with remission of sins. You fail to understand and accept Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; or 1 Peter 3:21 all of which teach remission of sins, cleansing of sins and salvation from sins through water baptism.
I have been drowned in the blood of Christ. My sins have been nailed to the cross. I have been cleansed from all unrighteousness.


You are correct to say that Christ's blood cleansing and takes away sins, but at what point and where has God made the seperation? It is in baptism for the remission of sins.
:vomit:

Also...what Aimiel said.


JustAChristian :angel:
Don't you mean, "JustAHeretic"? :rolleyes:

JustAChristian
September 11th, 2004, 06:18 AM
Aimiel,

You are confused with the word of God. Sanctification is clearly taught to be through the word. The Holy Spirit is the worker (agent) that presented the word that sanctifies. The Holy Spirit does not produce the sanctification but it does come through a knowledge and use of truth.

I am going to post an article that I believe will assist you in better understanding of salvation through obedience of God's word.


HOW DOES GOD AFFECT SALVATION IN THE SINNER?

There are but two passages of Scripture that we can recall, that tells us how one gets into Christ. In Rom. 6:3 Paul wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Again he wrote, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). How does one get into Christ? Paul's answer -- one is "baptized into Christ." There is no other way into Christ! We get into Christ in precisely the same way that we get into the one body (1 Cor. 12:13), therefore, being in Christ is the same thing as being in his body, the church.

Symbolism needs to be understood in order to give proper biblical interpretation. Water is symbolized as a grave in Romans 6. We are buried in the grave of water. A grave consist of a hole, dirt and covering up. When we understand this we can understand the implications of the burial. Not only did Paul say that we are baptized into Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3), but he goes on to say that we are "baptized into his death." It was in Christ's death that he shed his blood, and his blood is that which remits sin. However, we must come into contact with his blood before our sins can be remitted. Where do we contact the blood of Christ? Paul tells us that it is in baptism. If he shed his blood in his death (and he did), and we are baptized into his death (and we are), then it is in baptism that we come into contact with the blood of Christ, which is able to remit sin. If not, why not?

In the latter part of Gal. 3:27, Paul states that in baptism we "put on Christ." Again we come to symbolism. This can not be accomplished in Holy Spirit, for the Spirit would be put on us. We would not be putting on Christ. Let me use a very simple illustration which all should be able to understand. Until a person puts on his coat, he is out of the coat. Once he has put the coat on, he is in the coat. Just so it is in our relation to Christ. We are out of Christ until we put Christ on, and Paul plainly states that we put Christ on in baptism. Therefore, until one is baptized "into Christ" he is out of Christ, because he has not put Christ on! I can hardly see how anyone can possibly misunderstand such plain, simple language, and yet there are thousands who seemingly cannot understand this, because they shout long and loud that baptism is not essential to salvation.

The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit and those who believed Peter's preaching were baptized in water in the name of Christ on the same day. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit and the same day, likely within the same hour, was baptized in water in the name of Christ.
Jesus told Nicodemus that without being "born of water and of the Spirit" one can not enter this spiritual family, the church (John 3:1-8). "Born of water and of the Spirit" refers to the one new birth, accomplished when one is baptized in water according to (or, as directed by) the Holy Spirit (John 3:3-5). Holy Spirit baptism was never meant for all people. Many examples are shown in Acts of people who were not Holy Spirit baptized but rejoiced in their relationship to Christ.

Holy Spirit baptism was never given as a command. How could it be? It was administered by deity, not men. And it was administered at a time and under circumstances chosen by deity, not by men. Water baptism, on the other hand, was given by command (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47,48; Acts 22:16). This is a baptism administered by men, and when performed scripturally is approved of God. And it is a baptism men submit to of their own free will. At a time of their choosing, in obedience to the Lord's command.

The one baptism of Eph. 4 is Christian era baptism. It is the baptism that is commanded. And it was designed to remain in effect until the end of the earth (Matthew 28:18-20). It is not the baptism of John. It is not the baptism of fire. And it is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Christian era baptism consists of immersion in water (Acts 8:38). Its prerequisites are faith, repentance, and confession (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:37). It, therefore, is not for infants. It is administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19,20). And, it is for the remission of sins and for union with Christ (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Galatians 3 :26-27; Romans 6:3-5).

Summarizing, let me say that baptism is the door to forgiveness of sins. Why?, because it is at this point of obedience that one comes in contact with the death of Christ. It is only in the death of Christ that we may find salvation. And it is only in baptism that we may contact the death of Christ (Rom. 6:1-6). Paul affirms that we are baptized into his death, that is the death of Christ, and that is very important. Some contend that baptism only symbolizes a dying to sin on our part, in turning from our sins; that the only death connected with baptism is the spiritual dying to sin that occurs within us. But this simply is not true. It is true that a dying to sin occurs within us in conversion. But it is not true that this dying to sin is all that baptism represents. Paul's teaching is that we are baptized into the death of Jesus. So remember, now, we are baptized into the one body (1 Cor. 12:13); Christ is the savior of the body (Eph. 5:23); we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27); into his death (Rom. 6:3) where his blood was shed; and in baptism we put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). In view of such plain passages, how can you honestly feel that water baptism is unimportant and has no validity? How can you say that we can be cleansed and saved any other way?

JustAChristian

Aimiel
September 11th, 2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Initial belief is not from God, or it would not be free will. And faith [trust and love], which is different than belief, is affected by God's grace and love. He draws all men, but not all men believe. Belief, whether 'initial' or your 'faith' which you have religiously labeled as trust and love, is like any other good and perfect gift, and it comes from above. He is The Giver of all good gifts, and our very lives are from Him. No one can claim that they have or are anything, except they received it from The Source of all that there is: God. :think:

Aimiel
September 11th, 2004, 10:28 AM
Do you believe that someone who hears The Word of God, and repents, asks Him into their heart, to forgive their sin, and then is shot, dead, will go to hell, since they haven't been baptized in water? I, personally, don't believe that someone that is not filled with the spirit doesn't belong to God, as the Scripture says: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." I believe that The Holy Spirit is 'with' everyone who is saved, even before they get saved. He is The One that convicts them, before their salvation. He, also, is The One Who will come inside of them, if they invite Him. If they deny Him entrance, He cannot, because that is His Nature. He doesn't occupy anything that isn't surrendered to Him.

JustAChristian
September 11th, 2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Do you believe that someone who hears The Word of God, and repents, asks Him into their heart, to forgive their sin, and then is shot, dead, will go to hell, since they haven't been baptized in water? I, personally, don't believe that someone that is not filled with the spirit doesn't belong to God, as the Scripture says: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." I believe that The Holy Spirit is 'with' everyone who is saved, even before they get saved. He is The One that convicts them, before their salvation. He, also, is The One Who will come inside of them, if they invite Him. If they deny Him entrance, He cannot, because that is His Nature. He doesn't occupy anything that isn't surrendered to Him.

You see, Aimiel, you come up with all kinds of hypothetical ideas trying to gain sympathy from the audience, but you've got to understand that you and I or anyone elso does not make the rules. God has set the parameters through Jesus Christ You use the expression "ask him into your heart" when such an action is not found in the scriptures. Cornelius was told to send to Joppa to one Simon called Peter who "...will tell thee what thou aughtist to do." Why didn't the angel of God just tell Cornelius to let Jesus come into your heart? It was because God had set the parameter that by the knowledge and obedience to the gospel one would be saved (Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 1:16; 2 Thess. 1 :7-8). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). When one hears the commands of the gospel and is obedient to them then comes cleansing and salvation (Mark 16:15-16). You believe that the Spirit of God can dwell in a person, but tell us, how does it get there? Does it materialize there seperate and apart from knowing and obeying the word of God? If so, give some proof from the scriptures. To save you time, let's let Paul answer. "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3:2). Paul strongly asserts that receiving the Spirit comes by hearing of faith. One receives the Spirit when he does what the Spirit says through the word. He can not come into a heart unless that heart will hear the gospel, the power of God unto salvation. The gospel says that we must believe in Jesus as God's Son, repent of sins in our lives, confess Christ before man, be immersed into Christ for the cleansing and remission of our sins and endure in righteousness until Christ returns. Will you hear the gospel call or will you stubbornly continue in you unrighteous state?

In Christ,
JustAChristian

“...Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.? (1 Peter 1:21-23 AV)

Aimiel
September 11th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

You believe that the Spirit of God can dwell in a person, but tell us, how does it get there? Now The Lord is That Spirit, and where The Spirit of The Lord is, there is liberty. He is NOT an 'it' and prefers to be called Him, He, The Lord or The Spirit of The Lord. He enters them only when and if invited. Before that, He can be 'with' them, but will not violate their freewill, by entering their flesh, without permission. He is A Perfect Gentleman.

Lighthouse
September 11th, 2004, 09:29 PM
I think somebody put me on ignore. :think:

Aimiel-
I agree with you, to a point. But I think it would be Predestination/election if believing God is real were given from him.

Aimiel
September 11th, 2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Why didn't the angel of God just tell Cornelius to let Jesus come into your heart?I believe that it was to demonstrate that believers are to share The Gospel. The angels are used to declare current events, and to intervene on The Lord's Behalf, but not to preach The Everlasting Gospel. At least for now. We have our appointed time. When that time is fulfilled, angels will be released with The Gospel, as The Word says. If you don't like the sinners' prayer, I don't mind, but why should I, since God isn't religious? He doesn't hold us to the law, or to any denominational boundaries or prevent us from believing Him. We do that on our own. When we choose to take Him at His Word is when we advance in His Kingdom. The advance occurs by finding out what He wants you to step into next, and then taking that step. If you don't, you're either stagnating or slipping off of His Holy Mountain. We need to learn to help one another ascend this thing, and then once we meet together with Him, at the top, sit down for a good pow-wow, get His Plans and Strategies for our lives, and for those He sends us to, we can begin to move this mountain to the place He intends for us to take it; namely: the gates of hell. We aren't going to tear them down with people that are stuck arguing over dunked, sprinkled or frickaseed; it is going to be His Spirit guiding us over the roughest terrain imaginable, with the heaviest burden anyone has ever carried.

P.S. I'm not writing to an audience of more than two. I write before The Lord, and care more deeply about not placing anything on a post that I want, but what should point someone to the truth than you can imagine. I wouldn't be on TOL if I didn't. That was one of the things that The Lord directed me to do, before allowing me to come back here.

JustAChristian
September 12th, 2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Now The Lord is That Spirit, and where The Spirit of The Lord is, there is liberty. He is NOT an 'it' and prefers to be called Him, He, The Lord or The Spirit of The Lord. He enters them only when and if invited. Before that, He can be 'with' them, but will not violate their freewill, by entering their flesh, without permission. He is A Perfect Gentleman.

Aimiel,

You say that the Spirit comes in when invited. You can show me proof from the scriptures that this is how He comes in, can't you. You know, the bible tells us to prove all things (1 Thess. 5:21). Show just one example of someone in the bible inviting the Spirit into their heart and you have a valid argument.

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 12th, 2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I think somebody put me on ignore. :think:

Aimiel-
I agree with you, to a point. But I think it would be Predestination/election if believing God is real were given from him.

Are you two on the right thread?

Aimiel
September 12th, 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

You say that the Spirit comes in when invited. You can show me proof from the scriptures that this is how He comes in, can't you. You know, the bible tells us to prove all things (1 Thess. 5:21). Show just one example of someone in the bible inviting the Spirit into their heart and you have a valid argument.If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Them that ask Him, that is a whole lot more than one; it is every single one that asks.

JustAChristian
September 12th, 2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Them that ask Him, that is a whole lot more than one; it is every single one that asks.

Granted, the Lord give to those that ask of Him. What does He give. He gives good gifts (Matthew 711; Luke 11:13) of which the Holy Spirit is said to be. How does He give good gifts? First there must be an asking. God rewards through obedience of faith (Romans 1:5; Hebrews 5:8-9). The Holy Spirit is given to those who obey the command to be baptized for the remission of sins. He does not enter the personage of anyone other that through the invite of obedience. We see it clearly in Acts 2:38. It evidences one's salvation as in Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." An alien sinner, however, can not express and invitation to the Holy Spirit to enter those who are not first sons of God (Gal. 4:6).

JustAChristian :angel:

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Lighthouse
September 12th, 2004, 11:35 PM
JustAChristian-
I was referring to you when I thought that someone had put me on ignore, because you haven't responded to any of my posts to you. Are you a coward?

JustAChristian
September 13th, 2004, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

JustAChristian-
I was referring to you when I thought that someone had put me on ignore, because you haven't responded to any of my posts to you. Are you a coward?

No, I am...

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 13th, 2004, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm still waiting on your explanation of Romans 10:9, JAC. And what do you think Jesus meant when he said, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." [John 3:5]?

lighthouse,

No dodge, just an oversight!!!

In John 3:5 Jesus instructed Nicodemus that he must be born again. The elements of that rebirth is water and Spirit. The two elements of the new birth are supported by a coordinating conjunction “and.? The conjunction joins the two factors to perform the end result. This says that what ever is required of one is required of the other. They have equal responsibility. The new birth will not happen unless each is utilized. The manner in which the two are utilized is that which hampers many from being reborn. There are those who attempt to associate the “water? with the human birth. That which Jesus speaks about has nothing whatsoever to do with a physical birth. First of all, the newborn does not come from water but from the womb. Water has already been expressed before the child is born. Some will stumble on this saying, The event is simultaneous. That is not always the truth. Many babies go through what is commonly called a “dry birth.? This is when the amniotic fluid has been expressed some time before the physical delivery. These babies then need to be delivered by Caesarean delivery. If the water of John 3:5 relates to the physical birth then babies born of Caesarean delivery are not delivered from the water and thus can not be reborn. This will seem extreme by some, but is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn.

JustAChristian,

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

1 Peter 3:21 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:

JustAChristian
September 13th, 2004, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

No kidding lip service doesn't do anything. That's why ther verse also says, "believe in your heart." Faith is not belief in the head, but belief in the heart. It is trust. And it is love. And in love there is obedience, but obedience is born out of faith, whch saves us...the obedience is an afterthought. And it has no bearing on our salvation.

lighthouse,

I don't doubt your faith in Christ, but faith must not exclude water baptism for the remission of sins but must include it. It also must include repentance and confession of Christ before man. I think you will agree with that. If you try to take baptism out of faith you destroy the gospel of Christ. It is the power of God unto salvation. It contains baptism (Mark 16:15-16). How do we get into Christ? It is through obedient faith in baptism. Read the following. There are but two passages of Scripture that we can recall, that tells us how one gets into Christ. In Rom. 6:3 Paul wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Again he wrote, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). How does one get into Christ? Paul's answer -- one is "baptized into Christ." There is no other way into Christ! We get into Christ in precisely the same way that we get into the one body (1 Cor. 12:13), therefore, being in Christ is the same thing as being in his body, the church.

Symbolism needs to be understood in order to give proper biblical interpretation. Water is symbolized as a grave in Romans 6. We are buried in the grave of water. A grave consist of a hole, dirt and covering up. When we understand this we can understand the implications of the burial. Not only did Paul say that we are baptized into Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3), but he goes on to say that we are "baptized into his death." It was in Christ's death that he shed his blood, and his blood is that which remits sin. However, we must come into contact with his blood before our sins can be remitted. Where do we contact the blood of Christ? Paul tells us that it is in baptism. If he shed his blood in his death (and he did), and we are baptized into his death (and we are), then it is in baptism that we come into contact with the blood of Christ, which is able to remit sin. If not, why not?

In the latter part of Gal. 3:27, Paul states that in baptism we "put on Christ." Again we come to symbolism. This can not be accomplished in Holy Spirit, for the Spirit would be put on us. We would not be putting on Christ. Let me use a very simple illustration which all should be able to understand. Until a person puts on his coat, he is out of the coat. Once he has put the coat on, he is in the coat. Just so it is in our relation to Christ. We are out of Christ until we put Christ on, and Paul plainly states that we put Christ on in baptism. Therefore, until one is baptized "into Christ" he is out of Christ, because he has not put Christ on! I can hardly see how anyone can possibly misunderstand such plain, simple language, and yet there are thousands who seemingly cannot understand this, because they shout long and loud that baptism is not essential to salvation.

The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit and those who believed Peter's preaching were baptized in water in the name of Christ on the same day. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit and the same day, likely within the same hour, was baptized in water in the name of Christ.
Jesus told Nicodemus that without being "born of water and of the Spirit" one can not enter this spiritual family, the church (John 3:1-8). "Born of water and of the Spirit" refers to the one new birth, accomplished when one is baptized in water according to (or, as directed by) the Holy Spirit (John 3:3-5). Holy Spirit baptism was never meant for all people. Many examples are shown in Acts of people who were not Holy Spirit baptized but rejoiced in their relationship to Christ.

Holy Spirit baptism was never given as a command. How could it be? It was administered by deity, not men. And it was administered at a time and under circumstances chosen by deity, not by men. Water baptism, on the other hand, was given by command (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47,48; Acts 22:16). This is a baptism administered by men, and when performed scripturally is approved of God. And it is a baptism men submit to of their own free will. At a time of their choosing, in obedience to the Lord's command.

The one baptism of Eph. 4 is Christian era baptism. It is the baptism that is commanded. And it was designed to remain in effect until the end of the earth (Matthew 28:18-20). It is not the baptism of John. It is not the baptism of fire. And it is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Christian era baptism consists of immersion in water (Acts 8:38). Its prerequisites are faith, repentance, and confession (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:37). It, therefore, is not for infants. It is administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19,20). And, it is for the remission of sins and for union with Christ (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Galatians 3 :26-27; Romans 6:3-5).

Summarizing, let me say that baptism is the door to forgiveness of sins. Why?, because it is at this point of obedience that one comes in contact with the death of Christ. It is only in the death of Christ that we may find salvation. And it is only in baptism that we may contact the death of Christ (Rom. 6:1-6). Paul affirms that we are baptized into his death, that is the death of Christ, and that is very important. Some contend that baptism only symbolizes a dying to sin on our part, in turning from our sins; that the only death connected with baptism is the spiritual dying to sin that occurs within us. But this simply is not true. It is true that a dying to sin occurs within us in conversion. But it is not true that this dying to sin is all that baptism represents. Paul's teaching is that we are baptized into the death of Jesus. So remember, now, we are baptized into the one body (1 Cor. 12:13); Christ is the savior of the body (Eph. 5:23); we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27); into his death (Rom. 6:3) where his blood was shed; and in baptism we put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). In view of such plain passages, how can you honestly feel that water baptism is unimportant and has no validity? How can you say that we can be cleansed and saved any other way?

JustAChristian

Nineveh
September 13th, 2004, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian
I trust you will not be quick now to discount the purpose of water baptism and will continue to study the subject.

No, not I. However, my hope for you is to learn the difference between Law and Grace.

Ecumenicist
September 13th, 2004, 12:25 PM
Grace is unconditional love, a free gift from God.

Its there whether we are aware of it or not.

Through repentence, we become aware of and accepting
of Grace from God. Once aware, our response is gratitude.

Salvation is not a magic act enacted through ritual. Its
acknowledgement and acceptance of the free gift made
available to all people through Jesus Christ.

To be born in the Spirit is to become aware of and accepting
of the Gift.

Dave

Lighthouse
September 14th, 2004, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

lighthouse,

I don't doubt your faith in Christ, but faith must not exclude water baptism for the remission of sins but must include it. It also must include repentance and confession of Christ before man. I think you will agree with that. If you try to take baptism out of faith you destroy the gospel of Christ. It is the power of God unto salvation. It contains baptism (Mark 16:15-16). How do we get into Christ? It is through obedient faith in baptism. Read the following. There are but two passages of Scripture that we can recall, that tells us how one gets into Christ. In Rom. 6:3 Paul wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Again he wrote, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). How does one get into Christ? Paul's answer -- one is "baptized into Christ." There is no other way into Christ! We get into Christ in precisely the same way that we get into the one body (1 Cor. 12:13), therefore, being in Christ is the same thing as being in his body, the church.

Symbolism needs to be understood in order to give proper biblical interpretation. Water is symbolized as a grave in Romans 6. We are buried in the grave of water. A grave consist of a hole, dirt and covering up. When we understand this we can understand the implications of the burial. Not only did Paul say that we are baptized into Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3), but he goes on to say that we are "baptized into his death." It was in Christ's death that he shed his blood, and his blood is that which remits sin. However, we must come into contact with his blood before our sins can be remitted. Where do we contact the blood of Christ? Paul tells us that it is in baptism. If he shed his blood in his death (and he did), and we are baptized into his death (and we are), then it is in baptism that we come into contact with the blood of Christ, which is able to remit sin. If not, why not?

In the latter part of Gal. 3:27, Paul states that in baptism we "put on Christ." Again we come to symbolism. This can not be accomplished in Holy Spirit, for the Spirit would be put on us. We would not be putting on Christ. Let me use a very simple illustration which all should be able to understand. Until a person puts on his coat, he is out of the coat. Once he has put the coat on, he is in the coat. Just so it is in our relation to Christ. We are out of Christ until we put Christ on, and Paul plainly states that we put Christ on in baptism. Therefore, until one is baptized "into Christ" he is out of Christ, because he has not put Christ on! I can hardly see how anyone can possibly misunderstand such plain, simple language, and yet there are thousands who seemingly cannot understand this, because they shout long and loud that baptism is not essential to salvation.

The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit and those who believed Peter's preaching were baptized in water in the name of Christ on the same day. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit and the same day, likely within the same hour, was baptized in water in the name of Christ.
Jesus told Nicodemus that without being "born of water and of the Spirit" one can not enter this spiritual family, the church (John 3:1-8). "Born of water and of the Spirit" refers to the one new birth, accomplished when one is baptized in water according to (or, as directed by) the Holy Spirit (John 3:3-5). Holy Spirit baptism was never meant for all people. Many examples are shown in Acts of people who were not Holy Spirit baptized but rejoiced in their relationship to Christ.

Holy Spirit baptism was never given as a command. How could it be? It was administered by deity, not men. And it was administered at a time and under circumstances chosen by deity, not by men. Water baptism, on the other hand, was given by command (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47,48; Acts 22:16). This is a baptism administered by men, and when performed scripturally is approved of God. And it is a baptism men submit to of their own free will. At a time of their choosing, in obedience to the Lord's command.

The one baptism of Eph. 4 is Christian era baptism. It is the baptism that is commanded. And it was designed to remain in effect until the end of the earth (Matthew 28:18-20). It is not the baptism of John. It is not the baptism of fire. And it is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Christian era baptism consists of immersion in water (Acts 8:38). Its prerequisites are faith, repentance, and confession (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:37). It, therefore, is not for infants. It is administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19,20). And, it is for the remission of sins and for union with Christ (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Galatians 3 :26-27; Romans 6:3-5).

Summarizing, let me say that baptism is the door to forgiveness of sins. Why?, because it is at this point of obedience that one comes in contact with the death of Christ. It is only in the death of Christ that we may find salvation. And it is only in baptism that we may contact the death of Christ (Rom. 6:1-6). Paul affirms that we are baptized into his death, that is the death of Christ, and that is very important. Some contend that baptism only symbolizes a dying to sin on our part, in turning from our sins; that the only death connected with baptism is the spiritual dying to sin that occurs within us. But this simply is not true. It is true that a dying to sin occurs within us in conversion. But it is not true that this dying to sin is all that baptism represents. Paul's teaching is that we are baptized into the death of Jesus. So remember, now, we are baptized into the one body (1 Cor. 12:13); Christ is the savior of the body (Eph. 5:23); we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27); into his death (Rom. 6:3) where his blood was shed; and in baptism we put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). In view of such plain passages, how can you honestly feel that water baptism is unimportant and has no validity? How can you say that we can be cleansed and saved any other way?

JustAChristian
1] Don't use anything that came before the death and resurrection of Christ as an argument for what was required for salvation.
2] Baptism is a work, and works are not a part of grace.

JustAChristian
September 14th, 2004, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

No, not I. However, my hope for you is to learn the difference between Law and Grace.

By the Law of Moses no one could be saved without complete obedience to that Law. It is not the valid law for Christians today.

By grace through faith (obedience of faith, Romans 1:5) are you saved and not of (meritorious) works lest any one should bost. (Eph 2:8-9). Just like grace does not discount repentance it does not discount baptism (Acts 2:38).

We are not excused from obedience to law for we are under the law of Christ (James 1:25).

Need any more help?

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 14th, 2004, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Grace is unconditional love, a free gift from God.

Its there whether we are aware of it or not.

Through repentence, we become aware of and accepting
of Grace from God. Once aware, our response is gratitude.

Salvation is not a magic act enacted through ritual. Its
acknowledgement and acceptance of the free gift made
available to all people through Jesus Christ.

To be born in the Spirit is to become aware of and accepting
of the Gift.

Dave

Dave,
You have a lot of information for us but you do not sustain it with biblical referances (1 Thess. 5:21). Are you indicating that you believe being immersed for the remission of sins is a ritual devised by man? If you do, then why wouldn't repentance also be a ritual? It can from man's preaching (Acts 2:38).

Salvation is a gift of God that comes freely from God to those who take the steps to obtain it (1 Thess. 5:9). We obtain it through obedience to the gospel (Romans 1:16; Hebrews 5:8-9; 2 Thess 2:13-14). When one hears and believes the gospel in obedience of faith, then the blood of Christ cleanses them from sin (Mark 16:15-16; Rom. 1:5; Acts 22:16). Study your bible on these verses. (2 Tim. 2:15).

JustAChristian

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

JustAChristian
September 14th, 2004, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

1] Don't use anything that came before the death and resurrection of Christ as an argument for what was required for salvation.
2] Baptism is a work, and works are not a part of grace.


Then you don't follow the instruction of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Tim. 3:15-16).

If baptism is a work, is it a work of merit or of obedience? If you were immersed at an earlier date for some reson, did you wish to affect the results of your baptism for reasons of merit or obedience to Christ?

JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
September 14th, 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

By the Law of Moses no one could be saved without complete obedience to that Law. It is not the valid law for Christians today.

I agree, and that includes the ritual cleansings among other aspects of the Law.


By grace through faith (obedience of faith, Romans 1:5) are you saved and not of (meritorious) works lest any one should bost. (Eph 2:8-9). Just like grace does not discount repentance it does not discount baptism (Acts 2:38).

Like being able to boast of being "washed with water by someone".


We are not excused from obedience to law for we are under the law of Christ (James 1:25).

Christ taught "follow the Law", yet He chose Paul who tells us, "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ,...".


Need any more help?

It seems you are still unclear about the difference between Law and Grace. If there is anything else I could point out to you on this topic, let me know :)



Dave,
Of everyone on this thread so far, it should be you that understands JAC's position the best. Your "homosexual commitment ceremonies" fall right in line with JAC's "water cleansing" ideas. Both are rituals to make someing unclean, clean.

JustAChristian
September 14th, 2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I agree, and that includes the ritual cleansings among other aspects of the Law.



Like being able to boast of being "washed with water by someone".



Christ taught "follow the Law", yet He chose Paul who tells us, "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ,...".



It seems you are still unclear about the difference between Law and Grace. If there is anything else I could point out to you on this topic, let me know :)



Dave,
Of everyone on this thread so far, it should be you that understands JAC's position the best. Your "homosexual commitment ceremonies" fall right in line with JAC's "water cleansing" ideas. Both are rituals to make someing unclean, clean.



Like being able to boast of being "washed with water by someone".

I have never been "washed with water"as you would define, but I have been washed with water by the word (Eph. 5:26).


It seems you are still unclear about the difference between Law and Grace. If there is anything else I could point out to you on this topic, let me know

I wish you had an understanding of law and grace youself so that we could have an intelligent discussion of both. All I see in you is a "dispensational" stance on the subject of salvation. I feel for you and hope you come to a better understanding of the law of Christ.

JustAChristian

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


Of everyone on this thread so far, it should be you that understands JAC's position the best. Your "homosexual commitment ceremonies" fall right in line with JAC's "water cleansing" ideas. Both are rituals to make someing unclean, clean.

I have no earthly idea what or who you are talking to in this statement. You are none the less a very bitter and sick individual in need of God's grace. I hope you come to understand that and will seek God through His word in the fullness.

JAC

JustAChristian
September 14th, 2004, 12:48 PM
There are some things one needs to carefully consider as one engages in the study of the Bible. This book which we are studying is no ordinary book. It may affect us in one of two ways: properly studied and applied, it well affect us for good in time and eternity; the improper study of it will cause one to lose one’s soul.

The Bible is every man’s book. It is not intended for some special group. But not only is the Bible every man’s book, it is written for the average person. Scholars may study it, but it is not written necessarily with scholars in mind.

No one ever outgrows the scriptures. The more one studies them, the wider and deeper they become. The Bible is a book which enables one to look into eternity. The best evidence of the inspiration of the Bible is to be found between its covers. No one will ever be a useful Christian unless one is a student of the Bible.

Matthew Henry said, “The Scriptures were not written to make us astronomers, but to make us saints.? It is no wonder that Paul urged Timothy to study to Scripture, “right dividing,? or handling aright, the word of truth, that he might be an approved workman before God.

The Bible is the greatest book in the world. It is the most accessible, and in it one finds truth that can be found in no other book.

The Bible acknowledges man’s faults, it is patient with man’s weaknesses, it is severe with man’s sins, and it is honest with his virtues and his hopes.

To own the Bible is to be rich. To know and to trust the Bible is to find life. To study the Bible is to be wise; to obey it, is to be strong.

To know the Bible and to handle it aright is the greatest accomplishment within the reach of any person. One may know English, astronomy, literature, music, sociology and philosophy; but if one does not know the Bible, one has failed in the only subject that brings all things into their proper relationship and that enables one to know life at its best

JustAChristian

Nineveh
September 14th, 2004, 01:21 PM
JAC,
"I wish you had an understanding of law and grace youself so that we could have an intelligent discussion of both."

The Law demands rituals, Grace does not.

Ecumenicist
September 14th, 2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Dave,
You have a lot of information for us but you do not sustain it with biblical referances (1 Thess. 5:21). Are you indicating that you believe being immersed for the remission of sins is a ritual devised by man? If you do, then why wouldn't repentance also be a ritual? It can from man's preaching (Acts 2:38).

Salvation is a gift of God that comes freely from God to those who take the steps to obtain it (1 Thess. 5:9). We obtain it through obedience to the gospel (Romans 1:16; Hebrews 5:8-9; 2 Thess 2:13-14). When one hears and believes the gospel in obedience of faith, then the blood of Christ cleanses them from sin (Mark 16:15-16; Rom. 1:5; Acts 22:16). Study your bible on these verses. (2 Tim. 2:15).

JustAChristian

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

My understanding of John 3 saying "by water and the Spirit"
comes from Jesus' parallel statements of "being born of human"
vs "being born of God." Having witnessed the birth of 4 children,
I can testify that alot of "water" is involved in the process.

Its not the ritual of baptism that cleanses, its the surrender of
the heart that participates in the baptism. And before you
bring up infant Baptism, in that case its the hearts of the
parents which commit.

In this sense, repentence could be considered ritual if the
ritual is a visible sign of where the heart goes.

Jesus tried to say it over and over and over to the Pharisees,
but they just didn't get it. Its not the ritual, its the intent,
its the heart which lies behind the ritual. Its not magic, its
an expression of relationship with God. Washing on the outside
vs what's in a man's heart which convicts, lusting in one's heart
vs actually committing adultery, etc. etc.


djm

Ecumenicist
September 14th, 2004, 03:16 PM
"Salvation is a gift of God that comes freely from God to those who take the steps to obtain it (1 Thess. 5:9)."

This statement conflicts with itself. If its free, by definition there
is no payment required by the person who receives it, be they
steps or otherwise. Free is free, no cost, period.

Dave

Aimiel
September 14th, 2004, 06:08 PM
The free gift of salvation is not what requires anything, in order to obtain it, but those who would enter into life must abandon this life, to gain the next. It is only seeking God with one's whole heart, even to the point of being put to death for one's faith in The Lord, should that test be granted (the greatest gift of all), that one can find The Lord. Without the seeking, there is no life, because one has chosen this life above the next. Either way, we are granted what we seek. If we seek life for our flesh, we lose our soul; but if we seek life eternal, it is granted, without price.

Zakath
September 14th, 2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

The free gift of salvation is not what requires anything, in order to obtain it...So far, so good. "Free" doesn't require anything in exchange...


...but those who would enter into life must abandon this life, to gain the next. It is only seeking God with one's whole heart, even to the point of being put to death for one's faith in The Lord, should that test be granted (the greatest gift of all), that one can find The Lord. Without the seeking, there is no life, because one has chosen this life above the next. Either way, we are granted what we seek. If we seek life for our flesh, we lose our soul; but if we seek life eternal, it is granted, without price. Those who would acquire this "free gift" must...

... "abandon this life"
... "seek God with one's whole heart"
... be willing to be "put to death for one's faith"
... not to seek "life for our flesh"
... "seek life eternal"

IF one must be so busy to obtain it, it sounds like the "free gift" isn't really "free" at all... :think:

Lighthouse
September 15th, 2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Then you don't follow the instruction of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Tim. 3:15-16).

If baptism is a work, is it a work of merit or of obedience? If you were immersed at an earlier date for some reson, did you wish to affect the results of your baptism for reasons of merit or obedience to Christ?

JustAChristian :angel:
Neither. I did it as a confession of my faith, a statement to others. Iwas young, and didn't know that much about the Bible's actual teachings.

Lighthouse
September 15th, 2004, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

There are some things one needs to carefully consider as one engages in the study of the Bible. This book which we are studying is no ordinary book. It may affect us in one of two ways: properly studied and applied, it well affect us for good in time and eternity; the improper study of it will cause one to lose one’s soul.
:duh:


The Bible is every man’s book. It is not intended for some special group. But not only is the Bible every man’s book, it is written for the average person. Scholars may study it, but it is not written necessarily with scholars in mind.
really? I never would have guessed :rolleyes:


No one ever outgrows the scriptures. The more one studies them, the wider and deeper they become. The Bible is a book which enables one to look into eternity. The best evidence of the inspiration of the Bible is to be found between its covers. No one will ever be a useful Christian unless one is a student of the Bible.
Then you need to study some more.


Matthew Henry said, “The Scriptures were not written to make us astronomers, but to make us saints.? It is no wonder that Paul urged Timothy to study to Scripture, “right dividing,? or handling aright, the word of truth, that he might be an approved workman before God.
Then why aren't you rightly dividing?


The Bible is the greatest book in the world. It is the most accessible, and in it one finds truth that can be found in no other book.
We all [in this thread] already know this, well, with the exception of Zakath.


The Bible acknowledges man’s faults, it is patient with man’s weaknesses, it is severe with man’s sins, and it is honest with his virtues and his hopes.
And? Where are you trying to go with this?


To own the Bible is to be rich. To know and to trust the Bible is to find life. To study the Bible is to be wise; to obey it, is to be strong.
When do you think the new covenant began, and why do you believe that Jesus taught the new covenant before it was in effect? He didn't. He taught the old covenant.


To know the Bible and to handle it aright is the greatest accomplishment within the reach of any person. One may know English, astronomy, literature, music, sociology and philosophy; but if one does not know the Bible, one has failed in the only subject that brings all things into their proper relationship and that enables one to know life at its best
You should really get to know this in your heart, instead of just in your head.

Aimiel
September 15th, 2004, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

IF one must be so busy to obtain it, it sounds like the "free gift" isn't really "free" at all... Yes, it is free, since there are no restrictions upon the receiver. All you have to do is desire that freedom, and believe The Lord for it.

Money, floating on a breeze, by your feet, would be free, if you were to pick it up. Oh, but that would cost energy, so it wouldn't be free, right? Anyway, you couldn't have any, because you don't believe in money, in this example, anyway; so you'd deny it's existence, and just turn your head.

JustAChristian
September 15th, 2004, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

JAC,
"I wish you had an understanding of law and grace youself so that we could have an intelligent discussion of both."

The Law demands rituals, Grace does not.

I understand in order to be a frequent poster on Theology Online one needs to be a "know-it-all" and I sometimes tend to take on that air. I don't claim to know it all but this I know, God give grace to those who obey. It is evident throughout the scriptures. One needs to only read the 11th chapter of Hebrews to understand that fact. Someday you may just do that. Grace is God's gift through (obedient) faith. Faith only will not achieve grace. James made that clear in his epistle. Have a great rest of the day.


JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 15th, 2004, 07:02 AM
Many people believe that as long as one accepts Christ as his or her personal savior, he or she will be saved. I ask the question, “What do they mean when one accepts Christ?? In Matthew 7:21-23, we see some people who accepted Jesus, but He never knew them. The Bible likens conversion to a marriage. In every marriage, both parties must consent to the marriage, right? Colossians 2:6 says we must accept Christ and Romans 15:7 says Christ must accept us. I ask you, "Where does the Bible make this statement? Where does it say that if one will only accept Christ as their personal savior apart from ones obedience to the Lord's commandments of faith, repentence, baptism for the remission of sins and enduring to the end of life then he or she will be saved? Hoping in the Lord to receive comments on this thread.

In Christ,
JustAChristian

Nineveh
September 15th, 2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Grace is God's gift through (obedient) faith. Faith only will not achieve grace.

According to Paul we are dead to the Law, he didn't say, "except for water rituals".

Grace is undeserved love. Obedience to the Law can not earn God's Grace. No, not even certain parts of the Law one feels compelled to cling to.


Where does it say that if one will only accept Christ as their personal savior apart from ones obedience to the Lord's commandments of faith, repentence, baptism for the remission of sins and enduring to the end of life then he or she will be saved?

"That 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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

Accepting what Christ did for us is a personal heart issue. If you aren't saved when you ask someone to get you wet, you won't be saved afterwards. God put salvation outside of men's control over each other. He brought salvation straight to each man's own heart.

Aimiel
September 15th, 2004, 10:15 AM
It's not that Christ will refuse anyone, because they didn't merit the salvation; it is that they never sought Him for it with their whole heart. One can say anything, but be lying. The Lord knows who they are; and will tell them, "I never knew you." The Lord said that 'whosoever will' may come and drink of the water of life, freely; not 'only those who are good enough.'

BChristianK
September 15th, 2004, 10:51 AM
JustaChristian asked:

Many people believe that as long as one accepts Christ as his or her personal savior, he or she will be saved. I ask the question, “What do they mean when one accepts Christ?? In Matthew 7:21-23, we see some people who accepted Jesus, but He never knew them.

How do you come up with the idea that these folks accepted Jesus?
They called Him Lord, but that doesn’t mean their utterances were genuine. The scriptures are clear that there are those who honor Christ with their lips but their hearts are far from Him (Matthew 15:6).


The Bible likens conversion to a marriage.

Where does it do this? I know of many places where the church and Christ are likened unto a marriage relationship but I can’t think of any passages that equate conversion unto marriage. Can you please refresh my memory with these verse references please?


Colossians 2:6 says we must accept Christ and Romans 15:7 says Christ must accept us.
Notice the tense in Romans 15:7,
“…just as Christ accepted you.?


I ask you, "Where does the Bible make this statement? Where does it say that if one will only accept Christ as their personal savior apart from ones obedience to the Lord's commandments of faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins and enduring to the end of life then he or she will be saved?

I ask you, where in the process of accepting Christ as Savior, obedience to the Lord’s commandments of faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins and enduring to the end of life is one considered “accepted? by Christ (again, as Romans 15:7 shows accepted as past tense). I hope you at least think that they were accepted before completing their tenure of obedience to the end of life?
Next question. Was the thief on the cross just out of luck since He messed up the formula?
He repented, sure, he had some measure of faith but not the measure of faith prescribed by Paul in Romans 10:9, he sure wasn’t baptized. Now, I have heard a lot of folk say, “how do you know he wasn’t baptized.? I usually asked back, where can I find the in the bible that he was?? Furthermore, for those who allow themselves to wander off into conjecture about the baptismal status of the thief on the cross, is that the right order? Get baptized sometime before you have even heard of Jesus, then faith and repentance?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a huge fan of the Charles Finney prescribed sinners prayer after coming forward at the tail end of an evangelistic sermon. I am a Baptist, but I think the Baptists have put too little emphasis on baptism. Baptism, was, and in my view, still is, the biblically prescribed method of demonstrating a profession of faith. But I also don’t think that getting wet saves you.

Oh, I know that a lot of folks point to 1 Peter 3:21, they love part A but sorta rush through part B. Getting’ wet won’t save one soul, a pledge of a good conscious toward God will, and the biblically prescribed method of publicly proclaiming one’s good conscious toward God is baptism. But that doesn’t mean that one can’t have a good conscious toward God without getting wet.

Final question, lets say you talk to a guy on a plane, you tell him about Jesus. He sends you an email three days later telling you he has repented of his sin, now believes that Jesus is Savior and Lord and has risen from the dead just like the scriptures say, and he is going to get baptized at his local Church of Christ the very next Sunday. You hear that a tragic accident has occurred, while he was crossing the street on his way to church on Sunday, he was hit by a greyhound bus, killing him instantly.
Now, does your theology force you to conclude that he is now rotting in hell?

Grace and Peace

Ecumenicist
September 15th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Yes, it is free, since there are no restrictions upon the receiver. All you have to do is desire that freedom, and believe The Lord for it.

Money, floating on a breeze, by your feet, would be free, if you were to pick it up. Oh, but that would cost energy, so it wouldn't be free, right? Anyway, you couldn't have any, because you don't believe in money, in this example, anyway; so you'd deny it's existence, and just turn your head.

I got a free gallon of milk the other day at the grocery store!

All I had to do was reach into my pocket, pull out some money,
present it to the cashier, and I got the milk! Amazing! It was
free!

:kookoo:

djm

Aimiel
September 15th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

I ask you, where in the process of accepting Christ as Savior, obedience to the Lord’s commandments of faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins and enduring to the end of life is one considered “accepted? by Christ (again, as Romans 15:7 shows accepted as past tense).When they becaime willing: "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." :thumb:

Aimiel
September 15th, 2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

All I had to do was reach into my pocket, pull out some money,
present it to the cashier, and I got the milk! Freely you have received, freely give.

JustAChristian
September 15th, 2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

According to Paul we are dead to the Law, he didn't say, "except for water rituals".

Grace is undeserved love. Obedience to the Law can not earn God's Grace. No, not even certain parts of the Law one feels compelled to cling to.



"That 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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

Accepting what Christ did for us is a personal heart issue. If you aren't saved when you ask someone to get you wet, you won't be saved afterwards. God put salvation outside of men's control over each other. He brought salvation straight to each man's own heart.



According to Paul we are dead to the Law, he didn't say, "except for water rituals".

Nineveh,

I haven't mentioned anywhere that we are to keep the Law of Moses. We are subject to the Law of Christ, the perfect law of liberty (Galatians 6:2; James 1:15). Salvation comes through "grace and truth" (John 1:17). Water baptism is a command from God (Acts 10:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16 et al). I am sorry that you don't see it that way. It is plain as day to the one who seeks the Lord on his terms.


Accepting what Christ did for us is a personal heart issue. If you aren't saved when you ask someone to get you wet, you won't be saved afterwards. God put salvation outside of men's control over each other. He brought salvation straight to each man's own heart.

I look at the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Paul never preached against baptism for the remission of sins. In fact we see him telling us that he baptized many at Corinth and Ephesus. He too was immersed by Ananis at Antioch of Syria before he began his work for the Lord. Peter says that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21). I will continue to look at the lives and teaching of these two and others on the subject that I find in the New Testament as a foundation of hope in Christ Jesus in the forgiveness of my sins. Can you do the same in your situation? I don't think so.

JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
September 15th, 2004, 12:35 PM
JAC,
"I haven't mentioned anywhere that we are to keep the Law of Moses. "

Are you saying "baptism" was a new thing in Israel? When you start adding "and you must" to the finished work of the Cross, you are offering a "ritual" not salvation.

"seeks the Lord on his terms."

Funny, I did that very thing, and His Law convitced me. I was found guilty. At that moment, when my heart was changed and I begged God to forgive me, I was baptised into the Body of Christ. My heart was convicted, there was no H2O involved. This happened when I was reading Leviticus, not the NT.

"Peter says that baptism saves "

I don't think that is all Peter said.

You and I will never agree that "rituals" are needed to be saved. So, with that said, I look forward to reading your reply to BChristianK.

greatdivide46
September 15th, 2004, 01:13 PM
I hate to butt in at this late date (but not enough not to do it.) :D

Is this an oxymoron: unbaptized Christian?

Just wondering.

JustAChristian
September 15th, 2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

JAC,
"I haven't mentioned anywhere that we are to keep the Law of Moses. "

Are you saying "baptism" was a new thing in Israel? When you start adding "and you must" to the finished work of the Cross, you are offering a "ritual" not salvation.

"seeks the Lord on his terms."

Funny, I did that very thing, and His Law convitced me. I was found guilty. At that moment, when my heart was changed and I begged God to forgive me, I was baptised into the Body of Christ. My heart was convicted, there was no H2O involved. This happened when I was reading Leviticus, not the NT.

"Peter says that baptism saves "

I don't think that is all Peter said.

You and I will never agree that "rituals" are needed to be saved. So, with that said, I look forward to reading your reply to BChristianK.


Nineveh,


I don't think that is all Peter said.

It is obvious that you don't care what Peter said. If you can't have it "your way" you are not going to have it any way! I see nothing but the denominational world concept in your reasoning. I see no further reason to continue this discussion. If you are willing to accept the Bible on matters of grace, faith and obedience then let me know. I will be glad to continue in such a vein.

JustAChristian :angel:

Zakath
September 15th, 2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Yes, it is free, since there are no restrictions upon the receiver. All you have to do is desire that freedom, and believe The Lord for it.The first, most basic criterion, requirement, or necessity moves it from "free" to "not free".

"There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch."


Money, floating on a breeze, by your feet, would be free, if you were to pick it up. Oh, but that would cost energy, so it wouldn't be free, right? Anyway, you couldn't have any, because you don't believe in money, in this example, anyway; so you'd deny it's existence, and just turn your head. Whether I pick it up or not, it's free if there are no strings attached to its aquisition. Your religion places not just strings, but steel cables, on your deity's allegedly "free" gift.

Nineveh
September 15th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian
I see no further reason to continue this discussion.

Good idea, wish I'd thought of it... "You and I will never agree that "rituals" are needed to be saved. So, with that said, I look forward to reading your reply to BChristianK." (Which you can find here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=591235#post591235).)

Aimiel
September 15th, 2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

The first, most basic criterion, requirement, or necessity moves it from "free" to "not free".Well, then 'free' doesn't mean free, it means a separate reality, in your twisted little mind.

Free means you don't have to 'buy' it, or give anything in exchange for it.
"There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch."There is if your parents own the refrigerator that is full of food. You don't have to 'buy' lunch, or pay for it. Yes, parents with sense require that their children do chores, as a part of learning responsibility, but their food is always free (at least in most places I've ever heard of.
Whether I pick it up or not, it's free if there are no strings attached to its aquisition. Your religion places not just strings, but steel cables, on your deity's allegedly "free" gift.If we had to jump through religious hoops to receive salvation, or wear certain types of clothing to be saved, or even any requirement at all, to belive God for salvation, then I could see your point. As it is, free means free. No charge. Gratis. Take one. What makes you say that it is not? Steel cables, indeed!!! :kookoo:

Lighthouse
September 15th, 2004, 10:38 PM
JAC-
Answer me!

JustAChristian
September 16th, 2004, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Good idea, wish I'd thought of it... "You and I will never agree that "rituals" are needed to be saved. So, with that said, I look forward to reading your reply to BChristianK." (Which you can find here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=591235#post591235).)

You and I will probably ever agree on anything prior to judgement day. I don't guess that Paul would have ever agreed also if he hadn't seen the Light! Maybe you'll see that same light someday before it is ever too late.

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:

Nineveh
September 16th, 2004, 08:58 AM
... anyway, it appears BChristianK and lighthouse still desire to carry on a convo with you concerning this topic ...

philosophizer
September 16th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

The first, most basic criterion, requirement, or necessity moves it from "free" to "not free".

"There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch."

Whether I pick it up or not, it's free if there are no strings attached to its aquisition. Your religion places not just strings, but steel cables, on your deity's allegedly "free" gift.


And what "steel cables" are those? Some churches may mistakenly say that there requirements for salvation. But there is no reason to generalize their error and apply it to the whole of Christianity. Salvation is free. Take it if you want. In this case the method of taking is believing. Just as the method of taking when a Radio DJ calls and says you won a free prize is driving down to the station. Or wouldn't that be free?

Aimiel
September 16th, 2004, 10:04 AM
No, since it is not in his hand already, when the DJ tells him how to get his free prize. He'd say that drive is going to 'cost' him, but would probably go down there for even a $10 prize. The value of eternal life, which costs nothing, but requires faith, is kind of like the winner of the lottery, who doesn't expect to get the money the day they announce the winning numbers, who will trust the Lottery Commission enough to wait several weeks, allow them to photograph him shaking hands with officials as they hand him a great big check, and then is told how the money will be sent to his account by electronic transfer. He will trust them, even though he has never seen a penny of the winnings, because they have proven trustworthy. The Lord will allow our faith, patience and character to be tried and proven, allowing us to grow up into Him in all things. We're waiting for our inheritance, and trust The One Who has proven His Faithfulness, and don't mind that faith is a requirement for His Kingdom, having been given faith, from Him.

Zak wants God to come down from Heaven, again, and prove Himself true to His Word all over again, so that he can have 'evidence.' He doesn't realize that God would have waited until photography and the sciences were invented to visit us if He wanted to gain adherents by their 'sight' and not their faith.

BChristianK
September 16th, 2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

... anyway, it appears BChristianK and lighthouse still desire to carry on a convo with you concerning this topic ...
Yup, If you woundn't mind, just a Christian I'd like to continue our dialog.

Grace and Peace

Zakath
September 16th, 2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Well, then 'free' doesn't mean free, it means a separate reality, in your twisted little mind....

If we had to jump through religious hoops to receive salvation, or wear certain types of clothing to be saved, or even any requirement at all, to belive God for salvation, then I could see your point. As it is, free means free. No charge. Gratis. Take one. What makes you say that it is not? Steel cables, indeed!!! :kookoo: "Free" should mean just what Christian's claim and non-believers expect - without cost, gratuituous.

The problem that we outsiders face is that every time one of you prattles on about this allegedly "free" gift, you attach a list of requirements that must be fulfilled to

a) obtain the gift

b) retain the gift

For example, answer the following question to illustrate my point...

"What must I do to be saved?"

:think:

Zakath
September 16th, 2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

And what "steel cables" are those? Some churches may mistakenly say that there requirements for salvation. But there is no reason to generalize their error and apply it to the whole of Christianity.Are they valid Christian churches, in your opinion?

If so, then why should I give any more credence to some anonymous Internet poster than to established Christian groups?


Salvation is free.If it's free then I need do nothing to obtain it or maintain it, right? :think:

If so, then I'm already saved...


...Just as the method of taking when a Radio DJ calls and says you won a free prize is driving down to the station. Or wouldn't that be free? Nope. Neither is a "prize" on which you must pay taxes...

I'll repeat a simple universal principle since you seem to have missed it in my earlier post...

TANSTAAFL - Their Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Anyone who promises you a free gift is trying to sell you something... :chuckle:

Zakath
September 16th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel
... The value of eternal life, which costs nothing...
Oh really?

That's not how I read the Bible...

"Many are called but few are chosen." - Mt. 20:16

"Salvation is of the Jews." - Jn. 14:22

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mk 16:16

He that doubteth is damned." Rom. 14:23

"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Lk 13:3

... and so on...

According to some, receiving this "free gift" requires baptism; for others it does not.

According to some, receiving this "free gift" requires repentance and changing one's lifestyle; for others it does not.

According to some, receiveing this "free gift" requires that one dedicate one's life to service of an unseen, relatively uncommunicative supernatural being; for others it does not.


...but requires faith...For some, it requires acquiring a certain type of "faith" in the existence of something they cannot see, taste, touch, hear, or otherwise personally experience...

:think:

It's all very confusing and contradictory for those of us on the outside desiring to know just what is necessary...

JustAChristian
September 16th, 2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

... anyway, it appears BChristianK and lighthouse still desire to carry on a convo with you concerning this topic ...

They are wise! :thumb: Like the song says, "two out o' three ain't bad!"

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 16th, 2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

"Free" should mean just what Christian's claim and non-believers expect - without cost, gratuituous.

The problem that we outsiders face is that every time one of you prattles on about this allegedly "free" gift, you attach a list of requirements that must be fulfilled to

a) obtain the gift

b) retain the gift

For example, answer the following question to illustrate my point...

"What must I do to be saved?"

:think:

Z.,

The only answer I could think of that you probably will accept is: Never Sin.

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 16th, 2004, 05:48 PM
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6 NKJV).

What pleases God? This text teaches us that without faith it is impossible to please God. What are the elements of the faith for which God is looking? This verse and its context answers that question. Saving faith causes one to diligently seek God through Christ. It causes one to understand that one must do the will of the Father without question. Christianity is a service to God by God's will. When He tells us to believe in His will it is a reasonable request. When He tells us to repent and be baptized to wash away our sins, we need not have to rationalize because He is perfect in His wisdom and knows what we must do. Do you want to live in Heaven eternally with God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. If you do then express your saving faith in obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9).

JustAChristian

JustAChristian

Aimiel
September 16th, 2004, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Oh really?

That's not how I read the Bible...That's because you're reading It through contrary eyes; looking for something to dispute, something to defend your chosen theology with.
"Many are called but few are chosen." - Mt. 20:16

"Salvation is of the Jews." - Jn. 14:22

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mk 16:16

He that doubteth is damned." Rom. 14:23

"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Lk 13:3

... and so on...You forgot to put the price by each one. The fact is, none of them are 'requirements,' before salvation is granted (there aren't any), and none of them cost anything. What's your beef?
According to some, receiving this "free gift" requires baptism; for others it does not.I believe The Lord, Who said that those that believe upon Him would be saved. That is free, because faith in The Lord has been given, and all it takes is aiming that faith at Him to find Him.
According to some, receiving this "free gift" requires repentance and changing one's lifestyle; for others it does not.The fact is, it is free, and requires the believer to believe upon The Lord for their salvation only. He doesn't require believers to meet any qualifications, price or steps, only that they believe. The repentance comes from believers who have been changed by His Love, He does not withhold His Love untill something is given. That is why He died while we were still sinners, because He wanted to save us from our sins, not find a way to prohibit us from salvation, but to make the way clear for us to come to Him, just as we are, and obtain eternal life.
According to some, receiveing this "free gift" requires that one dedicate one's life to service of an unseen, relatively uncommunicative supernatural being; for others it does not.To know Him is to love Him. When one encounters Him, one is (more often than not) moved very deeply and drawn closer to Him. Service to Him is not required, but brings many rewards, both in this life and the next.
For some, it requires acquiring a certain type of "faith" in the existence of something they cannot see, taste, touch, hear, or otherwise personally experience...Without faith, no one will ever please God. We have received from Him the gift of faith, putting it in Him doesn't cost, it pays. Escape from hell, eternal life, mansion in Heaven and joy, unspeakable and full of glory. Not placing faith in God also pays: eternal torment, depression, despair, poor attitude, no help in times of need, no comfort at the loss of a loved one and many days wasted on selfish lusts.
It's all very confusing and contradictory for those of us on the outside desiring to know just what is necessary... What is necessary is grace. God gives us grace, through the faith that He gives, which is His free gift to us. We need grace to enter Heaven. It is free, but if you don't want it, it won't be forced upon you. It is available to every soul, because there is no cost or obligation, but if you don't want to believe in God, then you'll have no part in Heaven. He's not going to force Himself on anyone. If He were to appear, and bring men under His subjection by His Power, then you'd have something to complain about, but that's not what He is about. He loves you, and wants you to respond to that love. That's all He wants.

Lighthouse
September 16th, 2004, 11:53 PM
Go Aimiel!


Originally posted by JustAChristian

Z.,

The only answer I could think of that you probably will accept is: Never Sin.

JustAChristian
Have you ever sinned? You have just proven yourself an idiot.

Zakath-
"Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead."
That's it. That's all there is. Nothing more.

philosophizer
September 17th, 2004, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

"Free" should mean just what Christian's claim and non-believers expect - without cost, gratuituous.

The problem that we outsiders face is that every time one of you prattles on about this allegedly "free" gift, you attach a list of requirements that must be fulfilled to

a) obtain the gift

b) retain the gift

For example, answer the following question to illustrate my point...

"What must I do to be saved?"

:think:


The problem "you outsiders" have with that line of thinking is that you reduce the semantics into absurdity in order to claim that there is no such thing as a free gift.

I bet you can't give me any kind of example of what you would consider to be a free gift. There will always be some level of obligation for you to object to, even if it's as simple as moving a couple finger muscles as someone's handing you something.

philosophizer
September 17th, 2004, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Are they valid Christian churches, in your opinion?

Valid? Yes. Correct? No. A football team that has never won a game is still a football team.



If so, then why should I give any more credence to some anonymous Internet poster than to established Christian groups?
Are you serious? That must be an awfully funny way to live your life-- ascribing validity only to the opinions of large groups-- the larger the better.

I know what you're saying though. I'm only one person. But Christian groups are also made up of individuals --not all of them with exactly the same view. No one knows it all, and I'm sure I've got a few things wrong too. Through the differences, all the Christian groups have one common thread: salvation comes through Jesus.



If it's free then I need do nothing to obtain it or maintain it, right? :think:

If so, then I'm already saved...

Nope. Neither is a "prize" on which you must pay taxes...

I'll repeat a simple universal principle since you seem to have missed it in my earlier post...

TANSTAAFL - Their Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Anyone who promises you a free gift is trying to sell you something... :chuckle:

Please realize, you are only defeating the semantics. You are not defeating or even touching the concept. By your argument, the word "free" should be stricken from the dictionary. It has no meaning. It has no possible application to us. If you think you are whittling away at faith in God, you are only whittling away at the skeleton of words you have built around it.

You are usually a reasonable man. But in this case, your argument is unreasonable.

Ecumenicist
September 17th, 2004, 10:06 AM
Zakath,

Even a free gift needs to be accepted. That's all that is required,
logically, scripturally, etc. The gift is offerred freely, unconditionally,
all anyone need do is accept it. Its that simple.

djm

Aimiel
September 17th, 2004, 10:18 AM
Oh no, you have to accept it? Well, that isn't free, that's pending your acceptance. And God doesn't 'appear' to hand it to you, along with a certificate and your photo in the paper. That just isn't good enough for Zak.

JustAChristian
September 17th, 2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Go Aimiel!


Have you ever sinned? You have just proven yourself an idiot.

Zakath-
"Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead."
That's it. That's all there is. Nothing more.

Z.,

Are you saying you don't have to repent of your sins? Where did you say it, if indeed you did say it?


Have you ever sinned? You have just proven yourself an idiot.

Guess I hit a sore spot. Sorry!

JustAChristian :chuckle:

Zakath
September 17th, 2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Z.,

The only answer I could think of that you probably will accept is: Never Sin.

JustAChristian So one must do something. In this case, do some action (avoid sins of ommission) or abstain from doing others (avoid sins of commission).

Either way, the human involved in the transaction must input into a transaction, making the "gift" less than "free".

JustAChristian
September 17th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

So one must do something. In this case, do some action (avoid sins of ommission) or abstain from doing others (avoid sins of commission).

Either way, the human involved in the transaction must input into a transaction, making the "gift" less than "free".

Z.,

The epistles of the New Testament written by Paul, Peter and James are FILLED with statement of requirement for sanctification, justification and salvation. Why don't you sit down and read it sometimes/ You'd be amazed at what you'd find. It could be the first time that you have ever read real Truth!

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 17th, 2004, 11:42 AM
Z.,

The epistles of the New Testament written by Paul, Peter and James are FILLED with statement of requirement for sanctification, justification and salvation. Why don't you sit down and read it sometimes/ You'd be amazed at what you'd find. It could be the first time that you have ever read real Truth! Further, I have never know any gift that didn't require some action on the part of the receipient to gain it, have you?

JustAChristian :angel:

philosophizer
September 17th, 2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Z.,

The epistles of the New Testament written by Paul, Peter and James are FILLED with statement of requirement for sanctification, justification and salvation. Why don't you sit down and read it sometimes/ You'd be amazed at what you'd find. It could be the first time that you have ever read real Truth!

JustAChristian :angel:


And here's an example of what I was talking about, Z.

Zakath
September 17th, 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Valid? Yes. Correct? No. A football team that has never won a game is still a football team.Not to most coaches or fans... ;)

How can an "incorrect" church be a church? What makes some group a "church" in your opinion?


Are you serious? That must be an awfully funny way to live your life-- ascribing validity only to the opinions of large groups-- the larger the better.Hardly. I just do not feel it is important to ascribe much significance to some anonoymous voice crying in the electronic wilderness... which is, in reality, all you are to me. I can see, touch, feel, and experience organized churches through their members, their programs, their effects on the world around them.

You are merely letters on a screen...


I know what you're saying though. I'm only one person. But Christian groups are also made up of individuals --not all of them with exactly the same view. No one knows it all, and I'm sure I've got a few things wrong too. I would have to agree with you here... ;)


Through the differences, all the Christian groups have one common thread: salvation comes through Jesus.But what does that mean?????

What is "salvation" to you, philosophiser? :think:


Please realize, you are only defeating the semantics. You are not defeating or even touching the concept.But for a religion whose deity is defined in his "Word" or "Logos", semantics are very important. If they are improper or carelessly used, the meaning of the terms under discussion can be distorted or even completely misunderstood.


By your argument, the word "free" should be stricken from the dictionary. It has no meaning.Of course not. You're merely claiming that since it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas regarding your soteriology that it's meaningless.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The word "free" has a variety of meanings. It's just that none of them are accurate descriptions of what most Christians of my acquaintance mean when they discuss soteriology.


You are usually a reasonable man. But in this case, your argument is unreasonable. All arguments that disagree with one's preconceptions appear unreasonable at first. Some, after careful consideration, show themselves to be chock full of reasonableness. :chuckle:

Zakath
September 17th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Z.,

The epistles of the New Testament written by Paul, Peter and James are FILLED with statement of requirement for sanctification, justification and salvation. Why don't you sit down and read it sometimes/ You'd be amazed at what you'd find. It could be the first time that you have ever read real Truth!
As a former pastor, I've read those documents many times in several different languages. No matter what the language they are all inherently contradictory and irrational, particularly when compared to the gospels and the Jewish scriptures.

Zakath
September 17th, 2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian
...Further, I have never know any gift that didn't require some action on the part of the receipient to gain it, have you?

Permit me to broaden your education. :chuckle:

Biological life is one example. It is given to you by your parents without your cooperation.

Now, after birth you may refuse nourishment, fatally injure yourself, or reject life in some other manner, but you did nothing to receive it.

Certain legal statuses, like citizenship by birth, are additional examples.

Ecumenicist
September 17th, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Oh no, you have to accept it? Well, that isn't free, that's pending your acceptance. And God doesn't 'appear' to hand it to you, along with a certificate and your photo in the paper. That just isn't good enough for Zak.

Perhaps the meaning of the word "accept" needs to be
discussed.

Lets take an example of a 5.00 gold coin of some rare vintage
and mint.

I can understand that coin as a shiney object, which is nice.

I can understand it as having a face value of 5.00, which is nicer.

I can understand it as an object made of gold, which by weight
alone probably excedes a 5.00 value.

I can understand its history and rareness and trade value, which
may make it even more valuable.

If I find that even more than that, its a family heirloom of some
kind, passed down through the generations, I may in fact
find it priceless in its sentimental value, beyond its rarity of mint.

If I wake up one morning and find that coin on my doorstep,
I can ignore it, or I can accept it, take it into my possession.

My accepting the coin has no relationship to my understanding
of its worth. Over time, I may learn and grow in my appreciation
of the value of the gift, but at the time I discover that gift and
accept it, my acceptance of it is NOT contingent on my understanding
of its value.

See where I'm getting here? The gift is offerred freely, and
although some of us who are mature in our understanding
of scripture and theology recognize it as "the pearl of great
price," others may not recognize its great value at first.

I can tell you from experience that cramming life, death,
resurrection, atonement, dispensation, hell, damnation,
and eternity all into a huge wad and trying to attach that all to
the simple gift scares people away. And that's exactly what
Christ warns the Pharisees against over and over. Don't
scare away my children, don't misrepresent my intentions,
I come to save the world, not condemn it!

Start with "God loves you, unconditionally." That's the simple,
shiney object. Accept that, and then, perhaps, as maturing
occurs, the rest will follow. You guys are wrapping this
beautiful, simple gift in a huge laundry list that almost makes it
unrecognizable. Smacking someone with a bible and saying
"here, read this, and accept it" is alot different from the simple
gift that salvation is.

djm

philosophizer
September 17th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

How can an "incorrect" church be a church? What makes some group a "church" in your opinion?
If I read a sentance and then gather the wrong meaning of the sentance, does that mean I never read it?

A church can be wrong about things. A government can be wrong. A jury can be wrong. All that means is that they're wrong about something. Everybody is.



Hardly. I just do not feel it is important to ascribe much significance to some anonoymous voice crying in the electronic wilderness... which is, in reality, all you are to me. I can see, touch, feel, and experience organized churches through their members, their programs, their effects on the world around them.

You are merely letters on a screen...
:o Aww, you sweet-talker, you...



But what does that mean?????Believe.



What is "salvation" to you, philosophiser? :think:My undeserved adoption into a royal family.



Of course not. You're merely claiming that since it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas regarding your soteriology that it's meaningless.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The word "free" has a variety of meanings. It's just that none of them are accurate descriptions of what most Christians of my acquaintance mean when they discuss soteriology.
REALLY. Okay then, describe something real that is free. Example, not definition.



All arguments that disagree with one's preconceptions appear unreasonable at first. Some, after careful consideration, show themselves to be chock full of reasonableness. :chuckle:
As it stands, your argument appears to me to be unreasonable because you don't seem willing to accept any real or applicable use of the word "free." If you can give me an example of something real that is free, I might be able to see some of your reason.

If you can't, I'll have to assume that you cannot accept any use of the word "free" and are therefore being unreasonable with the English language.

Ecumenicist
September 17th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Permit me to broaden your education. :chuckle:

Biological life is one example. It is given to you by your parents without your cooperation.

Now, after birth you may refuse nourishment, fatally injure yourself, or reject life in some other manner, but you did nothing to receive it.

Certain legal statuses, like citizenship by birth, are additional examples.

Wow, great example. I'll have to chew on this awhile...

djm

Ecumenicist
September 17th, 2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Permit me to broaden your education. :chuckle:

Biological life is one example. It is given to you by your parents without your cooperation.

Now, after birth you may refuse nourishment, fatally injure yourself, or reject life in some other manner, but you did nothing to receive it.

Certain legal statuses, like citizenship by birth, are additional examples.

So, by this logic, why not universalism? Why atheism instead?
just curious.

JustAChristian
September 17th, 2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

As a former pastor, I've read those documents many times in several different languages. No matter what the language they are all inherently contradictory and irrational, particularly when compared to the gospels and the Jewish scriptures.

It still says, "Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free." (John 4:24). Pray tell us, How does the Truth make one free if one is made free by Grace Alone, which is your principle doctrine?

JustAChristian :angel:

Aimiel
September 17th, 2004, 12:59 PM
The person must never sin, ever. There is Only One Who has ever lived that met those guidlines. He decided to give us His Grace for free.

philosophizer
September 17th, 2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

It still says, "Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free." (John 4:24). Pray tell us, How does the Truth make one free if one is made free by Grace Alone, which is your principle doctrine?

JustAChristian :angel:


Grace IS the Truth.

Zakath
September 17th, 2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

If I read a sentance and then gather the wrong meaning of the sentance, does that mean I never read it? A church can be wrong about things. A government can be wrong. A jury can be wrong. All that means is that they're wrong about something. Everybody is.But if you call yourself an adherent of a particular religion and do not adhere to the necessary tenets (dogmas) of that relgion, are you a representative body of that religion?




[quote]:o Aww, you sweet-talker, you... "You catch more flies with honey... " ;)


My undeserved adoption into a royal family.I think this is a particularly weak analogy. One may be adopted into a family without any rational action on one's own part (i.e. an infant adopted into an existing family). Yet Christians, almost universally, claim that one must do something to be "saved"... :think:


REALLY. Okay then, describe something real that is free. Example, not definition.See this post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=592602#post592602) for two such examples. You may very well have provided a third with your adoption example...


As it stands, your argument appears to me to be unreasonable because you don't seem willing to accept any real or applicable use of the word "free." If you can give me an example of something real that is free, I might be able to see some of your reason.Gladly. See my reply to your previous request to describe something that is free, above.

Zakath
September 17th, 2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

It still says, "Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free." (John 4:24). Pray tell us, How does the Truth make one free if one is made free by Grace Alone, which is your principle doctrine?First you are making up your own translation of the gospels. They do not use capitalization in that way. That "T" in "truth" is not capitalized.

Second your reference is incorrect. You're citing John 8:32. :rolleyes:


I know the truth about the Christian deity and it has set me free from deities and religion. :D

JustAChristian
September 17th, 2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Grace IS the Truth.

The Bible seperates them into two entities...

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

John 1:17 "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

If you have Christ you have grace and truth, but you can not have Christ by grace alone. If so, where is it found in the scriptures?

JustAChristian

_________________________________________

“But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.? (Romans 3:21-26 AV)

Lighthouse
September 18th, 2004, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Z.,

Are you saying you don't have to repent of your sins? Where did you say it, if indeed you did say it?



Guess I hit a sore spot. Sorry!

JustAChristian :chuckle:
"Repent of" is illogical. "Repent from" would be more correct. And that repentance is an effect of God's love. All one has to do is love God. That's it. I have sinned, but I don't own my sins. Not anymore. They have been removed from me, and forgotten.

And, btw, Paul's epistles are not full of works required for salvation. You should really go reread them.

JustAChristian
September 18th, 2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

"Repent of" is illogical. "Repent from" would be more correct. And that repentance is an effect of God's love. All one has to do is love God. That's it. I have sinned, but I don't own my sins. Not anymore. They have been removed from me, and forgotten.

And, btw, Paul's epistles are not full of works required for salvation. You should really go reread them.


"Repent of" is illogical

Revelation 2:22 "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds."


And, btw, Paul's epistles are not full of works required for salvation. You should really go reread them.

Romans 1:16 ¶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

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

Romans 13:11 ¶ And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

2 Corinthians 1:6 And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation.

2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Philippians 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Pauls epistles definately shows that one has acts of faith (works of righteousness) that is required unto salvation and in order to maintain one's salvation.

JustAChristian

BChristianK
September 18th, 2004, 07:06 PM
JustaChristian,


It looks like you have your hands full.

Nonetheless, if you could please answer my question when you get to it, I'd appreciate it.

My question was
Final question, lets say you talk to a guy on a plane, you tell him about Jesus. He sends you an email three days later telling you he has repented of his sin, now believes that Jesus is Savior and Lord and has risen from the dead just like the scriptures say, and he is going to get baptized at his local Church of Christ the very next Sunday. You hear that a tragic accident has occurred, while he was crossing the street on his way to church on Sunday, he was hit by a greyhound bus, killing him instantly.
Now, does your theology force you to conclude that he is now rotting in hell?

Grace and Peace

Lighthouse
September 18th, 2004, 08:45 PM
Okay. I still think "repent from" sounds more like the proper usage, based ion the definition of repent.

JustAChristian
September 19th, 2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

JustaChristian,


It looks like you have your hands full.

Nonetheless, if you could please answer my question when you get to it, I'd appreciate it.

Grace and Peace

BChristianK,

Suppose a young man from a rich and noble family and beautiful lady decided to be married after courting each other for several months. The day is set, the license is bought, the marriage site arranged, the marriage court is selected, the preacher is requested, and all is in order for the great day. When it did come, the groom was on his way to the church with his family when he was involved in a tragic car accident. His body was seriously injured in several places. The family rushed him to the hospital where he later died from his massive injuries. The bride waits at the church till the time of the wedding not knowing what had happened. No word came of the accident. All she knew is that the groom had not arrived as planned. Later, the parents of the groom came and told her that their son was dead. The young lady immediately makes a claim to his heritage but will the judge recognize her as heir since they were not married? “No, the court can not relieve you to claim since you were not married to this man.? What a great tragedy and what a great loss.

It should be known that since she was not married to the groom it negated her claim to his inheritance. The same is true regarding our marriage to Christ. Romans 7:4 says that “we are married to another who was raised from the dead.? Romans 6:5 points out that baptism is the point when we are united to Christ. Galatians 3:27 says we put on Christ in baptism.

God alone can judge people. If we neglect to be baptized for remission of sins we cannot claim God does not love us. If we are lost it is because we are the ones who have refused his directions for receiving forgiveness.

JuatAChristian


2 Corinthians 6:2 "...(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)"

JustAChristian
September 19th, 2004, 01:39 PM
All spiritual blessings can only be found in Jesus Christ. There is no way to have spiritual blessings if we only work the works of mankind. Many have become blinded to this fact by the consequences of works. A great many see the enormous crowds of denominationalism and think this is well pleasing to God. They say things such as “God must be pleased with our activity and worship. Look at the way we have grown, and look at the many good thing that we are doing.? Others feel that we should not debate religion and say, “Why can’t we just be one happy family?? Things that pertain to truth are not fully measured in light of God’s revealed will. Man often becomes blinded by the leadership of opinion and bias rather than a thus saith the Lord. Some often believe that God gives great liberties in spirituality. While there is a perfect plan for worship and service, many can not find that plan because they approach the word of God as a book of great mystery. They believe the Bible is corrupt with contradictions, and has lost its exclusive value as a perfect guide. Consequently they feel that trying to find the true God is impossible, so they substitute for the real God with opinions and suppositions. Their lives are much like those who held to idolatry and superstition before Jesus opened the door of faith. Who even today live where this life style is greatly practiced. Who would take a tree and fashion it into an image and overlay it with gold. Something that must be carried about because it can not move of itself. That has no life nor can give life (Jeremiah 10:3-6), and allow it to command their lives. Yet the God who loves us and who created us with the capabilities to make right choices is far removed from the thoughts of many.


JustAChristina

JustAChristian
September 19th, 2004, 01:43 PM
All spiritual blessings can only be found in Jesus Christ. There is no way to have spiritual blessings if we only work the works of mankind. Many have become blinded to this fact by the consequences of works. A great many see the enormous crowds of denominationalism and think this is well pleasing to God. They say things such as “God must be pleased with our activity and worship. Look at the way we have grown, and look at the many good thing that we are doing.? Others feel that we should not debate religion and say, “Why can’t we just be one happy family?? Things that pertain to truth are not fully measured in light of God’s revealed will. Man often becomes blinded by the leadership of opinion and bias rather than a thus saith the Lord. Some often believe that God gives great liberties in spirituality. While there is a perfect plan for worship and service, many can not find that plan because they approach the word of God as a book of great mystery. They believe the Bible is corrupt with contradictions, and has lost its exclusive value as a perfect guide. Consequently they feel that trying to find the true God is impossible, so they substitute for the real God with opinions and suppositions. Their lives are much like those who held to idolatry and superstition before Jesus opened the door of faith. Who even today live where this life style is greatly practiced. Who would take a tree and fashion it into an image and overlay it with gold. Something that must be carried about because it can not move of itself. That has no life nor can give life (Jeremiah 10:3-6), and allow it to command their lives. Yet the God who loves us and who created us with the capabilities to make right choices is far removed from the thoughts of many.

Also, God is especially concerned with those that believe for, "...It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor 1:21). We believe when we accept the truth of God. Not everything is truth. Man would have us believe that truth is relative. But, truth does not change. Once established, truth remains. God will save those that believe the gospel. The gospel is the massage of good news. It tells of the life of Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee. Who was born of Mary the espoused wife of Joseph. Before their union, she was promised of God by the angel Gabriel to bear a son in virginity. He would not be just a son, but would be the son of God. She would conceive of the Holy Spirit and give birth of the promised messiah. Jesus was born is the city of Bethlehem and after many days, dwelt in Egypt as his parents hid him from the hatred of Herod in Jerusalem. In His life on earth he greatly changed the lives of many who would receive Him. Today it is the same. “For as many as received him (then and now) to them gave he the power to become sons of God, to as many as would believe on His name? (John 1:12).

JustAChristian

Zakath
September 19th, 2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

So, by this logic, why not universalism? Why atheism instead?
just curious. Sorry about the late reply, I just ran across this post... :o

Universalism does not seem to fit the Christian mythos. Atheism seems to fit the evidence (or lack of it) more closely for me.

Lighthouse
September 20th, 2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

BChristianK,

Suppose a young man from a rich and noble family and beautiful lady decided to be married after courting each other for several months. The day is set, the license is bought, the marriage site arranged, the marriage court is selected, the preacher is requested, and all is in order for the great day. When it did come, the groom was on his way to the church with his family when he was involved in a tragic car accident. His body was seriously injured in several places. The family rushed him to the hospital where he later died from his massive injuries. The bride waits at the church till the time of the wedding not knowing what had happened. No word came of the accident. All she knew is that the groom had not arrived as planned. Later, the parents of the groom came and told her that their son was dead. The young lady immediately makes a claim to his heritage but will the judge recognize her as heir since they were not married? “No, the court can not relieve you to claim since you were not married to this man.? What a great tragedy and what a great loss.

It should be known that since she was not married to the groom it negated her claim to his inheritance. The same is true regarding our marriage to Christ.
Our "marriage" tio Christ is not a legal arrangement. Nor is it contingent upon legal [by law] definitions. Neither man's law, nor God's law.


Romans 7:4 says that “we are married to another who was raised from the dead.? Romans 6:5 points out that baptism is the point when we are united to Christ. Galatians 3:27 says we put on Christ in baptism.
"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a ressurection like his."
-Romans 6:5
I don't see the word baptism in that verse.

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
-Galatins 3:27
Where have you seen any of us say we were not baptized into Christ? We merely sid that water baptism is not the baptism in Christ that we have, as the Body of Christ. We are baptized into Christ [by the Spirit] at the moment of faith in Him. And that is when we put on Christ.


God alone can judge people. If we neglect to be baptized for remission of sins we cannot claim God does not love us. If we are lost it is because we are the ones who have refused his directions for receiving forgiveness.
Yes, God alone can judge people, and water baptism is not a condition of salvation for those not under the law. And since no one is under the law anymore...

The shedding of Christ's blood iwas for the remission of our sins, and when we believe, we are baptized in His blood. And our sins are no more.

I would like to know what you believe about sin, though. Do you believe that we must return to God for the forgiveness of subsequent sins, after conversion?

JustAChristian
September 20th, 2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Our "marriage" tio Christ is not a legal arrangement. Nor is it contingent upon legal [by law] definitions. Neither man's law, nor God's law.


"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a ressurection like his."
-Romans 6:5
I don't see the word baptism in that verse.

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
-Galatins 3:27
Where have you seen any of us say we were not baptized into Christ? We merely sid that water baptism is not the baptism in Christ that we have, as the Body of Christ. We are baptized into Christ [by the Spirit] at the moment of faith in Him. And that is when we put on Christ.


Yes, God alone can judge people, and water baptism is not a condition of salvation for those not under the law. And since no one is under the law anymore...

The shedding of Christ's blood iwas for the remission of our sins, and when we believe, we are baptized in His blood. And our sins are no more.

I would like to know what you believe about sin, though. Do you believe that we must return to God for the forgiveness of subsequent sins, after conversion?


Lighthouse....


Our "marriage" to Christ is not a legal arrangement. Nor is it contingent upon legal [by law] definitions. Neither man's law, nor God's law.

Someone once said, “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.? Need I say more? Have you not heard of the Law of Christ? (Gal. 6:2). Everything is based on the law of Christ, the gospel or perfect law of liberty (Rom. 1:16; James 1:25).



"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a ressurection like his." -Romans 6:5
I don't see the word baptism in that verse.

Could it be because the word is not in the passage? Does the literal word have to be there to prove the case? Do you not know about the law of necessary inference? School is now in session.

All actions that the Bible authorizes are either stated explicitly (by direct statement) or by implication (necessary inference). If Bible authority is not authorized by implication then the Bible does not authorize any action from individuals today. You can not prove that anything stated in the Bible applies to you. The Bible teaches that some unity is sinful just as some division is honorable (2 Cor. 6:14-17 – 7:1; Eph 5:11). Only by rightly diving the Word will anyone be able to know the difference (2 Tim. 2:15). We do not rightly divide the Word by denying the implicit teaching (necessary inferences) of the Bible. God, “the only wise? (Rom. 16:27), says, “Come now, let us reason together...? (Isaiah 1:18). When people reason together, inescapable truths, not expressly stated in a text, show themselves, among other things, the existence and eternity of God.

How do we understand and use necessary inference? Let us “reason together.? Nowhere does the Bible say that one must be old enough to believe before being baptized. But teaching must precede baptism: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them...? (Matthew 28:18). If teaching must precede baptism, it is a necessary inference that infants are not scriptural subjects for baptism. On the point of “burial in baptism,? in Romans 6:5; since immersion requires a burial, as mentioned in Romans 6:4-5 and Colossians 2:12, an unavoidable implication is that immersion is necessary. The word “baptism? is necessarily inferred in the verses. Further, the Bible does not directly say that preaching Jesus includes preaching baptism, but since a man who had never heard of baptism asked for it after he had heard a sermon on “Jesus,? one infers necessarily that Jesus cannot be fully preached without baptism being preached (Acts 8:35-36).



"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." -Galatins 3:27 Where have you seen any of us say we were not baptized into Christ? We merely sid that water baptism is not the baptism in Christ that we have, as the Body of Christ. We are baptized into Christ [by the Spirit] at the moment of faith in Him. And that is when we put on Christ.


You cannot find one example of the Holy Spirit being the “element? for one’s union with Christ at the moment of faith in Him. The baptism in Galatians 3:27 is found in the Jamieson, Faucett and Brown Commentary on the verse to say,

"Ye did, in that very act of being baptized into Christ, put on, or clothe yourselves with, Christ: so the Greek expresses. Christ is to you the toga virilis (the Roman garment of the full-grown man, assumed when ceasing to be a child) [BENGEL]. GATAKER defines a Christian, "One who has put on Christ." The argument is, By baptism ye have put on Christ; and therefore, He being the Son of God, ye become sons by adoption, by virtue of His Sonship by generation. This proves that baptism, where it answers to its ideal, is not a mere empty sign, but a means of spiritual transference from the state of legal condemnation to that of living union with Christ, and of sonship through Him in relation to God."


Yes, God alone can judge people, and water baptism is not a condition of salvation for those not under the law. And since no one is under the law anymore...

Did Jesus say, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved?? Yes, He did. Where is it recorded? It is in Marks gospel chapter 16 and verse 16. To whom is this directed? It is to all the world found in verse 15 of the same chapter. I don’t know how it could be made more plain as to who baptism applies.



The shedding of Christ's blood was for the remission of our sins, and when we believe, we are baptized in His blood. And our sins are no more.

Where does the Bible imply that believing only will affect a baptism in His blood? Was Paul told to believe and wash away thy sins or was he told to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins? It is a simple question and I expect you to make a hundred on the short test.



I would like to know what you believe about sin, though. Do you believe that we must return to God for the forgiveness of subsequent sins, after conversion?

John said, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world?(1 John 2:1-2 AV). Some Christians believed that one they were saved they entered a state of inability to sin. John answers this false conclusion by further saying, “ If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us? (1 John 1:6-10 AV) Christians can sin after salvation and must understand that. I believe they must confess their sins publically if it is of a public nature and unto God in prayer if of a private nature.


In Christ,
JustAChristian

Ecumenicist
September 20th, 2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Sorry about the late reply, I just ran across this post... :o

Universalism does not seem to fit the Christian mythos. Atheism seems to fit the evidence (or lack of it) more closely for me.

I appreciate your honesty. I agree that the Christian tradition
in general does not support the idea of universalism, but I think
that a good argument can be made that the Christian text does.
Passages which are translated "faith in Christ," would
better be translated "faith of Christ," the idea being that we
are reconciled to God through Christ's faith, not our own.

Interesting, though, isn't it, that similar arguments can be used
to support either universalism or atheism, and also interesting
that from a salvific perspective, on the surface anyway one
might argue from either perspective that differentiating between
the two is irrelevant...

djm

Zakath
September 20th, 2004, 11:14 AM
Dave,

Never being one to forego an opportunity to take a poke at the OVer's, perhaps it's all a matter of one's presuppositions.

;)

Ecumenicist
September 20th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Dave,

Never being one to forego an opportunity to take a poke at the OVer's, perhaps it's all a matter of one's presuppositions.

;)

I confess ignorance, what's an OVer?

djm

BChristianK
September 20th, 2004, 11:56 AM
JustaChristian,

I assume your story was meant as a reply to my story. I’ll tell you what, I’ll not perpetuate the cycle of answering stories with stories if you will permit me the same courtesy.

So I’ll provide an answer to your example if you will do the same with mine, fair?

Now you said:


Suppose a young man from a rich and noble family and beautiful lady decided to be married after courting each other for several months. The day is set, the license is bought, the marriage site arranged, the marriage court is selected, the preacher is requested, and all is in order for the great day. When it did come, the groom was on his way to the church with his family when he was involved in a tragic car accident. His body was seriously injured in several places. The family rushed him to the hospital where he later died from his massive injuries. The bride waits at the church till the time of the wedding not knowing what had happened. No word came of the accident. All she knew is that the groom had not arrived as planned. Later, the parents of the groom came and told her that their son was dead. The young lady immediately makes a claim to his heritage but will the judge recognize her as heir since they were not married?

Will an earthly judge with the authority granted him by men and by the philosophies of this world grant this young lady his heritage?

Your anticipated answer is probably correct.


“No, the court can not relieve you to claim since you were not married to this man.? What a great tragedy and what a great loss.

Your right, this earthly judge has not the authority nor reason to act graciously to this young woman. But we must remember that we are not judged by earthly principles.

Not what would Jesus say to one like the thief on the cross (who was clearly not baptized according to your formula) and clearly died before he was able to do so.

Was this bride (the thief) married to the groom (Christ) through the ritual of baptism?

Clearly not. Would an earthly judge say, what you have said.?


It should be known that since she was not married to the groom it negated her claim to his inheritance. The same is true regarding our marriage to Christ. Romans 7:4 says that “we are married to another who was raised from the dead.? Romans 6:5 points out that baptism is the point when we are united to Christ. Galatians 3:27 says we put on Christ in baptism.

Probably.

Is this what Jesus said?

No, He said,



Luke 23:43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Now you have said:


God alone can judge people.

And God alone has judged the thief on the cross and it appears that His judgment runs contrary to your judgment on whether or not he would be condemned to hell.


If we neglect to be baptized for remission of sins we cannot claim God does not love us. If we are lost it is because we are the ones who have refused his directions for receiving forgiveness.


Here is where you and I may be closer in theology than you might think. :)
As Baptists, we have been a bit neglectful of what the bible says is the initiatory rite that represents the confession faith. In many Baptist and baptistic circles, baptism is really an afterthought, somethin’ to do after you are for sure saved. I have heard it said in Baptist circles that this is “just,? and they have used the word just, the first act of obedience after salvation.

Well, if a person isn’t willing to undergo what the Baptists say is “just? the first act of obedience to Christ, and what the bible advocates is the way a person publicly professes their faith, then I would have to admit that there is something seriously wrong, either with their understanding of the role of baptism or the authenticity of their heart conversion (unless of course there is some medical reason they cannot participate in a water baptism).

So when you say:



2 Corinthians 6:2 "...(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)"

I totally agree!

For those who have come to accept Christ’s free offer of forgiveness, having repented of their sins and confessed Christ as Lord, believing in their heart that God raised Him from the dead, it is scripturally imperative that baptism follow as soon as possible! I long for the day when we are again willing to baptize the converted immediately. (though there is some question as to how soon constitutes immediately in the bible, I’m pretty sure the upper room didn’t have a baptistery).

But for those who have been taught that it isn’t really that important, or who have been misled by teaching that it shouldn’t occur at all (like the Mid acts brethren who don’t practice baptism at all), I have a hard time thinking that God will assign them to eternal punishment due to their ignorance.

If we make the waters of baptism magical, such that anyone who does it is saved and anyone who doesn’t isn’t, we have gone beyond what the word teaches us about baptism and we trampled sufficiency of faith for salvation which is clearly taught throughout the scriptures.

You see, we need to accept the whole of the word, not just the parts that ratify our theology, and that goes for all of us, the Baptists included. For the baptistic types, we have to come to terms with Acts 2:38


Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

For those in the Restoration traditions like the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, there is a need to come to terms with Acts 10.


Acts 10:47-48 Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

If we believe that Holy Spirit is the seal of our salvation (and we should)…


Ephesians 1:13-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-- to the praise of his glory.

Then it is hard to argue that those who received the spirit before they were baptized, were unsaved until they were dunked. If we believe Ephesians 1:13 without adding out own speculative footnotes then we must assume that it was true that they were marked in Him with Holy Spirit. Now we could, footnote the passage and say “having believed, oh yea, and baptized, Paul meant that, he just didn’t say it, an oversight of the Holy Spirit maybe?? You would surely agree with me that such a practice would not be very consistent with the Restorationist’s confession that the bible is the only creed, wouldn’t it? Do we not construct our own creeds, whether they be written and published or not, if we consistently footnote the bible with our own theology instead of letting Ephesians 1:13 stand on its own?

I look forward to your direct answers to my previous question…


Final question, lets say you talk to a guy on a plane, you tell him about Jesus. He sends you an email three days later telling you he has repented of his sin, now believes that Jesus is Savior and Lord and has risen from the dead just like the scriptures say, and he is going to get baptized at his local Church of Christ the very next Sunday. You hear that a tragic accident has occurred, while he was crossing the street on his way to church on Sunday, he was hit by a greyhound bus, killing him instantly.
Now, does your theology force you to conclude that he is now rotting in hell?

Unless you say otherwise, I will assume your answer is yes for the remainder of our dialog.


Grace and Peace

Ecumenicist
September 20th, 2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Dave,

Never being one to forego an opportunity to take a poke at the OVer's, perhaps it's all a matter of one's presuppositions.

;)

Assuming that I am an OVer, whatever that means, I'll agree
with you on this one. Karl Barth argued that this is exactly
the way Christianity needs to approach faith, with the
presupposition that God is real and Scripture has meaning.

Before that, the liberal (Harnackian) approach to theology was
to use human experience and reason to try to understand
Scripture and prove God's existance.

djm

philosophizer
September 20th, 2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Permit me to broaden your education. :chuckle:

Biological life is one example. It is given to you by your parents without your cooperation.

Now, after birth you may refuse nourishment, fatally injure yourself, or reject life in some other manner, but you did nothing to receive it.

Certain legal statuses, like citizenship by birth, are additional examples.


Biological life:

This is not an example of a free gift. It does meet one standard, that the receiving party does not have to do anything. But this is only because at the instance of the giving, there is not yet a receiving party. The gift creates the gift-getter. Refusal of the gift is not possible simply because there's no one there to refuse.



Citizenship by birth:

Citizenship is only a word unless one lives where one can receive the benifits from it. It is also a legal concept and, at birth, there are always other parties legally in charge of the wellfare of a child-- usually parents. If those parents choose to live somewhere lacking in the reach or knowledge of the benefits of that citizenship, then it is no gift at all.

Also, this gift is only applicable if the baby is born alive, which to some degree is up to the child itself, though not as a matter of will.



Adoption:

This also depends, to some degree, on others who are place in legal responsibility over the children. Other parties have the chance to refuse the "gift" which, by your standards, would make it not truly free.




But still, I question your reasonability on the use of the word "free." You seem to be able to only apply it to situations where the gift recipient is either non-existent or unable, physically, mentally, and legally to exersize her or her will.

JustAChristian
September 20th, 2004, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

BChristianK,

Thank you for your consideration of my answer.

How refreshing to find someone who is indeed interested in a study of the Bible. I hope this progresses between us. I will try hard not to make you mad, but you probably will get mad from time to time. I hope it want interfere with a positive approach to the study and a deep consideration to what I have to say.

Some of my answers may be long. I do a lot of articles. I use to do a 5 minute radio program and my script was a page long. I could cut and paste a page or so on some of the answers but I will not try to overwhelm you. That is a promise.


[QUOTE]You're right, this earthly judge has not the authority nor reason to act graciously to this young woman. But we must remember that we are not judged by earthly principles.

This is true. The judgement of God through Christ will not be subjective as so much of this earth’s judgement ride.


Not what would Jesus say to one like the thief on the cross (who was clearly not baptized according to your formula) and clearly died before he was able to do so.

Was this bride (the thief) married to the groom (Christ) through the ritual of baptism?

Clearly not. Would an earthly judge say, what you have said.?

Probably not.


Now you have said: God alone can judge people.

And God alone has judged the thief on the cross and it appears that His judgment runs contrary to your judgment on whether or not he would be condemned to hell.


How so? God’s judgment is always righteous. You say that it runs contrary to my judgment on whether or not he would be condemned to hell. You conclude this not based on “all the counsel of God.? You must understand what law is in affect while Jesus hangs alive on the cross. The thief, is he subject to the law of Christ while He yet lives. Is not a testament only good after the testator is dead? (Hebrews 9:16-17). So, it is my understanding, what is commissioned to the apostles at the ascension of Christ is not at the time of “the thief on the cross? yet in effect. Simply, Christ’s law (Gal. 6:2) was not in effect prior to His death on the cross. What Jesus did was a repeating of what He had done many times before His mock trial and death on the cross. He often forgave sins. He often blessed the penitent in His ministry. However, after His death on the cross the law that He commissioned became the means of administrating the forgiveness of sins. It is that law that requires faith in Christ as the Messiah (John 8:24), the necessity of repentance of sins (Luke 13:3,5), confession of Christ before man ( Matthew 10:32-33), and baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). The thief was not baptized with the baptism of forgiveness of sins because he was not subject to that commandment at the time. I will welcome your comments on this understanding.

Noah was saved from the flood by building an ark and regularly offered animal sacrifice; Abraham used the family altar; Moses was atoned in the tabernacle and Solomon in the temple. We must enter Christ and the church for salvation. Baptism as we know it was not a factor with Noah, Abraham, Moses, or the thief on the cross. They all lived and died under previous laws, laws which are no longer in effect. We live today under a set law, one which was established for the duration of man's history. That law commands baptism, a burial in water for the remission of sins, preceded by faith, repentance, and confession.



If we neglect to be baptized for remission of sins we cannot claim God does not love us. If we are lost it is because we are the ones who have refused his directions for receiving forgiveness.

Here is where you and I may be closer in theology than you might think.

As Baptists, we have been a bit neglectful of what the bible says is the initiatory rite that represents the confession faith. In many Baptist and baptistic circles, baptism is really an afterthought, somethin' to do after you are for sure saved. I have heard it said in Baptist circles that this is "just," and they have used the word just, the first act of obedience after salvation.

Paul’s letter to the Colossians helps us to better understand authority. He taught, “ And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.? (Colossians 3:17 AV). This tells me that Christ has all authority and I have none. I have no right to do an “afterthought? but only that which is authorized. Baptism is authorized “for the remission of sins? (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47), and should not be considered a mere “second thought.?


Well, if a person isn't willing to undergo what the Baptists say is "just" the first act of obedience to Christ, and what the bible advocates is the way a person publicly professes their faith, then I would have to admit that there is something seriously wrong, either with their understanding of the role of baptism or the authenticity of their heart conversion (unless of course there is some medical reason they cannot participate in a water baptism).

We have yet to agree on “what the Baptists say is ‘just’ the first act of obedience to Christ, and what the bible advocates is the way a person publicly professes their faith? to be biblically sound. Basically, I do not accept the Baptist position at all to be sound. I believe we could find much discussion on Baptist doctrine, if that is what you would like to discuss. Give an example of “a medical reason that cannot participate in a water baptism.?



For those who have come to accept Christ's free offer of forgiveness, having repented of their sins and confessed Christ as Lord, believing in their heart that God raised Him from the dead, it is scripturally imperative that baptism follow as soon as possible!

And why so? Because it places one into Christ where all spiritual blessing, of which salvation and the forgiveness of sins, rest (Eph. 1:3). Is it so? scripturally imperative? in your mind that failure to institute it will cause one to be lost?



I long for the day when we are again willing to baptize the converted immediately. (though there is some question as to how soon constitutes immediately in the bible, I'm pretty sure the upper room didn't have a baptistery).

Peter told those on Pentecost to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins....then they that received the word were baptized and the same day they were added to them (the apostles JAC) about 3,000 souls (Acts 2:38, 41). From this we should conclude that one is not in harmony with the apostles which then constituted the church of Christ until they were immersed. The church is the bride of Christ and that which Christ saves. It is the family of God and the household of faith. I think we can agree that God has no children outside His family and household, can’t we? Without exception I believe we see every case where baptism was administered it was immediately at the time it was expedient to do so. I find no example of delay beyond the immediate circumstance. However, I will entertain your comment.



But for those who have been taught that it isn't really that important, or who have been misled by teaching that it shouldn't occur at all (like the Mid acts brethren who don't practice baptism at all), I have a hard time thinking that God will assign them to eternal punishment due to their ignorance.

Why are they ignorant? Doesn’t God give all creatures the same bible? Doesn’t it say the same to all when properly interpreted? Aren’t all required to “rightly divide? or interpret the scriptures? If all this is true then whose fault is it that we do not obey the doctrine of Christ? Failure comes from doing that which is wrong. Many false teachers infect Christendom. We see more than 1,500 denominational organizations world wide teaching different doctrines yet saying they are a faction of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Disciples of Jesus were told to do "Whatever He tells you to do" (John 2:5). Our blessed Savior asks a pertinent question in Luke 6:46. "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?" The terms of admission into the Savior's domain are simple and clear. Let us rejoice in the eloquent surroundings of God's love and hasten to be faithful members of that spiritual body, the church, made possible by the blood of the Lamb.

Jesus clearly taught Nicodemus that one must be born again of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom. Acts 8:12 and 8:26-39 demonstrate this arrangement in absolute fashion. The kingdom the prophets saw and these examples of conversion illustrate the divine pattern. Praise God for such simplicity and beauty.




If we make the waters of baptism magical, such that anyone who does it is saved and anyone who doesn't isn't, we have gone beyond what the word teaches us about baptism and we trampled sufficiency of faith for salvation which is clearly taught throughout the scriptures.

People are so quick to discount water baptism’s importance because they see only water. I gather from what you are saying that you see water baptism as people seeing something magical about it, right? There is nothing in the water that is magical. It is pure water. The only difference between tap water and water of baptism is the symbolics associated with it. Symbolically one is cleansed of sins (Acts 22:16) by the blood of Christ. Christ placed the parameters of baptism and without question one needs to “gladly receive the word “ and be immersed for the remission of sins. He said, “...he that believes and is baptized shall be saved? (Mark 16:16).


You see, we need to accept the whole of the word, not just the parts that ratify our theology, and that goes for all of us, the Baptists included. For the baptistic types, we have to come to terms with Acts 2:38

A refreshing statement on your part. Have you ever considered that disciples of Christ should only be called “Christians?? Luke writes for us, “...And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.? (Acts 11:26 AV)


For those in the Restoration traditions like the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, there is a need to come to terms with Acts 10.

How do you mean?


If we believe that Holy Spirit is the seal of our salvation (and we should)…Then it is hard to argue that those who received the spirit before they were baptized, were unsaved until they were dunked.

Can you find for me and those who may be following this post an example of anyone, after the commission of Christ, who received the spirit before they were baptized? By receive I mean as an “indwelling.?


If we believe Ephesians 1:13 without adding out own speculative footnotes then we must assume that it was true that they were marked in Him with Holy Spirit. Now we could, footnote the passage and say "having believed, oh yea, and baptized, Paul meant that, he just didn't say it, an oversight of the Holy Spirit maybe?"

Is it absolutely necessary in every case to have every word repeated over and over again in order to make it doctrinal? I don’t think so. When something is said or is shown to be the case, we should accept that it is the same in all cases. I would suppose that the whole Bible could not contain all the sayings otherwise. Once said or shown it should be doctrine when properly interpreted.



You would surely agree with me that such a practice would not be very consistent with the Restorationist's confession that the bible is the only creed, wouldn't it? Do we not construct our own creeds, whether they be written and published or not, if we consistently footnote the bible with our own theology instead of letting Ephesians 1:13 stand on its own?

I would agree that any “foot noting? that is not in harmony with the Word of God would be unscriptural. In commenting on Ephesians 1:13, I am confident that the term “believed? is all conclusive of faith, repentance, confession and baptism for the remission of sins, and not just faith alone as so many hold. After the disciple believes (hears the gospel, believe that Christ is the Messiah, repents of sins, confesses Christ publically, and is immersed into Christ) he is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.



I look forward to your direct answers to my previous question…

I hope I have given you those answers but am open for improvement if needed.


Now, does your theology force you to conclude that he is now rotting in hell?

Unless you say otherwise, I will assume your answer is yes for the remainder of our dialog.


He would be within the Hadean realm awaiting the return of Christ who will judge the “quick and the dead? according to righteousness (2 Tim. 2:1; 1 Peter 4:5; Rev. 19:11). But, what we have to deal with is you. You have heard the gospel while alive and vibrant. Are you going to obey it or reject it?

In Christ,
JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 20th, 2004, 05:50 PM
The most misunderstood person in the Bible, I believe, is the Holy Spirit. I want you to understand for sure that the Holy Spirit is a person. He is not an "it" or a "thing", He is a person of Deity, and is called the Holy Ghost in the King James Version (Mt. 3:11), and "Spirit" in the first letter to Timothy (1 Tim 4:1). We see him called "the Spirit of God" in (1 Cor 6:11). Likewise he is called the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9). Each name depicts a characteristic at the time expressed, and should not be construed to be different Spirits. The American Standard and other translations almost exclusively use the term "Spirit" instead of "Ghost" which I am told is an old English term for guest, as a guest we would have at our homes. The Holy Ghost would then be a guest within us as we are or become the temple of the Holy Ghost ( 1 Cor. 6:19)
.
As a Spirit person, he has the ability to do things that a person, as we know it, can do. Among these is the ability to know, "...even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11). He can know because He has a mind, "And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit..."( Rom. 8:27). The Bible says that the Holy Spirit did things as He wished. He had the ability to dispense various gifts as He willed" (1 Cor 12: 4-11). He has the characteristic of love (Rom. 15:30). The Bible says that " the Spirit speaketh expressly. He spoke on one occasion to Philip the evangelist (Act 8:29).He bears witness. Jesus, on one occasion said that "...he shall testify of me" (Jn.15:26). He has the ability to intercede in prayer for us, for the Bible says, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself (himself; the better translation), maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom.26). Some hold that the Holy Spirit is but a force, but let me further assure you that He is not just a force, but a person that can be grieved (Eph 4:30). People try to deceive the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:30). He can be blasphemed (Mk 3:29), and He may be insulted (Heb. 10:29). These are things which a force cannot do or receive.

In the building up of the church in the first century, the work of the Holy Spirit was to lead the apostles and preachers of Christ to prevent them from going astray in their preaching and writing. The Bible says, "But when they deliver you up take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you (Mt. 10:19,20). The apostle John in his gospel relays what Jesus taught saying, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come" (Jn. 16:13).

The Bible speaks of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and a lot of misunderstanding comes for a lack of proper study on this study. John the Baptist, on an occasion addressed an audience saying "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Mt. 3:11) We see in the Bible, that the Apostles on the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, (Acts 2:1-4), and the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-47) were the only ones to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Today, there is but one baptism, in water (Eph 4:4-5).

What do you know about “Fire Baptism?? Fire baptism is the eternal baptism of flames of Hell Fire and no one should seek that. It will be rendered at the Judgement of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:8-10). How did Christians manifest the Spirit? The Spirit was manifested many times in the scriptures, but only at the laying on of hands of the Apostles was He dispensed to the people (Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:6) The Holy Spirit baptism is a wonderful subject but must be understood properly. Continue to seek the Lord, and have a great day.

JustAChristian

Ecumenicist
September 20th, 2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Biological life:

This is not an example of a free gift. It does meet one standard, that the receiving party does not have to do anything. But this is only because at the instance of the giving, there is not yet a receiving party. The gift creates the gift-getter. Refusal of the gift is not possible simply because there's no one there to refuse.



Citizenship by birth:

Citizenship is only a word unless one lives where one can receive the benifits from it. It is also a legal concept and, at birth, there are always other parties legally in charge of the wellfare of a child-- usually parents. If those parents choose to live somewhere lacking in the reach or knowledge of the benefits of that citizenship, then it is no gift at all.

Also, this gift is only applicable if the baby is born alive, which to some degree is up to the child itself, though not as a matter of will.



Adoption:

This also depends, to some degree, on others who are place in legal responsibility over the children. Other parties have the chance to refuse the "gift" which, by your standards, would make it not truly free.




But still, I question your reasonability on the use of the word "free." You seem to be able to only apply it to situations where the gift recipient is either non-existent or unable, physically, mentally, and legally to exersize her or her will.

Er, uh, no, he was just giving examples where absolutely no
effort is required on the part of the recipient, good ones at that.

Life is a gift. To be born in America is a gift. Unconditional love is
a gift.Eyes, ears, noses that function are gifts. Music is a gift.
If you want to get scriptural, there are Spiritual gifts. Talents
given to individuals who cannot refuse them, they just are.

You'll have to do better than this to argue this one.

djm

Lighthouse
September 20th, 2004, 10:05 PM
Our connection to Christ is not based on the law of God that one finds in the OT [Leviticus]. It is based on the law of the Spirit. God's grace. Water baptism is a contingent of the OT law, not of the law of grace. Christ taught that the law was part of the plan, because it was, at the time He walked the earth. And it was meant to be, because Israel was meant to evangelize the world. But, as you and I both know, Israel rejected the Messiah. So they were cut away, as the fig tree in Christ's parable. So God took salvation to the Gentiles, apart form the law. Apart from circumcision, and baptism.

As for the verse I pointed out didn't have the word baptism in it, your response should have been that baptism was in tihe context, because it was in the previous verses. I was showing that you took a verse out of context, and used it when it didn't help you, because it was out of context. But you still have not shown that water baptism is what most of these verses are talking about, even when they do use the word baptism.

Your use of Paul? The context of the verses show that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, so the baptism in those verses is baptism in the Spirit.

philosophizer
September 21st, 2004, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Er, uh, no, he was just giving examples where absolutely no
effort is required on the part of the recipient, good ones at that.

Life is a gift. To be born in America is a gift. Unconditional love is
a gift.Eyes, ears, noses that function are gifts. Music is a gift.
If you want to get scriptural, there are Spiritual gifts. Talents
given to individuals who cannot refuse them, they just are.

You'll have to do better than this to argue this one.

djm


I agree that all those things can be called gifts. I was trying to use some of Zak's own logic on these examples. I do agree, for the sake of reasonableness, that his examples can be called gifts-- and free ones at that.

It's just a little silly that the only applications of the word "free" he will seem to accept are ones where the recipient doesn't exist or is unable to express their will.

Aimiel
September 21st, 2004, 10:36 AM
Either he was being deliberately fecetious, or he has realized that his premise was too foolish to continue to defend it.

philosophizer
September 21st, 2004, 11:10 AM
I suppose he would also ask a universalist why he thinks God forces salvation onto people. :hammer:

JustAChristian
September 21st, 2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Either he was being deliberately fecetious, or he has realized that his premise was too foolish to continue to defend it.

Did you mean...
fecetious or did you mean facetious?

JustAChristian :angel:

Zakath
September 21st, 2004, 11:28 AM
:chuckle:

JustAChristian
September 21st, 2004, 11:31 AM
:thumb:

philosophizer
September 21st, 2004, 11:33 AM
"fecetious?" Eeewwwww....

BChristianK
September 21st, 2004, 03:18 PM
Just a Christian,

Concerning the thief on the cross, I claimed that your judgment doesn’t follow the scriptures, clearly the thief was saved without baptism, now you said:


How so? God’s judgment is always righteous. You say that it runs contrary to my judgment on whether or not he would be condemned to hell. You conclude this not based on “all the counsel of God.? You must understand what law is in affect while Jesus hangs alive on the cross.

Ah, so the law that was in affect while Jesus hung on the cross had nothing to do with baptism then?

That doesn’t solve the problem either. John the Baptist came preaching baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). Jesus’ baptized more people than John long before He was crucified (John 4:1) do you think that these baptisms were unlawful?


The thief, is he subject to the law of Christ while He yet lives. Is not a testament only good after the testator is dead? (Hebrews 9:16-17). So, it is my understanding, what is commissioned to the apostles at the ascension of Christ is not at the time of “the thief on the cross? yet in effect.

So then explain to me both the ministries of John and Jesus as they relate to baptism.

I do agree that the New Covenant was not inaugurated until the death of Christ, but we nonetheless see the gospel of the Kingdom being preached by Christ and baptism being carried out anticipating the new covenant.


Simply, Christ’s law (Gal. 6:2) was not in effect prior to His death on the cross. What Jesus did was a repeating of what He had done many times before His mock trial and death on the cross. He often forgave sins. He often blessed the penitent in His ministry. However, after His death on the cross the law that He commissioned became the means of administrating the forgiveness of sins. It is that law that requires faith in Christ as the Messiah (John 8:24), the necessity of repentance of sins (Luke 13:3,5), confession of Christ before man ( Matthew 10:32-33), and baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

So before the cross baptism wasn’t for the forgiveness of sins?
Boy, I wish you were around to correct Mark when He wrote.


Mark 1:4 and so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.


You said:


The thief was not baptized with the baptism of forgiveness of sins because he was not subject to that commandment at the time.

I see, so a trip out to see John was just optional, and Jesus’ ministry of baptism was just for kicks and giggles right?

Your theology has some holes here my friend.


Noah was saved from the flood by building an ark and regularly offered animal sacrifice;
I thought Noah was saved by faith.


Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

Now, I agree totally that his faith was an active faith that didn’t just sit there when God told him to build an ark, but rather motivated him toward obedience to God’s commands, but he didn’t become heir of the righteousness that comes by faith because he built a boat, it was because he was faithful and building a boat just happened to be the way he expressed that.


Abraham used the family altar;

Abraham was saved not by worshiping at his families alter, but by faith.


Romans 4:3-5 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.



Baptism as we know it was not a factor with Noah, Abraham, Moses, or the thief on the cross.

It was an issue with the thief on the cross, John was baptizing with a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, remember?
Actually it was said that Israel was baptized into Moses (1 Cor 10:2), that Noah was a figure of baptism (1 Peter 3:20) which tells us that getting wet doesn’t save one person (a point you have yet to address) but what does save is the pledge of a good consciences toward God. And that Abraham was justified by faith alone apart from works (no baptism) and then Paul says we are saved by the faith of Abraham (Romans 4:16). So these figures’ salvific experiences aren’t as irrelevant to ours as you may be insinuating.


They all lived and died under previous laws, laws which are no longer in effect. We live today under a set law, one which was established for the duration of man's history. That law commands baptism, a burial in water for the remission of sins, preceded by faith, repentance, and confession.

Once again, in the time period you claim no such baptism was needed for the remission of sins, John came preaching a baptism for the remission of sins.

Big theological oops here!


Paul’s letter to the Colossians helps us to better understand authority. He taught, “ And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.? (Colossians 3:17 AV).

Right, do you mind explaining to me how this negates anything I have said up to now?


This tells me that Christ has all authority and I have none.

Ok. I agree to that.


I have no right to do an “afterthought? but only that which is authorized.

Agreed.


Baptism is authorized “for the remission of sins? (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47), and should not be considered a mere “second thought.?

Ah, shouldn’t we include the other stuff in those passages too instead taking God’s word out of context?


Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And..
I’d like for you to point out for me if they received the spirit before or after they were baptized..


Acts 10:46-48 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Hmmm?

Interestingly, Peter often spoke of Repentance, Acts 3:19, Acts 8:22 ( and this to Simon who had already been baptized by Phillip), Paul tells the folks at the Aereopogus to repent (no baptism mentioned), Paul again before Agrippa, speaks of repentance (no call to baptism here either).


We have yet to agree on “what the Baptists say is ‘just’ the first act of obedience to Christ, and what the bible advocates is the way a person publicly professes their faith? to be biblically sound. Basically, I do not accept the Baptist position at all to be sound. I believe we could find much discussion on Baptist doctrine, if that is what you would like to discuss. Give an example of “a medical reason that cannot participate in a water baptism.?

I don’t think we have yet to agree, the Baptists (not all of them by the way) have erroneously assigned baptism into a diminutive role. I have already spoken of that. There are many Baptists who believe as I do that the way a person publicly professes Christ is through baptism. I don’t find it necessary to recount for Baptist doctrine, we should be looking to God’s word. A medical reason that a person cannot be immersion baptized would be a stoma from chemotherapy. Any water entry into this could complicate the persons health and I have heard of cases where it was fatal.

Again, I have said that following repentance and confession one should be baptized, you said:


-And why so? Because it places one into Christ where all spiritual blessing, of which salvation and the forgiveness of sins, rest (Eph. 1:3).

So you think getting wet places one in Christ.
Except, as I have pointed out, Epesians 1:13, just 10 verses later) Paul says that belief was sufficient for this.


Is it so? scripturally imperative? in your mind that failure to institute it will cause one to be lost?

I would say that if a person has come to fully understand the importance of baptism, but refuses to engage in it, it is entirely possible they do so because their hearts have not truly been converted. Someone who truly wishes to claim Jesus as their Lord would not shy away from such a public profession of faith. So, yes, it is possible.


Peter told those on Pentecost to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins....then they that received the word were baptized and the same day they were added to them (the apostles JAC) about 3,000 souls (Acts 2:38, 41). From this we should conclude that one is not in harmony with the apostles which then constituted the church of Christ until they were immersed.

I’d agree that they weren’t “added to their number?, until they were baptized.


The church is the bride of Christ and that which Christ saves. It is the family of God and the household of faith. I think we can agree that God has no children outside His family and household, can’t we?

That’s not such an easy line to draw my friend.

Was Cornelius hellbound before he was baptized (Acts 10)?

What about Lydia, did she have a one way ticket straight to hell before she was baptized? (Acts 16:14).

The scriptures pronounce Cornelius as righteous and God fearing, the word says Lydia was “a worshiper of God.? Shall we conclude that they were on their way to hell while fearing God and worshiping Him?




Without exception I believe we see every case where baptism was administered it was immediately at the time it was expedient to do so.

No arguments here.


I find no example of delay beyond the immediate circumstance. However, I will entertain your comment.

No arguments. Personally, after my heart had turned and I had repented, I requested to be baptized during the very next service (4 days later to be exact).

Now, regarding those who have not been baptized, you say.


Why are they ignorant? Doesn’t God give all creatures the same bible?

He did. Have you heard their theological arguments for why they are not baptized?


Doesn’t it say the same to all when properly interpreted?

It does, when properly interpreted, but lets accept a measure of humility my friend, just because we subscribe to it doesn’t make it “rightly divided.?


If all this is true then whose fault is it that we do not obey the doctrine of Christ?

This argument may bite you back. We’ll see if it does.


Failure comes from doing that which is wrong. Many false teachers infect Christendom. We see more than 1,500 denominational organizations world wide teaching different doctrines yet saying they are a faction of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Right, and guess what? The organization you belong to is one of those 1,500 denominations or organizations teaching different doctrines….
Oh, but wait, your gonna tell me in your next post that your church is the only faithful church, huh?
:chuckle:


Disciples of Jesus were told to do "Whatever He tells you to do" (John 2:5). Our blessed Savior asks a pertinent question in Luke 6:46. "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"

I don’t know, why do you call Him Lord, Lord and yet do not do the things he says. Unless of course you have surpassed Paul who claimed only to be the chief of sinners and are about to tell us that you are perfect, as the Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).


The terms of admission into the Savior's domain are simple and clear.

You talk about it like it is a ticket to a movie. Perhaps it is a bit more thoughtful than that…



Jesus clearly taught Nicodemus that one must be born again of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom.

Right, now of all of the well informed interpretations of this passage, tell me how you are absolutely sure your interpretation (that the water was baptism) is correct.

If you don’t mind, start with a Greek exegesis of the passage and show me how we must all logically conclude that water meant baptism here.


Acts 8:12 and 8:26-39 demonstrate this arrangement in absolute fashion.

The Ethiopian was baptized as a profession of his faith, correct.


People are so quick to discount water baptism’s importance because they see only water. I gather from what you are saying that you see water baptism as people seeing something magical about it, right?

No, I see it as a public demonstration of repentance, faith and a public profession of Christ. I do see it as absolutely necessary and not unconnected to one’s salvific experience. I don’t say, as do you, that one cannot be saved until they are baptized. And I certainly don’t say, as I fear you will eventually say, that one is not saved unless they are baptized in your church.


There is nothing in the water that is magical. It is pure water. The only difference between tap water and water of baptism is the symbolics associated with it.

Agreed.


Symbolically one is cleansed of sins (Acts 22:16) by the blood of Christ.

Right, God accepts us on the basis of Christ’s blood, not the baptismal waters.


Christ placed the parameters of baptism and without question one needs to “gladly receive the word “ and be immersed for the remission of sins. He said, “...he that believes and is baptized shall be saved? (Mark 16:16).

Do you really need me to show you why Mark 16:16 is not a great place to hang your theological hat?

Now you said:


A refreshing statement on your part.

Thank you.





Have you ever considered that disciples of Christ should only be called “Christians??

You mean have I considered that those who learn from Christ should be called Christians?

Sure.

Now, as I said about acts 10, it is clear that the household of Cornelius received Holy Spirit before they were baptized. In fact, it was the very reception of Holy Spirit that brought about their baptism.
This doesn’t follow your formula.
Of:
1. Repent
2. Baptism
3. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Which is clearly evident that Peter wasn’t espousing a formula in Acts 2:38.

So when you say:


Can you find for me and those who may be following this post an example of anyone, after the commission of Christ, who received the spirit before they were baptized? By receive I mean as an “indwelling.?

Yes, Cornelius and his household. Acts 10, I thought that was clear. Ah, but you are probably going to try to pull the ol’ “that wasn’t an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.?
There are a whole mess of problems with such a crazy argument.
First, there is no other place in scripture that refers to Cornelius or his household having a separate encounter with the Holy Spirit. Second, Peter says,


Acts 10:46-47 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?

Are you going to argue that Peter and the 12 didn’t have an indwelling experience with the Holy Spirit? If not, then it would be pretty silly to say that Cornelius didn’t by virtue of this event based on Peter’s words, wouldn’t it?





Finally I spoke of Ephesians 1:13, you said:


Is it absolutely necessary in every case to have every word repeated over and over again in order to make it doctrinal?

No, it is absolutely necessary to read the word as it is written not as you add to it.



When something is said or is shown to be the case, we should accept that it is the same in all cases.

I don’t argue that they weren’t baptized, I am arguing that the passage shows the sufficiency of faith for salvation. In other words, salvation isn’t formulaic.

Now you admitted:


I would agree that any “foot noting? that is not in harmony with the Word of God would be unscriptural.

Good, now lets hope you don’t go footnoting Ephesians 1:13 anyway.


In commenting on Ephesians 1:13, I am confident that the term “believed? is all conclusive of faith, repentance, confession and baptism for the remission of sins, and not just faith alone as so many hold.

:doh:

You just said you wouldn’t footnote it. Instead, you footnoted it with *?believe is all inclusive of faith, repentance, confession and baptism.?

Actually, belief is just all inclusive of belief.



After the disciple believes (hears the gospel, believe that Christ is the Messiah, repents of sins, confesses Christ publically, and is immersed into Christ) he is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.

Right :rolleyes: ‘cause that’s always the formula for how salvation happens, unless of course you include the thief on the cross (you gotta deal with that whole John the Baptist and Jesus baptizing thing before you can explain this one away) and you still have yet to explain away the baptism of cornelius which was repentance from sin (even before Peter got there since he was told Cornelius was righteous and God fearing), then comes the sealing of the Holy Spirit and then water baptism.

You see, your church has to explain away all these scriptures because it is founded on it being the only true church because it is the only church that does these things in the right order. The problem with this is that you can’t prove the order consistently throughout the scripture. All the elements are important: repentance, confession of faith, baptism, etc… But they are not formulaic.

Now finally, in response to my question about the guy who got hit by a bus on his way into the church to be baptized, you said:







He would be within the Hadean realm awaiting the return of Christ who will judge the “quick and the dead? according to righteousness (2 Tim. 2:1; 1 Peter 4:5; Rev. 19:11).

No idea what 2 Tim 2:1 has to do with hades..
:confused:
1 Peter 4:5, the quick and the dead have already been evangelized.


1 Peter 4:6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preachedeven to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.


Rev 19:11 is a judgement of those on the earth whom the book has repeatedly said have not repented (Rev 9:21, 16:9, 16:11) So you think his poor luck puts him among the likes of these?


But, what we have to deal with is you. You have heard the gospel while alive and vibrant. Are you going to obey it or reject it?

I surely have, and will continue to do so. I have repented, believed, confessed, been baptized by immersion.

Oh, but you are about to tell me that it didn’t happen in your church by one of your pastors so it didn’t take, right?

I certainly hope not. That would tell me that you adhere to the cultic Boston Church of Christ movement which has more theological problems than one can count on one hand. What is more, they make the pretentious claim that they are the only true church. Honestly, that is really the most braggadocios, ignorant claim ever uttered. We should talk about their interpretation of Matthew 28:19 sometime, it is hilarious for its lack of understanding of the scripture.

:hammer:

Grace and Peace



P.s, Your really gonna have to explain this one to me…



The Bible speaks of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and a lot of misunderstanding comes for a lack of proper study on this study. John the Baptist, on an occasion addressed an audience saying "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Mt. 3:11) We see in the Bible, that the Apostles on the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, (Acts 2:1-4), and the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-47) were the only ones to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Today, there is but one baptism, in water (Eph 4:4-5).

What do you know about “Fire Baptism?? Fire baptism is the eternal baptism of flames of Hell Fire and no one should seek that.

So you think that Peter and the 12 on Pentecost as well as the household of Cornelius were baptized into the flames of Hell fire?


Acts 1:4-5 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."




Acts 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

I suppose you think that Acts 2:39 means that the promise of HELLFIRE is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord will call to Himself.


:confused:

JustAChristian
September 22nd, 2004, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Our connection to Christ is not based on the law of God that one finds in the OT [Leviticus]. It is based on the law of the Spirit. God's grace. Water baptism is a contingent of the OT law, not of the law of grace. Christ taught that the law was part of the plan, because it was, at the time He walked the earth. And it was meant to be, because Israel was meant to evangelize the world. But, as you and I both know, Israel rejected the Messiah. So they were cut away, as the fig tree in Christ's parable. So God took salvation to the Gentiles, apart form the law. Apart from circumcision, and baptism.

As for the verse I pointed out didn't have the word baptism in it, your response should have been that baptism was in tihe context, because it was in the previous verses. I was showing that you took a verse out of context, and used it when it didn't help you, because it was out of context. But you still have not shown that water baptism is what most of these verses are talking about, even when they do use the word baptism.

Your use of Paul? The context of the verses show that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, so the baptism in those verses is baptism in the Spirit.

lighthouse,

Let us look at the point you raise: "Water baptism is a contingent of the OT law, not of the law of grace. Christ taught that the law was part of the plan, because it was, at the time He walked the earth."

Where do you find water baptism commanded under the Law? John's baptism was not under the Mosaic Law. Yes, it was preached during the closing days of the dispensation of the Law of Moses, but was never a part of that Law. Jesus' baptism was not under the Law as well. The Law did not contain any ordinances concerning baptism as preached by John or Jesus. The divers washes were not for the remission of sins. This is what brought John and Jesus under fire of the Pharisees.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each wrote inspired epistles telling us how to be saved. I believe we aught to accept inspired writers over uninspired external evidence, don’t you? I don’t want to be concluded as saying external evidence is not often valid. It often is. I often accept it, but at this time you external evidence is inaccurate as to proper relationship and contrary to the inspired writers

So, you believe there are two different messages (gospels) a law of works and a law of grace? Right? You are trying to say that Peter told Cornelius to “work righteousness and save yourself by the righteous works? aren’t you? And you are trying to say that Paul told Titus that “people are not saved by doing righteous works? aren’t you? You are trying to make inspired apostles of God oppose each other? Aren’t you? Well, don’t you know that Paul, when he went to every city, he would FIRST preach to the Jews? Don’t you see that in the Acts and in the epistles? If you don’t, you’re spiritually blind! Paul and Barnabas always spoke where there was a synagogue first(Acts 13:14-16). They preached the same message to both Jews and Gentiles who were at the synagogue : “Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.? (Acts 13:26 ). “The word of this salvation? is the one Gospel; to the “stock of Abraham [Jews] and “whesoever among you who fear God? [the Gentiles]. One message only; not a separate message for each group.

Some hold that mixing gospel messages will never cause one to come to the knowledge of the truth, but there are no two dispensational massages to mix. There is one gospel; O-N-E gospel! To the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16). Paul does not say “to the Jew first with another gospel to the Gentiles.? The Gospel (one) is to the Jews in the beginning of preaching from Pentecost forward, and also to the Greeks (beginning at the house of Cornelius) there is only one message. That message is that salvation has come to man through Christ and man can be cleansed of sins through believing and obey the gospel.

Some like you believe that water baptism is a work of man. Is that not correct? Let us discuss works of righteousness. Works of righteousness do not include all works. There are commandments of Christ to be accomplished. We are to pray, right? Yes ! (1 Thess 5:17). Will we be saved if we refuse to pray? No, because we will be in defiance of God. So, prayer is expected of us and we can be lost without it. Is it a righteous work? Yes! Because all of God’s commandments are righteous (Ps 119:172). This will apply to every thing that is commanded. Baptism for the remission of sins is commanded and we will be lost without it. Doing what God tells us to do simply for the sake of doing them will not prevail us anything. We must seek the spiral value of doing the work. Hearing the word, believing in Christ, repenting of sins, confessing Christ as Lord and being baptized are all commandments of Christ. Christ is righteous and his commandments are righteous. Following Christ is to be saved. Let us be fully persuaded that meritorious works can not save us from our sins. This can only be accomplished by doing the will of God (Matthew 7:21-23).

The incorruptible seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11). The word of God recorded in the New Testament is one covenant to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. O-N-E message. O-N-E gospel!


JustAChristian :angel:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16 AV)

JustAChristian
September 23rd, 2004, 09:57 AM
BChristianK begins this extremely long post by saying:

Just a Christian,

Concerning the thief on the cross, I claimed that your judgment doesn’t follow the scriptures, clearly the thief was saved without baptism. Ah, so the law that was in affect while Jesus hung on the cross had nothing to do with baptism then?

JustAChristian responds:
Correct.

BChristianK says:
That doesn’t solve the problem either. John the Baptist came preaching baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). Jesus’ baptized more people than John long before He was crucified (John 4:1) do you think that these baptisms were unlawful?

JustAChristian responds:
No, they were during the dispensation of the Law of Moses, but was not within the confinds of the written law. John came preaching and baptizing in approval of Christ as a forerunner of Christ to prepare the way for the entrance of Christ (Mark 1:4).

BChristianK says:
So then explain to me both the ministries of John and Jesus as they relate to baptism.

JustAChristian responds:
John was a forerunner to prepare a people for the coming of Christ. Jesus came to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God, the power of God unto salvation (Mark1:4; 1:14; Romans 1:16)

BChristianK says:
I do agree that the New Covenant was not inaugurated until the death of Christ, but we nonetheless see the gospel of the Kingdom being preached by Christ and baptism being carried out anticipating the new covenant.

JustAChristian responds:
Yes, and these people were cleansed of their sins (Luke 3:3), but only to prepare them to receive Christ and the gospel (Luke 8:1; Acts 10:36). When the law of Christ came into effect the message and baptism by John was no longer valid (Acts 19:1-6).

BChristianK says:
So before the cross baptism wasn’t for the forgiveness of sins?
Boy, I wish you were around to correct Mark when He wrote.

JustAChristian responds:
On the contrary, it is my understanding that baptism was for the remission of sins. However, the eternal gospel was not yet being preached for Christ had not died and been raised.

BChristianK says:
The thief was not baptized with the baptism of forgiveness of sins because he was not subject to that commandment at the time.

JustAChristian responds:
It can not be ascertained if this man was baptized under John’s baptism or if he was even a Jew. If he was a Jew and heard the message of John the baptizer, he should have obey the massage and been baptized. He would have then had his sins forgiven by God for obedience to John’s message and prepared for the coming of the Messiah. He would not have been subjected to the eternal gospel for Christ was not yet dead and raised for the dead.

BChristianK says:
I see, so a trip out to see John was just optional, and Jesus’ ministry of baptism was just for kicks and giggles right?

JustAChristian responds:
Your statement is not worthy of consideration.

BChristianK says:
Your theology has some holes here my friend.

JustAChristian responds:
Stay with me, friend, there is more to come...we’ll see if there are any real holes.

BChristianK says:
I thought Noah was saved by faith.

JustAChristian responds:
Wasn’t his works shown to be works of faith? Are you limiting the acts of faith? Have you never read James on the subject of faith? May I commend to you James 2:24?

BChristianK says:
Now, I agree totally that his faith was an active faith that didn’t just sit there when God told him to build an ark, but rather motivated him toward obedience to God’s commands, but he didn’t become heir of the righteousness that comes by faith because he built a boat, it was because he was faithful and building a boat just happened to be the way he expressed that.

JustAChristian responds:
Amazing, we see it in the same way!

BChristianK says:
Abraham was saved not by worshiping at his families alter, but by faith.

JustAChristian responds:
Wasn’t his works of faith? Are you limiting the acts of faith? Have you never read James on the subject of faith? May I commend to you again James 2:24?

BChristianK says:
It was an issue with the thief on the cross, John was baptizing with a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, remember?

JustAChristian responds:
If he was a Jew it is given that he would have been in proximity of hearing and obeying the preaching of John. However Christ was not yet dead and risen for the dead and His covenant was not validated by the shedding of blood in His death.

BChristianK says:
Actually it was said that Israel was baptized into Moses (1 Cor 10:2), that Noah was a figure of baptism (1 Peter 3:20) which tells us that getting wet doesn’t save one person (a point you have yet to address) but what does save is the pledge of a good consciences toward God. And that Abraham was justified by faith alone apart from works (no baptism) and then Paul says we are saved by the faith of Abraham (Romans 4:16). So these figures’ salvific experiences aren’t as irrelevant to ours as you may be insinuating.

JustAChristian responds:
1. Baptized into Moses...while the cloud overshadowed the multitude in the wilderness. Another definition of baptism is “to be overwhelmed? which happened with the cloud.

2. Noah and his family were saved in the ark and the water separated them from the darkness of the sinful world. The like figure is found, Peter says, in our baptism. It separates us from sins in obedience of faith.

3. Getting “wet with water? will not save, but getting baptized for the remission of sin is obedient faith and will affect salvation from sins.

4. “...a good conscience toward God...? This is one’s answering the commandment to enter Christ by baptism (Gal. 3:26-27; cf. Rom. 6:4, 17). “Through the resurrection of Jesus Chris.? This salvation through obedience is made sure by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Cor. 15:17-18).

5. Abraham’s faith was an obedient faith. He did what God told him to do. God accepted his faith and extended to him grace. It is the same for us. When we obey God extends grace (Eph. 2:8-9).

BChristianK says:
Once again, in the time period you claim no such baptism was needed for the remission of sins, John came preaching a baptism for the remission of sins.

JustAChristian responds:
I believe I have clarified my position on this point, but if you feel I am not clear on it let me know.

BChristianK says:
Big theological oops here!

JustAChristian responds:
Not worthy of a statement!

BChristianK says:
Right, do you mind explaining to me how this negates anything I have said up to now?

JustAChristian responds:
It is not necessarily extended to negate anything you have said up to now, but to solidify my position. I preach and baptize because it is “in word? and in the name of the Lord Jesus.

BChristianK says:
Ok. I agree to that.


JAC's statement
quote:

I have no right to do an “afterthought? but only that which is authorized.

BChristianK says:
Agreed.

BChristianK says:
Ah, shouldn’t we include the other stuff in those passages too instead taking God’s word out of context?

JustAChristian responds:
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.? (Acts 2:38 AV)
? Peter preached, they questioned “What shall we do??
? “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.?
? As a result of being obedient to the command of the apostle, “...and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...?

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?? (Acts 10:47 AV)

? Peter preached the gospel received from Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).
? While he was preaching the Holy Spirit came in a baptismal form over the household of Cornelius like it did on Pentecost over the apostles (Acts 11:15), not to save them but as a sign to Peter and his accompaniment from Joppa.
? Peter understood the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit over the household of Cornelius to mean that what he was doing in being there and preaching was the will of God.
? Baptism was administered to those that believed.

BchristianK says:
And..
I’d like for you to point out for me if they received the spirit before or after they were baptized..

JustAChristian responds:
They received the baptismal measure over the household as a sign to the apostle and his company and the after baptism in water for the remission of sins an indwelling measure of the Spirit as a indication of salvation (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; 1 Peter 1:11).

BChristianK says:
Hmmm? Interestingly, Peter often spoke of Repentance, Acts 3:19, Acts 8:22 ( and this to Simon who had already been baptized by Phillip), Paul tells the folks at the Aereopogus to repent (no baptism mentioned), Paul again before Agrippa, speaks of repentance (no call to baptism here either).

JustAChristian responds:
A mathematical axiom helps us to understand this better. “The whole of anything is the sum of its parts.? When you add up all the parts you see the whole. There is also a “figure of speech? called a “synecdoche.? The synecdoche is the exchange of one idea for an associated idea. While metonymy is an exchange between two related nouns, the synecdoche is an exchange made between two associated ideas. The synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part is put for a whole, and where a whole is put for a part. It involves putting a singular for a plural and a plural for a singular. The Bible abounds with this figure of speech. Jesus used this figure of speech when he taught the disciples to pray “...give us this day our daily bread...? Bread is a “synecdoche? which stand for all the physical needs one needs. Believe in the verse Acts 16:31 is a singular verb placed for a plural and as such it stands for the whole of that which is needed in order to be obedient. It includes, faith in Christ as God’s Son, repentance of sins, confession of Christ publically, and baptism for the remission of sins. Understanding the axiom that the whole of anything consist of the sums of its parts and the figure of speech “synecdoche? will help you to see that each picture of conversion does not necessarily have to express every need unto salvation each time.

BChristianK says:
I don’t think we have yet to agree, the Baptists (not all of them by the way) have erroneously assigned baptism into a diminutive role. I have already spoken of that. There are many Baptists who believe as I do that the way a person publicly professes Christ is through baptism. I don’t find it necessary to recount for Baptist doctrine, we should be looking to God’s word. A medical reason that a person cannot be immersion baptized would be a stoma from chemotherapy. Any water entry into this could complicate the persons health and I have heard of cases where it was fatal.

JustAChristian responds:
Are you saying that you there is no medically practical way to prevent the water from entering the stoma? What about a fully zipped body bag with an sealed air supply? Where there is a will there is a way!

BChristianK says:
So you think getting wet places one in Christ.

JustAChristian responds:
You make that statement based on one of two reasons. Either you are totally ignorant of the facts that I have presented or so prejudicial that you will not accept them. No where have I ever indicated that I believe just getting wet places one in Christ. Entrance comes when we are buried in like manner as the actual burial of Christ in the tomb (Romans 6:4; Romans 6:17-18)

BChristianK says:
Except, as I have pointed out, Epesians 1:13, just 10 verses later) Paul says that belief was sufficient for this.

JustAChristian responds:
Another synecdoche.

BChristianK says:
I’d agree that they weren’t “added to their number?, until they were baptized.

JustAChristian responds:
Good!


BChristianK says:
That’s not such an easy line to draw my friend. Was Cornelius hell bound before he was baptized (Acts 10)?

JustAChristian responds:
If a missionary shares information on God being our Creator with a unbeliever but does not have time during his sermon to where he talks about Christ and one of his listeners falls dead, will the person have eternal life in light of John 8:24 and Acts 4:12? What about repentance? What about confession? What about baptism? Has the gospel been obeyed? I would invite you to take a moment and study 2nd Thess. 1:8 and Rom. 2:8.

BChristianK says:
What about Lydia, did she have a one way ticket straight to hell before she was baptized? (Acts 16:14).

JustAChristian responds:
If I understand the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is in order that mankind may know the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ the Messiah that was not before offered by the Law of Moses. Failure to obey this “power of God unto salvation? places one in jeopardy of condemnation. There will be no sins in heaven (Rev. 21:8). Do you not sense the need to preach the pure unadulterated gospel of Christ?

BChristianK says:
The scriptures pronounce Cornelius as righteous and God fearing, the word says Lydia was “a worshiper of God.? Shall we conclude that they were on their way to hell while fearing God and worshiping Him?

JustAChristian responds:
So was Paul who tells of his ignorance and unbelief (1 Tim. 1:13). He was a zealous and devoted Jew (Acts 26:5; Phil 3:5). The manner in which he worshiped was not according to the covenant then in effect. The law had changed. Cornelius was a devoted believer in God as was Lydia, but they did not know the gospel. They were in their sins. Sins separate us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). When they came to know the gospel and became obedient to its commands from Christ, they were saved from their sins and in harmony with God. Morality has never been the means to salvation. It is good to be moral, but it will not affect forgiveness of sins (Matthew 13:23).


BChristianK says:
No arguments. Personally, after my heart had turned and I had repented, I requested to be baptized during the very next service (4 days later to be exact).

JustAChristian responds:
Can you imagine Peter or Paul allowing such an behavior What about the Ethiopian nobleman (Acts 8). Don’t you sense he believe in the immediate importance of baptism?

BChristianK says:
He did. Have you heard their theological arguments for why they are not baptized?

JustAChristian responds:
Generally people are not baptized because of the way they have been taught. There are those who have not been taught. There are also those who will never be taught. God is a righteous judge on each situation and will judge righteously. Because you and I know what the Bible says on baptism we are without excuse to fail to obey it.

BChristianK says:
It does, when properly interpreted, but lets accept a measure of humility my friend, just because we subscribe to it doesn’t make it “rightly divided.?

JustAChristian responds:
Sorry, but I don’t follow you on this statement.

BChristianK says:
This argument may bite you back. We’ll see if it does.

JustAChristian responds:
We’ll see.

BChristianK says:
Right, and guess what? The organization you belong to is one of those 1,500 denominations or organizations teaching different doctrines….

JustAChristian responds:
“Prove all things...? 1 Thess. 5:21

BChristianK says:
Oh, but wait, your gonna tell me in your next post that your church is the only faithful church, huh?

JustAChristian responds:
I would rather not be debating churches at this time. Do you know what the gospel says on the matter of salvation? We know mutually that there are only Christians in the Lord’s church, don’t we? We need to be sure that we are worshiping “in spirit and in truth? (John 4:24) or it is vein worship (Mark 7:7). Can you give me the least bit of hint by verse that Christ will accept division of any sort?

BChristianK says:
I don’t know, why do you call Him Lord, Lord and yet do not do the things he says. Unless of course you have surpassed Paul who claimed only to be the chief of sinners and are about to tell us that you are perfect, as the Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

JustAChristian responds:
No, I am not perfect is any stretch of the imagination. I do say that I do not wish to compromise the scriptures, properly interpreted, and seek to do the will of the Father in Heaven. Find me doing otherwise and I am willing to change.

BChristianK says:
You talk about it like it is a ticket to a movie. Perhaps it is a bit more thoughtful than that…

JustAChristian responds:
Sorry for any grammatical errors .

BChristianK says:
Right, now of all of the well informed interpretations of this passage, tell me how you are absolutely sure your interpretation (that the water was baptism) is correct.

If you don’t mind, start with a Greek exegesis of the passage and show me how we must all logically conclude that water meant baptism here.

JustAChristian responds:
From Robertson Word Pictures (RWP) we read: {Of water and the Spirit} (ex udatos kai pneumatos). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add ex udatos here? In verse 3 we have "anwqen" (from above) which is repeated in verse#7, while in verse 8 we have only ek tou pneumatos (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts. Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by ex udatoj (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus(vv. 3,5,7)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in verse 6 as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit. One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us. By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of "water" here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Here Jesus uses eiselqein (enter) instead of idein (see) of verse 3, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom).

Now I believe of course that water can only be referring to water baptism. In the same chapter we read, “After these things came Jesus and his disciples inot the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized? (John 3:22-23 AV). So water and baptism are firmly linked in this chapter. I will treat objections to this passage interpreted as talking of water baptism later. But it is obvious that Jesus is talking of a new birth. This new birth consists of water and a work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible reveals the Holy Spirit works in conviction, conversion and sanctification through the word of God. In Ephesians 6:17 it says, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.? Through the word of God the Spirit brings forth faith (Romans 10:17), and repentance (Acts 2:38), and he commands us to go into the waters of baptism for the remissions of sins. That’s the Spirit’s part in salvation. The water plays it’s part, for sins are washed away in baptism as is shown in Acts 22:16. Simply saying, the Spirit’s part in the new birth is truth and what it produces. The water’s part is baptism.

BChristianK says:
The Ethiopian was baptized as a profession of his faith, correct.

JustAChristian responds:
What does the scriptures say? Does it say “as a profession of his faith?? In context with the balance of the New Testament on baptism, can you find any statement “as a profession of his faith with respect to baptism. I believe the eunuch was baptized to wash away his sins and in order to obey the provisions of the new birth. Within the course of Philip preaching “Jesus? he no doubt speaks of baptism prompting the eunuch to quiz on the subject. Faith comes by hearing... (Romans 10:17). He heard like those on Pentecost the essentiality of baptism and was prompted by the presence of the water to answer the command and be added to the kingdom of God.

BChristianK says:
No, I see it as a public demonstration of repentance, faith and a public profession of Christ. I do see it as absolutely necessary and not unconnected to one’s salvific experience. I don’t say, as do you, that one cannot be saved until they are baptized. And I certainly don’t say, as I fear you will eventually say, that one is not saved unless they are baptized in your church.

JustAChristian responds:
I hope you will continue to study the subject and accept its essentiality unto salvation (Mark 16:16). I have no church. I believe I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ.

BChristianK says:
Agreed.

JustAChristian responds:
Then why do you question it scriptural usage? (1 Peter 3:21).

BChristianK says:
Right, God accepts us on the basis of Christ’s blood, not the baptismal waters.

JustAChristian responds:
In your understanding, how does on obtain the cleansing blood of Christ? Can you sustain your understanding by scripture?

BChristianK says:
Do you really need me to show you why Mark 16:16 is not a great place to hang your theological hat?

JustAChristian responds:
It is your duty to show me that water baptism for the remission of sins is not essential or effective in order to be saved. Thus far you have done a miserable labor in doing so.

BchristianK says:
Have you ever considered that disciples of Christ should only be called “Christians??
You mean have I considered that those who learn from Christ should be called Christians?

JustAChristian responds:
Yes

BChristianK says:
Sure.

Now, as I said about acts 10, it is clear that the household of Cornelius received Holy Spirit before they were baptized. In fact, it was the very reception of Holy Spirit that brought about their baptism.
This doesn’t follow your formula.
Of:
1. Repent
2. Baptism
3. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Which is clearly evident that Peter wasn’t espousing a formula in Acts 2:38.

Yes, Cornelius and his household. Acts 10, I thought that was clear. Ah, but you are probably going to try to pull the ol’ “that wasn’t an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.?
There are a whole mess of problems with such a crazy argument.
First, there is no other place in scripture that refers to Cornelius or his household having a separate encounter with the Holy Spirit. Second, Peter says,

JustAChristian responds:
You are correct. That wasn’t an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The manifestation of the Spirit at that time was as a witness to the event before the Jews that God has accepted Gentiles to be apart of the kingdom of God through the cleansing blood of Christ in baptism. Thus, Peter commanded those that believed to be baptized. After baptism comes the indwelling (Acts 2:38).


BChristianK says:
Are you going to argue that Peter and the 12 didn’t have an indwelling experience with the Holy Spirit? If not, then it would be pretty silly to say that Cornelius didn’t by virtue of this event based on Peter’s words, wouldn’t it?

JustAChristian responds:
I don’t argue that point at all. I am merely saying that the Spirit coming over the household of Cornelius was not an indwelling. There are only two displays of the manifestation as explained by Peter. The first was on Pentecost and the second was on the household of Cornelius. Neither was for the purpose of indwelling as the “gift of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 2:38). From J. W. McGarvey we read, “After commanding the inquirers to repent and be immersed for the remission of sins, Peter adds the promise, "and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." The gift of the Holy Spirit should not be confounded with the Holy Spirit's gifts, nor with the fruits of the Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are religious traits of character, and they result from the gift of the Holy Spirit. The latter expression means, the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is analogous to the expression, "promise of the Holy Spirit" in#Ac 2:33, above, where Peter says, "having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear." The gifts of the Holy Spirit were various miraculous powers, intellectual and physical. These were conferred only upon a few individuals, while the gift of the Spirit is promised to all who repent and are immersed.?

BChristianK says:
No, it is absolutely necessary to read the word as it is written not as you add to it.

JustAChristian responds:
Sorry, I should have inserted a “not? between it and absolutely.

BChristianK says:
I don’t argue that they weren’t baptized, I am arguing that the passage shows the sufficiency of faith for salvation. In other words, salvation isn’t formulaic.

Good, now lets hope you don’t go footnoting Ephesians 1:13 anyway.

You just said you wouldn’t footnote it. Instead, you footnoted it with *?believe is all inclusive of faith, repentance, confession and baptism.? Actually, belief is just all inclusive of belief.

JustAChristian responds:
I didn’t say I was not going to comment on the verse, I said, I would agree that any “foot noting? that is not in harmony with the Word of God would be unscriptural.

BChristianK says:
Right ‘cause that’s always the formula for how salvation happens, unless of course you include the thief on the cross (you gotta deal with that whole John the Baptist and Jesus baptizing thing before you can explain this one away) and you still have yet to explain away the baptism of cornelius which was repentance from sin (even before Peter got there since he was told Cornelius was righteous and God fearing), then comes the sealing of the Holy Spirit and then water baptism.

JustAChristian responds:
Events prior to the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are matters of the Law of Moses (Luke 16:16) “...After that the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it.? After Christ’s resurrection and ascension to receive His Kingdom He had all power to commission and send his disciples into all the world with the eternal gospel of salvation. John’s baptism was a preparatory baptism for the remission of sin preparing a people for the coming of the Messiah (Mark 1:4). John 4:2 tells us that Jesus did not baptize but commissioned his disciples to do so. Again, McGarvey says, “Jesus, as divine Lawgiver, instituted baptism, and his disciples administered it. We nowhere hear of the disciples of John administering baptism. In fact, the Baptist, like the disciples of Jesus, baptized under a divine commission, and could not delegate the power to others. It was the office of Jesus to commission others to this work, not to perform it himself. Had he done so, those baptized by him might have foolishly claimed for themselves some peculiar honor by reason thereof (#1Co 1:14,15). Jesus was the spiritual baptizer, in which baptism the efficacy lies in the administrant; but water baptism, the efficacy of which lies rather in the spirit of the one baptized than in the virtues of the administrant, Jesus left to his disciples.?

Cornelius was told to send to Joppa to one Simon “...he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do; (Acts 10:6). Peter came and commanded him and his household that believed they must be baptized. You need to read Acts 10:22 on what Peter perceived of Cornelius. Nowhere does he say that Cornelius was righteous. Water baptism for the remission of sins will effect the gift of the Holy Spirit as an indwelling and sealing.

BChristianK says:
You see, your church has to explain away all these scriptures because it is founded on it being the only true church because it is the only church that does these things in the right order. The problem with this is that you can’t prove the order consistently throughout the scripture. All the elements are important: repentance, confession of faith, baptism, etc… But they are not formulaic.

JustAChristian responds:
To be consistent they must come in order. Hearing prompts faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance is essential and would be committed before one would be prompted to confess Christ as God’s Son. Philip said to the eunuch, “If you believe you can be baptized? and Jesus commissioned saying “...he that believes and is baptized? prompting us to accept that confession comes before baptism. Call it a formula if you wish. I see it as a God’s plan for salvation.

BChristianK says:
Now finally, in response to my question about the guy who got hit by a bus on his way into the church to be baptized, you said:

No idea what 2 Tim 2:1 has to do with hades..

JustAChristian responds:
I do not see any connection with 2 Tim 2:1 and the Hadean world. Perhaps you do not understand the Hadean world.
McGarvey says and I concur, “Hades (Greek), or Sheol (Hebrew), was the name given to the abode of the dead between death and the resurrection. In it the souls of the wicked are in torment, and those of the righteous enjoy a paradise(#Lu 23:43). The joys of Paradise were conceived of as those of a feast, and the expression "Abraham's bosom" is taken from the custom of reclining on couches at feasts. As a guest leaned upon his left arm, his neighbor on his left might easily lean upon his bosom. Such a position of respect to the master of the house was one of special honor, and indicated great intimacy(#Joh 1:18 13:23). What higher honor or joy could the Jew conceive of than such a condition of intimacy and fellowship with Abraham, the great founder of their race? (#Mt 8:11).?

BChristianK says:
1 Peter 4:5, the quick and the dead have already been evangelized.

JustAChristian responds:
I believe Peter is speaking of some who did receive the gospel, have since died and will be judged in the same manner as those who are alive at the coming of Christ.


BChristianK says:
I surely have, and will continue to do so. I have repented, believed, confessed, been baptized by immersion.

Oh, but you are about to tell me that it didn’t happen in your church by one of your pastors so it didn’t take, right?

I certainly hope not. That would tell me that you adhere to the cultic Boston Church of Christ movement which has more theological problems than one can count on one hand. What is more, they make the pretentious claim that they are the only true church. Honestly, that is really the most braggadocios, ignorant claim ever uttered. We should talk about their interpretation of Matthew 28:19 sometime, it is hilarious for its lack of understanding of the scripture.

JustAChristian responds:
It is apparent that regardless what I may reply to you that you have a preconceived notion that whatever I have to say is not going to be considered. If you wish to communicate with an open mind then I am willing to proceed....in the mean time, where does the Bible said if one will accept the Lord Jesus as their personal savior then they will be saved?

BChristianK says:
Grace and Peace

P.s, Your really gonna have to explain this one to me…

What do you know about “Fire Baptism?? Fire baptism is the eternal baptism of flames of Hell Fire and no one should seek that.

JustAChristian responds:
I believe it deals with the second death of Revelation 20:14. As John said, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (Matthew 3:11 AV). John is speaking of Jesus baptizing of some those that heard John with the baptism of fire which would come in disobedience to the gospel. Not all would be baptized as not all would be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

BChristianK says:
So you think that Peter and the 12 on Pentecost as well as the household of Cornelius were baptized into the flames of Hell fire?

JustAChristian responds:
No, that is not my thinking.

BChristianK says:
I suppose you think that Acts 2:39 means that the promise of HELLFIRE is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord will call to Himself.

JustAChristian responds:
The baptism of fire is reserved for the disobedient alone.


JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 23rd, 2004, 11:41 AM
The Bible teaches that God dwells in his people. "And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (2 Cor. 6:16). This says that not only does God dwell in us, it is also true that he walks in us. It is also clearly taught that Christ dwells in Christians. "That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love" (Eph. 3:17). The same language is used to teach us that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians. In Gal. 3:2, Paul asks the Galatians: "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Rom. 8:9 says, "But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Thus the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit dwells in Christians and this is repeatedly taught. The same Greek words are used of the three. The manner in which the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians is not explained in the scriptures. George Washington said, "United we stand, divided we fall." As long as the American people are true to the words, the spirit of George Washington will live in them. When our children follow our principles it is to that extent that we are dwelling in our children. Christ dwells in us to the extent that we follow the teaching of Christ (Gal. 2:20). The Holy Spirit dwells in us to the extent that we follow the teachings of the Spirit (Eph. 5:17,18; Col. 3:16). Most of us can understand how Christ can dwell in us by faith through the word but when it comes to the Holy Spirit people get some weird ideas. As God and Christ dwell in us through the word, so the Holy Spirit dwells in us through his word.

There is a difference between what the Holy Spirit does to us, and what he does in behalf of, or for us. We read, for example, that "The Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is in the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God" (Rom. 8:26,27). The groaning here is the burdened soul who, not knowing in his distress what to pray for, can only groan in spirit, and say, "Lord, Lord" and the Holy Spirit picks up these groanings and interprets them to the Father in terms of the soul's need. We note that the intercession which the Spirit does is an operation for us before the throne of grace, and not upon us. It is, of course, true, that people are prepared through circumstances, to listen to the gospel. This may be because of an accident, the death of a loved one, the realization of approaching death and other things of life. But no one will know what the will of God unto salvation is until he hears the word of God.

In Matt. 12:31,32 we read about blaspheming the Holy Spirit; Heb. 6:4-6 speaks of despising the Holy Spirit; Acts 5:3 speaks of lying to the Holy Spirit; Acts 7:51 speaks of resisting the Holy Spirit; 1 Cor. 6:19,20; 1 Cor. 3:16,17 speaks of defiling the temple of the body and the church which is against the Holy Spirit; 1 Thess. 5:19 speaks of quenching the Holy Spirit; and, Eph. 4:30 speaks of grieving the Holy Spirit. When we fail to heed the message of the Holy Spirit through the word we are resisting the Holy Spirit and if we persist in this action we will be lost eternally.

Let us submit to the will of the Lord and fill our life with the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control (Gal. 5:22,23). If we thus sow to the Spirit we shall of the Spirit reap eternal life (Gal. 6:8).

JustAChristian

Aimiel
September 23rd, 2004, 08:00 PM
There is also groaning that intercessors do, which is to pray for those they know nothing about. It occurs when you pray under the guidance of The Holy Spirit. He often reveals the burden, and sometimes even the circumstances that one is praying for. Mainly, knowing the deep heart-felt burden that The Lord has for His children, wherever they might be is reassurace, no matter how painful or how long the burden lasts, there is always the release, which comes when The Holy Spirit gives release, "Enough," He says. And you know that The Victory belongs to Him, and that you had a part in it, along with Him.

JustAChristian
September 24th, 2004, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

There is also groaning that intercessors do, which is to pray for those they know nothing about. It occurs when you pray under the guidance of The Holy Spirit. He often reveals the burden, and sometimes even the circumstances that one is praying for. Mainly, knowing the deep heart-felt burden that The Lord has for His children, wherever they might be is reassurace, no matter how painful or how long the burden lasts, there is always the release, which comes when The Holy Spirit gives release, "Enough," He says. And you know that The Victory belongs to Him, and that you had a part in it, along with Him.

There is a difference between what the Holy Spirit does to us, and what he does in behalf of, or for us. We read, for example, that "The Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is in the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God" (Rom. 8:26,27). The groaning here is the burdened soul who, not knowing in his distress what to pray for, can only groan in spirit, and say, "Lord, Lord" and the Holy Spirit picks up these groanings and interprets them to the Father in terms of the soul's need. We note that the intercession which the Spirit does is an operation for us before the throne of grace, and not upon us.

Let us submit to the will of the Lord and fill our life with the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control (Gal. 5:22,23). If we thus sow to the Spirit we shall of the Spirit reap eternal life (Gal. 6:8).


JustAChristian

Aimiel
September 24th, 2004, 10:18 AM
He makes intercession (through those yielded to Him) for the saints. That's what I was pointing out.

Why did you bold your text, I can read.

JustAChristian
September 24th, 2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

He makes intercession (through those yielded to Him) for the saints. That's what I was pointing out.

Why did you bold your text, I can read.

Some people bold, bolf, and some italicize . Some even color their text. Truth comes in many styles but unless it is real TRUTH we know "it's not worth a hill of beans." We should be careful what we always post because we are subject to answer for it.

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 24th, 2004, 12:58 PM
With the Reformation came the challenge to promote the need to study and understand Holy Writ. God had provided the perfect tool for life and mankind needed that tool. Bibles and Testaments of all sizes began to be seen and sold in the bookstores and libraries in every “Christian? country. Daily, man was coming to the knowledge of the Almighty and His Son Jesus Christ in such a manner not seen since the earliest of times. Till this present time, thousands of books and article have been written expressing the nature and manner of God and of His salvation for all to possess (1 Timothy 2:4). Yet, even with the surmounting mounds of information and clarification, there is that element that will not come to accept the true meaning of God’s word. They will not humble themselves to accept anything beyond their closed presumptions. They will not go against interpretations of those whom they esteem and appreciate. Even with reasonable effort on the part of others to present the truth that can not be denied, they will not abase themselves and give in. The Bible is correct to say they will never come to a correct and proper understanding, and have “become dull of hearing?(Hebrews 5:11). Even these Paul loved and with concern for their souls was “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; (2 Timothy 2:25 AV) With a concern so dedicated so as to desire God to intervene in some miraculous manner to cause man to understand that they might be saved. This is how important the scriptures are to knowing.

Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul once wrote Timothy saying, “...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. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God might be perfect; thoroughly furnished unto every good work? (2 Timothy 3:15-17 AV). With this inspired message Timothy could be assured of benefits of knowing the scriptures and we can also know today if we will but humble ourselves and esteem the Bible far above any other book in the world, learn it and use it correctly in our lives. To this extent may we ever be grateful. God would have all men to be saved.


JustAChristian

Lighthouse
September 24th, 2004, 02:18 PM
*cough*
If Peter wanted those who were already filled with the Spirit to be baptized, how were those people filled with the Spirit, unless they were already saved? Salvation came before baptism, which shows that it comes without baptism...

JustAChristian
September 24th, 2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

*cough*
If Peter wanted those who were already filled with the Spirit to be baptized, how were those people filled with the Spirit, unless they were already saved? Salvation came before baptism, which shows that it comes without baptism...

lighthouse,

Tell us who were already filled with the Spirit that Peter wanted to be baptized. You'd have to also have to tell us how they were filled with the Spirit since you are assigning them to that status. To whom do you find salvation coming before baptism?

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 24th, 2004, 04:49 PM
When we study the baptism with the Holy Spirit in its entirety, we see that the Bible only records two occasions when there was a baptism of the Holy Ghost or Spirit. The first is when the apostles were baptized of the Holy Ghost on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:1-4). The second occasion was as Peter was preaching to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-45). The Spirit descended upon this household as He did upon the apostles. In both cases it was not in order to save or cleanse of sins. There have been many manifestations of the Spirit in the New Testament, but none like these two events. The apostles were baptized in the Holy Ghost that they might be guided into all truth and be able to remember everything which Jesus taught them (John 14:26; 16:30). Cornelius and his family (household) were baptized in the Holy Ghost to demonstrate that the Gentiles had been accepted by God just the same as the Jews--through the Gospel--separate and apart from the Law of Moses (Acts 10:1-48: 11:1-18: 15:7-11).

Truly, you will notice that the apostles of Christ were guided into all truth, and we have this very same truth in the Bible, the Holy book of God. As it was demonstrated long age that Gentiles are accepted by God the same as Jews, we still have this same evidence in our Bible. Because of this, the work of the baptism of the Spirit was fulfilled, and there is no such baptism in these days. Paul wrote that there is "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). , and that baptism is in water "in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost unto the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38). That baptism must be preached to all nations unto the end of this present age (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15,16; Eph 5:26; 1 Ptr. 3:20,21). All Christians have the Holy Spirit in them, being the temple of God , but they are not baptized in the Holy Spirit as the Apostles and Cornelius were. If you believe that you have been baptized in the Holy Ghost, lets for a moment consider that point. Were you also water baptized? If you were water baptized, is this not two baptisms? At a later time the apostle Paul says to the Ephesian church, a time long after the household of Cornelius was baptized, that there is "one baptism?" (Eph.4:5). The Ephesian church obeyed the one baptism and was added to the church just like the church at Jerusalem in the beginning (Acts 2:41; Rom 6:4-6,17,18; Eph, 4;22,24).

The three thousand souls at Jerusalem that were obedient to the gospel Peter preached never experienced Holy Ghost baptism, yet the Bible tells us, "...such as should be saved..." were being added to the church.(Acts. 2:47). How do you explain this? You can only explain it rationally by accepting that water baptism is commanded for all while Holy Ghost was not. By the Spirit’s intervention the apostles would be guided into all truth, as Jesus promised, and to the Gentiles would the gospel be preached..

Please note that spiritual gifts, and distribution of gifts is shown earlier in Acts 8:14-17 to be through the laying on of the apostle’s hands. Philip the evangelist, preaching to the Samaritans, could not impart the spiritual gifts to them. This could only be done by the apostles. Paul wanted to soon visit the Roman church as he was at Corinth, and told them in his letter to the church saying, “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Why didn't the preacher who converted those Romans impart the needed spiritual gift. We reason that he was not an apostle, and thus could not do it.

We should be able to clearly see how the Holy Spirit functions. He does not cause anyone to react separate and apart from the word of God. We need to study for ourselves in order to "rightly divide the way of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). Keep studying your Bible. It’s the perfect tool for happiness and eternal life (2 Timothy 3:16,17).

JustAChristian

Aimiel
September 24th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Truly, you will notice that the apostles of Christ were guided into all truth, and we have this very same truth in the Bible, the Holy book of God.Not quite 'all truth,' as you have quipped, but that which The Lord chose to reveal to them. His Mystery will continue until He brings It to an end, as He has declared to His Servents, the Prophets.
As it was demonstrated long age that Gentiles are accepted by God the same as Jews, we still have this same evidence in our Bible. Because of this, the work of the baptism of the Spirit was fulfilled, and there is no such baptism in these days.Says you. The Word of God says differently. God doesn't give gifts that He then takes back, or changes His Mind about. Jesus said that The Father would give The Holy Spirit to them that ask for Him, not to them that say, "He's 'passed away,' " or, "That's not for today."
Paul wrote that there is "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). , and that baptism is in water "in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost unto the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38).Yes, there is One Baptism, but being sprinkled, dunked or spritzed isn't it; The Baptism by Fire that he was speaking of is the same Presnece of God that is present when one gets convicted of sin, righteousness and judgement by The Holy Ghost, becomes convinced that Jesus is The Only Salvation by The Holy Ghost and enters into The Presence of The Lord, in the Holy of Holies, which is inside the heart of true believers, everywhere.
That baptism must be preached to all nations unto the end of this present age (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15,16; Eph 5:26; 1 Ptr. 3:20,21).Yes, but memorization of truths is not the end. That is a step, just as believing for salvation is a step, and being filled with The Holy Spirit is a step. The goal is to be conformed to His Image and Likeness, and that doesn't come about by reading, memorizing or reciting dogma. It only comes to pass as we seek The Lord with all of our heart, and only those who endure unto the end shall ever achieve that goal.
All Christians have the Holy Spirit in them, being the temple of God , but they are not baptized in the Holy Spirit as the Apostles and Cornelius were.He is 'with' them, but shall be 'in' them, if they will but invite Him in. He doesn't go where He's not invited.
Please note that spiritual gifts, and distribution of gifts is shown earlier in Acts 8:14-17 to be through the laying on of the apostle’s hands. Well, have you ever had an Apostle's hands laid upon you?
This could only be done by the apostles.There were other Apostles mentioned in The Bible, other than the original twelve. You, at least, have to count Paul as the thirteenth.
Why didn't the preacher who converted those Romans impart the needed spiritual gift. We reason that he was not an apostle, and thus could not do it.God didn't say that His Mystery would be divulged to those who reason among themselves. That's spiritual incest. He wants us to come together with Him, and reason together with Him. He is Spirit. He is alive, forevermore. Jesus is seated at The Right Hand of The Father because He is done. His Work is finished, until His Bride stands up and does the job committed to her, that of evangelizing this earth. Once we've done that, putting all His Enemies under His Feet, He will come back for a bride without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.
We should be able to clearly see how the Holy Spirit functions.Why? Because you say so? Don't you realize that men lost the knowledge of God, slowly, over the centuries, after the fall. The Lord spoke, and Israel listened. They trembled, He spoke so loud. Then, they lost what light He had given. Then, His Son came, to demonstrate His Father's Love for us, and give us The Spark, The Gospel. We ignited The Fire that lights the world. Now, as that fire dies down, The Holy Ghost must re-kindle our love for The Lord into the burning passionate desire to see His Bride walk down that aisle with a yearning more strong than our desire for our next breath. When we get that hungry for a move of The Lord, He will answer our prayers, and move upon us like no other generation has ever dreamed of. We are the 'dead bones' that Ezekiel spoke of. We are the 'dead' that his prophecies will breathe new life back into. We are spiritual corpses, walking around on a dead mission among dead parishoners, listening to dead hymns and dry, dead sermons preached by zombie preachers. We will live, because The Lord told Ezekiel to speak The Words of Life to us, by faith. He did. He didn't even think that it would happen, but because he obeyed The Lord, it did (that's future perfect tense, by the way, prophets (such as myself) can use that tense, because The Lord has given us leave to.
He does not cause anyone to react separate and apart from the word of God.No, but He does know how to get His Mission accomplished. He knows how to move upon people that believe that He can't do so, and cause them to rise up from their grave and call others to life, out of their graves, as well.
We need to study for ourselves in order to "rightly divide the way of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).Not me, thanks, I'll go right along studying for The Lord; because I study to show myself approved of Him, not myself or others. I don't want to be ashamed of the way that I tried to please myself or others, I'd much rather please The Lord, and His Approval does not come by understanding or by study, only by seeking. He is Who we seek, not 'knowledge about Him.'
Keep studying your Bible. It’s the perfect tool for happiness and eternal life (2 Timothy 3:16,17). True, It is, but only if you're seeking to meet and to come to know It's Author. He said He will be found by those who seek Him with their whole hearts, and He hasn't been proven wrong yet, in one single instance. He isn't found in dead words about death or how He (or His Spirit) is 'passed away' or 'not for today,' but only in the faith inside the heart of those who love Him, those who believe (especially when it 'looks' like His Promises just aren't so) His Word, not those who find new and different ways to doubt It. :thumb:

JustASpritFilledBeliever

JustAChristian
September 25th, 2004, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel


JustASpritFilledBeliever


Aimiel,

You are confused with the work of the Holy Spirit. I wish you would pay more attention to what I post and search it out. You will find the work of the Spirit is through the word of God. He does not come over people today as in the 1st century. His work is completed in that realm. I am sending you another lesson. Please read it completely.

The most misunderstood person in the Bible, I believe, is the Holy Spirit. I want you to understand for sure that the Holy Spirit is a person. He is not an "it" or a "thing", He is a person of Deity, and is called the Holy Ghost in the King James Version (Mt. 3:11), and "Spirit" in the first letter to Timothy (1 Tim 4:1). We see him called "the Spirit of God" in (1 Cor 6:11). Likewise he is called the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9). Each name depicts a characteristic at the time expressed, and should not be construed to be different Spirits. The American Standard and other translations almost exclusively use the term "Spirit" instead of "Ghost" which I am told is an old English term for guest, as a guest we would have at our homes. The Holy Ghost would then be a guest within us as we are or become the temple of the Holy Ghost ( 1 Cor. 6:19)
.
As a Spirit person, he has the ability to do things that a person, as we know it, can do. Among these is the ability to know, "...even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11). He can know because He has a mind, "And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit..."( Rom. 8:27). The Bible says that the Holy Spirit did things as He wished. He had the ability to dispense various gifts as He willed" (1 Cor 12: 4-11). He has the characteristic of love (Rom. 15:30). The Bible says that " the Spirit speaketh expressly. He spoke on one occasion to Philip the evangelist (Act 8:29).He bears witness. Jesus, on one occasion said that "...he shall testify of me" (Jn.15:26). He has the ability to intercede in prayer for us, for the Bible says, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself (himself; the better translation), maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom.26). Some hold that the Holy Spirit is but a force, but let me further assure you that He is not just a force, but a person that can be grieved (Eph 4:30). People try to deceive the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:30). He can be blasphemed (Mk 3:29), and He may be insulted (Heb. 10:29). These are things which a force cannot do or receive.

In the building up of the church in the first century, the work of the Holy Spirit was to lead the apostles and preachers of Christ to prevent them from going astray in their preaching and writing. The Bible says, "But when they deliver you up take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you (Mt. 10:19,20). The apostle John in his gospel relays what Jesus taught saying, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come" (Jn. 16:13).

The Bible speaks of the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,? and a lot of misunderstanding comes for a lack of proper study on this subject. John the Baptist, on an occasion addressed an audience saying "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Mt. 3:11) We see in the Bible, that the Apostles on the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, (Acts 2:1-4), and the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-47) were the only ones to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the agent in cleansing or salvation but the servant of God in effecting the work of God through the Word of God. Today, there is but one baptism, in water for the remission of sin for us to obey (Acts 2:38; 10: 47; Eph 4:4-5).

What do you know about “Fire Baptism?? One commenting of this subject says, ““Many learned commentators regard the expression "in fire" as a mere amplification of the spiritual baptism added to express the purging and purifying effects of that baptism, but the context forbids this, for, in Mt 3:10, casting the unfruitful trees into the fire represents the punishment of the wicked, and, in Mt 3:12 the burning of the chaff with fire does the same, and consequently the baptizing in fire of the intervening verse must, according to the force of the context have the same reference. True, the expression "he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and with fire," does not separate the persons addressed into two parties, and, if the context is disregarded, might be understood as meaning that the same persons were to be baptized in both; yet the context must not be disregarded, and it clearly separates them.? (J.W. McGarvey).

Fire baptism is the eternal baptism of flames of Hell Fire and no one should seek that. It will be rendered at the Judgement of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:8-10). How did Christians manifest the Spirit? The Spirit was manifested many times in the scriptures, but only at the laying on of hands of the Apostles was He dispensed to the people (Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:6) The Holy Spirit baptism is a wonderful subject but must be understood properly. Continue to seek the Lord, and have a great day.

JustAChristian :angel:

Aimiel
September 25th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

The most misunderstood person in the Bible, I believe, is the Holy Spirit.This from someone who will admit that he's never even met The Holy Spirit? Makes no sense.
I want you to understand for sure that the Holy Spirit is a person.Yup, I've met Him, and He has a home inside of me.
The American Standard and other translations almost exclusively use the term "Spirit" instead of "Ghost" which I am told is an old English term for guest, as a guest we would have at our homes. The Holy Ghost would then be a guest within us as we are or become the temple of the Holy Ghost ( 1 Cor. 6:19).As Jesus said, He is 'with' those who believe, and comes to live 'within' those who invite Him to do so.
The Bible says that the Holy Spirit did things as He wished. He had the ability to dispense various gifts as He willed" (1 Cor 12: 4-11).Who took away that 'ability' that you say He HAD? In your mind, is He only God of the past?
The Bible says that " the Spirit speaketh expressly.He does. He has spoken to me countless times, and, many times, to others, through me.
He (The Holy Ghost) bears witness.Precisely. It is His 'witness' that gives us a 'more sure word of prophecy,' as The Scripture says, than any eyewitness account of those who heard God's Voice when Jesus was baptized, saying, "This is My Beloved Son, hear ye Him." We have The Holy Spirit inside of us (Spirit-Filled believers do) which gives us His Word and His Presence whenever we seek and allow Him to do so, as He wills. It is This Living Word, The Spirit of The Lord, that speaks His Will to others, in prophecy, words of wisdom, words of knowledge, and in many other ways, which have yet to be counted.
Jesus, on one occasion said that "...he shall testify of me" (Jn.15:26).If He didn't, then we'd know that He is NOT The Holy Spirit, but an imposter.
He has the ability to intercede in prayer for us, for the Bible says, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself (himself; the better translation), maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom.26).As I said (see above) He does exactly as I have described, which is pure passion to see His Will in the life of someone that The Lord has desired for someone to pray for, and when we do, we are never rewarded (in this life) for what takes place, but God knows who travails in prayer, and who recites worthless dogma designed to make them appear religious.
Some hold that the Holy Spirit is but a force, but let me further assure you that He is not just a force, but a person that can be grieved (Eph 4:30).You'd better believe it. I believe that there is one thing that grieves God more than anything else, and that is those who pretend to know Him, who really only know 'about' Him, that then do their best to prevent others from ever coming into contact with Him, by confusing them with dogma and religious hogwash. Jesus said of those in His 'day' that they were whitewashed empty vessels, and that they made the outside of the cup clean, but the inside was full of dead men's bones.
People try to deceive the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:30).Anyone who has the least bit of knowledge of The Lord ought to know that there is nothing that is hidden from His Sight. Only those who love and reverence His Presence will ever find His Presence, or desire Him enough to stay there, or to seek Him out again and again. He said that He would be found by those who seek for Him with their whole heart. Don't you believe Him? What's holding you back?
In the building up of the church in the first century, the work of the Holy Spirit was to lead the apostles and preachers of Christ to prevent them from going astray in their preaching and writing.He's been doing that since the dawn of time. In this, the Church age, He has been given, unto believers who ask for Him, and He cannot be taken away.
The Bible says, "But when they deliver you up take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you (Mt. 10:19,20). The apostle John in his gospel relays what Jesus taught saying, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come" (Jn. 16:13).These things are true, and He is able to do even more than these few verses describe.
The Bible speaks of the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,? and a lot of misunderstanding comes for a lack of proper study on this subject.Not as much as what comes from one with a 'skewed' viewpoint, trying to prove that He doesn't do what He does every single day, all day long.
John the Baptist, on an occasion addressed an audience saying "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Mt. 3:11)Do you believe that John was preaching to twelve disciples only? I believe that he was speaking to anyone who would be saved, and seek The Lord for baptism in The Holy Spirit.
We see in the Bible, that the Apostles on the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, (Acts 2:1-4), and the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-47) were the only ones to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.Again, the 'skewed' point of view. Those who were called apostles or propehts in The New Testament weren't only twelve men, and The Lord is able to give any gifts that He wishes to anyone that He wishes.
The Holy Spirit is not the agent in cleansing or salvation but the servant of God in effecting the work of God through the Word of God.Amen.
Today, there is but one baptism, in water for the remission of sin for us to obey (Acts 2:38; 10: 47; Eph 4:4-5).There is One Baptism, which is God's Presence, which is typified by immersion, sprinkling or spritzing; but is complete when God comes to dwell inside of temples not made with hands. He doesn't do so with anyone who has not invited Him to.
What do you know about “Fire Baptism??I believe it to be a burning, yearning and longing desire for more and more of His Presence and His Truth. The longer one remains in His Presence, the more one becomes 'like' Him, desiring Him increases, as does hunger. That 'fire' that I have experienced has kindled me and still does, in many areas of my life, as well as touching others through me.
Fire baptism is the eternal baptism of flames of Hell Fire and no one should seek that.That's WHACKED. If that were the case, John would have said, "...baptize you with The Holy Ghost, and send the goats to hell."
How did Christians manifest the Spirit? The Spirit was manifested many times in the scriptures, but only at the laying on of hands of the Apostles was He dispensed to the people (Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:6)So, the twelve layed hands on the other 108 in the upper room? They also layed hands on thousands, the same day? I don't think so. He does fill people who have prayed for His Baptism through the laying on of hands by the presbytry, but He also fills those who seek Him with their whole heart, however He pleases. He is God, and is not subject to your knowledge 'about' Him, which is conjecture, invented by the mind of someone who has never met Him, reading about His Exploits done through those who did.
The Holy Spirit baptism is a wonderful subject but must be understood properly. Now you're missing the point. The Holy Spirit Baptism is The Lord's Gift to His Children, and is how He is able to write His Laws upon our hearts. It is only through His Presence and His Love that we are able to fulfill His Will for us, which is to no longer live, but to allow Christ to live, inside of us, The Hope of Glory. He is The Earnest of our inheritance. He is The Down Payment. The problem with being scholarly or religious is that these things become goals within themselve. Too many, yes, even too many so-called 'spirit-filled' believers, miss the mark and allow their ideas and their conjecture to become their god or their goal. We need to carefully keep our eyes upon Jesus, and let Him be our goal. Seek His Face, and let everything else take a 'back seat' to Him. When we seek Him, He said that He would be found by us, if we seek Him with our whole heart. He wasn't joking. He didn't mean that we would find Him when we die, either. That would be foolish. He is able to be found, but only by those who seek Him with their whole heart.
Continue to seek the Lord, and have a great day. When you find Him, is when you realize how little you truly know about Him, and first become aware that He really exists. Everything before becomes like a dream, because we were trying to prove whether He existed or not, while we attempted to walk by faith. When we meet Him is when we realize that He is calling us up higher and higher all the time, that He wants us to increase in faith, not rest on our laurels.

Lighthouse
September 26th, 2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

lighthouse,

Tell us who were already filled with the Spirit that Peter wanted to be baptized. You'd have to also have to tell us how they were filled with the Spirit since you are assigning them to that status. To whom do you find salvation coming before baptism?

JustAChristian :angel:
You're kidding, right? Read Acts 10:47. You quoted it in post #206.

And, Paul constantly states that there is no differentiation between Jew and Gentile in the Body of Christ. And Paul did not preach the law. James stated that we are justified by works, and not faith only. Paul said the completel opposite. They did contradict, each other, yet they saw each other as preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Why is that?

JustAChristian
September 27th, 2004, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Not quite 'all truth,' as you have quipped, but that which The Lord chose to reveal to them. His Mystery will continue until He brings It to an end, as He has declared to His Servents, the Prophets.Says you. The Word of God says differently. God doesn't give gifts that He then takes back, or changes His Mind about. Jesus said that The Father would give The Holy Spirit to them that ask for Him, not to them that say, "He's 'passed away,' " or, "That's not for today."Yes, there is One Baptism, but being sprinkled, dunked or spritzed isn't it; The Baptism by Fire that he was speaking of is the same Presnece of God that is present when one gets convicted of sin, righteousness and judgement by The Holy Ghost, becomes convinced that Jesus is The Only Salvation by The Holy Ghost and enters into The Presence of The Lord, in the Holy of Holies, which is inside the heart of true believers, everywhere.Yes, but memorization of truths is not the end. That is a step, just as believing for salvation is a step, and being filled with The Holy Spirit is a step. The goal is to be conformed to His Image and Likeness, and that doesn't come about by reading, memorizing or reciting dogma. It only comes to pass as we seek The Lord with all of our heart, and only those who endure unto the end shall ever achieve that goal. He is 'with' them, but shall be 'in' them, if they will but invite Him in. He doesn't go where He's not invited.Well, have you ever had an Apostle's hands laid upon you?There were other Apostles mentioned in The Bible, other than the original twelve. You, at least, have to count Paul as the thirteenth. God didn't say that His Mystery would be divulged to those who reason among themselves. That's spiritual incest. He wants us to come together with Him, and reason together with Him. He is Spirit. He is alive, forevermore. Jesus is seated at The Right Hand of The Father because He is done. His Work is finished, until His Bride stands up and does the job committed to her, that of evangelizing this earth. Once we've done that, putting all His Enemies under His Feet, He will come back for a bride without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.Why? Because you say so? Don't you realize that men lost the knowledge of God, slowly, over the centuries, after the fall. The Lord spoke, and Israel listened. They trembled, He spoke so loud. Then, they lost what light He had given. Then, His Son came, to demonstrate His Father's Love for us, and give us The Spark, The Gospel. We ignited The Fire that lights the world. Now, as that fire dies down, The Holy Ghost must re-kindle our love for The Lord into the burning passionate desire to see His Bride walk down that aisle with a yearning more strong than our desire for our next breath. When we get that hungry for a move of The Lord, He will answer our prayers, and move upon us like no other generation has ever dreamed of. We are the 'dead bones' that Ezekiel spoke of. We are the 'dead' that his prophecies will breathe new life back into. We are spiritual corpses, walking around on a dead mission among dead parishoners, listening to dead hymns and dry, dead sermons preached by zombie preachers. We will live, because The Lord told Ezekiel to speak The Words of Life to us, by faith. He did. He didn't even think that it would happen, but because he obeyed The Lord, it did (that's future perfect tense, by the way, prophets (such as myself) can use that tense, because The Lord has given us leave to.No, but He does know how to get His Mission accomplished. He knows how to move upon people that believe that He can't do so, and cause them to rise up from their grave and call others to life, out of their graves, as well.Not me, thanks, I'll go right along studying for The Lord; because I study to show myself approved of Him, not myself or others. I don't want to be ashamed of the way that I tried to please myself or others, I'd much rather please The Lord, and His Approval does not come by understanding or by study, only by seeking. He is Who we seek, not 'knowledge about Him.' True, It is, but only if you're seeking to meet and to come to know It's Author. He said He will be found by those who seek Him with their whole hearts, and He hasn't been proven wrong yet, in one single instance. He isn't found in dead words about death or how He (or His Spirit) is 'passed away' or 'not for today,' but only in the faith inside the heart of those who love Him, those who believe (especially when it 'looks' like His Promises just aren't so) His Word, not those who find new and different ways to doubt It. :thumb:

JustASpritFilledBeliever

Aimiel,

I scanned your posting but I did not see ONE scriptural referance. I am sorry but you can't be your own authority. Paul said, "And whatsoever ye do in WORD or DEED, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." (Col. 3:17). Go back and give me some scripture on what you believe. I can't answer to your opinions, feelings or supositions. Opinions are like noses; everyone has one!

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 27th, 2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You're kidding, right? Read Acts 10:47. You quoted it in post #206.

And, Paul constantly states that there is no differentiation between Jew and Gentile in the Body of Christ. And Paul did not preach the law. James stated that we are justified by works, and not faith only. Paul said the completel opposite. They did contradict, each other, yet they saw each other as preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Why is that?

lighthouse,

Acts 10:47 does not say that Cornelius was “filled with the Holy Spirit.? I concede that the Holy Spirit “fell on all of them that heard the word.? (Acts 10:47). I concede that they began to speak with tongues and magnify God. What I do not concede is that they were saved in the process. The text explains to us the purpose of the manifestation of the Spirit over the household of Cornelius. It is about ten years since Pentecost (Acts 2). Gentiles, at this point have not and are not being taught and converted. No Gentile has obeyed the Gospel. Peter sees a vision of animals and is told what God has cleansed Peter should not call common. Then strangers arrive from a Roman Centurion called Cornelius. He also saw a vision of an angel and was told to send for a man named Peter. Cornelius, a Gentile, is told Peter will speak unto him words whereby Cornelius can be saved (Acts 10:4-6; 15:7). Peter arrives. As a Jew he feels he should not fellowship Gentiles. But after his own vision and after what Cornelius said about the angel Peter finally says, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him? (Acta 10:35). Then as Peter began to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ unto them, the Holy Spirit fell on them and Peter recalled what Jesus said about the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 10:44-45; 11:15,26). Before Peter finishes with the preaching, he commands Cornelius and those that believe to be immersed in water for the remission of sins (Acts 10:48; 2:38). But the question is asked, “Why did Gentiles receive the baptism with the Spirit?? The answer is found in Acts 15:8. There Peter says, “And God, who knoweth the heart, BARE THEM WITNESS {God bore witness for them (Heb. 2:4), JAC}, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us.? In the baptism with the Holy Spirit of Cornelius and his household we find that God is bearing witness that Gentiles can obey the gospel and become Christians. It never occurs again for anyone, and it is never hinted anywhere that it is for all Christians. Only it gave the apostles power and served as a sign concerning Gentiles.

Paul never preached obedience to the Law of Moses. However he did not say that Christians are excused from law (Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21). James speaks of the the “perfect law of liberty (Jm. 1:25). The Gospel rule of life, perfect and perfecting (as shown in the Sermon on the Mount,(Mt 5:48), and making us truly walk at liberty. Christians are to aim at a higher standard of holiness than was generally understood under the law of Moses.

Some have thought, among these Luther, that Paul and James were not in agreement on the subject of faith. Those who thus conclude mistake both these inspired men of God. Paul shows that works without faith will not justify, and hence lays the emphasis on faith; James shows that faith without works will not justify, and lays the emphasis on works. Neither teaches that faith alone, or works alone will justify. Paul, indeed, shows that faith alone is worthless (1Co 13:2), and in (Heb 11:1-40), he emphasizes works as the demonstration of faith. The two writers are in agreement, and all seeming disagreement is due to the fact that they are seeking to

JustAChristian

Aimiel
September 27th, 2004, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Go back and give me some scripture on what you believe. I can't answer to your opinions, feelings or supositions. That's your opinion. I'm not your puppet. You need to search for The Lord, not scripture and verse. This is the heart of the problem. You have a 'form' of godliness, but you deny The Power Thereof: The Holy Ghost. :thumb:

BChristianK
September 27th, 2004, 10:31 AM
JustaChristian, our posts are getting lengthly, I’m going to try to crystallize our argument a bit so that we don’t keep covering the same territory over and over.

I’ll respond to some of the more critical issues of your last post to me.


You have stated that the law that was in affect during Jesus time had nothing to do with baptism and conclude from this that the thief on the cross had no need of baptism to be saved.

However you have yet to show us why Jesus and John were both baptizing and that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (essentially what you claim is the purpose of baptism is for today). So what is your answer to this quandary?


No, they were during the dispensation of the Law of Moses, but was not within the confines of the written law. John came preaching and baptizing in approval of Christ as a forerunner of Christ to prepare the way for the entrance of Christ (Mark 1:4)…

John was a forerunner to prepare a people for the coming of Christ. Jesus came to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God, the power of God unto salvation (Mark1:4; 1:14; Romans 1:16)

Right! John was the forerunner to prepare a people for the coming of Christ and Jesus came proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and in both of their ministries baptism was practiced, and John specifically says that his was practiced as a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Now, if we take the ICOC’s logic (International Churches of Christ, of which you have all but admitted you are a member of), we must conclude that there was no way for the thief on the cross to be saved. He had never had a baptism for the forgiveness of his sins. The circumstances didn’t permit one, and so he died without one.

Now JAC, you think that you can wiggle your way off the hook by saying that the Law of Moses was the rule of the day and so no baptism was needed during that time frame.
Well beyond the fact that such an argument makes both the baptismal practice of John and the baptismal practice of JESUS UNNECCESARY, which in and of itself degrades both of their ministries and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing, you need now to contend with the following scripture.


Luke 16:16 The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

The Kingdom ( of which you will claim only you and those who are ICOC members are are citizens of) was being preached from John’s ministry forward, and it those who were coming into it were considered citizens of the kingdom having been converted under the message of the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Now, lets, for those innocent bystanders to this discussion, check JAC’s honesty.

JAC, do you consider yourself to be a citizen of the Kingdom? Were you converted under the gospel of the kingdom of God? Were you baptized?

Lets see if JAC will answer these questions. I hope that JAC will be honest enough to answer them directly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t. Because it is pretty clear that the time in which the thief on the cross was living and dying the gospel of the Kingdom of God was being preached and baptism was associated. So though JAC would like to invalidate the importance of baptism during this time so he can duck the question of the thief on the cross, he cannot. The Law had not been totally fulfilled, as that would occur on the cross, but the Kingdom of God was being preached and there were those who were converting, and they were being baptized just like JAC was.



Now JAC, you said said:


Yes, and these people were cleansed of their sins (Luke 3:3), but only to prepare them to receive Christ and the gospel (Luke 8:1; Acts 10:36). When the law of Christ came into effect the message and baptism by John was no longer valid (Acts 19:1-6).
So the gospel of the kingdom was no longer valid after the cross? That doesn’t make sense. But that is also really not the issue, is it? The issue is, was baptism practiced in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God between John’s ministry and Jesus’ death? The answer is clearly yes. Did the thief on the cross live between the time of John’s ministry and Jesus death? The answer also is yes. Do you have any reason to believe the thief on the cross was baptized? No. So someone, who came to Christ during the time the gospel of the kingdom was being preached was saved without baptism. Now, JAC will probably again appeal to that fact that the law had not yet been fulfilled until the cross. That’s true, but that does not negate the fact that the way to be saved during John and Jesus’ ministry wasn’t the law, were it so all sorts of Pharisees and Sadducees would have been saved during that time without any need of abiding in the preparing ministry of John or even in accepting the Jesus’ preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom. If JAC is saying that because the law was in affect, believing the gospel of the Kingdom of God was optional. Then he needs to go back to his discipler for some more theological training because that’s not even what the ICOC would claim.

So JAC, do you think the gospel of the Kingdom preached by Jesus was optional too?

JAC said:


On the contrary, it is my understanding that baptism was for the remission of sins. However, the eternal gospel was not yet being preached for Christ had not died and been raised.

So the Gospel of the Kingdom (gospel of God) isn’t the “eternal gospel? which is extant today? Boy, I wish you were around to correct Jesus when He said:


Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

You’ve painted yourself into quite a corner JAC :chuckle:

Now, JAC backtracks and tries to salvage an argument we have already done away with, a sign of his theological desperation at this point.


It can not be ascertained if this man was baptized under John’s baptism or if he was even a Jew.

You sure can’t, so there’s no sense in speculating as such, is there? Such speculation would clearly not be “following the bible and only the bible? would it?


If he was a Jew and heard the message of John the baptizer, he should have obey the massage and been baptized.

Right!


He would have then had his sins forgiven by God for obedience to John’s message and prepared for the coming of the Messiah.

Right!


He would not have been subjected to the eternal gospel for Christ was not yet dead and raised for the dead.

There you go again, correcting Jesus.
:nono:


Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

Explain to me what is different between the Gospel of the Kingdom which was proclaimed during the time of John and Jesus and then how that is different from the “eternal Gospel? that you are talking about, and then, if you don’t mind, explain to me how Jesus was wrong to say that the gospel of the kingdom will be the one preached to all the world when you seem to be claiming that this isn’t really the one, it is the ‘eternal Gospel.’

Then, when you’ve finished trying to answer these questions and realize you can’t, then perhaps you will be humble enough to admit you have advanced a false dilemma between the gospel of the Kingdom and the eternal gospel. When, and if, you do this, admit you don’t have the foggiest as to how the thief on the cross got saved!
:D

Go back and get some help from your discipler on this one. See how the party line ICOC theology digs itself out of this mess.


Now lets move on to the next issue, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and his experience in Acts 10.
JAC said:


“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.? (Acts 2:38 AV)
? Peter preached, they questioned “What shall we do??
? “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.?
? As a result of being obedient to the command of the apostle, “...and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...?

Sort of. Most likely the concepts of repentance and baptism weren’t dual commands but rather two dimensions of one contiguous idea.

Now to Acts 10:



“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?? (Acts 10:47 AV)

? Peter preached the gospel received from Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).

Right, BTW, well get to an explanation of how the ICOC really jacks up Matthew 28 in my next post.
:chuckle:


? While he was preaching the Holy Spirit came in a baptismal form over the household of Cornelius like it did on Pentecost over the apostles (Acts 11:15), not to save them but as a sign to Peter and his accompaniment from Joppa.

So this was just a sign to Peter and had nothing to do with their belief, salvation, etc.. nothin’, right? We’ll see about that…


? Peter understood the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit over the household of Cornelius to mean that what he was doing in being there and preaching was the will of God.
? Baptism was administered to those that believed.

How did Peter know they believed? He was preaching, the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household, Peter says something which is really peculiar under your interpretation of these verses.


Acts 10:47-48 "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days.

Did Peter received the Holy Spirit as an unsaved person? Did those whom he preached to in Acts 2:38 receive the holy spirit before they repented and believed?

Yea, you see, you have to make a pretty daft claim that the Holy Spirit all of a sudden came down upon the unsaved house of Cornelius in order to salvage your ICOC theology, that just says you’re desperate to hold onto something that is clearly unscriptural when applied to acts 10.


? While he was preaching the Holy Spirit came in a baptismal form over the household of Cornelius like it did on Pentecost over the apostles (Acts 11:15), not to save them but as a sign to Peter and his accompaniment from Joppa.

Oh, I see, so the receiving of the Holy Spirit saves in Acts 2:38 but not Acts 10 because the ICOC says so.
:down:


? Baptism was administered to those that believed.

Sure, and the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon them was a sign of their belief, and that God had come upon them and His Spirit was placed in them as a seal of their salvation. Just like the Apostles.



John 14:17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

You see, the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit because it doesn’t see or know Him. But the Apostles knew Jesus and therefore knew the Spirit, and when Jesus sent Him (on pentacost) The Holy Spirit indwelt them, Cornelius and his household received the spirit just as the disciples did so it is an illogical and unscriptural argument to say that Cornelius had the same experience as the disciples did when they recieved the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit did not indwell him,.

Now lets deal with your mathematical axiom treatment of the scripture.



A mathematical axiom helps us to understand this better. “The whole of anything is the sum of its parts.? When you add up all the parts you see the whole. There is also a “figure of speech? called a “synecdoche.? The synecdoche is the exchange of one idea for an associated idea. While metonymy is an exchange between two related nouns, the synecdoche is an exchange made between two associated ideas. The synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part is put for a whole, and where a whole is put for a part. It involves putting a singular for a plural and a plural for a singular. The Bible abounds with this figure of speech. Jesus used this figure of speech when he taught the disciples to pray “...give us this day our daily bread...? Bread is a “synecdoche? which stand for all the physical needs one needs. Believe in the verse Acts 16:31 is a singular verb placed for a plural and as such it stands for the whole of that which is needed in order to be obedient. It includes, faith in Christ as God’s Son, repentance of sins, confession of Christ publically, and baptism for the remission of sins. Understanding the axiom that the whole of anything consist of the sums of its parts and the figure of speech “synecdoche? will help you to see that each picture of conversion does not necessarily have to express every need unto salvation each time.

And it is quite convenient that you let the ICOC define the theological idea that eisegetically defines the “synecdoche? instead of exegeting what scripture says. If I point to a passage where Paul clearly shows that believe or confession of Christ is sufficient for salvation, you pull out your convenient synechdoche argument and say that he meant all the stuff you say he meant.

That’s reckless scriptural interpretation. If the text cannot stand alone without your eisegeting it for us under the guise of “synechdoche? then don’t lie and say that you “only believe what the bible says.? Do I think Paul assumed that those who believed in Ephesians 1:13 were baptized as a public profession of that belief? Probably. Do I have the right to just read belief and baptism when it says belief? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If Paul says,


Ephesians 1:13-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-- to the praise of his glory.

Then I had best take it as it stands, or leave it alone.


Revelation 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

You best not tinker with it either! And don’t think that you will be able to stand before God and say, “well, ya see Jesus, if we look at it like a mathematical axiom…blah, blah....synechdoche…?

That won’t cut it friend!


JustAChristian responds:
If a missionary shares information on God being our Creator with a unbeliever but does not have time during his sermon to where he talks about Christ and one of his listeners falls dead, will the person have eternal life in light of John 8:24 and Acts 4:12?\n\1/n/ What about repentance? \n\2/n/What about confession? \n\3/n/What about baptism? Has the gospel been obeyed? I would invite you to take a moment and study 2nd Thess. 1:8 and Rom. 2:8.

First, I would invite you to quite inviting me :chuckle:.
Now as to your questions.

As far as Thess 1:8 and Romans 2:8 are concerned, did the thief on the cross “obey the gospel??
Did Cornelius? Can you show me where Cornelius 1. repented, 2. Confessed. 3. was baptized after doing these things? (please show me how they did all those things according the criteria set forth in First Principles.)
You keep wanting to reduce the gospel to a set of instruction akin to a manual for installing a car stereo. That’s perhaps the what’s most ridiculous about McKean’s First Principles, they reduce the work of God in man to a step by step method that he defines. Furthermore, the ICOC prescribes judgments on the completeness of each step with the eyes of man not through the eyes of God. I’ve heard of people actually being denied baptism because the new disciple didn’t go through the human made bible study to the satisfaction of the discipler! May God have mercy on those disciplers who did so.

You asked:


Do you not sense the need to preach the pure unadulterated gospel of Christ?

I do, I hope ICOC will unadulterated the gospel so that they can do so as well. McKean’s first principles have added to God’s word and adulterated it so much that I fear for him and for those who follow him.



Generally people are not baptized because of the way they have been taught. There are those who have not been taught. There are also those who will never be taught. God is a righteous judge on each situation and will judge righteously. Because you and I know what the Bible says on baptism we are without excuse to fail to obey it.

No argument here.

Now lets cut to the chase, be an upfront kinda guy and answer this question straight up for us all.

“do you think the ICOC is the only true church today??

Regarding Jesus statement to Nicodemus:



One view makes baptism, referred to by ex udatoj (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus(vv. 3,5,7)?

Looking for some comment by JustaChristian to answer this…


Now I believe of course that water can only be referring to water baptism. In the same chapter we read, “After these things came Jesus and his disciples inot the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized? (John 3:22-23 AV). So water and baptism are firmly linked in this chapter.

Ok, now that is a good, exegetical answer that employs sound biblical exegesis. :thumb:

Unfortunately, it completely obliterates your previous argument that baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross.

:BRAVO: Congratulations you have aptly and skillfully refuted your own argument.

So now the problem of the thief on the cross is an even bigger problem for you. If water (baptism) and spirit are necessary for rebirth for Nicodemus then you’ll have to explain to me why baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross. Wasn’t Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus before the cross?

I’ll tell you what, I’ll stop here and give you some time to pull yourself out of the pit you have gotten yourself into.

Pick a lane, either baptism was necessary for Nicodemus and therefore necessary for the thief on the cross or you are misinterpreting John 3? Which is it?

I did want to answer one question you posed to me specifically.


It is apparent that regardless what I may reply to you that you have a preconceived notion that whatever I have to say is not going to be considered. If you wish to communicate with an open mind then I am willing to proceed....
First off, I don’t have any preconceived notions about the ICOC, I’ve spoken with more than one person in the ICOC (both ended up lying to try to get me to join btw) so my notions come from the ICOC directly. Nonetheless, I’ll not even supervene those experience on you. If you can show scripturally and logically that the ICOC is the only faithful church on the planet, then I’ll join it.

But I’ll subject its claims to the same biblical scrutiny that they demand of other traditions for example.


in the mean time, where does the Bible said if one will accept the Lord Jesus as their personal savior then they will be saved?

Romans 10:9


Romans 10:9-10 That 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. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Now its your turn? Where in the bible does it say that if you go through the First Principles written by Kip McKean you will be saved?
:chuckle:

Grace and Peace

JustAChristian
September 27th, 2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

That's your opinion. I'm not your puppet. You need to search for The Lord, not scripture and verse. This is the heart of the problem. You have a 'form' of godliness, but you deny The Power Thereof: The Holy Ghost. :thumb:


More rhetoric! Give us scripture!

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 27th, 2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

JustaChristian, our posts are getting lengthly, I’m going to try to crystallize our argument a bit so that we don’t keep covering the same territory over and over.

I’ll respond to some of the more critical issues of your last post to me.


You have stated that the law that was in affect during Jesus time had nothing to do with baptism and conclude from this that the thief on the cross had no need of baptism to be saved.

However you have yet to show us why Jesus and John were both baptizing and that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (essentially what you claim is the purpose of baptism is for today). So what is your answer to this quandary?

Right! John was the forerunner to prepare a people for the coming of Christ and Jesus came proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and in both of their ministries baptism was practiced, and John specifically says that his was practiced as a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Now, if we take the ICOC’s logic (International Churches of Christ, of which you have all but admitted you are a member of), we must conclude that there was no way for the thief on the cross to be saved. He had never had a baptism for the forgiveness of his sins. The circumstances didn’t permit one, and so he died without one.

Now JAC, you think that you can wiggle your way off the hook by saying that the Law of Moses was the rule of the day and so no baptism was needed during that time frame.
Well beyond the fact that such an argument makes both the baptismal practice of John and the baptismal practice of JESUS UNNECCESARY, which in and of itself degrades both of their ministries and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing, you need now to contend with the following scripture.
[/color]
The Kingdom ( of which you will claim only you and those who are ICOC members are are citizens of) was being preached from John’s ministry forward, and it those who were coming into it were considered citizens of the kingdom having been converted under the message of the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Now, lets, for those innocent bystanders to this discussion, check JAC’s honesty.

JAC, do you consider yourself to be a citizen of the Kingdom? Were you converted under the gospel of the kingdom of God? Were you baptized?

Lets see if JAC will answer these questions. I hope that JAC will be honest enough to answer them directly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t. Because it is pretty clear that the time in which the thief on the cross was living and dying the gospel of the Kingdom of God was being preached and baptism was associated. So though JAC would like to invalidate the importance of baptism during this time so he can duck the question of the thief on the cross, he cannot. The Law had not been totally fulfilled, as that would occur on the cross, but the Kingdom of God was being preached and there were those who were converting, and they were being baptized just like JAC was.



Now JAC, you said said:
So the gospel of the kingdom was no longer valid after the cross? That doesn’t make sense. But that is also really not the issue, is it? The issue is, was baptism practiced in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God between John’s ministry and Jesus’ death? The answer is clearly yes. Did the thief on the cross live between the time of John’s ministry and Jesus death? The answer also is yes. Do you have any reason to believe the thief on the cross was baptized? No. So someone, who came to Christ during the time the gospel of the kingdom was being preached was saved without baptism. Now, JAC will probably again appeal to that fact that the law had not yet been fulfilled until the cross. That’s true, but that does not negate the fact that the way to be saved during John and Jesus’ ministry wasn’t the law, were it so all sorts of Pharisees and Sadducees would have been saved during that time without any need of abiding in the preparing ministry of John or even in accepting the Jesus’ preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom. If JAC is saying that because the law was in affect, believing the gospel of the Kingdom of God was optional. Then he needs to go back to his discipler for some more theological training because that’s not even what the ICOC would claim.

So JAC, do you think the gospel of the Kingdom preached by Jesus was optional too?

JAC said:

So the Gospel of the Kingdom (gospel of God) isn’t the “eternal gospel? which is extant today? Boy, I wish you were around to correct Jesus when He said:
[/color]
You’ve painted yourself into quite a corner JAC :chuckle:

Now, JAC backtracks and tries to salvage an argument we have already done away with, a sign of his theological desperation at this point.

You sure can’t, so there’s no sense in speculating as such, is there? Such speculation would clearly not be “following the bible and only the bible? would it?

Right!

Right!

There you go again, correcting Jesus.
:nono:
[/color]
Explain to me what is different between the Gospel of the Kingdom which was proclaimed during the time of John and Jesus and then how that is different from the “eternal Gospel? that you are talking about, and then, if you don’t mind, explain to me how Jesus was wrong to say that the gospel of the kingdom will be the one preached to all the world when you seem to be claiming that this isn’t really the one, it is the ‘eternal Gospel.’

Then, when you’ve finished trying to answer these questions and realize you can’t, then perhaps you will be humble enough to admit you have advanced a false dilemma between the gospel of the Kingdom and the eternal gospel. When, and if, you do this, admit you don’t have the foggiest as to how the thief on the cross got saved!
:D

Go back and get some help from your discipler on this one. See how the party line ICOC theology digs itself out of this mess.


Now lets move on to the next issue, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and his experience in Acts 10.
JAC said:

Sort of. Most likely the concepts of repentance and baptism weren’t dual commands but rather two dimensions of one contiguous idea.

Now to Acts 10:

Right, BTW, well get to an explanation of how the ICOC really jacks up Matthew 28 in my next post.
:chuckle:

So this was just a sign to Peter and had nothing to do with their belief, salvation, etc.. nothin’, right? We’ll see about that…

How did Peter know they believed? He was preaching, the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household, Peter says something which is really peculiar under your interpretation of these verses.
[/color]
Did Peter received the Holy Spirit as an unsaved person? Did those whom he preached to in Acts 2:38 receive the holy spirit before they repented and believed?

Yea, you see, you have to make a pretty daft claim that the Holy Spirit all of a sudden came down upon the unsaved house of Cornelius in order to salvage your ICOC theology, that just says you’re desperate to hold onto something that is clearly unscriptural when applied to acts 10.

Oh, I see, so the receiving of the Holy Spirit saves in Acts 2:38 but not Acts 10 because the ICOC says so.
:down:

Sure, and the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon them was a sign of their belief, and that God had come upon them and His Spirit was placed in them as a seal of their salvation. Just like the Apostles.

[/color]
You see, the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit because it doesn’t see or know Him. But the Apostles knew Jesus and therefore knew the Spirit, and when Jesus sent Him (on pentacost) The Holy Spirit indwelt them, Cornelius and his household received the spirit just as the disciples did so it is an illogical and unscriptural argument to say that Cornelius had the same experience as the disciples did when they recieved the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit did not indwell him,.

Now lets deal with your mathematical axiom treatment of the scripture.


And it is quite convenient that you let the ICOC define the theological idea that eisegetically defines the “synecdoche? instead of exegeting what scripture says. If I point to a passage where Paul clearly shows that believe or confession of Christ is sufficient for salvation, you pull out your convenient synechdoche argument and say that he meant all the stuff you say he meant.

That’s reckless scriptural interpretation. If the text cannot stand alone without your eisegeting it for us under the guise of “synechdoche? then don’t lie and say that you “only believe what the bible says.? Do I think Paul assumed that those who believed in Ephesians 1:13 were baptized as a public profession of that belief? Probably. Do I have the right to just read belief and baptism when it says belief? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If Paul says,
[/color]
Then I had best take it as it stands, or leave it alone.
[/color]
You best not tinker with it either! And don’t think that you will be able to stand before God and say, “well, ya see Jesus, if we look at it like a mathematical axiom…blah, blah....synechdoche…?

That won’t cut it friend!

First, I would invite you to quite inviting me :chuckle:.
Now as to your questions.

As far as Thess 1:8 and Romans 2:8 are concerned, did the thief on the cross “obey the gospel??
Did Cornelius? Can you show me where Cornelius 1. repented, 2. Confessed. 3. was baptized after doing these things? (please show me how they did all those things according the criteria set forth in First Principles.)
You keep wanting to reduce the gospel to a set of instruction akin to a manual for installing a car stereo. That’s perhaps the what’s most ridiculous about McKean’s First Principles, they reduce the work of God in man to a step by step method that he defines. Furthermore, the ICOC prescribes judgments on the completeness of each step with the eyes of man not through the eyes of God. I’ve heard of people actually being denied baptism because the new disciple didn’t go through the human made bible study to the satisfaction of the discipler! May God have mercy on those disciplers who did so.

You asked:


I do, I hope ICOC will unadulterated the gospel so that they can do so as well. McKean’s first principles have added to God’s word and adulterated it so much that I fear for him and for those who follow him.



No argument here.

Now lets cut to the chase, be an upfront kinda guy and answer this question straight up for us all.

“do you think the ICOC is the only true church today??

Regarding Jesus statement to Nicodemus:

Looking for some comment by JustaChristian to answer this…

Ok, now that is a good, exegetical answer that employs sound biblical exegesis. :thumb:

Unfortunately, it completely obliterates your previous argument that baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross.

:BRAVO: Congratulations you have aptly and skillfully refuted your own argument.

So now the problem of the thief on the cross is an even bigger problem for you. If water (baptism) and spirit are necessary for rebirth for Nicodemus then you’ll have to explain to me why baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross. Wasn’t Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus before the cross?

I’ll tell you what, I’ll stop here and give you some time to pull yourself out of the pit you have gotten yourself into.

Pick a lane, either baptism was necessary for Nicodemus and therefore necessary for the thief on the cross or you are misinterpreting John 3? Which is it?

I did want to answer one question you posed to me specifically.

First off, I don’t have any preconceived notions about the ICOC, I’ve spoken with more than one person in the ICOC (both ended up lying to try to get me to join btw) so my notions come from the ICOC directly. Nonetheless, I’ll not even supervene those experience on you. If you can show scripturally and logically that the ICOC is the only faithful church on the planet, then I’ll join it.

But I’ll subject its claims to the same biblical scrutiny that they demand of other traditions for example.

Romans 10:9

Now its your turn? Where in the bible does it say that if you go through the First Principles written by Kip McKean you will be saved?
:chuckle:

Grace and Peace



BChristianK,

I clearly explained to you in the previous post that I was not affiliated with the International Church of Christ. I am sure that you read it, too. I am expecting that you extend to me the courtasy of deleting any reference to the ICOC before I will continue any communication. You can send me an email if and when you make the corrections.

JustAChristian

BChristianK
September 27th, 2004, 03:46 PM
Ok, I just checked your profile, and you are much too "seasoned" to be an ICOC member, so I'm guessing you’re an old school Church of Christ type fellow. You can help me out by being up front with what church you belong to.

If so, do you affirm or deny Max Lucado’s position on baptism?

So I apologize for associating you with the ICOC. However, your claims and the ICOC's claims share some pretty clear commonalities.

1st. That baptism is necessary for salvation no matter what with attempts to dance and wiggle around the thief on the cross that lead you to contradict scripture.

2nd, your turning the act of obeying the gospel into a "easy to follow 4 step method" that reads more like the cooking directions of a microwave dinner than it does the mysterious work of God in man.

So, if you would like to answer just these questions for me, I'd appreciate it.

1. Did Jesus teach the same gospel you believed in His earthly ministry?

2. Do you think that Jesus was prescribing baptism to Nicodemus in John 3?

3. Was the thief on the cross saved?

4. Can you show me in the bible where he was baptized?

5. Do you consider baptisms performed at churches not affiliated with your particular tradition valid baptisms?

6. If not, then why?

7. Is belief sufficient for salvation as Paul repeatedly suggests it is?

Grace and Peace

Lighthouse
September 28th, 2004, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

lighthouse,

Acts 10:47 does not say that Cornelius was “filled with the Holy Spirit.? I concede that the Holy Spirit “fell on all of them that heard the word.? (Acts 10:47). I concede that they began to speak with tongues and magnify God. What I do not concede is that they were saved in the process.
No. What you fail to concede is that they were saved before receiving the Holy Spirit. How can one have the Spirit if they are not already saved? And since I have covered the rest of what I was willing to read [of your post], I have said all I need to say.

greatdivide46
September 28th, 2004, 07:07 AM
BChristianK,

I would dearly love to answer the questions you posed to JustAChristian in your post #226. Would you mind if I did?

JustAChristian
September 28th, 2004, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Ok, I just checked your profile, and you are much too "seasoned" to be an ICOC member, so I'm guessing you’re an old school Church of Christ type fellow. You can help me out by being up front with what church you belong to.

If so, do you affirm or deny Max Lucado’s position on baptism?

So I apologize for associating you with the ICOC. However, your claims and the ICOC's claims share some pretty clear commonalities.

1st. That baptism is necessary for salvation no matter what with attempts to dance and wiggle around the thief on the cross that lead you to contradict scripture.

2nd, your turning the act of obeying the gospel into a "easy to follow 4 step method" that reads more like the cooking directions of a microwave dinner than it does the mysterious work of God in man.

So, if you would like to answer just these questions for me, I'd appreciate it.

1. Did Jesus teach the same gospel you believed in His earthly ministry?

2. Do you think that Jesus was prescribing baptism to Nicodemus in John 3?

3. Was the thief on the cross saved?

4. Can you show me in the bible where he was baptized?

5. Do you consider baptisms performed at churches not affiliated with your particular tradition valid baptisms?

6. If not, then why?

7. Is belief sufficient for salvation as Paul repeatedly suggests it is?

Grace and Peace


Ok, I just checked your profile, and you are much too "seasoned" to be an ICOC member, so I'm guessing you’re an old school Church of Christ type fellow. You can help me out by being up front with what church you belong to.

I am a member of the fellowship of Christians in the churches of Christ. I trace my roots to the 1st century church and to people who affirm the New Testament to be the will of God for today. I believe that the pattern of the New Testament church is in "blueprint form" within the scriptures of the apostles and faithful writers. I believe one can be a Christian and just a Christian if they will follow the New Testament pattern of worship and service.


If so, do you affirm or deny Max Lucado’s position on baptism?

I am not in fellowship with Max Lucado. I consider him an apostate of the Lord's church. I do not know his position on baptism. I believe he teaches one is saved by grace alone.


So I apologize for associating you with the ICOC. However, your claims and the ICOC's claims share some pretty clear commonalities.

I admit to these "commonalities" because it is apostates of the Lord's New Testament church that started the International Churches of Christ. I assure you that breathern of mine do not fellowship this apostate group.



1st. That baptism is necessary for salvation no matter what with attempts to dance and wiggle around the thief on the cross that lead you to contradict scripture.


2nd, your turning the act of obeying the gospel into a "easy to follow 4 step method" that reads more like the cooking directions of a microwave dinner than it does the mysterious work of God in man.

So, if you would like to answer just these questions for me, I'd appreciate it.

1. Did Jesus teach the same gospel you believed in His earthly ministry?

2. Do you think that Jesus was prescribing baptism to Nicodemus in John 3?

3. Was the thief on the cross saved?

4. Can you show me in the bible where he was baptized?

5. Do you consider baptisms performed at churches not affiliated with your particular tradition valid baptisms?

6. If not, then why?

7. Is belief sufficient for salvation as Paul repeatedly suggests it is?


I expect to address each and every point you bring up. I hope you will extend me the courtesy to read them and comment without rhetoric using book, chapter and verse for your conclusions. I am on "dial up" and have to "cut and paste' my posting for I can't afford DSL and that other stuff. Be patient and I will get to you.

In Christ,
JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 28th, 2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK


BChristianK,

Having accepted your last post explaining your understanding of my religious position I am happy to answer the many question, statements and quotes as best I can. Looking forward to your response.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
JustaChristian, our posts are getting lengthly, I’m going to try to crystallize our argument a bit so that we don’t keep covering the same territory over and over.

I’ll respond to some of the more critical issues of your last post to me.


You have stated that the law that was in affect during Jesus time had nothing to do with baptism and conclude from this that the thief on the cross had no need of baptism to be saved.


However you have yet to show us why Jesus and John were both baptizing and that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (essentially what you claim is the purpose of baptism is for today). So what is your answer to this quandary?

JustAChristian answers saying:
John came preaching and baptizing in approval of Diety as a forerunner of Christ to prepare the way for the entrance of Christ (Mark 1:4). Baptism before the cross was for remission of sins and baptism after the cross was for remission of sins. However, they were not for remission of sins in pecisely the same way, nor having precisely the same particulars. The first was “unto? the remission of sin in prospect of the death of Christ, the other was for the remission of sins in reality, since Christ had truly died. Jesus came preaching the kingdom of Heaven. His disciples baptized. J.W. McGarvey, the noted 19th century commentariest gives us this point:

“Jesus, as divine Lawgiver, instituted baptism, and his disciples administered it. We nowhere hear of the disciples of John administering baptism. In fact, the Baptist, like the disciples of Jesus, baptized under a divine commission, and could not delegate the power to others. It was the office of Jesus to commission others to this work, not to perform it himself. Had he done so, those baptized by him might have foolishly claimed for themselves some peculiar honor by reason thereof (1Co 1:14,15). Jesus was the spiritual baptizer, in which baptism the efficacy lies in the administrant; but water baptism, the efficacy of which lies rather in the spirit of the one baptized than in the virtues of the administrant, Jesus left to his disciples.?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Right! John was the forerunner to prepare a people for the coming of Christ and Jesus came proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and in both of their ministries baptism was practiced, and John specifically says that his was practiced as a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Now, if we take the ICOC’s logic (International Churches of Christ, of which you have all but admitted you are a member of), we must conclude that there was no way for the thief on the cross to be saved. He had never had a baptism for the forgiveness of his sins. The circumstances didn’t permit one, and so he died without one.

Now JAC, you think that you can wiggle your way off the hook by saying that the Law of Moses was the rule of the day and so no baptism was needed during that time frame.
Well beyond the fact that such an argument makes both the baptismal practice of John and the baptismal practice of JESUS UNNECCESARY, which in and of itself degrades both of their ministries and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing, you need now to contend with the following scripture.

JustAChristian answers saying:
I have stated to you earlier that I have no affiliation with the International Churches of Christ. You are aware of this. Your assertion to the ICOC is with bias and indifference. If you persist in placing me with this group I will cease communication.

You and I do not know if the thief was never baptized before the cross. The practice was wide spread. Many from Judea came to John’s baptism. No doubt may of Jesus’ disciples baptized. What I am saying is that your argument is moot. Jesus took the thief to Paradise with him that day. That is all we can conclude for sure.

The Mosaic Law never commanded baptism for the remission of sins. “The Law and prophets were unto John. Since then the Kingdom of God is preached and the people pressed unto it? (Luke 16:16). Jesus never discounted the mission of John nor did John discount the mission of Jesus. Was Jesus’ baptism by his disciples effectual? God spoke from heaven, “This is my beloved Son? showing approval of His work. Jesus never discouraged the keeping of the Law during His administration (Matthew 19:11). The apostles never preached it after His death.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
The Kingdom ( of which you will claim only you and those who are ICOC members are are citizens of) was being preached from John’s ministry forward, and it those who were coming into it were considered citizens of the kingdom having been converted under the message of the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Now, lets, for those innocent bystanders to this discussion, check JAC’s honesty.

JAC, do you consider yourself to be a citizen of the Kingdom? Were you converted under the gospel of the kingdom of God? Were you baptized?


Lets see if JAC will answer these questions. I hope that JAC will be honest enough to answer them directly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t. Because it is pretty clear that the time in which the thief on the cross was living and dying the gospel of the Kingdom of God was being preached and baptism was associated. So though JAC would like to invalidate the importance of baptism during this time so he can duck the question of the thief on the cross, he cannot. The Law had not been totally fulfilled, as that would occur on the cross, but the Kingdom of God was being preached and there were those who were converting, and they were being baptized just like JAC was.
JustAChristian answers saying:
1.Yes
2.I was converted by the preaching of the Gospel commissioned after the cross (Mt. 28:18-20).
3.Yes
4. Yes
Next question.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So though JAC would like to invalidate the importance of baptism during this time so he can duck the question of the thief on the cross, he cannot. The Law had not been totally fulfilled, as that would occur on the cross, but the Kingdom of God was being preached and there were those who were converting, and they were being baptized just like JAC was.

JustAChristian answers saying:
The only person I know that is trying to invalidate baptism is you. You have not invalidated my argument about the thief, but have given us a lot of rhetoric without scope. Why don’t you get on with it and discredit my conclusion or at least give it some effort.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So the gospel of the kingdom was no longer valid after the cross? That doesn’t make sense. But that is also really not the issue, is it? The issue is, was baptism practiced in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God between John’s ministry and Jesus’ death? The answer is clearly yes. Did the thief on the cross live between the time of John’s ministry and Jesus death? The answer also is yes. Do you have any reason to believe the thief on the cross was baptized? No. So someone, who came to Christ during the time the gospel of the kingdom was being preached was saved without baptism. Now, JAC will probably again appeal to that fact that the law had not yet been fulfilled until the cross. That’s true, but that does not negate the fact that the way to be saved during John and Jesus’ ministry wasn’t the law, were it so all sorts of Pharisees and Sadducees would have been saved during that time without any need of abiding in the preparing ministry of John or even in accepting the Jesus’ preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom. If JAC is saying that because the law was in affect, believing the gospel of the Kingdom of God was optional. Then he needs to go back to his discipler for some more theological training because that’s not even what the ICOC would claim.

So JAC, do you think the gospel of the Kingdom preached by Jesus was optional too?

JustAChristian answers saying:
Jesus preached that the kingdom was at hand (Mark 1:15). His message had heavenly credence. The kingdom of God came into effect on Pentecost. Jesus gave the “keys of the kingdom? unto Peter to open the doors of entrance. Peter standing with the eleven preached “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 2:38). On that day, about 3,000 were baptized and entered into the kingdom bing added to the church.



BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So the Gospel of the Kingdom (gospel of God) isn’t the “eternal gospel? which is extant today? Boy, I wish you were around to correct Jesus when He said:

Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.?

JustAChristian answers saying:
My reference to the gospel of the kingdom prior to the cross is the “prefatory? gospel of Christ. Jesus preached the kingdom was at hand, to shortly come to be (Mark 9:1). The preaching of the kingdom after the cross never referenced that the kingdom was at hand. The kingdom is always present tense (God)?...Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son(Colossians 1:13-14 AV). . To this extent they are different.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
You’ve painted yourself into quite a corner JAC

JustAChristian answers saying:
Only in your mind...

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now, JAC backtracks and tries to salvage an argument we have already done away with, a sign of his theological desperation at this point.

JustAChristian answers saying:
Really?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
(Thief on the cross, JAC) You sure can’t, so there’s no sense in speculating as such, is there? Such speculation would clearly not be “following the bible and only the bible? would it?

JustAChristian answers saying:
What I so ably pointed out was that the point is “moot.? Jesus forgave sins and saved many verbally before the cross (Matt. 9:2,5; Luke 7:47-48).


quote:

If he was a Jew and heard the message of John the baptizer, he should have obey the massage and been baptized.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Right!

JustAChristian answers saying:
No comment

quote:

He would have then had his sins forgiven by God for obedience to John’s message and prepared for the coming of the Messiah.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Right!

JustAChristian answers saying:
Again, no comment.

quote:

He would not have been subjected to the eternal gospel for Christ was not yet dead and raised for the dead.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
There you go again, correcting Jesus.

JustAChristian answers saying:
Really? How?

quote:

Luke 16:16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Explain to me what is different between the Gospel of the Kingdom which was proclaimed during the time of John and Jesus and then how that is different from the “eternal Gospel? that you are talking about, and then, if you don’t mind, explain to me how Jesus was wrong to say that the gospel of the kingdom will be the one preached to all the world when you seem to be claiming that this isn’t really the one, it is the ‘eternal Gospel.’

JustAChristian answers saying:
I have already answered on this above...

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Then, when you’ve finished trying to answer these questions and realize you can’t, then perhaps you will be humble enough to admit you have advanced a false dilemma between the gospel of the Kingdom and the eternal gospel. When, and if, you do this, admit you don’t have the foggiest as to how the thief on the cross got saved!

JustAChristian answers saying:
If I didn’t know it for sure I’d say I’ve “hit a nerve?... Are you fully confident of your statement? The thief was saved just like many who were saved from their sins during Jesus’ ministry. But, after the Lord’s death we are saved by obeying the commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ into salvation preached and written by the apostles and faithful inspired writers (John 20:30-31).


BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Go back and get some help from your discipler on this one. See how the party line ICOC theology digs itself out of this mess.

JustAChristian answers saying:
Not worthy of comment.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now lets move on to the next issue, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and his experience in Acts 10.
Sort of. Most likely the concepts of repentance and baptism weren’t dual commands but rather two dimensions of one contiguous idea.

JustAChristian answers saying:
I believe their faith in the Lord from the preaching of Peter is implied by the scripture. Likewise confession of Christ as Lord would have been done as in the case of Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8. That which is commanded is what Peter saw was yet lacking; Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. The gift of indwelling of the Spirit comes as a result of obedience (Acts 2:38; Romans 8:9). A fact does not need to be repeated over and over again in order to be true and essential. Once established as truth and essential it remains truth and essential in all cases. If not, why not?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now to Acts 10:

Right, BTW, well get to an explanation of how the ICOC really jacks up Matthew 28 in my next post.

JustAChristian answers saying:
What does BTW mean?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So this was just a sign to Peter and had nothing to do with their belief, salvation, etc.. nothin’, right? We’ll see about that…

JustAChristian answers saying:
Be sure to use book chapter and verse.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
How did Peter know they believed? He was preaching, the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household, Peter says something which is really peculiar under your interpretation of these verses.

JustAChristian answers saying:
I believe their faith in the Lord from the preaching of Peter is implied by the scripture. Likewise confession of Christ as Lord would have been done as in the case of Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8. I feel that you would agree if every “jot? and “tittle? of every circumstance of Christ and the apostles was recorded in the New Testament it would be an impossible book to work with. I continue to believe that once a truth is establish and is essential it remains established and essential.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Did Peter received the Holy Spirit as an unsaved person? Did those whom he preached to in Acts 2:38 receive the holy spirit before they repented and believed?

JustAChristian answers saying:
Read John 20:22. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a result of obedience and not a prerequisite to salvation.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Yea, you see, you have to make a pretty daft claim that the Holy Spirit all of a sudden came down upon the unsaved house of Cornelius in order to salvage your ICOC theology, that just says you’re desperate to hold onto something that is clearly unscriptural when applied to acts 10.

JustAChristian answers saying:
“And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost [by and indwelling measure, JAC], even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by [“obedience of?– Romans 1:5, JAC] faith.? (Acts 15:7-9 AV)




BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Oh, I see, so the receiving of the Holy Spirit saves in Acts 2:38 but not Acts 10 because the ICOC says so.

JustAChristian answers saying:
Where have I ever stated that the receiving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 saves? Show me the posting. On your mark, get set, GO!

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Sure, and the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon them was a sign of their belief, and that God had come upon them and His Spirit was placed in them as a seal of their salvation. Just like the Apostles.

JustAChristian answers saying:
Again, where does it say that the Holy Spirit came upon the household of Cornelius as a sign of their belief? Go back and read Peter’s referencing Acts 2:2-4 to the Jewish breathren in Acts 11. Also, where does it say that this manifestation of the Holy Spirit was a seal of their salvation?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
You see, the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit because it doesn’t see or know Him. But the Apostles knew Jesus and therefore knew the Spirit, and when Jesus sent Him (on pentacost) The Holy Spirit indwelt them, Cornelius and his household received the spirit just as the disciples did so it is an illogical and unscriptural argument to say that Cornelius had the same experience as the disciples did when they recieved the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit did not indwell him,.

JustAChristian answers saying:
The Holy Spirit upon the apostles and the household of Cornelius were of the same order: “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.? (Acts 2:2-4 AV)
Peter said the very same thing happened at the house of Cornelius. The apostles were saved prior to this event so the Spirits manifestation was not to save them, neither was it to save the household of Cornelius.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now lets deal with your mathematical axiom treatment of the scripture.

There is also a “figure of speech? called a “synecdoche.? The synecdoche is the exchange of one idea for an associated idea. While metonymy is an exchange between two related nouns, the synecdoche is an exchange made between two associated ideas. The synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part is put for a whole, and where a whole is put for a part. It involves putting a singular for a plural and a plural for a singular. The Bible abounds with this figure of speech. Jesus used this figure of speech when he taught the disciples to pray “...give us this day our daily bread...? Bread is a “synecdoche? which stand for all the physical needs one needs. Believe in the verse Acts 16:31 is a singular verb placed for a plural and as such it stands for the whole of that which is needed in order to be obedient. It includes, faith in Christ as God’s Son, repentance of sins, confession of Christ publically, and baptism for the remission of sins. Understanding the axiom that the whole of anything consist of the sums of its parts and the figure of speech “synecdoche? will help you to see that each picture of conversion does not necessarily have to express every need unto salvation each time.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
And it is quite convenient that you let the ICOC define the theological idea that eisegetically defines the “synecdoche? instead of exegeting what scripture says. If I point to a passage where Paul clearly shows that believe or confession of Christ is sufficient for salvation, you pull out your convenient synechdoche argument and say that he meant all the stuff you say he meant.

JustAChristian answers saying:
Oops, Sorry! I must have hit a nerve... You have yet to clearly explain or otherwise how “believe or confession of Christ? separate from baptism for the remission of sins is sufficient for salvation? You can’t look to Romans 10 or to any scripture in the epistles for conditions of salvation. The epistles were written to the saved church, not to people who are unsaved. It is not an evangelistic letter. We gain edification from the epistles. Paul and the other writers relate how hearing the gospel, faith in Christ, confession of Him as the Son of God and being immersed for the remission of sins has brought us into Christ and His church. We look to the teaching of Jesus to his apostles in the giving of the commission to go into all the world with a message of salvation for conditions of salvation. As to the synecdoche argument, I see you commented on it but didn’t refute it.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
That’s reckless scriptural interpretation. If the text cannot stand alone without your eisegeting it for us under the guise of “synechdoche? then don’t lie and say that you “only believe what the bible says.? Do I think Paul assumed that those who believed in Ephesians 1:13 were baptized as a public profession of that belief? Probably. Do I have the right to just read belief and baptism when it says belief? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If Paul says,

JustAChristian answers saying:
It was God through the prophet Isaiah Who said, “...come let us reason together...? (Isaiah 1:18). He expects through study and reasoning that a disciple could “right divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). However, you give no grounds for such a conclusion yourself. Why? When you come around to prayerfully investigating the “synecdoche argument? you might change your mind.
quote:

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Ephesians 1:13-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-- to the praise of his glory.

Then I had best take it as it stands, or leave it alone.


JustAChristian answers saying:
If you don’t want to deny grammar and its rules then I would take it as it stands..


BchristianK asks or responds saying:
You best not tinker with it either! And don’t think that you will be able to stand before God and say, “well, ya see Jesus, if we look at it like a mathematical axiom…blah, blah....synechdoche…?

That won’t cut it friend!

JustAChristian answers saying:
“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14 AV)



BchristianK asks or responds saying:
First, I would invite you to quite inviting me .

JustAChristian answers saying:
I keep hitting nerves...Sorry!

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now as to your questions.

As far as Thess 1:8 and Romans 2:8 are concerned, did the thief on the cross “obey the gospel??


JustAChristian answers saying:
The prefatory or the eternal gospel?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Did Cornelius? Can you show me where Cornelius 1. repented, 2. Confessed. 3. was baptized after doing these things? (please show me how they did all those things according the criteria set forth in First Principles.) You keep wanting to reduce the gospel to a set of instruction akin to a manual for installing a car stereo. That’s perhaps the what’s most ridiculous about McKean’s First Principles, they reduce the work of God in man to a step by step method that he defines. Furthermore, the ICOC prescribes judgments on the completeness of each step with the eyes of man not through the eyes of God. I’ve heard of people actually being denied baptism because the new disciple didn’t go through the human made bible study to the satisfaction of the discipler! May God have mercy on those disciplers who did so.

JustAChristian answers saying:
As I said earlier, unless you are willing to listen to rules of grammar and accept the concept of the “synecdoche? it is not likely that I will ever convience you on anything. What the ICOC does is beyond by control. I have the duty of preaching and teaching the eternal gospel of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). That gospel requires one to hear and believe the good news that Jesus has suffered, died and was raised from the dead according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-6; Acts 17:2); that He requires that man confess Him publically (Matthew 10:32-33); that He requires that man repent of sins (Luke 13:3-5); and that He requires man to be baptized for the remission of sins. He has promised forgiveness to all who faithfully obey His will (Heb. 5:8-9).

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
You asked:
quote:
Do you not sense the need to preach the pure unadulterated gospel of Christ?

I do, I hope ICOC will unadulterated the gospel so that they can do so as well. McKean’s first principles have added to God’s word and adulterated it so much that I fear for him and for those who follow him.

JustAChristian answers saying:
I have the same sympathy for those who follow him and not Christ.


quote:

Generally people are not baptized because of the way they have been taught. There are those who have not been taught. There are also those who will never be taught. God is a righteous judge on each situation and will judge righteously. Because you and I know what the Bible says on baptism we are without excuse to fail to obey it.


BchristianK asks or responds saying:
No argument here.

Now lets cut to the chase, be an upfront kinda guy and answer this question straight up for us all.

“do you think the ICOC is the only true church today??

JustAChristian answers saying:
I have never supported the ICOC as I have told you. I judge, based on what I know of its cultist methods that it is not in harmony with God. I believe what you are really wanting to know is do I believe I am in the only church that will be saved. Right?
Let me answer you thus. If Jesus has established His church and we believe He has. And, if He established a territory for His kingdom the church, the whole world. And, if He established a law for His church the kingdom of God which He did, the New Testament gospel and covenants. And if He promised to reward those with salvation who would obey the gospel(Mark 16:16) and add them to His church (Acts 2:41-47), knowing that Jesus has founded only one church (Matthew 16:18-20; Eph. 4:4-5; Col. 1:18), and knowing that factions within the church is unscriptural (1 Cor. 1:13). Would it not behoove me to search out the church in the New Testament and follow its precepts as it presented them? This is merely what I have done. I believe that if I faithfully do what they did in word or in deed (Col. 3:17) that God will be pleased and save me eternally.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Regarding Jesus statement to Nicodemus:

quote:


One view makes baptism, referred to by ex udatoa (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus(vv. 3,5,7)?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Looking for some comment by JustaChristian to answer this…

JustAChristian answers saying:
Context strongly rules in any situation. If it is clearly made a part of the command to be born again why does it have to be repeated in each verse? You must remember verses came many years after the Gospel was recorded. Context would have it written once as though sufficient by the Lord and the inspired writer.


BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Ok, now that is a good, exegetical answer that employs sound biblical exegesis.

Unfortunately, it completely obliterates your previous argument that baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross.

JustAChristian answers saying:
The gospel of the kingdom is at hand was a prefatory gospel. The Jews that heard John and Jesus preach it were expected to obey its requirement to be baptized for the remission of sins in preparation for the coming of the kingdom. Jesus was able and did forgive sins verbally in many cases as I have shown. What is your problem?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Congratulations you have aptly and skillfully refuted your own argument.

JustAChristian answers saying:
How?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
So now the problem of the thief on the cross is an even bigger problem for you. If water (baptism) and spirit are necessary for rebirth for Nicodemus then you’ll have to explain to me why baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross. Wasn’t Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus before the cross?

I’ll tell you what, I’ll stop here and give you some time to pull yourself out of the pit you have gotten yourself into.

JustAChristian answers saying:
Nicodemus was told what was necessary to enter into the kingdom of God, the church of Christ. This could not have been accomplished until Christ established His church. He must first suffer and die and be resurrected. He must be witnessed of His resurrection. He must be commissioned with His kingdom. This all did not happen in the context of Jesus teaching Him in John chapter 3. Peter preached entrance into the kingdom. This happen the first Pentecost day after Christ’s resurrection. Nicodemus, like all the other Pharisees were subject to John’s baptism of preparation (Matthew 3:7). We later see him faithful in service to the Lord at his burial (John 19:39). I believe he became a faithful Christian. Perhaps even at the preaching of the apostles on Pentecost.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Pick a lane, either baptism was necessary for Nicodemus and therefore necessary for the thief on the cross or you are misinterpreting John 3? Which is it?

JustAChristian answers saying:
I believe I have stated my position thoroughly.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
I did want to answer one question you posed to me specifically.

quote:

It is apparent that regardless what I may reply to you that you have a preconceived notion that whatever I have to say is not going to be considered. If you wish to communicate with an open mind then I am willing to proceed....

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
First off, I don’t have any preconceived notions about the ICOC, I’ve spoken with more than one person in the ICOC (both ended up lying to try to get me to join btw) so my notions come from the ICOC directly. Nonetheless, I’ll not even supervene those experience on you. If you can show scripturally and logically that the ICOC is the only faithful church on the planet, then I’ll join it. But I’ll subject its claims to the same biblical scrutiny that they demand of other traditions for example.

JustAChristian answers saying:
I would not wish the ICOC on you or anyone, but I would wish that you investigate the New Testament church of Christ. Here is a link to assist you: http://cofc.abbottpages.com/





quote:

in the mean time, where does the Bible said if one will accept the Lord Jesus as their personal savior then they will be saved?

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Romans 10:9

JustAChristian answers saying:
It is not in that verse. Romans 10:9 applies to the saved not the unsaved. We must rightly divide the scriptures.

quote:

Romans 10:9-10 That 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. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

BchristianK asks or responds saying:
Now its your turn? Where in the bible does it say that if you go through the First Principles written by Kip McKean you will be saved?

JustAChristian answers saying:
This goes without a need to respond.

In Christ,
JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 28th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Ok, I just checked your profile, and you are much too "seasoned" to be an ICOC member, so I'm guessing you’re an old school Church of Christ type fellow. You can help me out by being up front with what church you belong to.

If so, do you affirm or deny Max Lucado’s position on baptism?

So I apologize for associating you with the ICOC. However, your claims and the ICOC's claims share some pretty clear commonalities.

1st. That baptism is necessary for salvation no matter what with attempts to dance and wiggle around the thief on the cross that lead you to contradict scripture.

2nd, your turning the act of obeying the gospel into a "easy to follow 4 step method" that reads more like the cooking directions of a microwave dinner than it does the mysterious work of God in man.

So, if you would like to answer just these questions for me, I'd appreciate it.

1. Did Jesus teach the same gospel you believed in His earthly ministry?

2. Do you think that Jesus was prescribing baptism to Nicodemus in John 3?

3. Was the thief on the cross saved?

4. Can you show me in the bible where he was baptized?

5. Do you consider baptisms performed at churches not affiliated with your particular tradition valid baptisms?

6. If not, then why?

7. Is belief sufficient for salvation as Paul repeatedly suggests it is?

Grace and Peace



JustAChristian responds saying:
So, if you would like to answer just these questions for me, I'd appreciate it.

1. Did Jesus teach the same gospel you believed in His earthly ministry?
Yes

2. Do you think that Jesus was prescribing baptism to Nicodemus in John 3?
Yes

3. Was the thief on the cross saved?
Yes

4. Can you show me in the bible where he was baptized?
No, not directly.

5. Do you consider baptisms performed at churches not affiliated with your particular tradition valid baptisms?
If they are instituted on a confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and is for the remission of sins they would be like the New Testament method.

6. If not, then why?
No comment necessary

7. Is belief sufficient for salvation as Paul repeatedly suggests it is?
If belief encompasses the fullness of the plan of salvation consisting of hearing the gospel, having faith in Christ, repenting of sin, confessing Christ publically and being baptized for the remission of sins.

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 28th, 2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

No. What you fail to concede is that they were saved before receiving the Holy Spirit. How can one have the Spirit if they are not already saved? And since I have covered the rest of what I was willing to read [of your post], I have said all I need to say.

Did they "receive the Holy Spirit" or was the Holy Spirit manifested like it was over the apostles on Pentecost? (Acts 2:2-4). Cornelius and his household was not saved until they heard words (the gospel of Jesus Christ) from Peter and obeyed his command for them to be baptized. After they obey the commandment unto salvation they are saved (Mark 16:16). The saved who are immersed for the remission of sins receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

JustAChristian :angel:

Lighthouse
September 29th, 2004, 02:55 AM
Heretic.:rolleyes:

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit was poured out on those who were not already saved? You're a perverter of God's truth, just like your master.

JustAChristian
September 29th, 2004, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Heretic.:rolleyes:

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit was poured out on those who were not already saved? You're a perverter of God's truth, just like your master.

lighthouse,

The gospel, not the Holy Spirit is the power of God unto salvation; to the Jew first but also to the Gentile (Greek) (Romans 1:16-17

Cornelius, a Roman Centurian and Gentile is the first Gentile in the New Testament to hear the Gospel. This conceres with what Peter says: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15:7).

Faith comes by hearing and not by the Holy Spirit baptism.
You would have to conclude that Cornelius and his household was saved without the knowledge of the Gospel commands for Peter was sent to them to tell them "what they must do." (Acts 10:6). The text tells us that Peter commanded them to be baptized (Acts 10:48). This is the only thing showing that Peter told them to do, so we must conclude until they obeyed the command they were not saved (Mark 16:16). If you have proof on your point give it to us. However, I believe you must retreat to my explination or fail in your exegesis of the scriptures.

JustAChristian :angel:

BChristianK
September 29th, 2004, 08:42 AM
JustAChristian answers saying:
John came preaching and baptizing in approval of Diety as a forerunner of Christ to prepare the way for the entrance of Christ (Mark 1:4). Baptism before the cross was for remission of sins and baptism after the cross was for remission of sins. However, they were not for remission of sins in precisely the same way, nor having precisely the same particulars. The first was “unto? the remission of sin in prospect of the death of Christ, the other was for the remission of sins in reality, since Christ had truly died. Jesus came preaching the kingdom of Heaven. His disciples baptized. J.W. McGarvey, the noted 19th century commentariest gives us this point:


mcGarvey’s point being wholly immaterial to our discussion, I fail to see how your claiming that baptism looked forward to the death of Christ during John’s ministry and baptism looking back at the death of Christ in the Great Commission solves the theological problems plaguing you with the thief on the cross. Because they look to temporal events (Christ’s death) from different temporal vantage points doesn’t make either ‘before the cross baptisms’ or ‘after the cross baptisms’ any less optional or mandatory and you have yet to provide us with a scriptural answer to suggests as much. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of the necessity of baptism before the cross (as you have interpreted this passage).

So your argument that the thief on the cross was an exception to your theological rule because he died before the culmination of the death and resurrection is still contradicted by your own argument that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of the necessity of baptism before the cross.


I have stated to you earlier that I have no affiliation with the International Churches of Christ. You are aware of this. Your assertion to the ICOC is with bias and indifference. If you persist in placing me with this group I will cease communication.


Like I said, if you say your not an ICOC’er, than that’s sufficient for me, but the substance of the argument stands. Don’t think that you can simply ignore the scriptural principles and logic I advanced because you’re not ICOC. Your own interpretation of John 3 contradicts your statements on the thief on the cross whether you are in the ICOC or not!


You and I do not know if the thief was never baptized before the cross.

Right, so no need to speculate, remember “bible only.? Not imaginary speculations.


The practice was wide spread. Many from Judea came to John’s baptism.

So was foot washing, but we shouldn’t speculate that Jesus washed the thief’s feet because it was a “widespread practice? now should we.?




No doubt may of Jesus’ disciples baptized.

Yup, so?


What I am saying is that your argument is moot.

It would be convenient for you if it were, but it isn’t. You have, in holy scripture, an example you cannot find a suitable explanation to, that contradicts your theology of baptism.

Now you can say “its just moot.? And go on believing what you have always believed, but don’t lie and say that you do with the council of the “whole bible? because with that comment you have chosen to ignore a biblical example.


Jesus took the thief to Paradise with him that day. That is all we can conclude for sure.

Right, and we can conclude that he did so against your theology that salvation must come when one repents confesses and is baptized (in that order) without exception.


The Mosaic Law never commanded baptism for the remission of sins.

Didn’t need to, John did and so did Jesus (according to you, John 3).

In short, my paragraph abides and clearly shows you theological inconsistency.

quoted by me
:BRAVO: Congratulations you have aptly and skillfully refuted your own argument.

So now the problem of the thief on the cross is an even bigger problem for you. If water (baptism) and spirit are necessary for rebirth for Nicodemus then you’ll have to explain to me why baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross. Wasn’t Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus before the cross?



Now that this argument is dealt with, you have made some claims that I would like to address.


(1)You have yet to clearly explain or otherwise how “believe or confession of Christ? separate from baptism for the remission of sins is sufficient for salvation? (2)You can’t look to Romans 10 or to any scripture in the epistles for conditions of salvation. The epistles were written to the saved church, not to people who are unsaved. It is not an evangelistic letter. We gain edification from the epistles. Paul and the other writers relate how hearing the gospel, faith in Christ, confession of Him as the Son of God and (3)being immersed for the remission of sins has brought us into Christ and His church. (4)We look to the teaching of Jesus to his apostles in the giving of the commission to go into all the world with a message of salvation for conditions of salvation.

There’s a lot here to deal with. (1), I wouldn’t undertake to prove that belief or confession of Christ separate from baptism is sufficient for salvation. I have said, and continue to maintain, that a person who refuses baptism (given that they have an accurate understanding of baptism, and even if they only see it as the first act of obedience) has refused to abide in the NT prescribed rite of the public profession of faith. The problem is in trying to separate faith from baptism in the first place. One is baptized because of their faith. That does not make the baptismal right the means of regeneration.

I’m not one of those that say that salvation is totally separate from confessing the Lordship of Christ.
(2) Romans was in fact written as an edificatory letter to believers. That does not prove that the standards of salvation included in Romans 10:9 are incomplete. Luke-Acts wasn’t written to nonbelievers either. (3), Paul and others do relate how hearing the gospel and faith in Christ are sufficient for salvation.


Ephesians 1:13-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-- to the praise of his glory.

Now the fact that Ephesians was written to believers is insufficient to disprove Paul’s statement of how they were sealed with the Holy Spirit.

Your attempt to make the epistles unavailable as sources of soteriological information is prejudicial and does not reflect a theology that is inclusive of the “whole bible.?

The bottom line is you either believe that they were included in Christ when they heard and believed or you don’t. It appears you don’t.

(3), You continue to talk about baptism for the remission of sins. You seem to have an affinity for talking about one part of Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 to the exclusion of the other.


Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now there are a number of ways to interpret this passage, it is not, much to your chagrin probably, a cut and dry issue. You are pretty clear that unless one is baptized (for the remission of sins) one is not saved. I assume you mean that the convert is made to understand that without the water their sins are not remitted, or that the pastor or baptizer has to say something to the affect that the baptism is for the remission of sins or the baptism isn’t valid.
Both claims would be problematic. The first is contrary to 1 Peter 3:21 that says clearly that it is not the removal of dirt from the body that saves us but the pledge of a good conscience toward God The second claim clashes with Matthew 28:19 as baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Romans 6:4 which employs imagery of being buried with Christ. As such I don’t think that saying anything about remission of sins is a magical incantation to activate the saving powers of the water nor do I think that the water itself removes sins from a person, it simply removes dirt from the flesh. These arguments aside however, your claim makes an assumption about Acts 2:38 that requires more substantiation than you have provided. The interpretation of Acts 2:38 that your assumptions rest upon are merely one of many viable interpretations.

One interpretation is that repentance is the operative command that is for the forgiveness of sins with Baptism being done in the name of Jesus Christ. (Some Baptist’s interpretation)
Another interpretation is that baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. (Some Church of Christ Interpretations)
Another interpretation is that “repent? and “be baptized? is one unified command, both of which are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. (Of which some Church of Christ personalities like Max Lucado and some Baptists have embraced similar interpretations)

The passage is, to say the least, difficult to hang theology on standing on its own. As such we should look to other speeches in Acts to help us determine what Peter was getting at (as we can give Peter the benefit of the doubt that he was speaking consistently).

Here’s one help.


Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Here we have no mention of baptism whatsoever. And this isn’t tucked away in some epistle that you would like to relegate away from soteriological commentary, it is contextually Peter speaking to his fellow Jews. Clearly, Peter is here associating the wiping away of sins and times of refreshing from the Lord with repentance, and no mention of baptism.

Interestingly, you also see belief tied to “adding to their number?


Acts 4:4 But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.

(4),
If what you say is true and we do look to the teaching of the apostles to tell us what in needed for salvation then we should also include the following quotes into our consideration.


John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

According to you, some who believe (if they aren’t baptized to your liking) will be condemned.



John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

No mention of baptism here.


John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Apparently you would have the woman answer, “no, I don’t believe this, I will die unless I interpret Acts 2:38 according to the Church of Christ and am baptized while understanding that it is for the remission of my sins.?


John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Of course John is wrong here (according to your theology), one does not have life in his name through believing it, is through being baptized according the formula of the Church of Christ.
:chuckle:

My friend, if we are going to have a biblically informed soteriology we must use the entire bible to have one and that means balancing the sufficiency of faith with the clear command to be baptized.

I don’t want to be unfair here. The Church of Christ has stood out as a tradition that holds baptism more closely related to salvation than the Baptists, and I think that the practice of most Baptist churches needs correction. Baptism isn’t an afterthought, it is a command to be taken seriously as the Church of Christ has done. But the Church of Christ (not all of them mind you, there are many who are following Max Lucado into a more reasonable view of baptism) has reduced the gospel to a formulaic expression. Are we to be baptized? Absolutely! Do the waters of baptism save? Absolutely not!
It is the pledge of a clear conscience toward God that justifies us not removal of dirt from the flesh. Now one who has truly believed should be baptized straight away, but the thief on the cross clearly demonstrates that it is the work of God in our souls that saves, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate us that saves and He can and does choose to do so at His own discretion, entering the soul of Cornelius and in so doing sealing his soul for salvation before Cornelius ever touched the water of baptism. And awakening the soul of the thief on the cross and sealing him unto salvation knowing full well that no baptismal waters would be applied to this man.

God does not need us to get wet to save us. But we need to pledge ourselves to the Lord and baptism is the way we declare that we have been sinners, and that our hearts have repented, that we believe that Christ has died for us and we with Christ. That we believe that Christ has raised from the dead, and we with Christ, and that we walk in new life.

Grace and Peace be with you.

greatdivide46
September 29th, 2004, 12:04 PM
JustAChristian,
A word of encouragement from a like-minded Christian. I agree with most of what you're saying, although, of course, I would probably express it a little differently.

Anyway, keep up the good work. :BRAVO:

Aimiel
September 29th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

More rhetoric! Give us scripture!I wasn't being rhetorical, but I believe you have made my point for me. You worship knowledge 'about' God, I worship The God of All Knowledge, Who makes Himself available to those who seek Him. If you just seek knowledge, that's all that you'll ever get. I guess you worship your own intellect, and are used to having others bow down to it. Excuse me for not genuflecting. :vomit:

Lighthouse
September 29th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

lighthouse,

The gospel, not the Holy Spirit is the power of God unto salvation; to the Jew first but also to the Gentile (Greek) (Romans 1:16-17

Cornelius, a Roman Centurian and Gentile is the first Gentile in the New Testament to hear the Gospel. This conceres with what Peter says: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15:7).

Faith comes by hearing and not by the Holy Spirit baptism.
You would have to conclude that Cornelius and his household was saved without the knowledge of the Gospel commands for Peter was sent to them to tell them "what they must do." (Acts 10:6). The text tells us that Peter commanded them to be baptized (Acts 10:48). This is the only thing showing that Peter told them to do, so we must conclude until they obeyed the command they were not saved (Mark 16:16). If you have proof on your point give it to us. However, I believe you must retreat to my explination or fail in your exegesis of the scriptures.

JustAChristian :angel:
You twit.

When did I ever say that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is what saves us? Whjat I said was that we have to be saved, in order to recieve the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

JustAChristian
September 30th, 2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You twit.

When did I ever say that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is what saves us? Whjat I said was that we have to be saved, in order to recieve the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Where did I say that you said that Holy Spirit saves us. Even though you did not say that you strongly implied that the Holy Spirit plays a personal and direct part apart from the Word Of God in one's salvation. I don't believe you are willing to admit that immersion has a part in salvation as Jesus taught in Mark 16:16, so whatever you atribute directly to one's salvation it is not the gospel. I hope I'm wrong but I am going to have to see more evidence before I would think otherwise.

JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
September 30th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

BChristianK,

I think I have duplicated enough! Would you grab a point or two and not post so much at one time? I don't have time to handle your long posts. I have kept my quotes that you referenced last in for clarification in some points.

Post #235 of 235

quote:

JustAChristian answers saying:
John came preaching and baptizing in approval of Diety as a forerunner of Christ to prepare the way for the entrance of Christ (Mark 1:4). Baptism before the cross was for remission of sins and baptism after the cross was for remission of sins. However, they were not for remission of sins in precisely the same way, nor having precisely the same particulars. The first was “unto? the remission of sin in prospect of the death of Christ, the other was for the remission of sins in reality, since Christ had truly died. Jesus came preaching the kingdom of Heaven. His disciples baptized. J.W. McGarvey, the noted 19th century commentariest gives us this point:



BChristianK responds saying:
McGarvey’s point being wholly immaterial to our discussion, I fail to see how your claiming that baptism looked forward to the death of Christ during John’s ministry and baptism looking back at the death of Christ in the Great Commission solves the theological problems plaguing you with the thief on the cross. Because they look to temporal events (Christ’s death) from different temporal vantage points doesn’t make either ‘before the cross baptisms’ or ‘after the cross baptisms’ any less optional or mandatory and you have yet to provide us with a scriptural answer to suggests as much. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of the necessity of baptism before the cross (as you have interpreted this passage).

So your argument that the thief on the cross was an exception to your theological rule because he died before the culmination of the death and resurrection is still contradicted by your own argument that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of the necessity of baptism before the cross.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Until you are willing to look at my argument that the scriptures clearly imply that the thief was verbally forgiven of sins while Christ was yet alive (Luke 24:43), we will never be able to move forward on the subject of present day salvation through the effectual cleansing by the blood in baptism (Acts 22:16).

Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matthew 4:17). This could not mean the realm of God’s throne because that was present. Jesus would receive His kingdom at His glorification (Daniel 7:14; Matt. 28:18; Heb. 12:28). Entrance into the kingdom would come about with the new birth. The new birth comes at the obedience to the gospel (Romans 1:16; 1 Peter 1:22-23, 25; James 1:18). Therefore, Nicodemus was “born again? when he obeyed the truth, the word of God, was saved and added to the kingdom of Christ (Acts 2:47)





quote:

I have stated to you earlier that I have no affiliation with the International Churches of Christ. You are aware of this. Your assertion to the ICOC is with bias and indifference. If you persist in placing me with this group I will cease communication.

BChristianK responds saying:
Like I said, if you say your not an ICOC’er, than that’s sufficient for me, but the substance of the argument stands. Don’t think that you can simply ignore the scriptural principles and logic I advanced because you’re not ICOC. Your own interpretation of John 3 contradicts your statements on the thief on the cross whether you are in the ICOC or not!

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Jesus preach baptism before the cross as a prefatory gospel that the kingdom was at hand. Nicodemus could not enter a kingdom that was not yet established. He was subject to the Law of Moses until the New Covenant was ratified by the shed blood of Christ. He entered the kingdom in due order like everyone else. I am surprised at you. You shouldn’t have a problem with this. It is common sense.

quote:

You and I do not know if the thief was never baptized before the cross.


BChristianK responds saying:
Right, so no need to speculate, remember “bible only.? Not imaginary speculations.

It is you who wants to persist the argument, not me.

quote:

The practice was wide spread. Many from Judea came to John’s baptism.


BChristianK responds saying:
So was foot washing, but we shouldn’t speculate that Jesus washed the thief’s feet because it was a “widespread practice? now should we.?

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Not worthy of considering.


quote:

No doubt may of Jesus’ disciples baptized.



BChristianK responds saying:
Yup, so?

quote:

What I am saying is that your argument is moot.


BChristianK responds saying:
It would be convenient for you if it were, but it isn’t. You have, in holy scripture, an example you cannot find a suitable explanation to, that contradicts your theology of baptism. Now you can say “its just moot.? And go on believing what you have always believed, but don’t lie and say that you do with the council of the “whole bible? because with that comment you have chosen to ignore a biblical example.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Why don’t you just try to prove that Mark 16:16 is non- essential and get on with it!

quote:

Jesus took the thief to Paradise with him that day. That is all we can conclude for sure.

BChristianK responds saying:
Right, and we can conclude that he did so against your theology that salvation must come when one repents confesses and is baptized (in that order) without exception.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Why aren’t you attacking my argument of Jesus forgiving the thief of sins prior to His death?

quote:

The Mosaic Law never commanded baptism for the remission of sins.

BChristianK responds saying:
Didn’t need to, John did and so did Jesus (according to you, John 3). In short, my paragraph abides and clearly shows you theological inconsistency.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
The thief on the cross never heard the gospel. That thief on the cross who was to be with Christ in Paradise never heard the good news of the kingdom and the full gospel. The gospel of the kingdom in establishment had never gone into effect. He was not under the will that says "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16). I have covered this point I believe, all sufficiently. However, if you feel you can still be saved like the thief on the cross, let me suggest you get some 6X6's and a few rusty spikes and get with it!


quote:
quoted by me
Congratulations you have aptly and skillfully refuted your own argument.

BChristianK responds saying:
So now the problem of the thief on the cross is an even bigger problem for you. If water (baptism) and spirit are necessary for rebirth for Nicodemus then you’ll have to explain to me why baptism wasn’t necessary before the cross.

Wasn’t Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus before the cross? Now that this argument is dealt with, you have made some claims that I would like to address.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
The fullness of the context of Nicodemus does not lead me to conclude that he became a full disciple perhaps until perhaps about the time he assisted with the embalming (John 19:39) for he was clearly continuing in his position in the court of the Jews (John 7:50). Record does not relate at what time he was “born again.?

quote:

(1)You have yet to clearly explain or otherwise how “believe or confession of Christ? separate from baptism for the remission of sins is sufficient for salvation? (2)You can’t look to Romans 10 or to any scripture in the epistles for conditions of salvation. The epistles were written to the saved church, not to people who are unsaved. It is not an evangelistic letter. We gain edification from the epistles. Paul and the other writers relate how hearing the gospel, faith in Christ, confession of Him as the Son of God and (3)being immersed for the remission of sins has brought us into Christ and His church. (4)We look to the teaching of Jesus to his apostles in the giving of the commission to go into all the world with a message of salvation for conditions of salvation.

BChristianK responds saying:
There’s a lot here to deal with. (1), I wouldn’t undertake to prove that belief or confession of Christ separate from baptism is sufficient for salvation. I have said, and continue to maintain, that a person who refuses baptism (given that they have an accurate understanding of baptism, and even if they only see it as the first act of obedience) has refused to abide in the NT prescribed rite of the public profession of faith. The problem is in trying to separate faith from baptism in the first place. One is baptized because of their faith. That does not make the baptismal right the means of regeneration.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Baptism in the New Testament is “for the remission of sin? (Acts 2:38) and “putting on Christ? (Gal. 3:27). When we “obey from the heart that form of doctrine? (Romans 6:14-17) our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16) and added to the church of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:47). I have never separated faith from baptism. You will not look to my argument of a “synecdoche? which makes faith all inclusive of that which is essential to salvation.

BChristianK responds saying:
I’m not one of those that say that salvation is totally separate from confessing the Lordship of Christ. (2) Romans was in fact written as an edificatory letter to believers. That does not prove that the standards of salvation included in Romans 10:9 are incomplete. Luke-Acts wasn’t written to nonbelievers either. (3), Paul and others do relate how hearing the gospel and faith in Christ are sufficient for salvation.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
I am just saying that what is found in Romans is the information to increase the faith of the saved. The plan of salvation is not contained in the text, because it is not intended for the unsaved but to increase the faith of the saved.
quote:

Ephesians 1:13-14 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-- to the praise of his glory.

BChristianK responds saying:
Now the fact that Ephesians was written to believers is insufficient to disprove Paul’s statement of how they were sealed with the Holy Spirit.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
I don’t content it does.

BChristianK responds saying:
Your attempt to make the epistles unavailable as sources of soteriological information is prejudicial and does not reflect a theology that is inclusive of the “whole bible.? The bottom line is you either believe that they were included in Christ when they heard and believed or you don’t. It appears you don’t.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Find in the context the plan of salvation to the unsaved and I am found in error.

BChristianK responds saying:
(3), You continue to talk about baptism for the remission of sins. You seem to have an affinity for talking about one part of Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 to the exclusion of the other.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Rhetoric, pure rhetoric....get on with it!! I assumed you were someone beyond “need of milk?
(Heb. 5:12).
quote:

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

BChristianK responds saying:
Now there are a number of ways to interpret this passage, it is not, much to your chagrin probably, a cut and dry issue.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
I can’t believe I’m reading this...!

BChristianK responds saying:
You are pretty clear that unless one is baptized (for the remission of sins) one is not saved. I assume you mean that the convert is made to understand that without the water their sins are not remitted, or that the pastor or baptizer has to say something to the affect that the baptism is for the remission of sins or the baptism isn’t valid.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Peter said it is for the remission of sins...didn’t he? The Greek word “Eis? which is interpreted “for? in the accusative case looks forward, doesn’t it?

BChristianK responds saying:
Both claims would be problematic. The first is contrary to 1 Peter 3:21 that says clearly that it is not the removal of dirt from the body that saves us

JustAChristian further answers saying:
I never said it did...

BChristianK responds saying:
but the pledge of a good conscience toward God

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Amen...

BChristianK responds saying:
The second claim clashes with Matthew 28:19 as baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Romans 6:4 which employs imagery of being buried with Christ.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Don’t follow where you are going with this...

BChristianK responds saying:
As such I don’t think that saying anything about remission of sins is a magical incantation to activate the saving powers of the water

JustAChristian further answers saying:
The command is to be baptized...not in sand...not in Jell-o...not in whip cream or whatever....but in WATER. I didn’t set the parameters; God did! Why do you question the order of God. Where is your faith?

BChristianK responds saying:
...nor do I think that the water itself removes sins from a person , it simply removes dirt from the flesh.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
I never said it did! Does Jesus require us to deliberate this out before we do it? Aren’t we to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7).

BChristianK responds saying:
These arguments aside however, your claim makes an assumption about Acts 2:38 that requires more substantiation than you have provided. The interpretation of Acts 2:38 that your assumptions rest upon are merely one of many viable interpretations. One interpretation is that repentance is the operative command that is for the forgiveness of sins with Baptism being done in the name of Jesus Christ. (Some Baptist’s interpretation). Another interpretation is that baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. (Some Church of Christ Interpretations) Another interpretation is that “repent? and “be baptized? is one unified command, both of which are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. (Of which some Church of Christ personalities like Max Lucado and some Baptists have embraced similar interpretations). The passage is, to say the least, difficult to hang theology on standing on its own. As such we should look to other speeches in Acts to help us determine what Peter was getting at (as we can give Peter the benefit of the doubt that he was speaking consistently).

JustAChristian further answers saying:
I’ll go along with that. Didn’t I tell you earlier that the “whole of anything is the sum of its parts.? I didn’t think you’d ever get around to that point.

BChristianK responds saying:
Here’s one help.

quote:

Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Okey...


BChristianK responds saying:
Here we have no mention of baptism whatsoever. And this isn’t tucked away in some epistle that you would like to relegate away from soteriological commentary, it is contextually Peter speaking to his fellow Jews. Clearly, Peter is here associating the wiping away of sins and times of refreshing from the Lord with repentance, and no mention of baptism. Interestingly, you also see belief tied to “adding to their number?

JustAChristian further answers saying:
It doesn’t say anything about believing in Christ (John 8:24), nor confessing Christ as did the eunuch, but surely you see the importance of obeying John 8:24 and Matthew 10:32-33?



quote:

Acts 4:4 But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Here is a good “synecdoche? for you... You haven’t disproved my argument on synecdoches.

BChristianK responds saying:
(4), If what you say is true and we do look to the teaching of the apostles to tell us what in needed for salvation then we should also include the following quotes into our consideration.

quote:

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Figure of speech called a “Synecdoche!.? A synecdoche is when one word stands for the whole. Read your English grimmer or get someone to help you on this!

BChristianK responds saying:
According to you, some who believe (if they aren’t baptized to your liking) will be condemned.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
“My liking? has nothing to do with it and you know it.

quote:

John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."


JustAChristian further answers saying:
Synecdoche, pure and simple...!

BChristianK responds saying:
No mention of baptism here.

quote:

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

BChristianK responds saying:
Apparently you would have the woman answer, “no, I don’t believe this, I will die unless I interpret Acts 2:38 according to the Church of Christ and am baptized while understanding that it is for the remission of my sins.?

JustAChristian further answers saying:
I don’t want to exaggerate, but our main dispute with you is that the churches of Christ believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. I sincerely believe that it is an ancient, spiritual act of obedience where the grace of God, which saves us, is obtained. I want you to look at only seven passages of Scripture which makes me to believe. See if these passages would make one believe that baptism saves, is in order to obtain remission of sins, or the new birth, or like or similar blessing. Comments appreciated:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...?Mark 16:16)

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.? (John 3:5 )

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.? (Acts 2:38)

“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.? (Acts 22:16)

“ Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.? (Romans 6:3-4)

“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? (1 Peter 3:21 )

From those seven verses it is evident that one gets at least seven important things from water baptism: salvation, the new birth, remission of sins, a washing away of sins, a getting into the dath of Christ, and a getting into Christ Himself. In general, therefore, baptism is for salvation from sin and like or similar blessing. It is so obvious that we shouldn’t be dwelling on this point.



quote:

John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

BChristianK responds saying:
Of course John is wrong here (according to your theology), one does not have life in his name through believing it, is through being baptized according the formula of the Church of Christ.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
I have thoroughly addressed faith only with you. Salvation is not by faith alone (James 2:24). The gospel of salvations requires obedience of faith (Romans 1:5; Eph 2:8) in order to obtain salvation

BChristianK responds saying:
My friend, if we are going to have a biblically informed soteriology we must use the entire bible to have one and that means balancing the sufficiency of faith with the clear command to be baptized.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
You’re beginning to sound like a Democrat and not a Christian. By the way, do they have Democrats were you are?


BChristianK responds saying:
I don’t want to be unfair here. The Church of Christ has stood out as a tradition that holds baptism more closely related to salvation than the Baptists, and I think that the practice of most Baptist churches needs correction. Baptism isn’t an afterthought, it is a command to be taken seriously as the Church of Christ has done. But the Church of Christ (not all of them mind you, there are many who are following Max Lucado into a more reasonable view of baptism) has reduced the gospel to a formulaic expression. Are we to be baptized? Absolutely! Do the waters of baptism save? Absolutely not! It is the pledge of a clear conscience toward God that justifies us not removal of dirt from the flesh. Now one who has truly believed should be baptized straight away, but the thief on the cross clearly demonstrates that it is the work of God in our souls that saves, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate us that saves and He can and does choose to do so at His own discretion, entering the soul of Cornelius and in so doing sealing his soul for salvation before Cornelius ever touched the water of baptism. And awakening the soul of the thief on the cross and sealing him unto salvation knowing full well that no baptismal waters would be applied to this man.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
Since you look to external sources, such as Max Lucado, as authority for your position, I thought I would search out some external sources as well. Let us look what some of the early Christians thought about baptism. We have to admit that they were closer to the immediate apostolic teaching then we are. Here is what I have researched and found:

BARNABUS (probably early second century, near the time that John died). “Let us inquire if the Lord was careful to make a revelation in advance concerning the water and the cross...Blessed are those who placed their hope in his cross and descended into the water...We descend into the water full of sins and uncleanness, and we ascend bearing reverence in our heart and having hope in Jesus in our spirit.? (Book of Barnabus 111:1,8,11).

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (early second century). “Your life was saved and will be saved through water...I have heard, ‘Sir, from some teachers that there is no other repentance except that one when we descended into the water and received he forgiveness of our former sins’...He said to me, “You heard correctly for it is so...? (Mandate, IV, iii, 1). “The seal then is the water. They descend then into the water dead and they ascend alive. The seal itself, then was preached to them also, and they made use of it in order that they might ‘enter the kingdom of God’...? (Similitudes, IX., XVI. 3-6).

JUSTIN (second century). “Then they are led by us to whence there is water, and in the manner of the regeneration by which we ourselves were regenerated they are regenerated. For at that time they obtain for themselves the washing of water in the name of God the Master of all and Father, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘unless you are regene4rated, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven’...and might obtain in the water the forgiveness of past sins, there is called upon the one who chooses to be regenerated and who repents of his sins in the name of God the Master of all and Father...? (Apology I, 61)

THEOPHILUS (180 A.D,). “Moreover, the things which come from the waters were blessed by God, in order that this might be a sign that men wher going to receive repentance and forgiveness of sins through water and the ‘washing of regeneration,’ namely all those who come to truth and are born again, and receive blessing from God...? (To Autolycus II, XVI)

IRENAEUS (about 180 A. D. He was a pupal of Polycarp who was a pupil of the apostle John). “First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the son of God, who became incarnate and died and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God, and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth into God and we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal and everlasting God? (Proof of Apostolic Preaching, 3).

I think that is enough to establish a point or two. Will share some more if you wish. Let me know.

BChristianK responds saying:
God does not need us to get wet to save us. But we need to pledge ourselves to the Lord and baptism is the way we declare that we have been sinners, and that our hearts have repented, that we believe that Christ has died for us and we with Christ. That we believe that Christ has raised from the dead, and we with Christ, and that we walk in new life.

JustAChristian further answers saying:
One becomes a Son of God through faith by being baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27). So in these verses we see that as a consequence of water baptism one becomes a son or child of God as Jesus said in John 3:5, and at the same time he gets into Christ where life is. But let’s notice one more. Paul said, “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit? (1 Cor 12:113). Now the body is the church (Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23). So by listening to the voice of the Spirit in the Bible we are led to the waters of baptism whereby we are baptized into the church which is the body of Jesus Christ. That church, by the way, is no human denomination. It is the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13), not a sect of men. You speak freely of your denomination. Can you justify your denomination, the Baptist church by scripture? Where may one find authority for the Baptist Church in the Holy Writ?

In Christ,
JustAChristian

Lighthouse
September 30th, 2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

Where did I say that you said that Holy Spirit saves us. Even though you did not say that you strongly implied that the Holy Spirit plays a personal and direct part apart from the Word Of God in one's salvation. I don't believe you are willing to admit that immersion has a part in salvation as Jesus taught in Mark 16:16, so whatever you atribute directly to one's salvation it is not the gospel. I hope I'm wrong but I am going to have to see more evidence before I would think otherwise.

JustAChristian :angel:
You are a numbskull.

I never said the Holy Spirit played a part seperate from the word of God in salvation. What I said was that one had to already be saved to have the Holy Spirit. You are saying that the Holy Spirit can be upon people who are not in the Lord. That is heresy! The Holy Spirit comes in at salvation, not before, not after. At the moment of. What I attribute to salvation is grace, through faith. And faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word.

greatdivide46
October 1st, 2004, 11:28 AM
The thief on the cross could not possibly have been baptized as we are commanded because the Bible explains that we are baptized into Christ and into His death. How could the thief be baptized into an event that had not yet occurred? How could he be buried with Christ when Christ had not yet been buried, and the same goes for being raised? If you use this objection to baptism please consider this inconsistency. Many people who emphatically preach that we are saved by the death of Christ want to use as their model someone who was saved before the death of Christ.

My apologies if this has already been addressed in this thread.

JustAChristian
October 1st, 2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

You are a numbskull.

I never said the Holy Spirit played a part seperate from the word of God in salvation. What I said was that one had to already be saved to have the Holy Spirit. You are saying that the Holy Spirit can be upon people who are not in the Lord. That is heresy! The Holy Spirit comes in at salvation, not before, not after. At the moment of. What I attribute to salvation is grace, through faith. And faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word.


I with you would strive for consistancy. One day you call me a Twit and the next day you call me a numbskull. what's it going to be; Twit or numbskull? Maybe I'll be something different tomorrow.

Reading Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." The gift and the baptism with the Holy Spirit are not the same. The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit but they did not receive Him as a gift. They already had Him in that measure. The coming over the apostles was to give them power to conduct their duty of preaching the gospel without error. Peter recalled this event to the elders; "...And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:6-9 AV). Cornelius had not heard the fulness of the gospel and his faith was not developed to the point of salvation when the Spirit came over the household. Peter seeing that God fully concurred with his being with the Gentiles sent forth the Spirit as evidence. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). Cornelius was saved when he heard and obeyed the command to be baptized given by Peter that day. He then received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit like everyone who hears and obeys the gospel (Romans 1:16; Romans 1:5; Mark 16:16).

In Christ,
JustAChristian

JustAChristian
October 1st, 2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel

I wasn't being rhetorical, but I believe you have made my point for me. You worship knowledge 'about' God, I worship The God of All Knowledge, Who makes Himself available to those who seek Him. If you just seek knowledge, that's all that you'll ever get. I guess you worship your own intellect, and are used to having others bow down to it. Excuse me for not genuflecting. :vomit:

“...In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.? (2 Corinthians 4:4 AV)

JustAChristian

BChristianK
October 1st, 2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by greatdivide46

The thief on the cross could not possibly have been baptized as we are commanded because the Bible explains that we are baptized into Christ and into His death. How could the thief be baptized into an event that had not yet occurred?

Paul certainly makes this imagery of baptism clear in the Roman epistle. So, I would agree, that baptism took on additional meaning after the death burrial and ressurection of Christ. But that doesn't mean that the thief on the cross wasn't obligated to be baptized during a time when the gospel of the Kingdom was being proclaimed.



How could he be buried with Christ when Christ had not yet been buried, and the same goes for being raised?

Good question! Here's one for you, how could he be forgiven if he did not undergo a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins?

According to JustaChristian, and I presume yourself since you have encouraged him in his arguments on this thread, no one is saved or forgiven thier sins until they get wet.


If you use this objection to baptism please consider this inconsistency. Many people who emphatically preach that we are saved by the death of Christ want to use as their model someone who was saved before the death of Christ.

I'm not objecting to baptism, I'm objecting to baptismal regeneration.


Grace and Peace

Lighthouse
October 2nd, 2004, 02:09 AM
greatdivide-
Romans 3:25 shows that all sins that heve ever been forgiven were forgiven because of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

JustAHeretic-
Acts 15:9 states it plainly enough, that I should not have to repeat it. And verse 10 gives us further insight: "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

These verses are specifically about circumcision. But Christ was circumcised, and so were the twelve, and the sect of Pharisees that Peter was arguing against. So why would Peter say what he did in verse 10? I'll tell you why. Circumcision represented the law. So those who said that the Gentile believers should be circumcised were essentially saying they should keep the law. Because the Bible tells us that those who falter in one aspect of the law falter in it all. And it also tells us that those who seek to keep the law must keep the whole law. And, my favorite thing, the Bible says we are circumcised, not by hands [as members of the Body of Christ], a.k.a. our hearts are circumcised, by God, because of our faith. In that same chapter, a few verses later, it says we are baptized. Now, if we are circumcised, not by hands, why can't we be baptized in the same manner?

Also, salvation comes with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And those who are not saved cannot have the Holy Spirit, in any way,. shape or form. So, if someone has the Holy Spirit, they are already saved. Therefore Cornelius' water baptism [and that of his family] was subsequent* to [their] salvation.

*after the fact

Aimiel
October 2nd, 2004, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by JustAChristian

“...In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.? (2 Corinthians 4:4 AV) Has everyone at TOL fallen to the 'Spirit of Squeaky' and begun to use Bible verses to attempt to communicate to others? You have the ability to speak your own words, and thus communicate your thoughts (or, at least, what you believe are your thoughts, when, in fact, much of what you think is doctrines of demons) to others best, by trying to articulate them by means of your own chosen words; as opposed to quoting scripture, to appear 'holier-than-thou.' Don't you realize that type of attitude is a stink in God's Nostrils? He won't even take the 'holier-than-thou' crowd into His Mouth, to spew them out, they will be rejected before He even takes a taste, because of their stench.

Why is it that there are so many people who believe that they have knowledge 'about' God, who have never met Him, who try to convince those who know Him, personally, that He is less than He said He is, and He has proven to them, beyond the shadow of any doubt that they might cast upon The Lord? They are like clouds without rain. Beautiful goblets, that are filthy on the inside. Whitwashed empty vessels. Tombs of many, inside them are dead men's bones. They need to repent. :thumb:

JustAChristian
October 2nd, 2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Has everyone at TOL fallen to the 'Spirit of Squeaky' and begun to use Bible verses to attempt to communicate to others? You have the ability to speak your own words, and thus communicate your thoughts (or, at least, what you believe are your thoughts, when, in fact, much of what you think is doctrines of demons) to others best, by trying to articulate them by means of your own chosen words; as opposed to quoting scripture, to appear 'holier-than-thou.' Don't you realize that type of attitude is a stink in God's Nostrils? He won't even take the 'holier-than-thou' crowd into His Mouth, to spew them out, they will be rejected before He even takes a taste, because of their stench.

Why is it that there are so many people who believe that they have knowledge 'about' God, who have never met Him, who try to convince those who know Him, personally, that He is less than He said He is, and He has proven to them, beyond the shadow of any doubt that they might cast upon The Lord? They are like clouds without rain. Beautiful goblets, that are filthy on the inside. Whitwashed empty vessels. Tombs of many, inside them
are dead men's bones. They need to repent. :thumb:

Aimiel,

You and I know that your heart is set to doing just what you want to do and not what Jesus wants you to do. You need to be born again of water and Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God. Let me help you study this subject again. Let's look at John 3:3-5 once again.

The new birth involves both water and the Spirit. Note carefully that it is one birth involving two elements - water and the Spirit. It is not two birth (born of water and born of the spirit), but one birth (born of water and the Spirit). If we compare this with Paul’s description in Titus 3:5, we see a washing of regeneration (water) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Spirit). It can be no doubt that we have here a reference to baptism. What external evidence can we look to for assistance in understanding the water of John 3:3-6? Here is but a few of many...

“There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the Greek words, that "gennethenai ek hudaton" (born of water) refers to the token or outward sign of baptism, "gennethenai ed pneumatos" (born of Spirit) to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped." Alford (Greek Testament).

“By water, here, is evidently signified baptism.? Albert Barnes. Baptist.

“Baptism by water, into the Christian faith, was necessary to every Jew and Gentile that entered into the kingdom of the Messiah.? Adam Clarke, Methodist.

“There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism...I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He gives it another interpretation, which he confessed to be new.? - William Wall (History of Infant Baptism)

The new birth occurs when on is baptized, for in that simple act of faith they are born not only of the water out of which they arise (Rom. 6:3-5), but also born of the spirit (regenerated) but the working of God at that moment (cf. Col. 2:12-13). The new birth involves several elements (water, Spirit, Word of God0, with all coming together when one responds to the gospel in baptism - (e.g. Acts 2:37,38). While there is evidence that one is born of water as they rise from the watery grave of baptism, the evidence of their being born of the Spirit comes later. The evidence of the new birth is seen by the effect of the Spirit. We should expect that what the Spirit produces is spirit (i.e., spiritual - John 3:5). Like the wind (the same Greek word as Spirit0, we do not see the Spirit himself but the effect that He produces – has one been truly born of the Spirit (i.e., born again)? With time there should be clear evidence that a change has occurred (e.g., 1 John 3:14).

In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus reveals much about being born again. He discusses the necessity of the new birth (one cannot be a Christian unless he or she is “born again.? He discusses the nature of the new birth (a birth involving both water and the Spirit, i.e., baptism). He discussed the evidence of the new birth (observable by its effects, i.e,. The fruit of the Spirit). He discusses the basis of the new birth (Christ’s sacrifice, God’s love, man’s faith). And He discusses the rejection of the new birth (why many refuse to submit to it). You need to analyze you spiritual position. External evidence is overwhelming that the water of John 3:3-6 involves the water of baptism. Think of the teaching of being born of water and the Spirit as a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Think of the teaching that being born through the Word of God as a responding to the gospel message of salvation (Rom. 1:16). Remember, it was Jesus who said “...he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.? (Mark 16:16).


JustAChristian :angel:

JustAChristian
October 2nd, 2004, 08:15 AM
Nicodemus needed to be reborn because his physical life was not acceptable to gain heaven’s domain. Like everyone who lives on the earth, he was commanded to be born of the water and the Spirit. Without this one cannot enter heaven. This is done when one “...obey (s) from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you? (Rom. 6:17). What is the form of doctrine which was delivered you? It is the gospel. This is all that the apostles delivered when they preached into all the earth (Matthew 28:18-20). One inspired writer tell us that Jesus told the apostles to “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel (the good news of God’s salvation, justification and glorification (grace) to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned? (Mark 16:15-16). Therefore to obey the gospel is to be born again (Hebrews 5:8-9; Matthew 7:21-23).

David was born into a world riddled with sin. No one is born a sinner but the Bible plainly teaches that “...the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth? not in the womb (Gen 8:21). Man is not born evil but digresses at an early age. Ezekiel also wrote that man does not inherit sin saying, “The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him? (Ezekiel 18:20).

As for David recognizing his need of a new birth. This concept was never preached by any prophet before Jesus (John 1:17). Those under the preaching of the OLD Testament prophets and the law were to be wholly in obedient to the law for eternal life (Matthew 19:17). Like Abraham, their righteousness is observed in their faith (see Hebrews 11 for the family of faith), and the blood of Christ covers them from the cross (Heb. 9:15). Jesus requires a new nature called “the new birth? under the NEW Testament. “Whosoever will, can partake of the waters of life? (Rev. 22:17). God gives man free will and he must exercise it in obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; Matthew 18:3; John 3:3-5).

Holy Spirit baptism was not possible to bury the old man of sin. We are to bury the old man of sin. The old man of sin is buried in water baptism Since baptism by immersion is essential to the burial of the old man of sin. And since the old man of sin cannot enter into heaven, therefore, it is essential that one be baptized in water in order to enter heaven. If not, why not? “He that believeth?...excludes babies. Babies are “safe? until they know that they have sinned.

JustAChristian

Aimiel
October 2nd, 2004, 08:46 AM
JAC,

You're still carnal, and that is evident in your opposition to learning the truth about The Spirit of The Lord. As I said, you have knowledge that you believe to be true, 'about' God, but isn't, because you've never met Him. You're focusing on the Words, instead of The Living Bread of Heaven.

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

That's where you live, in a form of religion, learning, but unable.


Originally posted by JustAChristian

You and I know that your heart is set to doing just what you want to do and not what Jesus wants you to do.You believe, but I know. I have a more sure Word of Prophecy, whereunto you would do well to take heed. I have the 'inward witness' of The Holy Ghost, Who has taken up residence inside of me, Who bears witness with my spirit that God's Word is true, and gives me insight into The Truth which is unavailable to those who never seek Him.
The new birth involves both water and the Spirit.If you believe that, then why did you stop with just the water part?
Holy Spirit baptism was not possible to bury the old man of sin.Who has said, or tried to defend that premise? You seem to be the only one that has this hang-up. I haven't seen anyone say that The Holy Spirit has been sent to do any such thing, except you.

The Holy Spirit was sent to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgement. He was sent to lead, guide and direct us into all The Truth. He was sent to reveal The Mystery of God to His Servents, the prophets. He reveals all things, even the deep things of God. He was sent so that we would not need to be led about by hand, but to lead us, individually, as He wills. The Lord is That Spirit, and where The Spirit of The Lord is, there is Liberty. :thumb: