PDA

View Full Version : The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Freak
September 6th, 2001, 03:01 PM
As expected we have heretics spreading their destructive doctrines on this forum, namely O2bewise. Mr. O2bewise said the following on September 6th: "Salvation can only come by baptism".

This pawn of Satan embraces and promotes a doctrine that will lead many to eternal hell. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. Baptism is not a requirement!

One attains eternal life (salvation) thru simple belief in the person of Jesus. We see this in the words of Jesus when He said: "Everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life" (John 3:15).

Another time when addressing the people of His day, Jesus was asked: "What must we do to do the works God requires?", Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent" (John 6:28-29).

Note no mention of baptism.

Jesus made it clear O2bewise: I AM THE GATE; WHOEVER ENTERS THROUGH ME WILL BE SAVED (John 10:9).

Again no mention of baptism, apparently to o2bewise, Jesus must have misspoken here.

I would urge my fellow believers in the Lord Jesus to come against O2bewise's devilish doctrines. This man degrades our Lord when He speaks against Him by stating baptism is required to be saved. This is in direct opposition to what our Lord said. Jesus said just come unto Him and you will be saved.

Some unbelievers once asked the disciples: "What must I do to be saved?"

They replied: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (Acts 16:31).

Note again no mention of baptism. Just belief in the Lord Jesus.

I think for me and my household we will listen to Jesus then o2bewise and his wicked ways.

o2bfaithful
September 6th, 2001, 05:03 PM
:D

Freak
September 6th, 2001, 08:01 PM
O2bewise, please prove me wrong. I would be more than willing to retract my earlier posts.

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Can one be saved if not baptized in water?

Is baptism a part of the Gospel message?

I'll be looking forward to your response.

Ian Day
September 7th, 2001, 05:25 AM
This previous posting to Rapt is relevant:

Rapt,

You asked a question a while back, which I did not answer at the time.

(Ian: )
Salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner, whereby he is given new spiritual life. Certainly baptism is commanded, but it is for the believer, already saved, already with new life from the dead, already quickened. It is the cleansing of the conscience, the application of the blood of the sacrifice, the blood of the covenant, (Heb. 9 & 13) as the Lord's Supper is the partaking of the sacrifice.

Rapt to Ian,
It seems to me that on the one hand, you agree that we are commanded to be baptized, and that it is at that point which one that believes receives the "cleansing of the conscience, the application of the blood of the sacrifice, the blood of the covenant", and "the partaking of the sacrifice", yet on the other hand, you see it as a response to gospel, which one who is "already saved, already with new life from the dead, already quickeded" does.

Don't the many scriptures that say that we are "raised with Christ" through baptism into His death mean anything to you? You're putting the cart before the horse. You can't leave baptism out of the presentation of the gospel any more than you can omit godly living and repentance, and still have the whole gospel. Peter didn't; Paul didn't; not even John the baptist omitted baptism. He didn't have the entire gospel, but he had the preperation of it. Part of believing on the one that should come included repentance and baptism. It STILL includes baptism, and every example we have in scripture when someone believed, they immediately got baptized. So why belittle the command?


Let me ask you: does one (who never heard the whole gospel), who had repented, and professed Jesus as his Lord, remain right with God and "saved" once he realizes that he is commanded to be baptized, if he claims that he is already saved, and therefore sees no need to get baptized? Does he retain his professed "salvation"?
Baptism is understood by evangelical Christians in various ways.
1. "Covenant baptism" equivalent to circ-umcision, therefore applied to babies within the church. The significance is important.
2. "Believers' baptism" administered to new believers as a sign of various spiritual blessings (see above.) Baptism is normally required for church membership. It is not considered essential for salvation, because it is for believers. THe mode of baptism is not important. The significance is important. (My position.)
3. Baptism by immersion required for remission of sins and therefore salvation. A person is considered unsaved until he is baptised. (Rapt's position.)

While I do not hold with infant baptism, I cannot reject it as invalid, because that would mean rejecting as unbelievers many godly Christians alive & dead. Most of those responsible for our translations, commentaries, and the proclaiming of the Gospel down the ages have held this position against the baptist position. Most also accept baptism by sprinkling.

Sprinkling can be understood from Hebrews 9:10 where "various baptisms" refers to Old Covenant sprinklings with water & ashes, water & blood, etc. THe Passover lamb blood was sprinkled on the door posts. With this understanding, Peter's reference to "sprinkled blood" becomes a reference to baptism. (1 Peter 1:2)

When we refer to the LXX we find Naaman baptising himself in the Jordan. (2 Kings 5:14) THe LXX word translated dipped is "ebaptisato" from the Heb. "tabal". Tabal is used a number times to dip, as in dip (LXX "bapsei") & sprinkle, e.g.
Num 19:18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip [it] in the water, and sprinkle [it] upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
THis is part of the "red heifer" ritual referred to in Hebrew 9. Thanks, http://www.BlueletterBible.org/ for easy access to Hebrew & Greek.

From this I understand a dip and pour/sprinkle method to be valid baptism. John could quite easily have stood in the Jordan and baptised by scooping water in cupped hands to apply to the head of the penitent sinner. It would have made it possible for 3000 people to be baptised on the day of Pentecost without taking over the public water supply. (Courtesy of the Roman & Jewish authorities who had just crucified the one in whose name the baptisms were taking place!)

I don't believe a believer who was not baptised as a baby who learnt about believers' baptism would refuse it. He has the Holy Spirit guiding him. Nor do I think one baptised in infancy & who refused believers' baptism is being disobedient to Christ's command, if he understands "covenant baptism."

o2bwise
September 7th, 2001, 06:05 AM
Hi Freak,

I think the true application of Peter's statement is baptism of the spirit. I never once referred to baptism by water.

I belioeve that salvation is an innate attribute of righteousness itself. Baptism is the fullness of that experience, the experience of being made righteous by grace working through faith.

The work is entirely God's through His Son Jesus Christ.

NOTE: Anyone who has BEGUN to allow that work to take place is POSITIONALLY righteous.

o2bfaithful,

Thanks!:)

Tony (o2 - oops! Might be ambiguous!)

Freak
September 7th, 2001, 06:08 AM
Please answer my questions o2bewise.

Thanks.

o2bwise
September 7th, 2001, 06:29 AM
Hi Freak,

O2bewise, please prove me wrong. I would be more than willing to retract my earlier posts.

It is hard to prove you wrong TO YOUR SATISFACTION because of your poor eyesight.

Whether you retract or not means NOTHING to me. You are only a man, you are not God.

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Yes. Baptism by the spirit IS SALVATION.

What do you think salvation is, Freak?

Can one be saved if not baptized in water?

Yes.

Is baptism a part of the Gospel message?

Yes.

Freak
September 7th, 2001, 08:13 AM
Since you think baptism is part of the Gospel I stand by all my statements.

Have you read 1 Cor. 15 where paul clealry explained what the Gospel is? Hint: It has nothing to do with baptism.

o2bwise
September 7th, 2001, 09:06 AM
Hi Freak,

I really don't care what you stand by (in terms of its veracity). I certainly don't pay it much significance. I don't see much veracity in much of anything you write.

Since you think baptism is part of the Gospel I stand by all my statements.

Have you read 1 Cor. 15 where paul clealry explained what the Gospel is? Hint: It has nothing to do with baptism.

Ephesians states that we are to be washed by the WATER OF THE WORD. This WASHING, in its fullness, IS BAPTISM.

It is being so immersed in the word that the word, which is the power and is grace, completes its work of making righteous.

That is the gospel. Receiving the "good news" and the gospel received, in its fullness, IS BAPTISM.

Now, as to baptism by water, you say it is NOT a part of the gospel. God gave us teachers, evangelists, etc. UNTIL there is no further need for them.

He also gave us little teaching guides. He gave us communion so that we could benefit from its instruction. In other words, the actual partaking of bread and wine (I believe juice, but whatever) is a helper. A helper to aid us in what? In receiving the word by faith, which is the essence of the gospel.

Baptism by water is a physical rite, but it serves a purpose as it must (else, why would God have it be so substantially referred to in His Word?). It helps us commit. In public assembly, when one submits to baptism, one is "helped" by the partaking of the physical rite itself. Just as one is helped by other physical rites (eating a piece of bread as one is contemplating Calvary, for example).

You say that such rites, serving as helpers so as to experience the gospel more fully, are not a part of the gospel.

I say that ANYTHING God gives us, whose purpose is to help us more fully appropriate the gospel, IS a part of the gospel.

Furthermore, I think you assume a level of authority that you do not rightfully possess. I think you should have a lower estimation of yourself and not set yourself up as some ultimate guardian of the pure gospel.

You don't even know what it is. You're simply not qualified.

Freak
September 7th, 2001, 11:12 AM
O2bewise,

You have proven to me once again you are unable to deal with God's Truth. Did you read what paul said the Gospel was in 1 Cor. 15? Don't take my word take Paul's word regarding this issue at hand.

Paul never mentioned baptism in 1 Cor. 15 because it is not the Gospel message. The Gospel message is centered on Jesus not baptism. Thank you very much.

As to your other comments they bear no truth in them. Until you have been where I have been I would reserve your comments until another time.

By the way, you are a false teacher according to God's Word. You are a false teacher. You reject the eternal nature of Jesus Christ as being eternal God.

o2bwise
September 7th, 2001, 12:05 PM
Freak,

I referred PRIMARILY to baptism in its spiritual meaning, not the physical rite of immersion in water.

Would you do me a favor?

Quote for me:
Romans 6:4.

And then explain, keeping in mind Romans 6:4, how baptism has nothing to do with the gospel.

You must compare spiritual with spiritual in order to attain a clearer picture. Paul simply was not using the terminology "baptism" in 1 Corinthians 15, however, he was referring to that which baptism is (death to old life, risen to new life).

o2

Ian Day
September 7th, 2001, 03:42 PM
O2BW,

As far as I can see, what you are saying about baptism is not heretical. Believers are baptised; they don't become believers by baptism.

I had a long argument with Freak about 1 Cor. 15, as to what the Gospel is.

o2bfaithful
September 7th, 2001, 06:09 PM
"We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." Rom 6:4

Freak? Is there "new life" without this baptism?

Freak
September 7th, 2001, 09:34 PM
Please be aware my fellow believers that when o2bewise mentions Jesus , he is referring to another Jesus. The Biblical Jesus is eternal God, o2bewise dismisses this vital truth. So when he refers to baptism it is a baptism unto a different Jesus. So this baptism is not a legit baptism but a false one. Hence my statements and my concerns.

Gerald
September 7th, 2001, 09:49 PM
All this from someone who insists he's gone head-to-head with otherworldly bug-uglies...

Good to see you back, Freak...:D

PENIEL
September 8th, 2001, 01:24 AM
FREAK, Have you been Baptised ???

And if so, in what manner ??:confused:

Freak
September 8th, 2001, 11:04 AM
After my conversion to Christ I was water baptized.

o2bwise
September 8th, 2001, 11:47 AM
Hello Freak,

So when he refers to baptism it is a baptism unto a different Jesus. So this baptism is not a legit baptism but a false one. Hence my statements and my concerns.

There is NOTHING in the content of your introduction to this topic nor in ANY post subsequent to this, that HINTS that your concern was that it was "unto a different Jesus."

YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

o2

Freak
September 8th, 2001, 11:48 AM
Paul did you read any further? Apparently not! For if you had you would have not made such uninformed comment.

Freak
September 8th, 2001, 11:49 AM
o2bewise,

You are a false teacher. Your the one claiming that baptism unto a false Jesus will save one.

o2bwise
September 8th, 2001, 11:59 AM
You are a false teacher. Your the one claiming that baptism unto a false Jesus will save one.

Even were this to be so, this does not IN ANY WAY nullify the fact that YOU ARE A LIAR.

Your whole point, in starting this topic, was to point out that I am heretical because I believe baptism is a part of the gospel.

YOU DID NOT OFFER ANY CONDITIONS, SUCH AS "A BAPTISM UNTO A FALSE JESUS." You said baptism, PERIOD and you even cited 1 Corinthians 15 and stated that Paul makes no mention of baptism.

YOU PATHETIC LIAR. YOU ARE UNSCHOOLED IN THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THE SCHOOL OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN ONE'S OWN SIN IS AT HIS DOOR. YOU HAVE DONE IT BEFORE AND YOU DO IT AGAIN.

NOW YOU CHANGE THE "STORY" SO AS TO DECEITFULLY STEER YOURSELF AWAY FROM ANY WRONGDOING. WHAT A PATHETIC, DECEITFUL LIAR YOU ARE.

LIAR!!!

tralon
September 8th, 2001, 12:59 PM
Well, there's no love lost between Freak and Ob.Anyway when one receives the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" it comes on a person THROUGH faith and is not administered through titles, such as "in the name of Jesus". When the disciples were spirit baptised at Pentecost they were simply praying and the Holy Spirit fell upon them.But when Peter gave his sermom about repenting and being baptised, he was refering to WATER baptism "in the name of Jesus".

I believe Ob is right in some areas.Paul wasn't big on water baptism.And water baptism is NOT part of the gospel message.It COMPLIMENTS it as SYMBOLICALLY picturuing the death and burial of Christ, but never is the heart of the gospel itself. But nevertheless Paul didn't abandon water baptism as some think.For if you read the account of where he dealt with the phillipian jailor and his famil in Acts 16 you will see that right AFTER he preached Jesus Christ to them he took them out to be baptised THAT VERY NIGHT.Yes, Paul considered baptism of spiritual importance.

Kevin
September 8th, 2001, 02:36 PM
Freak,

You said:


Since you think baptism is part of the Gospel I stand by all my statements.

Have you read 1 Cor. 15 where paul clealry explained what the Gospel is? Hint: It has nothing to do with baptism.

I believe that the baptism of Jesus (which includes water) IS necessary for salvation. I marvel at your above statement. You don't think that baptism is part of the gospel message??? Please examine the following passage with me:

Matthew 28:19,20

19) "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,

20) teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.


Jesus is clearly commanding the disciples to go out into the world and baptize people. He then goes on to say that those people must be taught to obey ALL things that He commanded the disciples to do. ALL things. In verse 19, baptism was commanded. If Jesus says that we should "observe all things that I have commanded you", which includes baptism, who are you to say it's not necessary?! :confused:

If somebody goes out and supposedly preaches the gospel to somebody but leaves out baptism, is that observing all things that Jesus commanded to be observed? No. That would make that person disobedient to Jesus. And Hebrews 5:9 states:

9) And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

So Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to who? All that obey Him. What do you think that says about people who don't obey Him? I'll let you figure that one out....

HopeofGlory
September 8th, 2001, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Please be aware my fellow believers that when o2bewise mentions Jesus , he is referring to another Jesus. The Biblical Jesus is eternal God, o2bewise dismisses this vital truth. So when he refers to baptism it is a baptism unto a different Jesus. So this baptism is not a legit baptism but a false one. Hence my statements and my concerns.

It seems to me that Freak's point is ....For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

If o2bwise believes that Christ is separate from the Father then who's Spirit are we baptized by? Is it the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ?

HardCoreFundie
September 8th, 2001, 06:25 PM
Baptismal Regeneration is a false doctine. We are saved by Faith Alone in Christ Alone.

The Bible says righteosness is imputed by faith. (Romans Chapter 4)

I would like to see one Bible verse that says righteousness is imputed by Baptism, one verse will do fine.

Kevin
September 8th, 2001, 08:17 PM
HardCoreFundie,

I would like to adress the things you said.


We are saved by Faith Alone in Christ Alone.

Compare that with....

James 2:17

17) Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

I could not possibly put it any plainer than the Bible has. Faith ALONE does not save us.

Next you said:


I would like to see one Bible verse that says righteousness is imputed by Baptism, one verse will do fine.

Fine.

Mark 16:16

16) He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

I'm going to assume you've heard this arguement before and attempt to address your probable rebuttle. If this is not the case, I apologize.

I'm assuming that you are going to point out that the condition for condemnation only mentions belief, and nothing about baptism. The answer to this is quite simple: If somebody doesn't believe, then that person is already lost and won't reach the point of baptism. For why would one get baptized into something that he/she doesn't believe in? They wouldn't, and therefore there was no need to mention baptism, because that person is already lost.

Pay close attention to the requirements listed in the begining of that verse that is required for salvation. Belief AND baptism. The significance of the word "and" is essential to understanding this verse's meaning. Two, not one, two conditions HAVE to be met before one can be saved: Belief and baptism! The latter part of that verse doesn't make any difference to the clearly illustrated requirements for salvation.

Freak
September 8th, 2001, 10:28 PM
o2bewise,

Before losing your cool reread my posts.

You will notice I denounce your false teaching that somehow baptism is a part of the Gospel, it is not. This is not a change from my purpose of this thread. You my friend have chosen to keep in theological darkness. This will only cost your eternal soul as you reject the Biblical Jesus.

You may be able to deceive some on this forum with your demonic lies but you have NOT deceived me. You promote a false salvation, a false baptism, and a false Jesus.

Kevin,

Have you read 1 Cor. 15? If you had you will admit that baptism is not part of the Gospel, it is merely a response to the message of the Gospel.

PENIEL
September 9th, 2001, 01:06 AM
Freak is like Senator McCarthy during the Cold War who Labeled anyone who did not fit his personal definition of a good American as a Commi Pinko Traitor .

Freak is doing the same in the name of his own brand of Orthodox Religion.

URL=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec97/blacklist_10-24.html

Kevin
September 9th, 2001, 01:35 AM
Freak,


Have you read 1 Cor. 15? If you had you will admit that baptism is not part of the Gospel, it is merely a response to the message of the Gospel.

Sorry Freak, but I will admit to no such thing. Let's look at the 1 Cor. 15, verses 1 and 2:

1) Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you recieved and in which you stand,
2) by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you-unless you believed in vain.

Freak, the first thing I would like to point out is that this is a letter to the brethren of Corinth, not to a group of people who had not been converted/saved. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated. Notice that Paul says in verse 2 " by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you". "Preached", being past-tense, means that the gospel message had already been preached to them. If somebody has already been converted (in which baptism is a part of that process), then of course there would be no mention of that. Baptism is a one time deal, and it allows us as sinful humans to put away our bodies of sin and be reborn in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:3-6).

What I'm getting at is that these brethren at Corinth had already been baptized. How do I know that? Because there is a clear example in the Bible of sinners being converted and becoming brethren, it's in Acts chapter 2, the first recorded gospel message (good news) to some jews. Let's examine it.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter is preaching to the Jews and going over a brief history with them, leading up to the point of letting them know that they were responsible for crucifying the Son of God. It says that the Jews were "cut to the heart" and asked Peter and the rest of the apostles what they had to do be saved. The very clear response is in verse 38:

Acts 2:38

38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Two conditions had to be met before people could recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit, thus being saved:

1) Repentance
2) Baptism

This is a command that is given in the imperative mood and was to be obeyed at once. Both repentance and baptism carry equal authority, and must be obeyed in order for the result to happen; the recieving of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice also verse 41:

41) Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

This shows that the Jews indeed obeyed the command to be baptized, and as a result, "about three thousand souls were added to them."

Notice that this verse does NOT say something like "Then those who glady recieved his word had their souls added to them, and then they were baptized". No, it was talking about people who heard the word and obeyed it, which included the command to be baptized. ONLY then were their souls added to them.

Just as the Jews obeyed the command to be baptized (verse 41), so should we. If we don't, then we are not obeying Christ (Matthew 28:19,20), and that WILL cost you your soul. We are only saved if we obey Christ (Hebrews 5:9).

Acts chapter 2 is a clear example of how a person who is dead in sin can become saved and join other brethren around the world, just like the brethren of Corinth. The Corinth brethren were baptized because Jesus Christ commanded it in the great commission, which you failed to address, so I'll post it again:

Matthew 28:19,20

19) "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,

20) teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Jesus commanded His disciples to go out into world and baptize people and for those people to observe ALL things that Jesus commanded the disciples to do, which INCLUDED baptism. What did Paul go out and preach? THE GOSPEL. And when Paul obeyed Jesus and went out to Corinth "making disciples and baptizing them", those people who believed were baptized (or your telling me that Paul disobeyed Jesus's DIRECT order to do that very thing), and they were saved... because they heard the gospel and they obeyed it!

So I ask you again, knowing that baptism is commanded by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, how can you say that baptism isn't necessary?? If we don't obey Jesus, then He is NOT the author of eternal salvation to that person, because Heberws 5:9 states:

9) And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

It clearly states that He is the author of salvation to who? All who obey Him. Where do you think that leaves the people that don't obey Him? I'll spell it out just so there's no confusion: HELL.

Is baptism necessary for salvation? You bet it is. Obey the word!!

o2bwise
September 9th, 2001, 07:19 AM
Hope,

Please dispense with doctrine (I mean this in a certain sense) and just be HONEST. Know something by its words and actions. (I realize in this case, we only have words).

When Freak opened up this topic, he denounced my views of baptism as heretical on the following basis.

1. Baptism is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 (neither is Christ's blood by the way).

THAT was his point. The original post had NOTHING to do with whether or not the baptism I believe in is unto "another" Christ.

Just LOOK at the start of Freak's topic to find even a HINT of that. It won't be found.

THEN I brought up Romans 6:4. He then SWITCHED (LIED, DECEIVED). He tried to put on the appearance of ALL THE WHILE attacking my belief that baptism is part of the gospel NOT by claiming 1 Cor 15 and its not mentioning baptism, BUT by saying my view is heretical because I believe in a baptism unto "another" Christ.

That is just plain dishonesty.

Now, one thing I see often in these kind of forums is the sinful practise of preferring a person's words BECAUSE of what that person believes.

Such as:
o2 has this weird non-Trinitarian belief. Thus, I will typically find him to be wrong - no matter what.

Freak is Trinitarian and is a zealous defender of the truth (hooray!). Thus, I will typically defend him - no matter what.

The truth is, the words we offer contain their own innate veracity. Regardless of what Freak believes and regardless of what I believe, the words often stand, just as they are.

In this case, Freak is being a dishonest, deceiving LIAR.

Also in this case, sadly, you appear to be in the category of defending Freak because you like how he believes and dislike how I believe.

Freak's behavior, sometimes, is beneath the typical behavior of the heathens that post in this forum.

Nice "ally," huh?

o2

Freak
September 9th, 2001, 08:59 AM
o2bewise,

Attacking others is not the solution.

You embrace a false baptism and you believe that in order to be saved you have to be baptized, this is a false teaching. I'm not sure where you get all this other stuff from. You are in a make believe world and that my friend is dangerous. I urge to come back to Biblical Christianity.

I warn you with Scripture: If anybody is preaching to you a Gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemend (Galatians 1:9). O2bewsie, you are the one Paul is warning us of. You preach "another Gospel" and a false Jesus.

You deny that Jesus is eternal God. This alone places you in the kingdom of Satan. I would urge you to surrender your life to the right Jesus and the not the wrong Jesus before you die. There is but One Jesus (the one who is eternal God) who can forgive you of all your sins. Begin a relationship with Him right now.

Kevin,

Answer the question please. Did Paul mention baptism in 1 Cor. 15? Your answer will help those reading these posts. Paul did not believe that Baptism was part of the Gospel hence him saying "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel,..." (1 Cor. 1:17). He made a difference between baptism and the Gospel. Do you see it or are you blinded like O2bewise?

tralon
September 9th, 2001, 09:31 AM
Is water baptism necessary FOR the Christian? If so why, if he is saved by faith alone? The answer lies in WHAT baptism symbolizes or pictures.According to Paul in Rom 6:3-4 it is a symbol of the believer being BURIED WITH CHRIST and being RAISED to a NEW LIFE.Also in Gal 3:27 Paul say that in baptism we PUT ON Christ.These verses are HIGHLY significant and not to be taken lightly.So what does this all mean?

It is like you sign up for the army.You raise your right hand to take the oath to serve your country and the army.That pictures your faith.Now you go and get your uniform.You PUT it on.That shows the world and those around you that you wear the uniform of the US Army and CHOSE to do so.This is what baptism represents.When you are immersed in the waters of baptism you are IDENTIFYING yourself with Jesus Christ, but at the same time you are PUBLICALLY showing everyone seeing you that you have chosen to be identified with Jesus.Baptism doesn't offer any salvation, but it confrms the reality of of you genuineness to become a Christian and wanting to be identified with Christ.

Freak
September 9th, 2001, 11:40 AM
dr.Racism,

Thank you for your comments however you are you wrong.

The fact is heretics of our day desire to promote a belief that baptism will somehow save you. This is a lie from the pit of hell. The Apostle Paul made it clear "justification is by faith" (Romans 5:1).

Freak
September 9th, 2001, 12:17 PM
dr.Racism,

I will not be responding to you anymore because you lack any theological knowledge which makes it hard for anyone to discuss these issues with you. Good Luck with your life.

Kevin
September 9th, 2001, 04:29 PM
Freak,


Answer the question please. Did Paul mention baptism in 1 Cor. 15? Your answer will help those reading these posts. Paul did not believe that Baptism was part of the Gospel hence him saying "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel,..." (1 Cor. 1:17). He made a difference between baptism and the Gospel. Do you see it or are you blinded like O2bewise?


NOW I see what you are asking. When you asked me if I've read 1 Cor. 15, I took that as chapter 15, not 1 Cor. 1:15. Could you be more precise in the future so I don't spend time answering the wrong passage? Thanks.

Now, I will address your question concerning 1 Cor. 1:15. When Paul says that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (verse 17), he was not in any way shape or form implying that baptism isn't necessary. Not at all. If you look at the context of chapter 1 in it's entirety, the reason behind verse 17 is quite clear.

Starting at verse 10 it says:

10) Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amoung you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Paul is pleading with the brethren at Corinth not to become divided. Divided over what? Verses 12-13 hold this answer:

12) Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."
13) Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The Corinthian brethren were being divided over who actually baptized them. They were placing spiritual importance on the person that baptized them, as if the people who where baptized by Paul had a better baptism than somebody who was baptized by Apollos.

We as Christians are commanded to be baptized into Jesus Christ, and not into anybody else. That's why Paul asked them "Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?", because these people were missing the whole point of baptism. We are all baptized into Christ regardless of who does the actual baptizing. But the Corinthian brethren didn't see it that way, and were being divided, based on the person that baptized them, which is why Paul is rebuking them.

Paul's displeasure with them is evident in verses 14 and 15:

14) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15) lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.

Paul said this because if he had baptized more people than he already did, the problem would be even bigger, having more people saying "I am of Paul".

So finally, that leads us to verse 17:

17) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Paul is simply saying that baptism is not his main focus, not that baptism isn't necessary. Paul's main focus was to preach the word of God. Notice, however, that everybody spoken about in these verses were indeed baptized. It's just too bad that these people were making a big deal about who baptized them, or else Paul would have no need to rebuke them about this. Why would Paul preach that baptism isn't necessary when it was commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:19,20?

A perfect example of what I'm talking about can be found in John 4:1-2:

1) Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John
2) (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)

See the similarity? Based on verse 2, because Jesus didn't baptize people Himself (just like Paul's main focus was not to baptize people himself), would you make the assertion that baptism isn't necessary, just because He (Jesus) didn't do the act? If so then explain to me why Jesus Himself went on to say in Mark 16:16 that "he who believes AND is baptized will be saved". Also explain to me why He commanded it in the great commission (Matt. 28:19,20).

Freak, I have asked you two times and you haven't answered, so I will ask again:

Knowing that baptism is commanded by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19,20), who are you say that baptism isn't necessary?? If we don't obey Jesus's commandments, then He is NOT the author of eternal salvation to that person, because Heberws 5:9 states:

9) And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

It clearly states that He is the author of salvation to who? All who obey Him. Where do you think that leaves the people that don't obey Him? I'll spell it out just so there's no confusion: HELL.

So again, who are you to say that baptism is not necessary, when the Lord has commanded it? Answer that question please.

PENIEL
September 9th, 2001, 04:37 PM
As usual Freak is the Opposite of Graciousness to his fellow Christian.


Too bad that he has not developed any Fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Freak does not know that a person

has to have Faith before he is Baptized.

But it is not easy to change the mind of a Stiff necked person.

EricU
September 9th, 2001, 08:33 PM
You guys, this isn't that difficult. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is what saves since the Holy Spirit washes away our sins. Anyone can be dunked under water but it's the Holy Spirit that saves. Baptism is a cerimony and is symbolic as it is used today. Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I believe, comes on someone the moment they are saved.

There are 2 different types of baptism being used on this board. One physical, the other spiritual. One symbolic, the other is the is when one becomes saved.

Kevin
September 9th, 2001, 09:48 PM
EricU,


You guys, this isn't that difficult.

I agree, it's crystal clear to me.


Baptism by the Holy Spirit is what saves since the Holy Spirit washes away our sins. Anyone can be dunked under water but it's the Holy Spirit that saves.

The gift of the Holy Spirit saves us, but water is a crucial part of the baptism of Jesus, not just of John. I am aware that John said "I baptize with water, but He who comes after baptizes with the Holy Spirit", but John isn't saying that water won't be necessary. The only reason John said that is because John, or any other human, was incapable of baptizing with the Holy Spirit since it hadn't come yet. After all, who could be the perfect lamb of God but Jesus? All John could do was the water part. The gift of the Holy Spirit (salvation) had not yet come.

John 3:5 states:

5) Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless on is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

As you said earlier, this isn't that difficult. That verse is clearly speaking about the requirements for being reborn, and it includes water, as well as the Holy Spirit. Anybody who teaches that water isn't necessary goes against this verse, and thus Jesus.

That's why the Bible has examples like Phillip baptizing the Ethiopian. Look for yourself in Acts 8:35-36:

35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36) Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

This isn't the baptism of John... no siree, this is the baptism of Jesus Christ mentioned here (verse 35). The fact that the eunuch asked "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" proves that Phillip instructed baptism with water, or why would the enuch mention water at all? Phillip was instructing the eunuch about baptism, which is what Jesus commanded in the great commission (Matt. 28:19-20), and it inlcudes water. This passage and the "unless you are born of water and Spirit" passage proves that water is involved.

Another example of Jesus's baptism requiring water is in Acts 10:47-48:

47) Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

I couldn't say it any plainer. Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized?

If you think that they were saved in verse 44 when the Holy Spirit fell on them in the miraculous measure, then explain to me Numbers 11:25. It states:

25) Then the Lord came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and placed the same upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, although they never did so again.

In both Acts 10:44 and Numbers 11:25 the Holy Spirit fell upon people and the result was the same: the people were given miraculous spiritual gifts. The people in Numbers prophecied, while the people in Acts spoke with tongues. My point is this: If the falling of the Holy Spirit is what saved those people in Acts 10:44 then the people in Numbers 11:25 were saved also, becuase the same thing happened to both parties. And if the people in Numbers were saved, then that means there was salvation before Christ, and that just isn't possible.

The people in Acts 10:44 had the Holy Spirit poured upon them so that the Jews would know that salvation was available to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. That's why the Jews were amazed (verse 45). Once it was proven to the Jews by miraculous measure that the Gentiles also found favor in God's eyes, the Gentiles were baptized into Christ Jesus with water. And the baptism of Jesus is the difference between spiritual life and death (Romans 6:3-6).

Freak
September 10th, 2001, 07:43 AM
Kevin,

Do I believe baptism is commanded of course I do just as loving one another is commanded.

But loving people will not get you to heaven. Neither will baptism. Baptism is just that baptism. The blood of Christ however will save you (Hebrews 1:7).

Instead of putting your trust in a act put your trust in a living Person-The Lord Jesus Christ.

The main difference between me and you is this: I tell others it is Jesus that saves. You tell others it Jesus (as if He is not enough) AND baptism.

Ian Day
September 10th, 2001, 08:13 AM
I posted this a while ago, but no-one commented:

Salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner, whereby he is given new spiritual life. Certainly baptism is commanded, but it is for the believer, already saved, already with new life from the dead, already quickened. It is the cleansing of the conscience, the application of the blood of the sacrifice, the blood of the covenant, (Heb. 9 & 13) as the Lord's Supper is the partaking of the sacrifice.

Baptism is understood by evangelical Christians in various ways.
1. "Covenant baptism" equivalent to circ-umcision, therefore applied to babies within the church.

2. "Believers' baptism" administered to new believers as a sign of various spiritual blessings (see above.) Baptism is normally required for church membership. It is not considered essential for salvation, because it is for believers. THe mode of baptism is not important. (My position.)

3. Baptism by immersion required for remission of sins and therefore salvation. A person is considered unsaved until he is so baptised. Immersion is inferred from several texts, but not in fact specified. I reject this understanding.

While I do not hold with infant baptism, I cannot reject it as invalid, because that would mean rejecting as unbelievers many godly Christians alive & dead. Most of those responsible for our translations, commentaries, and the proclaiming of the Gospel down the ages have held this position against the baptist position. Most also accept baptism by sprinkling.

Sprinkling can be understood from Hebrews 9:10 where "various baptisms" refers to Old Covenant sprinklings with water & ashes, water & blood, etc. THe Passover lamb blood was sprinkled on the door posts. With this understanding, Peter's reference to "sprinkled blood" becomes a reference to baptism. (1 Peter 1:2)

When we refer to the LXX we find Naaman baptising himself in the Jordan. (2 Kings 5:14) THe LXX word translated dipped is "ebaptisato" from the Heb. "tabal". Tabal is used a number times to dip, as in dip (LXX "bapsei") & sprinkle, e.g.
Num 19:18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip [it] in the water, and sprinkle [it] upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
THis is part of the "red heifer" ritual referred to in Hebrew 9. Thanks, http://www.BlueletterBible.org/ for easy access to Hebrew & Greek.

From this I understand a dip and pour/sprinkle method to be valid baptism. John could quite easily have stood in the Jordan and baptised by scooping water by dipping cupped hands or a vessel to apply to the head of the penitent sinner. It would have made it possible for 3000 people to be baptised on the day of Pentecost without taking over the public water supply. (Courtesy of the Roman & Jewish authorities who had just crucified the one in whose name the baptisms were taking place!) Sprinkling with a sprig of hyssop would have been possible also.

I don't believe a believer who was not baptised as a baby who learnt about believers' baptism would refuse it. He has the Holy Spirit guiding him. Nor do I think one baptised in infancy & who refused believers' baptism is being disobedient to Christ's command, if he understands "covenant baptism."

HopeofGlory
September 10th, 2001, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by o2bwise
Hope,

Please dispense with doctrine (I mean this in a certain sense) and just be HONEST. Know something by its words and actions. (I realize in this case, we only have words).

When Freak opened up this topic, he denounced my views of baptism as heretical on the following basis.

1. Baptism is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 (neither is Christ's blood by the way).

THAT was his point. The original post had NOTHING to do with whether or not the baptism I believe in is unto "another" Christ.

Just LOOK at the start of Freak's topic to find even a HINT of that. It won't be found.

THEN I brought up Romans 6:4. He then SWITCHED (LIED, DECEIVED). He tried to put on the appearance of ALL THE WHILE attacking my belief that baptism is part of the gospel NOT by claiming 1 Cor 15 and its not mentioning baptism, BUT by saying my view is heretical because I believe in a baptism unto "another" Christ.

That is just plain dishonesty.

Now, one thing I see often in these kind of forums is the sinful practise of preferring a person's words BECAUSE of what that person believes.

Such as:
o2 has this weird non-Trinitarian belief. Thus, I will typically find him to be wrong - no matter what.

Freak is Trinitarian and is a zealous defender of the truth (hooray!). Thus, I will typically defend him - no matter what.

The truth is, the words we offer contain their own innate veracity. Regardless of what Freak believes and regardless of what I believe, the words often stand, just as they are.

In this case, Freak is being a dishonest, deceiving LIAR.

Also in this case, sadly, you appear to be in the category of defending Freak because you like how he believes and dislike how I believe.

Freak's behavior, sometimes, is beneath the typical behavior of the heathens that post in this forum.

Nice "ally," huh?

o2

O2bwise, I don't believe you can read minds and you have gone a little overboard with your understanding of my intent. My point is as I stated "If o2bwise believes that Christ is separate from the Father then who's Spirit are we baptized by? Is it the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ?". If I misunderstood Freak's point then I apologize to you and Freak.

This question is still to you..."Is it the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ" that baptizes spiritually.

Jason
September 10th, 2001, 12:55 PM
Spot on Tralon!!!

This is what baptism represents.When you are immersed in the waters of baptism you are IDENTIFYING yourself with Jesus Christ

The following is what God does when He saves you:

He identifies you with the Lord Jesus. In His death your flesh has been judged at the cross. In His resurrection you have a new life with Him. You are baptised into Christ. "Baptism now saves you".

When a Christian asks to be baptised by water he should know that he is witnessing to the following position. He is dead in the flesh but alive in Christ. Christians should realize that the act of baptism is God's work, they are simply witnessing to that work by being baptised in water.

The receiving of the atonement results in God baptising you into Christ by the Spirit. The reason why Christians enter into a debate, whether Baptism is part of the Gospel message or not, is for the following reasons.
1) no distinction is made between the Gospel delivered to the Jew and the Gospel delivered to the Gentile.

2) A misconception that there is more than one baptism. The bible speaks only of one. (Eph 4 v 5 ) Note: although there seems to be 2 separate baptisms, water and Spirit, I have argued that our Baptism by the Spirit is the work of God to which we are positioned in Christ. Baptism by water does not achieve a new position. It should not be considered apart.

God saves. We can do no more but to witness to this.

In Him
Jason

EricU
September 10th, 2001, 01:31 PM
But if baptism is required for salvation then Jesus lied to the thief on the cross.

Jesus assured the thief that he would be in paradise with him. He was never baptised. He was on the cross.

Baptism doesn't mean salvation. I know several people who only went through baptism because they thought it was what people did. They cared nothing for God or even talking about Him. Only several years later did some of them actually admit this, even though we had kinda suspected, and commit their life to Christ. Baptism has no power if the person is not willing.

servantofChrist
September 10th, 2001, 06:50 PM
Whoa there, "Freak!"

There are so many conflicts and contradictions in what you've presented it's really hard to know where to start.

You cite scriptures mentioning salvation being given to the individual, but with no mention of baptism. For instance, Acts 16:31 - "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household." According to your own logic, and your own use of the scriptures, if that is ALL that is necessary for one to be saved, then one can keep on being a liar, a thief, a fornicator, an adulterer, or even a murderer, and be saved only if he believes in the Lord Jesus. That is the NECESSARY CONCLUSION we must reach, and believe, according to YOUR logic - BECAUSE ACTS 16:31 SAYS NOTHING ABOUT REPENTANCE! Moreover, I can just ignore Rom. 10:10, which says, "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," and believe and teach everyone else that they don't have to confess the name of Christ to be saved, because Acts 16:31 says all you have to do is "BELIEVE" in Him!

What do you think, Freak?

Also, please answer this: Why do you do a "patchwork" with the New Testament scriptures, picking and choosing the ones that fit what you believe, and conveniently dodging or detouring around others that say more on the subject of salvation? Like 1 Pet. 3:21, which says - "Baptism also now saves you"?

Those 5 words, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoken by the apostle Peter, form an INDEPENDENT CLAUSE - a COMPLETE THOUGHT which STANDS ALONE. "Baptism" is the subject, "saves" is the verb, telling what baptism does, and "you" is the direct object of the verb - making "you" (all of those who obey the Lord in baptism) the direct object of the action being performed by baptism - which is being "SAVED!"

I await your comments, Freak!

servantofChrist
September 10th, 2001, 07:34 PM
Hi EricU,

I appreciate what you said about the thief on the cross. But there's no contradiction at all about the theif being saved without baptism and the belief/teaching now that baptism IS necessary. Here's why...

First of all, Jesus had "authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mk. 2:10). Thus, as He went about healing the sick, at times he would say, "Son, your sins are forgiven" (eg. Mk. 2:5).

But AFTER THE CROSS the time came when Jesus would no longer be on the earth to forgive men of their sins as He had been doing. Instead, in His final hours, while with His disciples, He gave TO THEM the following 3-part, great commandment - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...." (Matt. 28:19-20).

Notice the 3 things that the Lord COMMANDED: (1) Make disciples (2) Baptizing them (3) Teaching them to obey everything.

The scope of the command was universal - "ALL NATIONS." And he COMMANDED his apostles to BAPTIZE those who would be His disciples - now watch this, EricU, and everyone else, please: Jesus not only COMMANDED these apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them, He also told THEM to tell THOSE WHO HEARD THEM to obey EVERYTHING He had commanded - And He had just COMMANDED BAPTISM!

Therefore, people of "all nations" who wish to be a disciple of Jesus Christ have been COMMANDED by Christ, through His apostles, to be baptized: "make disciples of all nations, BAPTIZING THEM...and teaching them to OBEY EVERYTHING I have COMMANDED you...."F

The baptism of Christ had not been appointed yet when the thief was on the cross next to Jesus. Moreover, he could obviously do nothing, being nailed to a cross, in demonstrating his faith in the Lord except to do so verbally. At this point, Jesus still exercised His "authority on earth to forgive sins," so He forgave the thief because of the penitence he showed while hanging on the cross. It was ALL he COULD do.

But when Jesus gave the Great Commission to His apostles, and Luke states that "repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem" (Lk. 24:47).

And guess what was preached in the very first gospel sermon to the audience there, beginning at Jerusalem (Acts 2), for them to receive the forgiveness of their sins? Right! "Repent AND BE BAPTIZED, EVERYONE OF YOU [just as Jesus commanded his apostles in Matt. 28:19], in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS...." (Acts 2:38)

Sealeaf
September 10th, 2001, 07:49 PM
Below are two passages from the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church related to their view of Baptism .


Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, SubSection 3, Heading 1
1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.


1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

It would seem that Baptism follows the acquistion of Faith but that one can get around the need for it only by martyrdom. I have heard also of the concept of "Baptism of Desire" but was not able to find a direct reference to it in a short search. I believe that it refers to the idea that one may be saved who would have been baptised if he had been aware of the need to be baptised. I think it may be listed under loop holes;)

Kevin
September 10th, 2001, 09:25 PM
Freak,


Do I believe baptism is commanded of course I do just as loving one another is commanded.

Cool. We both agree that Jesus commanded baptism.


But loving people will not get you to heaven. Neither will baptism. Baptism is just that baptism. The blood of Christ however will save you (Hebrews 1:7).

Loving people by itself will not get you to heaven. That is correct. Baptism by itself will not get you to heaven, that is correct. But both of those things are required, along with other things.

After all, if you don't love people, which is said by Jesus to be the second greatest commandment, do you really think that you will make it to heaven? And when Jesus says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved", do you really think that omitting baptism out of that verse saves you, when it's inseperately joined to belief by the word "and"? We are to obey **ALL** of Jesus commands unconditionally. Look at what the scriptures says about obedience:

Romans 2:6-9
6) who "will render to each one according to his deeds."
7) eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8) but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath,
9) tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

Hebrews 5:9
9) And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

1 John 3:24
24) Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

Revelation 22:14
14) Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and my enter through the gates into the city.

It should be obvious from these verses that the only way we will make it to heaven is if we obey His commandments. Bearing this in mind, even you agreed that baptism was commanded by Jesus. If we obey His commandments, then what happens? We are saved. Accoriding to Hebrews 5:9, Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. If you don't obey Him, is He the author of eternal salvation to that person? No.


Instead of putting your trust in a act put your trust in a living Person-The Lord Jesus Christ.

I most certainly do put my trust in Him. I also believe I should obey everything He commands. Do you?


The main difference between me and you is this: I tell others it is Jesus that saves. You tell others it Jesus (as if He is not enough) AND baptism.

Correction, the main difference between you and me is that I teach that Jesus saves us and that we are to obey all of His commandments. You don't, or you would teach that baptism is necessary, for He commanded it (along with many other things). And the Bible is clear about those who do not keep Jesus's commandments.

Freak
September 10th, 2001, 09:45 PM
Kevin,

Please do not misunderstand me.

Baptism is commanded. But the issue is: Is baptism essential for salvation? The answer is a resounding NO!!!! Baptism cannot save you or anybody else. Jesus can save you however!

The Apostle Paul made it quite clear salvation is by faith alone. He writes: Having been justified by faith we can have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Kevin
September 10th, 2001, 10:01 PM
Ian Day,


ANY COMMENTS????????

Kev pulls out his bag of comments and lays it on the table... :)


Certainly baptism is commanded, but it is for the believer, already saved, already with new life from the dead, already quickened.

Baptism is for the believer who is already saved? I certainly disagree with that statement. You're probably are familiar with Romans 6:3-6, but I'm going to post it and show you why I believe your statement is in error.

Romans 6:3-6

3) Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

4) Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5) For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

6) knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

These verses point out what the baptism of Jesus is all about. Notice in verse 5 is says that IF we have been united together in the likeness of His death (being baptized, verse 3), we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, and our bodies of sin will be done away with... no longer being slaves to sin.

Therefore, if have not been united together in the likeness of His death (being baptized), we will not be in the likeness of His resurrection, our bodies of sin won't be done away with, and we will still be slaves to sin.

So explain to me how a person that will not be in the likeness of His ressurection and is a slave to sin is saved?

Evangelion
September 10th, 2001, 10:09 PM
Freak, if you believe that baptism should be performed, yet you don't belive it's essential for salvation...

...why do you think we were commanded to perform it?

What do you think it's there for?

Why did the apostles keep baptising people when they became believers?

Why is it that those who had already received the baptism of John, had to be baptised again after the ascension of Christ?

Kevin
September 10th, 2001, 10:44 PM
Evangelion,


Freak, if you believe that baptism should be performed, yet you don't belive it's essential for salvation...

...why do you think we were commanded to perform it?

What do you think it's there for?

Why did the apostles keep baptising people when they became believers?

Why is it that those who had already received the baptism of John, had to be baptised again after the ascension of Christ?

That is exactly what I've been trying to tell him. Obedience to His commandments, every one of them, is necessary for our salvation. Amen and Amen! (Glad to see we agree on something :D)

Kevin
September 10th, 2001, 11:06 PM
Freak,


The Apostle Paul made it quite clear salvation is by faith alone. He writes: Having been justified by faith we can have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke 13:3
3) I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

John 3:5
5) Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Neither one of these verses mentions anything about faith, yet, both say that people will perish and/or will not enter the kingdom of God unless the things in these verses are obeyed.

Then you look at James 2:17:
17) Thus also, faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

So faith alone will not save you because dead faith doesn't save! It takes faith along with the works of obeying His commandments. Again, the Bible is quite clear about those who do not keep Jesus's commandment's. And baptism is just one of His many commandments.

kitsune
September 11th, 2001, 04:45 AM
Oh, you're not resurrecting the Heretic Club again are you? Freak, you are bad and may not have a Christian biscuit.
Seriously, I think you and O2 are referring to different things when you talk about baptism.

Evangelion
September 11th, 2001, 05:10 AM
Thanks for the support, Kevin. :)

As you can see, Freak's argument is self-defeating! :D

Ian Day
September 11th, 2001, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Kevin
Ian Day,

Kev pulls out his bag of comments and lays it on the table... :)

Baptism is for the believer who is already saved? I certainly disagree with that statement. You're probably are familiar with Romans 6:3-6, but I'm going to post it and show you why I believe your statement is in error.

These verses point out what the baptism of Jesus is all about. Notice in verse 5 is says that IF we have been united together in the likeness of His death (being baptized, verse 3), we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, and our bodies of sin will be done away with... no longer being slaves to sin.

Therefore, if have not been united together in the likeness of His death (being baptized), we will not be in the likeness of His resurrection, our bodies of sin won't be done away with, and we will still be slaves to sin.

So explain to me how a person that will not be in the likeness of His ressurection and is a slave to sin is saved?
Just as there was a spiritual, heavenly reality in the Old Covenant rites, so there is a spiritual, heavenly reality in the New Covenant rites.

I'm sure you will agree that baptism per se has no saving efficacy. Baptism only has significance for the believing subjects of baptism.

Baptism is A SIGN to the believer of all that the Holy Spirit of God has done in the heart of the believer (death of the old sinful life, and new life in Christ), and of the application of the saving blood of Christ. It speaks of cleansing the conscience, so that the sprinkled water shows the application of the sprinkled blood. (Heb. 9 & 10, 1 Peter 1:2, 3:21.)

While baptism per se does not save, to refuse baptism is to reject the command of Christ. While such people may be saved, they should not be granted membership status in the church, or allowed to partake of the communion.

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.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Ian Day
September 11th, 2001, 05:47 AM
My answers in red.



Originally posted by Evangelion
Freak, if you believe that baptism should be performed, yet you don't belive it's essential for salvation...

...why do you think we were commanded to perform it?

There were various typical baptisms under the Old Covenant. (See Heb. 9) Baptism shows the cleansing by the blood of Jesus. (Among other things.) It is commanded by Christ to show the believer graphically what has been done in his heart. And for the believer to show that he submits to God in repentance & faith, and therefore qualifies to be a recognised member of the church.

What do you think it's there for?

See above.

Why did the apostles keep baptising people when they became believers?

See above.

Why is it that those who had already received the baptism of John, had to be baptised again after the ascension of Christ?

There is only one case of this. Presumably they were not in fact believers, but repented at the preaching of Paul. Note that the had not heard the message of John about Christ baptising with the Holy Spirit.

THere is no suggestion that the Apostles or the 70 were rebaptised. Rather, the baptism of John was recognised:
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Freak
September 11th, 2001, 07:17 AM
Kevin, Evangelion, & all the other heretics,

Go back and reread my post.

Did Paul not say "having been justified by faith" (Romans 5:1). How are we justified according to Paul? By Baptism. Nope, try again. By obeying all God's commandements? Nope, try again. By faith in Christ. YES!!!!

Note that Paul did not mention that justification comes by the act of baptism or obedience to God's commandments. It comes "by faith".

Kevin,

You mentioned James as being evidence that we ought to have works in order to be saved. That is absurd and laughable. At what point will you have enough good works to be saved. By what objective standard do you use to test this? I would think perfection would do it. But the problem is wer're utterly sinful (Romans 3:23) we cannot attain perfection. By the way the Book of James was written to believers those whom already were saved by Christ. Yes, believers who know Christ should have good works. But good works does not save (Eph. 2:8-9).

Ian Day
September 11th, 2001, 08:14 AM
Kevin, you say:

So faith alone will not save you because dead faith doesn't save! It takes faith along with the works of obeying His commandments. Again, the Bible is quite clear about those who do not keep Jesus's commandment's. And baptism is just one of His many commandments.
None of us suggest that dead faith has any saving power. It is the subject of our faith - the Lord Jesus Christ - who saves and saves to the uttermost those who come to God through him.

If keeping God's commandments is required we are all lost. As, of course we are. Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Were Abraham & Rahab saved by keeping the Law? What were the works which showed their faith?
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

tralon
September 11th, 2001, 08:25 AM
Freak your denial of the necessity of water baptism simply does not hold water.One is truely justified by faith in Christ, but baptism is an expression OF THAT FAITH.So much so that Paul says in Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 that the believer is identiified with Christ BY baptism.It is a confirmation ordinance showing our union with the Lord Jesus Christ.It is the same with communion.We partake of the Lord's Supper as an expression of our faith with Christ in our mind and hearts.We become unified with his death on Calvary.Baptism by water is an essential church ordinance for the believer and is not to be taken lightly.

I personally do not hold to the teaching of "baptism regeneration" as taught by many Christian denominations today, because of the fact regeneration means in essence to produce life.All the water in the ocean could not do this.But water baptism has GREAT spiritual significance of which you overlook.I suggest you restudy the subject.

Evangelion
September 11th, 2001, 09:56 AM
In case you hadn't noticed, I was actually supporting baptism as part of the salvic process!

My questions were directed at Freak, who's been incapable of defending his wild views on the subject. ;)

With regard to a few of your points...

>
There were various typical baptisms under the Old Covenant. (See Heb. 9) Baptism shows the cleansing by the blood of Jesus. (Among other things.) It is commanded by Christ to show the believer graphically what has been done in his heart. And for the believer to show that he submits to God in repentance & faith, and therefore qualifies to be a recognised member of the church.
>

I agree with all of this. But I'd like to add that baptism is also symbolic of death and resurrection. Specifically, the death and resurrection of Christ, with which we identify by our immersion.

>
There is only one case of this. Presumably they were not in fact believers, but repented at the preaching of Paul. Note that the had not heard the message of John about Christ baptising with the Holy Spirit.
>

Actually, we're told that they were believers, and that some of them were converting others. Observe:

Acts 18:24-28.
And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

>
THere is no suggestion that the Apostles or the 70 were rebaptised.
>

Agreed. And it is most likely that those who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost were considered to be "exempt" from baptism, since they'd clearly been accepted.

>
Rather, the baptism of John was recognised:
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
>

Yes, the baptism of John was recognised. But not in every case.

Evangelion
September 11th, 2001, 10:12 AM
...that Freak can't deal with this subject because his brain is too small.

:D

Ian Day
September 11th, 2001, 10:43 AM
Evangelion,

We don't read of Apollos being rebaptised. He was already fervent in the spirit .

The 12 Ephesians were "disciples" rather than "believers."

Evangelion
September 11th, 2001, 11:41 AM
...what was it that they had to "explain to him more perfectly", do you think?

And why else would the baptism of John be mentioned?

Freak
September 11th, 2001, 12:22 PM
It's amazing not one person dealt with my last post.

Evangelion
September 11th, 2001, 12:36 PM
You didn't respond to our posts.

We're still waiting for the explanations, dude.

Remember, I had asked you:


Freak, if you believe that baptism should be performed, yet you don't belive it's essential for salvation...

...why do you think we were commanded to perform it?
What do you think it's there for?
Why did the apostles keep baptising people when they became believers?
Why is it that those who had already received the baptism of John, had to be baptised again after the ascension of Christ?

Better get busy with those answers, my lad... ;)

servantofChrist
September 11th, 2001, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Kevin,

Please do not misunderstand me.

Baptism is commanded. But the issue is: Is baptism essential for salvation? The answer is a resounding NO!!!! Baptism cannot save you or anybody else. Jesus can save you however!

[QUOTE]The Apostle Paul made it quite clear salvation is by faith alone. He writes: Having been justified by faith we can have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.[QUOTE]

Freak, you got it wrong again! You said that Paul makes it clear that salvation is "by faith alone." But the verse you quoted to prove it - does NOT prove it! It says by "faith" - it does NOT say by faith ALONE! The word faith is used there in a comprehensive sense, which includes obedience. Freak, would you please ask yourself this... If one is saved because he believes IN Christ, then don't you think this also means that he who believes IN Christ will also believe WHAT HE SAYS? To believe in Christ as LORD over all, means that if He COMMANDS us to do something, we will obey His word IMPLICITLY - AS MANY COMMANDS AS HE HAS GIVEN.

Answer this, please - We are COMMANDED to believe in the Lord Jesus (Acts 16:31) to be saved. We are also COMMANDED - BY CHRIST HIMSELF - to be baptized (Matt. 28:19-20). How then can you possibly say that only one of those two commands is necessary for us to obey to be saved, when 1 Pet. 3:21 specifically states - "baptism also now saves us"?

You cite Rom 5:1 as proof that "faith alone" saves us. But, quite to the contrary, the only verse in the N. T. that contains the words, "faith alone," REFUTES everything you are saying. It is Jas. 2:24, which says, "You see that a man is justified by works, and NOT BY FAITH ALONE" (emphasis added).

Kevin
September 11th, 2001, 11:08 PM
Freak,


You mentioned James as being evidence that we ought to have works in order to be saved. That is absurd and laughable.

Wow. I truly pity the person who says that Apostle James's words are "absurd and laughable". I truly do.



At what point will you have enough good works to be saved.

When you have obeyed all of the works commanded of us.


By what objective standard do you use to test this?

The Holy Bible.


By the way the Book of James was written to believers those whom already were saved by Christ.

And your point? Believing alone is not enough (He who believes AND is baptized will be saved), just like faith alone isn't enough. James is the one that says faith alone is dead, so if you have a problem with that, then take it up with James.


Yes, believers who know Christ should have good works. But good works does not save (Eph. 2:8-9).

It's funny how you tell me, and others alike to re-read your post, when you can't seem to grasp the text in my posts. Interesting. Show me, in any of my posts, where I said that works by itself would save somebody. Show me. Or show me, in any of my posts, that anything by itself will save you. I said it takes faith ---> AND <--- works. When James says that faith without works is dead, I'm going to believe him over you that says faith only will save me. Call me crazy.

There many verses in the Bible that speak relevant things about our salvation. Things like (paraphrasing here) "Unless you are born of water and Spirit you will not enter the kingdom of God", "unless you repent you will all perish", "He who believes and is baptized will be saved", "It is by grace you have been saved", "we are justified by faith".

Everyone of those pertains to our salvation, so which one is correct, because they all state something different? The simple answer is ALL of them, NOT just one (faith). What kind of faith do you think Romans 5:1 is talking about? Faith without works? Surely not, becuase James, who is just as inspired as Paul, said that faith without works is dead. No amount of spin doctering or perverting of the scriptures will change that simple fact.

Kevin
September 11th, 2001, 11:15 PM
Freak,


It's amazing not one person dealt with my last post.

Besides the fact that I just dealt with it, as well as all of your other posts, I will have you know that I don't get off work until 7:00pm my time. I then try to spend some time with my loving wife and eat dinner and have a Bible study Monday through Thursday. Needless to say, my delayed responses are not because your posts are irrefutable. Not even remotely... I only have so much time.

Kevin
September 11th, 2001, 11:40 PM
Ian,


I'm sure you will agree that baptism per se has no saving efficacy.

By itself, no. Belief and baptism, yes (Mark 16:16). Like I have been trying to tell Freak all this time, if anything is commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, no matter what it is, then it is necessary for salvation because the Bible states very clearly that Jesus is the "author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. (Hebrews 5:9)

Now if one sits back and has all the faith in the world but does not obey His commandments, could that person be saved? Not according to the above verse or Rev. 22:14 "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life...".


...to refuse baptism is to reject the command of Christ. While such people may be saved...

I light of what I have just pointed out, that ones who do His commandments will have rights to the tree of life, how can you say that somebody can NOT do His commandments and still have rights to the tree of life?

Kevin
September 12th, 2001, 12:06 AM
Ian,


If keeping God's commandments is required we are all lost. As, of course we are. Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

God knows full well that we aren't perfect. But He expects us, to the best of our imperfect ability, to keep His commandments. Knowing that we will stumble every now and then in sin, we have Jesus, who is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, to mediate for us. Praise God!

I noticed that you quoted:


Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

You do realize that this is talking about the Mosaic law, don't you? Of course we aren't under that. That's the whole point of the book of Galations. The Galatian brethren were starting to go back to the old law of Moses by saying that circumsicsion was necessary. Paul is simply telling them that they aren't part of that any more since Christ has come.


Were Abraham & Rahab saved by keeping the Law? What were the works which showed their faith?
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

What works did they perform you ask? The answer lies in the very verses that you quoted:

Abraham's work: He offered his son on the alter (verse 21). If he hadn't obeyed this command and done the work commanded, do you think that he would still have been called the Friend of God? No. Look how many times the Israelites disobeyed Gods commandments and He punished them repeatedly for it.

Rahab's work: Harboring the messengers and keeping them safe. If she didn't hide them then she would have been killed along with everybody else in the city when the Jews attacked the city. She was allowed to live because of the work that she did, as well as her belief in God.

HopeofGlory
September 12th, 2001, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Freak

You mentioned James as being evidence that we ought to have works in order to be saved. That is absurd and laughable. At what point will you have enough good works to be saved. By what objective standard do you use to test this? I would think perfection would do it. But the problem is wer're utterly sinful (Romans 3:23) we cannot attain perfection. By the way the Book of James was written to believers those whom already were saved by Christ. Yes, believers who know Christ should have good works. But good works does not save (Eph. 2:8-9).

If James had not lost his head in Acts 12 he would have agreed with Peter about the things Paul preached when Peter said....
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Pet. 3:16 (KJV)

Jason
September 12th, 2001, 01:16 PM
Returning back to the header, The heretics message to the world: be baptized to be saved. I would like to make the following comments:

To instrust a believer that water baptism should be performed before he can claim eternal security, is in my opinion adding to the "Grace thru Faith" Gospel. A christian that thinks, in any way, that there are commands that he needs to fulfill in order to enjoy salvation, has moved from the ground of Grace to law.

Kevin:


But He expects us, to the best of our imperfect ability, to keep His commandments

This cannot be further from the truth. All expectations that God has, have been met in the person of Jesus Christ. He has instead judged our imperfect abilities as He included us in Christ on the cross. All attempts made by us to keep His commandment will fail. He has gone through great pains to prove that to us. No good thing dwells in the flesh. Instead "grow in grace". You have an inheritance with Christ apart from the wills and wiles of the flesh.


You do realize that this is talking about the Mosaic law, don't you?

Did you know that we have been freed from all forms of law. Because the law applies to a man as long as he lives, but when he dies he is free. And you have died with Christ.

HopeofGlory
September 12th, 2001, 02:07 PM
Amen to that Jason!

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Gal. 3:23 (KJV)
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Gal. 3:24 (KJV)
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal. 3:25 (KJV)

Jerry Shugart
September 12th, 2001, 03:50 PM
Kevin

James does indeed speak of Abraham and Rahab being justified by works.

But we must determine whether this is in regard to being "justified before God"(Gal.3:11) or if it is in regard to being "justified before man"(Lk.16:15).

And Scripture definitely states that "if it be of works,then it is no more of grace"(Ro.11:6).

So if Abraham was justified by works,then that must refer to him being justified before man,and not before God:

"For if Abraham were justified by works,he hath something of which to glory,BUT NOT BEFORE GOD"(Ro.4:2).

God,Who searches the heart,does not need to judge a man by his works.A man´s works are but an outer manifestation of the faith within that man.

But man can only judge by appearances.A man is justified by works when judged by his fellow man,for man cannot read a man´s heart.

In His grace,--Jerry

Ian Day
September 12th, 2001, 04:23 PM
Kevin,

I think you have achieved a remarkable thing on any TOL forum :D

Jerry & Ian & HopeofGlory are all in agreement, together with Jason.
:) :) :) :)

Our works in no way make us acceptable to God. Our works are only acceptable because we are IN CHRIST:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

HopeofGlory
September 12th, 2001, 04:53 PM
Yes we do agree!:D

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; Rom. 3:25
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:26
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Rom. 3:27

As we can SEE it is not ... 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.... which is a work!

Kevin
September 12th, 2001, 10:21 PM
Ian,


Our works in no way make us acceptable to God. Our works are only acceptable because we are IN CHRIST:

And just how do you think we become "IN CHRIST"?

Galatians 3:27

27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Thank you for making my point for me ;). You yourself said that works are only acceptable because we are in Christ. And James said that it takes faith with works for faith to be alive. Well, if somebody isn't baptized (a work), they are not "in Christ", and haven't "put on" Christ. If you're not in Christ, you're not with the Father, and you certainly won't be in Heaven.

Ephesians 2:8 doesn't mean that works do not play a role in our salvation. That just saying that it takes the grace of God to save us, for we are all sinners and fall short of His glory. God's grace saves us, but there are commandments that must be obeyed (works) to obtain that saving grace. If we do not obey His commandments, Gods grace won't be upon us.

Evangelion
September 12th, 2001, 10:27 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself, Kevin. :D

Kevin
September 12th, 2001, 10:46 PM
HopeofGlory,


that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:26

And the person who has ture belief in Jesus will keep is commandments, which require unconditional obedience. Why do you think Jesus says "If you love Me you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15). If a person says he has belief and doesn't keep His commandments, then he is the proud owner of a dead belief.


As we can SEE it is not ... 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.... which is a work!

If those people hadn't obeyed Peter and gotten baptized, I can assure you that those people's sins wouldn't have been forgiven. When Jesus commands it in the great commission, He expects it to be obeyed. And there's no way that you can convince me that baptism doesn't play a role in the remission of sins, because when Romans 6:3-6 tells me that it will make our bodies of sin done away with, and I believe just that.

Kevin
September 12th, 2001, 10:51 PM
Evangelion,

Thank you for the support, sincerely! :)

Jerry Shugart
September 12th, 2001, 11:07 PM
Kevin,

You say that "a person who has true belief in Jesus will keep His commandments,which require unconditional obedience."

Are you telling me that since you believed you have completely obeyed the commandments of God?

When asked,"Which is the great commandment of the law?",the Lord Jesus named two commandments.The second is ,"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"(Mt.22:39).

Do you love your neighbor as yourself,Kevin?

In His grace,--Jerry

Kevin
September 12th, 2001, 11:22 PM
Hello Jerry,


Are you telling me that since you believed you have completely obeyed the commandments of God?

In other words am I perfect? No. Not even remotely close. Putting it bluntly, if Jesus commands it, I try to do my best to my ability to follow those commandments. It's humanly impossible to follow 100% of the commandments 100% of the time. That's why we have Jesus there to mediate for us when we repent of our sins and ask for forgivness.

God knows all of our hearts. He knows who strives to obey His commandments and who doesn't. The thing is, when people know that something is a commandment, and chooses not to obey it, that is willful disobedience, and He won't tolerate it. But to the person who keeps His commandments and messes up every now and then and asks for forgiveness, to that person Jesus is the author of eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9).

Ian Day
September 13th, 2001, 03:08 AM
What is saving baptism ?
What is salvation?
Ultimately eternal life, IN CHRIST. THe transformation of a sinner, once dead in trespasses & sins to a living relationship with God in Christ. (John 3, Eph. 2)

This salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, so that believers are said to be born of the Spirit (John 3) or born of God (John 1).

Jesus said that to have life, we have to eat his flesh & drink his blood. (John 6)

I think that all of us will agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively. He's not speaking of communion but the spiritual significance, of which communion is the sign.

Partaking of communion is not eating & drinking the flesh & blood of Jesus. Without already having eternal life, communion is not eating & drinking the flesh & blood of Christ.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

[Testament is if course COVENANT not "will."]

Is baptism essentially immersing a person in water, who then becomes a Christian & receives remission of sins? (suggested by Acts 2:38)

We need to understand "baptism" in terms of its Old Covenant usage, not in terms of ancient Greek recipes for pickles.

Immersion can be inferred from Romans 6, but it nowhere specifically taught in Scripture. Note that the Old COvenant baptism is sprinkling with the blood of the sacrifice. (or the ashes of a sacrifice mixed with water.)

Hebr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers (washings) BAPTISMS, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The significance of baptism is the application of the blood of Christ to the repentant sinner. It speaks to the sinner of the cleansing of his conscience by the precious blood.

And by submitting to baptism, the repentance sinner shows he is a repentant sinner, trusting in the blood of Christ for his cleansing from all sin, and that he is identifying himself with the people of God redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. And declaring his intention to serve the living God.

Hebrews shows that the blood of Christ is the blood of the New Covenant, compared with the blood of the Old Covenant:

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Peter speaks of believers being sprinkled with the blood of Christ:

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

And baptism cleansing the conscience:
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:

Note that it is not the washing but the significance. The antitype (like figure) of being in the ark is being IN CHRIST, by all that baptism signifies.


(Kevin)
If those people hadn't obeyed Peter and gotten baptized, I can assure you that those people's sins wouldn't have been forgiven. When Jesus commands it in the great commission, He expects it to be obeyed. And there's no way that you can convince me that baptism doesn't play a role in the remission of sins, because when Romans 6:3-6 tells me that it will make our bodies of sin done away with, and I believe just that.

Those who believed WERE baptised, and received all the benefits of the saving & cleansing blood of Christ. Those who rejected the message, & did not turn to God & refused baptism did not receive remission. Baptism was a sign to the new believers of the applied blood of Christ. They were baptised as new believers.

New believers, with new life, spiritual life, new hearts, express their faith in Christ.

Whether they are baptised by immersion, or sprinkling, or as infants who believe that theirs was a covenant baptism analogous to circumcision, the new life is real, and is expressed by active obedience & walking with God, in the Spirit. (Micah 6, Gal. 5)

c.moore
September 13th, 2001, 05:59 AM
that is great knowledge Ian:) I agree with you.
I think it is obedience to or Lord Jesus to be baptized in water, like Jesus sence we try to follow jesus ways and do greater things as Jesus Christ we should be fully baptized to show other peolpe like a outward tesimony that we are giving up our old ways, and the sins are buried in the water, and when we come out the water we are beginning a new walk with Jesus Christ.
I believe the baptism will not save anybody, but it is a act of obedience, and it shows the love toward Jesus Christ, who is God.
The first and most important step is the spiritual baptism, and the washing of the blood of Jesus, that is the key to salvation.
I thought I can just add this to gain more knowledge.

God Bless
With all your getting get understanding. prov 4:7

Evangeist C.Moore

HopeofGlory
September 13th, 2001, 11:17 AM
Kevin

If we read Romans 5 we can see how we are baptized into his death. You say it is by obeying in water baptism but this is not what Paul said.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom. 5:1 (KJV)
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5:2 (KJV)

Faith is required not water baptism which you agreed was a "work". If a work is required then salvation must be earned.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Rom. 5:9 (KJV)

We are justified by His blood and the only way that can be received is by faith.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom. 5:15 (KJV)

We can not add to the finished work of Christ and this "gift" must be received "freely" or it is no longer a gift.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:19 (KJV)

It is not "our" obedience but by the obedience of "one" so that the gift may be "free".

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom. 6:3 (KJV)

Notice that it says baptized "into Jesus" not into "water". How are we to get into Jesus?...For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

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. Rom. 6:4 (KJV)

Here it says "into death" not "water" . In other words when we are baptized by the Spirit we are in His body and we died with Him and it is received through "faith".

Jason
September 13th, 2001, 12:43 PM
Kevin

But to the person who keeps His commandments and messes up every now and then and asks for forgiveness, to that person Jesus is the author of eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9).
A distinction:

Our flesh (the nature we inherited from Adam) can never be forgiven. Instead God judged it to death at the cross.
Our sins (the works of the flesh) are covered/forgiven by the blood of our Lord.

The fact that we mess up every now and then is the result of us still walking in the flesh. Even the good we do in the flesh is as filthy rags. Even after our new birth we still have the flesh nature. If there is no more flesh then why do we stumble still in many things? (James 3 v 2) The question is which life are you living from?

"For we know that whoever is born of God does not sin"
1 John 5 v 18

If you are living in dependence on the flesh you are under law, and because you are under law you manifest the fruits of the flesh. The strength of sin is the law.
If you are living in dependence on the Spirit you have no need of the law. You will manifest the fruits of the Spirit because you are free in your position in Christ. This freedom is our inheritance as we have been baptised into Christ, and He is now our righteousness, santification etc.

When we sin ours is the responsibility to confess and then to claim our forgiveness based on our position being in Christ. It is not our responsibility to try harder. It is because of this thinking that we fail in the first place. See Romans 7. Freedom from sin is a right not an effort, based on the the work of redemtion that the Father orchestrated for His good purpose.

William Kelly states:


Every believer is regarded by God as alive from the dead, to bring forth fruit [not works] unto God. The law only deals with a man as long as he lives; never after he is dead. 'For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.' And that is not at all what is said after a 'second blessing,' ... or any other step of imaginary perfection. We began with it ... I am identified with Christ dead and risen. It is no longer the law dealing with me to try if it can get any good out of me. I have relinquished all by receiving the Lord Jesus, and I take my stand in Him dead and risen again ... as one alive from the dead, to yield myself to God.


The Gospel supposes that, good and holy and perfect as the law of God is, it is entirely powerless either to justify or sanctify. It cannot in any way make the old nature better; neither is it the rule of life for the new nature. The old man is not subject to the law, and the new man does not need it. The new creature has another object before it, and another power acts upon it, in order to produce what is lovely and acceptable to God - Christ the object, realized by the power of the Holy Spirit

Jason
September 13th, 2001, 12:53 PM
It is not "our" obedience but by the obedience of "one" so that the gift may be free.

Hopeofglory I like it! :D

HopeofGlory
September 13th, 2001, 03:10 PM
Jason

Thank you very much dear brother and may all the praise and glory be given to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the God of heaven.

Kevin
September 13th, 2001, 09:09 PM
Ian,


This salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, so that believers are said to be born of the Spirit (John 3) or born of God (John 1).

Actually John 3 states "water and Spirit". Not just Spirit.


Jesus said that to have life, we have to eat his flesh & drink his blood. (John 6)

Jesus also said that He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Why are you bringing Jesus's blood into this? I fully realize the signifcance of Jesus's blood. Without it, there wouldn't be any chance of salvation.

But Jesus's blood won't do anybody any good unless we obey His commandments and become baptized INTO CHRIST.


Immersion can be inferred from Romans 6, but it nowhere specifically taught in Scripture. Note that the Old COvenant baptism is sprinkling with the blood of the sacrifice. (or the ashes of a sacrifice mixed with water.)

It may not *specifically* be taught in scripture, but if we are symbolically buried into the death of Jesus through baptism, sprinkling would not come even close to burying somebody, but immersion is spot on with that. When somebody dies, do they take a few handfuls of dirt and throw it on them and say "Yup, he's buried now."? No, they completely cover him, just like immersion completely coverers people.

When Phillip batized the eunich, he baptized him in a river, certainly large enough for immersion. The many baptistry pools that are in Jerusalem, they're around 5 plus feet deep... why do you suppose that is? For sprinkling? Not even.

servantofChrist
September 13th, 2001, 10:37 PM
Whoa Everybody!

I've been reading everyone's posts on works and baptism and I don't even know where to start!

It is more than astonishing, it is AMAZING, how some people will spend nearly a lifetime trying to "prove" that plain statements of the Bible don't really mean what they say!

Observe:

Acts 16:31 says, "BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus and you will be SAVED."

Do you believe that the above statement teaches that BELIEVING in Jesus is necessary to be saved? You say, "Yes." Why? Because it is a plain statement of truth given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

2 Cor. 7:10 says, "Godly sorrow brings REPENTANCE that leads to SALVATION."

Do you believe that the above statement teaches that REPENTANCE is necessary to be saved? You say, "Yes." Why? Because it is a plain statement of truth given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 10:10 says, "It is with the mouth that you CONFESS and are SAVED."

Do you believe the above statement teaches that CONFESSION is necessary to be saved? You say, "Yes." Why? Because it is a plain statement of truth given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

1 Pet. 3:21 says, "BAPTISM also now SAVES you."

Do you believe the above statement teaches that BAPTISM is necessary to be saved? You say, "No." Why? You tell me!

(A) Because it doesn't fit what I was taught
(B) Because I only choose to believe the first 3, not the 4th one
(C) Because baptism is a "work" and we're not saved by works
(D) Because I know that the verse plainly says that baptism saves us, but I've been taught by Pastor so-and-so that baptism does NOT save us. So... even though the scriptures say plainly that "baptism also now saves you," well, that's different from those other 3 you put up there before it. Don't ask me why, I just know it is. I'm going to have to go along with my pastor, after all, he's such a good man and has such a kind, sincere way about him. Everyone's known and loved him for so many, many years. Now how can you NOT believe someone like that if he says baptism is not necessary to be saved. No sir, I'll put my trust in Pastor so-and-so, rather in what the Bible says!

I have a question for all of you who are so hung up on the idea of "works": Do you believe the scriptures teach that a person must REPENT in order to be saved? And you because you think that baptism is a "work," that it doesn't save us? Have you ever seen someone who has heard the message of truth, who knows what he needs to do, but is so enslaved to pornography or compulsive gambling or hooked on illegal drugs, to such a terrible degree that it represents a COLOSSAL effort and struggle on his part to CHANGE, which is exactly what repentance is. So, with tears in his eyes, he tries to change, but yet he is tormented by not being able to break free from being so enslaved to his lust for the sinful pleasures of this world.

You talk about a lot of WORK! It takes some people a TREMENDOUS amount of WORK, a struggle for some, to repent of their sins and turn to Christ and begin trying to live an almost COMPLETELY DIFFERENT way of life.

But according to all of you who are so hung up on the idea of "works," repentance then is NOT necessary to the one who takes a lot of "WORK" to get the job done. Because anything that is a "work" just isn't a part of being saved.

I have one more question, regarding baptism...

Those of you who cite Eph. 2:8, and say that this proves that baptism is NOT necessary to be saved, but rather only "grace through faith"... if the words of Eph. 2:8 are the correct words to use in telling someone what to do to be saved, then why were they NOT the words the Holy Spirit spoke at the conclusion of the very first gospel message ever spoken (Acts 2), to those who asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Why didn't the Holy Spirit say, "Just have faith, because you are all saved by grace through faith." And why did he NOT say, "Just believe in the Lord Jesus, you don't have to be baptized because baptism is a work and you are not saved by works." Nor did the Holy Spirit tell them to just "say the sinner's prayer, and mean it sincerely from your heart, and you will be forgiven of your sins and be saved."

Instead, what the Holy Spirit DID say to that multitude of people who were condemned in their sins, was - Repent AND BE BAPTIZED, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS...." (Acts 2:38)

I truly pity anyone who, when God has plainly told us all what to do to have our sins forgiven, goes before Him in the Great Judgment, and tries to explain to Him why they repented, but DID NOT obey His command to "be baptized" for the forgiveness of their sins; when BOTH commands - "Repent" and "be baptized" - were given in the Greek in the IMPERATIVE mood, which gives REPENTANCE AND BAPTISM EQUAL AUTHORITY, EQUAL URGENCY, AND THEREFORE BOTH ARE EQUALLY BINDING on people of all nations to obey.

Kevin
September 13th, 2001, 10:49 PM
HopeofGlory,


If we read Romans 5 we can see how we are baptized into his death. You say it is by obeying in water baptism but this is not what Paul said.

There is only one baptism, and Jesus's baptism includes water.

John 3:5 states:

5) Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless on is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

That verse is clearly speaking about the requirements for being reborn, and it includes water, as well as the Holy Spirit. Anybody who teaches that water isn't necessary goes against this verse, and thus Jesus.

That's why the Bible has examples like Phillip baptizing the Ethiopian. Look for yourself in Acts 8:35-36:

35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36) Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

This isn't the baptism of John... no siree, this is the baptism of Jesus Christ mentioned here (verse 35). The fact that the eunuch asked "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" proves that Phillip instructed baptism with water, or why would the enuch mention water at all? Phillip was instructing the eunuch about baptism, which is what Jesus commanded in the great commission (Matt. 28:19-20), and it inlcudes water. This passage and the "unless you are born of water and Spirit" passage proves that water is involved.

Another example of Jesus's baptism requiring water is in Acts 10:47-48:

47) Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

I couldn't say it any plainer. Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized (IN THE NAME OF THE LORD).

Again, there is only one baptism, and it says in the above verse that people baptized in in the name of the Lord (baptized into Christ, buried with Him through baptism) inlcludes water (verse 47).

Ian Day
September 14th, 2001, 01:46 AM
Kevin,

Please read my arguments from Hebrews 9 & reply.

HopeofGlory
September 14th, 2001, 02:30 PM
Kevin

QUOTE]5) Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless on is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

That verse is clearly speaking about the requirements for being reborn, and it includes water, as well as the Holy Spirit. Anybody who teaches that water isn't necessary goes against this verse, and thus Jesus.[/QUOTE]

The verse does not say "reborn" of water but "born" of water. The parallelism (use of identical or equivalent syntactic constructions in corresponding clauses or phrases found through out the bible) of the corresponding verse interprets "born of water" for us.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6 (KJV)

So we see that "born of water" is equivalent to "born of the flesh". Also within verse 3:6 we see the contrast between the flesh and the Spirit and this contrast should be applied to it's corresponding verse in 3:5 which is a indentical syntatic construction.

The baptism performed by Jesus is with the Spirit and is not related to water for John said....."I indeed baptize you with water but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost Matt. 3:11. Again we see the contrast between water and Spirit.... I baptism with water "but" (on the contrary) He shall baptism with the Holy Ghost.

I agree there is only "one" baptism and it is ...For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body... 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

Kevin
September 14th, 2001, 09:01 PM
Ian,

What exactly is your point about Hebrews 9? I called my wife in here to see if she could see your point, and she doesn't know what you're trying to say, as I don't either.

Thanks.

Kevin
September 14th, 2001, 09:13 PM
HopeofGlory,


The verse does not say "reborn" of water but "born" of water. The parallelism (use of identical or equivalent syntactic constructions in corresponding clauses or phrases found through out the bible) of the corresponding verse interprets "born of water" for us.

The reason I used the word "reborn" is because of the question that Jesus is answering. You aren't looking at this verse in it's proper context, so I will quote John 3:3-5 for you:



3) Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

4) Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

5) Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus was clearly talking about how one becomes "born again", not how one is "born" (verse 3). In verse 4, Nicodemus asked how one is born again. Jesus then answered Nicodemus how one becomes "born again" (reborn) in verse 5: water and Spirit.

Ian Day
September 15th, 2001, 12:06 AM
Kevin,

Originally posted by Kevin
Ian,

What exactly is your point about Hebrews 9? I called my wife in here to see if she could see your point, and she doesn't know what you're trying to say, as I don't either.

Thanks.
My all red posting on page 6 explains (or tries to) :o

Hebrews 9:10 refers to "baptisms" but for some strange reason is always translated "washings".
Young's Literal Translation gives: only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances -- till the time of reformation imposed upon [them].

Hebrews then goes on in chapter 9 to explain the "different baptisms" & their significance. Particularly the red heifer ritual (Numbers 19) & the covenant ritual (Ex. 24). If you look in Numbers 19:18 in the Greek you will see that that baptism is "dip & sprinkle" the dip word being bapsei.
Num 19:18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip [it] in the water, and sprinkle [it] upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave.

(Use the http://www.blueletterbible.org )

THe bottom line is that Hebrews understands "baptism" in the Old Covenant Scriptures as a "dip & sprinkle" procedure. Christian baptism uses water to symbolically apply the blood of Christ.
Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hbr 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And [having] an high priest over the house of God;
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.

By this I understand that baptism by sprinkling, signifying the application of the cleansing blood, is a valid mode of baptism, and may be the commanded method.

It does not invalidate the "death/burial/resurrection" significance, for it identifies the sinner with the sacrifice.

Note also:
Eze 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Also note that the Jewish leaders expected baptism as a Messianic ritual:
John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

I hope that makes it clear.

servantofChrist
September 15th, 2001, 07:57 AM
I just want to say that "Kevin" hit the target right in middle of the bullseye! His use of the scriptures is true to the mark, about the one baptism being WATER baptism.

The example of Acts 8 serves to prove this, when Philip the evangelist preached Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch, and had concluded his message, the eunuch asked, "See, here is WATER, what hinders me from being baptized." It is clear that the scriptures connect preaching Christ (thus, His gospel message) with WATER baptism. The ex. in Acts 10, of the house of Cornelius also shows this. The baptism of the Holy Spirit came upon them AT THE TIME OF GOD'S CHOOSING, completely independent of their own will. Yet, after this bap. of the Holy Spirit, at the conclusion of Peter's message, he asked who could forbid the "WATER" for those their to be baptized who had heard and believed his message. And then it says that Peter "ORDERED" [KJV, "COMMANDED"] them to be baptized. Thus, HOLY SPIRIT baptism is a ONE-WAY affair. It is "poured out" on certain ones at the time, place, and circumstance OF GOD's CHOOSING; whereas WATER baptism is a command that people must VOLUNTARILY obey. This is the baptism that people of "all nations" must obey if they wish to be a disciple of Christ. This is EXACTLY what Matt. 28:19-20, Acts 2:38, and Acts 8 (Philip and the eunuch) are teaching.

One of the very reasons the example of Philip and the eunuch was recorded in the scriptures, so people of all generations may learn from it, was to show that WATER baptism is the baptism administered to people who believe and obey the gospel of Christ.

Changing the subject... I just want to say, please, that my posts will probably rather few and somewhat far between, for a while anyway, because of the many, many other things that are demanding my attention presently. One of which is, a big load of Bible correspondence courses that just arrived at church from Africa, and I am one of those who grade them. They are VERY time-consuming.

So, if I don't post for a while, it DOESN"T mean that someone has said something that I am unable to "answer," it just means that I am smothered under a lot of other things that I MUST attend to, as well.

I thank the moderators so very much, and all those who put this theology discussion forum together and provided it on the internet - THANK YOU ALL SO VERY, VERY MUCH.

And one last thing, in all our differences in doctrinal matters, let us not forget that we all need to speak with ONE VOICE about the risen Savior - the LORD JESUS CHRIST, because the religion of Islam seems to be rapidly taking over not only the world, but is spreading rapidly throughout this country. And their "god" and religion does NOT tolerate, peacefully anyway, Christianity being diligently preached and practiced (esp. trying to convert members of their religion to Christ), as a short mental "scan" of this picture in Islamic nations will bear out. We MUST all pray and pray that the one and only True God, "Jehovah," will keep the door of opportunity continually open for those who name the Name of Christ, and pray that the pathway will continually be unobstructed that gives free course for Christ and His gospel message to continue in, in this country. But we must ALL be diligent in taking advantage of these opportunities that God gives us, lest they be taken away from us. We must speak forth boldly, yet diplomatically, the name of JESUS CHRIST whenever the opportunity presents itself. May God give us the courage and spirit to do so.

JustAChristian
September 15th, 2001, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Freak
As expected we have heretics spreading their destructive doctrines on this forum, namely O2bewise. Mr. O2bewise said the following on September 6th: "Salvation can only come by baptism".

This pawn of Satan embraces and promotes a doctrine that will lead many to eternal hell. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. Baptism is not a requirement!

One attains eternal life (Salvation) thru simple belief in the person of Jesus. We see this in the words of Jesus when He said: "Everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life" (John 3:15).

Another time when addressing the people of His day, Jesus was asked: "What must we do to do the works God requires?", Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent" (John 6:28-29).

Note no mention of baptism.

Jesus made it clear O2bewise: I AM THE GATE; WHOEVER ENTERS THROUGH ME WILL BE SAVED (John 10:9).

Again no mentione of baptism, apparently to o2bewise Jesus must have misspoken here.

I would urge my fellow believers in the Lord Jesus to come against O2bewise's devilish doctrines. This man degrades our Lord when He speaks against Him by stating Baptism is required to be saved. This is in direct opposition to what our Lord said. Jesus said just come unto Him and you will be saved.

Some unbelievers once asked the disciples: "What must I do to be saved?"

They replied: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (Acts 16:31).

Note again no mention of baptism. Just belief in the Lord Jesus.

I think for me and my household we will listen to Jesus then o2bewise and his wicked ways.


I am sure that o2bewise can show where baptism is essential for salvation from the scriptures, but can freak show where "faith only" plus nothing and minus nothing saves?

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 15th, 2001, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Since you think baptism is part of the Gospel I stand by all my statements.

Have you read 1 Cor. 15 where paul clealry explained what the Gospel is? Hint: It has nothing to do with baptism.

Freak,

If I may, allow me an opportunity to post a statement on the subject of baptism. I believe that this is one of the most misunderstood subjects in the New Testament. It is not that the subject can not be understood, but I believe the Prince of this world, Satan, has blinded the minds of people to simple New Testament conclusions of which baptism is greatly mentioned. Until people accept that Jesus has required a series of acts on our part which can easily be found within the pages of the gospel, after the apostles went forth to preach, we will never understand the beginning of the gospel or the progress of the gospel. To this extent, I am posting an entry on the subject of Baptism.

STUDY ON BAPTISM (Statements made to a student).

It is arresting that you should say, and I quote, "The ceremony of baptism in itself does not save us..." when Peter, the Apostle said, and I quote, "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 Pet 3:21).

You said that in baptism we "pledge to God our lives." The problem with that statement is that the bible does not say that. It says that baptism is the "answer of a good conscience before God". That is to say that in baptism, a person is appealing to God for a cleansed conscience and the answer comes from heaven cleansing the person of past sins. This is stated in Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT BAPTISM
Baptism is the point at which a person is united with Christ into His death and resurrection into "newness of life" (Rom 6:3)
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.
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.

When explaining good works, you said "but those who are saved but do no good works, still get in but have no special credit."
There is not a single passage of scripture to butress this ascertion. In fact the bible says, concerning those who are interested in eternal life, "To them who BY PATIENT CONTINUANCE IN WELL DOING seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:"(Rom 2:7), and again, "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. {9} And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, IF WE FAINT NOT." (Gal 6:8-9), and again, "And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they BE NOT UNFRUITFUL." (Titus 3:14), and again, "Every branch in me that BEARETH NOT FRUIT He(God, the Father) taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:2) People that "do no good works" as you put it, do not have a shred of evidence of being connected to Christ and the eternal purpose of God, for Eph 2:10 says "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." "Good works" in this sense are not works that earn salvation, but actions that are EVIDENCE of the working of salvation in a believer's life!--an important truth to see indeed!!

JustAChristian
:)

Huguenot
September 15th, 2001, 08:17 PM
Fascinating discussion and one worthy of this board. Since I am lazy right now I'll have to wait a few days. Please keep this thread alive!

Freak
September 15th, 2001, 10:55 PM
I have noticed that no one has dealt with 1 Cor. 15 where baptsim is not mentioned as being a part of the Gospel. Hmmmmmmmmm....

Kevin
September 15th, 2001, 11:31 PM
Ian,

Thank you for explaining your post again. Thank you also for not using the red font this time ;). If I understand this correctly, and please correct me if I don't have this right, you are using the book of Hebrews to show that baptism could be sprinkling.

First of all:


If you look in Numbers 19:18 in the Greek ...

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek :D .


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.

By this I understand that baptism by sprinkling, signifying the application of the cleansing blood, is a valid mode of baptism, and may be the commanded method.

The Greek word used for "baptize" (such as Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3) is "baptizo". It has the following definitions:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

There is no mention of sprinkling at all in those definitions. Let's look at Hebrews 10:22 again:

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.

The Hebrew author used the term "sprinkled" as a metaphoric representation to the Hebrews due to the signifacance of the sprinkling of blood in the Old Testament and the effect that it had. Note that this is speaking about the heart (which is spiritual not physical). When it comes to our bodies, it plainly states that it is to be washed. How does the Bible define "wash"? See below:

Acts 8:38-39

38) So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

39) Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

If sprinkling was acceptable for baptism, why didn't Philip fill up a cup or something and pour it over him? It says that they went down into the water and then came up out of the water. That is a far cry from sprinkling. Add to that the definition of the Greek word "baptizo", which is defined as immersion, dipping, etc., and nothing about sprinkling, and one can only come to the conclusion that baptism of total immersion is taught by the scriptures.

It is impossible to be "buried" into the death of Jesus through baptism by sprinkling. It's like saying that you can bury somebody who is dead by sprinkling some dirt on him. If you do that, there will still be a lot of the body exposed, thus it's not buried. When you bury somebody, they are completely hidden from view. That's why when you go to a graveyard ALL you see are tombstones, and nothing of the person's actual body.

Now, I've just shown you a verse that shows a person being baptized by going down into the water and coming up out of the water, completely supporting immersion, as it's defined in the Greek. My question to you is this: Can you show me a verse in the New Testament that says we can be baptized by having our bodies "sprinkled" with water?

Kevin
September 15th, 2001, 11:33 PM
Freak,


I have noticed that no one has dealt with 1 Cor. 15 where baptsim is not mentioned as being a part of the Gospel. Hmmmmmmmmm....

How can you say that the Great Commission isn't part of the gospel? Baptism was certainly commanded there.

Heck if anybody has been dodging questions, it is you. Evangelion noticed it too...

Kevin
September 15th, 2001, 11:37 PM
Huguenot,


Fascinating discussion and one worthy of this board. Since I am lazy right now I'll have to wait a few days. Please keep this thread alive!

I can't make any promises. There's not a whole lot of spare time for me (especially on weekdays) and I've already put in considerable time on this. I have to make time for my family, as well as other things here and there, and I don't want all of my spare time after that eaten up by this discussion board... especially considering the amount of people that I respond to.

Freak
September 16th, 2001, 12:02 AM
Kevin,

I noticed you never answered my question. Please do so. Is baptism mentioned in 1 Cor. 15 where Paul reminds the believers what the Gospel consist of?

Baptism is not the Gospel message. The Gospel is centered on the person of Jesus Christ not some act involving water.

Kevin
September 16th, 2001, 01:33 AM
Feak,


Is baptism mentioned in 1 Cor. 15 where Paul reminds the believers what the Gospel consist of?

You bet it is. You know how I know? The fact that all those people were baptized. And how did they know that they were supposed to be baptized? By what Paul preached to them. What did Paul preach? THE GOSPEL.

Paul's purpose was to preach the gospel. And preach the gospel he did. Next thing you know, people were baptized, which means that part of the gospel message must have included baptism, or how else would they have known to get baptized? If baptism wasn't a part of the gospel, then he wouldn't have commanded baptism, because he wasn't supposed to preach any other gospel other than the one Jesus commanded him to preach in Matt. 28:19-20 (which explicitly states the commandment of baptism). Those people obeyed the gospel they heard from Paul by being baptized. How else would they know to get baptized if Paul didn't preach it to them? The fact is, Paul preached it, and they obeyed it.

Paul's main focus of his duties was not to baptize people, which is why he said that he wasn't sent to baptize. But he DID preach baptism and it's necessity, because Jesus Christ commanded it to be observed by ALL people in Matthew 28:20. And Paul, unlike many people in this world, understood the necessity of obeying Christ's commandments.

Freak, explain to me how somebody can ignore Jesus's commandments and still be saved when the Bible says:

Romans 2:6-9
6) who "will render to each one according to his deeds."
7) eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8) but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath,
9) tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

Hebrews 5:9
9) And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

1 John 3:24
24) Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

Revelation 22:14
14) Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and my enter through the gates into the city.

Facts:

1) The above verses state that people who obey Jesus's commandments will be saved.
2) Baptism was commanded by Jesus Christ.

Again, explain to me how somebody can ignore Jesus's commandments, one of which is baptism (Matt 28:19-20), and still be saved, knowing that it is the obedient people who will have rights to the tree of life, not the disobedient ones.

Freak
September 16th, 2001, 10:27 AM
Let's try this again.

Did Paul mention baptism in 1 Cor. 15 where he reminded the believers of what the Gospel is?

Very simple question. Yet for some odd reason you avoid it.

Again the Gospel is centered on the person of Christ not an act that involves water. Though baptism is important (ever believer needs to be baptized). It is NOT however a part of the Gospel message, it is merely a response to the Gospel.

Paul stated very clearly justification is by faith (Romans 5:1). Justification is not by baptism as you wrongly claim. Yes, as a believer one should obey His commandments but not for salvation. That would be absurd since no human can keep any commandment without the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. So, one first needs to be saved, then they will have the power to live a life of obedience.

HopeofGlory
September 16th, 2001, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Kevin
[B]The reason I used the word "reborn" is because of the question that Jesus is answering. You aren't looking at this verse in it's proper context, so I will quote John 3:3-5 for you:


You have not comprehended the meaning or either you refuse the simplicity of the words in favor of your doctrine! "Born of water" is interpreted in the next verse as "born of the flesh". How one can believe salvation is attained by an act that they perform is without understanding as to how we receive righteousness.

Your insistance that we must be water baptized and receive the Holy Ghost before our sins are remitted is further proof that you do not understand the gospel of Christ.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 (KJV)

They received "remission of sins" and yet the Holy Ghost had not fell of them. You deny these inspired words because it disproves your interpretation of John and destroys your doctrine of works.

You claim we must "obey" your doctrine but to the contrary the bible refutes your idea of our obedience.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:19 (KJV)

Paul clearly stated "ONE" baptism not two and no one with any understanding at all can believe water baptism and Spirit baptism are a single occurrence and thus we cannot consider them to be "ONE" baptism.

I am amazed that even though salvation is "freely" given you say, no way we must earn it .

Kevin
September 16th, 2001, 04:41 PM
Freak,


Did Paul mention baptism in 1 Cor. 15 where he reminded the believers of what the Gospel is?

How is verse 15 a "reminder" of what the gospel is? Where does Paul define the gospel and what it is in that verse? For the second time, how did those people know that they were to be baptized if it wasn't a part of the gospel message? When Paul preached to them, they were baptized, so baptism, at some point of his preaching was brought up, or how would they know to do it?

The gospel is defined by dictionary.com as this:

"One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching."

That is what the gospel is. Look at the part that talks about Jesus's death. When we are baptized, we are baptized into his what? DEATH. That's certainly in accordance the teachings of the gospel.

Now look at the part that says "and recording His teaching." Did He not teach baptism? If you say "no", then explain to me why Jesus bothered with John 3:5, Mark 16:16, and Matt. 28:19-20.


Yes, as a believer one should obey His commandments but not for salvation.

Oh really? I have shown you verses that show that obedient people are the ones who will have rights to the tree of life, which has everything to do with salvation. If you don't have rights to the tree of life, then you aren't saved. Simple.

Now I would like to you show me a verse that says that those who are disobedient will have rights to the tree of life.

Kevin
September 16th, 2001, 04:51 PM
**** oops **** double post.... sorry...

Deleted duplicate...

Kevin
September 16th, 2001, 05:12 PM
HopeofGlory,


You have not comprehended the meaning or either you refuse the simplicity of the words in favor of your doctrine!

I'll tell you what, if you can show me that the answer that Jesus gave Nicodemus in John 3:5 was in answer to something other than what it takes to be "born again", then I will retract my statement.

It's incredible, you're actually trying (unsuccessfully) to convince me that John 3:3-4 doesn't say what it does, that is speaks about being born again and that Nicodemus is asking how one is born again. Jesus answers the question that was just asked of him, in verse 5... telling is how one is "born again". Verse 5 even begins with "Jesus answered".


Your insistance that we must be water baptized and receive the Holy Ghost before our sins are remitted is further proof that you do not understand the gospel of Christ.

I feel the same way about you. It amazes me how things can be so clearly commanded by our Lord, only to have people say it isn't necessary. How sad.


John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 (KJV)

They received "remission of sins" and yet the Holy Ghost had not fell of them. You deny these inspired words because it disproves your interpretation of John and destroys your doctrine of works.

Those people sins were not forgiven when they recieved the baptism of John. It was called a baptism for the remission of sins to prepare people for the baptism that would forgive sins, the baptism of Jesus Christ. That's why people who had only the baptism of John were rebaptized in the name of the Lord. If John's baptism forgave their sins, there wouldn't be a need to get baptized again. But they did get baptized again.

Also, if you are implying that the baptism of John actually forgave sins, then explain to me why Jesus bothered coming down to earth and dying for us, if there was already an avenue of salvation available.


You claim we must "obey" your doctrine but to the contrary the bible refutes your idea of our obedience.

All I can do is shake my head at this statement. Look at these verses again:

Hebrews 5:9
9) And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

1 John 3:24
24) Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

Revelation 22:14
14) Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and my enter through the gates into the city.

HopeofGlory, those verses are from the Holy Bible!. It's not "my" doctrine.


I am amazed that even though salvation is "freely" given you say, no way we must earn it .

You're right, it is freely given. But we as humans must accept it, and accepting it means that you will obey it as well, othewise, you are agruing with the verse about obedience I stated above. That's like saying "Yeah Lord, I believe everything you told me... but I don't think it's necessary to obey your commandments, even though we are told to do exactly that! I'm sure you don't really mean what you say, right?".

Kevin
September 16th, 2001, 08:44 PM
Freak,

Here's another thing I noticed:


Again the Gospel is centered on the person of Christ not an act that involves water. Though baptism is important (ever believer needs to be baptized). It is NOT however a part of the Gospel message, it is merely a response to the Gospel.

You say that baptism is a "response" to the gospel, and is not part of the gospel. Well, if those people responded by being baptized, then at some point during the gospel message, baptism was commanded, or how would they know to respond? Why would Paul preach or command anything that isn't part of the gospel?

HopeofGlory
September 16th, 2001, 08:45 PM
Kevin


It's incredible, you're actually trying (unsuccessfully) to convince me that John 3:3-4 doesn't say what it does, that is speaks about being born again and that Nicodemus is asking how one is born again. Jesus answers the question that was just asked of him, in verse 5... telling is how one is "born again".


I never said the "verses" were not in reference to being born again, another misunderstanding on your part. Jesus said you must be born of water (of the flesh) and of the Spirit (born again).

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? John 3:4 (KJV)

Nicodemus asked how can a man be born again of his mother's womb (of water)?

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 (KJV)

Jesus replies, except a man is born of water (womb) and Spirit (born) he can not enter heaven.Let me say it another way, Jesus said "born" of water and that is what he ment "born" of water not "born again" or "reborn" of water and it is understood that "born" applies to "of the Spirit" not "born again" or "reborn" of the Spirit. These are two "borns" not one born again. You can argue that until the day you die but the verse will remain the same.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6 (KJV)

Jesus interpreted the meaning of verse 5, being born of water we are flesh and being born of the Spirit we are spirit unless YOU believe He just threw that in so we would know that when we are born of the flesh we are flesh. ((((LOL))))

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3:8 (KJV)

Jesus explains it again for all those who are a little slow to understand "every one that is born of the Spirit" not born of the Spirit and water.


Those people sins were not forgiven when they recieved the baptism of John. It was called a baptism for the remission of sins to prepare people for the baptism that would forgive sins, the baptism of Jesus Christ. That's why people who had only the baptism of John were rebaptized in the name of the Lord. If John's baptism forgave their sins, there wouldn't be a need to get baptized again. But they did get baptized again.


I assume you believe your "baptism of Jesus" occurred at Pentecost but we see it is the same baptism for "remission of sins".

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the "remission of sins". Mark 1:4 (KJV)

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 (KJV)

I know this may be hard for YOU to understand but both received the same "remission of sins". The burden is yours to prove otherwise! The terminology "baptism of Jesus" that you continue to use is not biblical and is yet another example of twisting the truth to "imply" a different baptism at Pentecost.


Also, if you are implying that the baptism of John actually forgave sins, then explain to me why Jesus bothered coming down to earth and dying for us, if there was already an avenue of salvation available.

You are a classic example of not being able to divide the word of truth. I imply nothing but believe what the bible says as we ALL should and that is "remission of sins" was received by water baptism beginning with John the Baptist and at Pentecost, there is no difference, it is the same baptism. If you say those water baptism for remission of sins in the Gospels did not actually have forgiveness of sins then you must hold the same for those at Pentecost or prove otherwise!


All I can do is shake my head at this statement. Look at these verses again:

Hebrews 5:9
9) And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

1 John 3:24
24) Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

Revelation 22:14
14) Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and my enter through the gates into the city.

HopeofGlory, psssst, come here for a moment... those verses there... those are from the Holy Bible!. It's not "my" doctrine.



This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Gen. 17:10 (KJV)

Kevin, pssst, that verse is from the Holy Bible do you believe it applies to you?


You're right, it is freely given. But we as humans must accept it, and accepting it means that you will obey it as well, othewise, you are agruing with the verse about obedience I stated above. That's like saying "Yeah Lord, I believe everything you told me... but I don't think it's necessary to obey your commandments, even though we are told to do exactly that! I'm sure you don't really mean what you say, right?".

Kevin, if you "must" be water baptized to be saved it is not "free"!

No one is arguing we are not to obey Christ but that only faith in "HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS" saves us. We obey out of love for Him not in order for Him to repay for it is then of debt.

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; Rom. 3:25 (KJV)
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:26 (KJV)
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Rom. 3:27 (KJV)

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Rom. 4:4 (KJV)
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom. 4:5 (KJV)

Freak
September 16th, 2001, 09:31 PM
Kevin,

Let's try one more time.

In 1 Cor. chapter 15 (not verse 15 as you wrongly assumed), but chapter 15, did the Apostle Paul mention baptism when we reminded the believers of what the Gospel is?

Kevin
September 16th, 2001, 10:40 PM
HopeofGlory,


I never said the "verses" were not in reference to being born again, another misunderstanding on your part.

Perhaps if you had addressed them in you last post there wouldn't be any misunderstandings about that.


Jesus replies, except a man is born of water (womb) and Spirit (born) he can not enter heaven.

We differ yet again ;). The water is not speaking about the water of the womb, because ,again, verse 5 is an answer to a question asked about how one can be born again. Because this verse is an answer (it even starts with "Jesus answered") to the question of how to be born again, crawling up into our mother's womb as an adult isn't the answer. Water means water, and Spirit means Spirit.

If you look at 2 Cor. 5:17, it states:

17) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold , all things have become new.

If anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation, hence somebody is born again. The question at hand now is how does somebody become "in Christ"?

Galatians 3:27

27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

So, from these two verses, one who is baptized into Christ is "in Christ". And one who is "in Christ" is a "new creation". That "new creation" is in somebody who is dead to sin (Rom. 6:6) and walks in the newness of life (Rom. 6:4), hence being born again... which is exactly what Jesus is talking about in John 3:5- being born into a new creation.


That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6 (KJV)

Now there's the born of the womb part that you are looking for. Everybody is born of the womb. Everybody. And until people become "in Christ" through baptism (Gal. 3:27), they are of the flesh.

When a person becomes born again, through baptism (water and Spirit), they are reborn, spiritually. They are a new creature. They are of the Spirit instead of being of the flesh.


I assume you believe your "baptism of Jesus" occurred at Pentecost but we see it is the same baptism for "remission of sins".

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the "remission of sins". Mark 1:4 (KJV)

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 (KJV)

I know this may be hard for YOU to understand but both received the same "remission of sins". The burden is yours to prove otherwise!

Not a problem. Here's the proof. Since you think the Acts 2:38 is the same baptism that John the Baptist performed, let's look at an example of each:

Example of baptism of John:

Matt. 3:11

11) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

It is clear from this verse that one would not recieve the Holy Spirit as a result of his baptism (John's). After all, he said that He who comes after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit. So again, people baptized into this baptism would not recieve the Holy Spirit.

Example of baptism of Jesus:

Acts 2:38

38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, AND YOU SHALL RECIEVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

In this baptism, people recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit. In John's baptism, they didn't. Two different baptisms. One that saves, one that doesn't. The baptism of Jesus one that saves and is the "one baptism" spoken of in Ephesians 4:5.

Now that I have shown that the baptism of Jesus gives one the gift of the Holy Spirt, I will demonstrate again that the baptism of Jesus includes water:

Acts 8:35-36:

35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36) Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

This is the baptism of Jesus (verse 35). After all, why would somebody preach Jesus and then baptize into another? The fact that the eunuch asked "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" proves that Phillip instructed baptism with water, or why would the enuch mention water at all? Phillip was instructing the eunuch about baptism, and it inlcudes water.

The baptism of Jesus consists of being baptized in water and then that person will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. Water and Spirit... [u]just like John 3:5 states. Remember, we cant be born again into a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17) unless we are "in Christ". And we become "in Christ" through baptism (Gal. 3:27).

How can one make it to heaven without being born again into a new creation and becoming dead to sin? You can't. The only way to achieve those things is to be "in Christ" ... by being "baptized into Christ." (Gal 3:27)


The terminology "baptism of Jesus" that you continue to use is not biblical...

Err... what would you like me to call it? The "baptism where one is baptized into Christ" as in Galations 3:27? If someone is "baptized into Christ" it is the baptism of Jesus.


This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Gen. 17:10 (KJV)

Kevin, pssst, that verse is from the Holy Bible do you believe it applies to you?

Before I answer this, I would like to sincerely apologize for my "pssst" remark. It was uncalled for, and I ask for your forgivness. I can see that I didn't edit it out in time. My apologies.

The answer to this is, no. We do not have to become circumcised. How do I know this? Because circumcision was done away with in the old law. The book of Galations covers that very thing.

Now, if you can show me somewhere that says that disobedient people will have access to the tree of life, then I will withdraw my stress on the importance of obedience. God expected to be obeyed in the Old Testament, and He certainly expects to be obeyed in the New Testament.

Kevin
September 16th, 2001, 11:00 PM
Freak,


chapter 15, did the Apostle Paul mention baptism when we reminded the believers of what the Gospel is?

Sigh. I have already dealt with this, and you didn't address my points. I already explained why it wasn't mentioned. Read it again, and try addressing it this time please. Here is a copy of it so you don't have to look for it:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freak,


Have you read 1 Cor. 15? If you had you will admit that baptism is not part of the Gospel, it is merely a response to the message of the Gospel.

Sorry Freak, but I will admit to no such thing. Let's look at the 1 Cor. 15, verses 1 and 2:

1) Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you recieved and in which you stand,
2) by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you-unless you believed in vain.

Freak, the first thing I would like to point out is that this is a letter to the brethren of Corinth, not to a group of people who had not been converted/saved. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated. Notice that Paul says in verse 2 " by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you". "Preached", being past-tense, means that the gospel message had already been preached to them. If somebody has already been converted (in which baptism is a part of that process), then of course there would be no mention of that. Baptism is a one time deal, and it allows us as sinful humans to put away our bodies of sin and be reborn in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:3-6).

What I'm getting at is that these brethren at Corinth had already been baptized. How do I know that? Because there is a clear example in the Bible of sinners being converted and becoming brethren, it's in Acts chapter 2, the first recorded gospel message (good news) to some jews. Let's examine it.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter is preaching to the Jews and going over a brief history with them, leading up to the point of letting them know that they were responsible for crucifying the Son of God. It says that the Jews were "cut to the heart" and asked Peter and the rest of the apostles what they had to do be saved. The very clear response is in verse 38:

Acts 2:38

38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Two conditions had to be met before people could recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit, thus being saved:

1) Repentance
2) Baptism

This is a command that is given in the imperative mood and was to be obeyed at once. Both repentance and baptism carry equal authority, and must be obeyed in order for the result to happen; the recieving of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice also verse 41:

41) Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

This shows that the Jews indeed obeyed the command to be baptized, and as a result, "about three thousand souls were added to them."

Notice that this verse does NOT say something like "Then those who glady recieved his word had their souls added to them, and then they were baptized". No, it was talking about people who heard the word and obeyed it, which included the command to be baptized. ONLY then were their souls added to them.

Just as the Jews obeyed the command to be baptized (verse 41), so should we. If we don't, then we are not obeying Christ (Matthew 28:19,20), and that WILL cost you your soul. We are only saved if we obey Christ (Hebrews 5:9).

Acts chapter 2 is a clear example of how a person who is dead in sin can become saved and join other brethren around the world, just like the brethren of Corinth. The Corinth brethren were baptized because Jesus Christ commanded it in the great commission, which you failed to address, so I'll post it again:

Matthew 28:19,20

19) "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,

20) teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Jesus commanded His disciples to go out into world and baptize people and for those people to observe ALL things that Jesus commanded the disciples to do, which INCLUDED baptism. What did Paul go out and preach? THE GOSPEL. And when Paul obeyed Jesus and went out to Corinth "making disciples and baptizing them", those people who believed were baptized (or your telling me that Paul disobeyed Jesus's DIRECT order to do that very thing), and they were saved... because they heard the gospel and they obeyed it!

So I ask you again, knowing that baptism is commanded by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, how can you say that baptism isn't necessary?? If we don't obey Jesus, then He is NOT the author of eternal salvation to that person, because Heberws 5:9 states:

9) And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

It clearly states that He is the author of salvation to who? All who obey Him. Where do you think that leaves the people that don't obey Him? I'll spell it out just so there's no confusion: HELL.

Is baptism necessary for salvation? You bet it is. Obey the word!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freak
September 16th, 2001, 11:24 PM
Kevin,

You are a heretic.

Why?

Because you seek to add baptism as a requirement to be saved. This is utter blasphemy. The reason I brought up 1 Cor. 15 is twofold.

1> You will notice baptism is not mentioned. Because baptism is not part of the Gospel message.

2> The Gospel is centered on the Person of Jesus Christ-His death, burial, and resurrection. Paul made it clear he wanted to "remind you of the Gospel" (v.1).

As you can see your points are lacking. Paul made it quite clear what the Gospel is. You have rejected the clear teachings of God's Word. This is a shame. It is sad you would depart from the faith that has cost millions of lives (those who have stood for truth in the midst of persecution).

Kevin, one receives the Holy Spirit when one believes in Christ. We see this clealry in Ephesians 1 where Paul states: Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit (v. 13). Belief is the only requirement not baptism to receive the Holy Spirit (see Ephesians 4:30).

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 12:49 AM
Freak, you speak of the gospel message? The gospel message is:

The things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

One of those 'things' is baptism - into the name of Christ.
After all, that's how we 'put on Christ', according to Paul.

I think it's time I brought out the baptism armoury...

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 12:53 AM
Those who refuse to obey the commandments of Christ cannot be saved.

Baptism is not a 'work' which we perform in order to 'earn' our salvation. It is not a 'thing' which saves. Nor is it something which proves we are 'already saved'.

It is an act of obedience to Christ, a symbol which has a special meaning, and represents our change of spiritual allegiance.

Let's look at this concept of obedience...


CHRIST REQUIRES OBEDIENCE TO HIS COMMANDMENTS


The issue which appears to be causing Freak so much grief, is the belief that disobedience to the commandments of God will prevent someone being saved. I can understand that this Scriptural principle is unwelcome to the flesh, but I would exhort Freak to overcome the natural bias towards disobedience which we all have (see Romans 7), and accept this Scriptural principle for the truth it is.

Galatians 5:
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Care to disagree? I think not...

Romans 1:
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Care to disagee? I think not...

John 14:
15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 15:
10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

Care to disagee? I think not...

John 15:
14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

1 John 2:
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Care to disagee? I think not...

1 John 3:
22And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1 John 3:
23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him.

Care to disagee? I think not...

1 John 5:
2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

His commandments, Freak, are not grievous.
So why do you have a problem with them?

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 12:54 AM
WHY ARE WE TO BE BAPTIZED?


We are to be baptized as a sign of our repentance, for the remisison (forgiveness), of our sins:

Matthew 3:
5Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:
4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:
3And he (John the Baptist) came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Acts 2:
38Then 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.

Those who have never transgressed the Law of God have never sinned:

Romans 3:
19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law...

Romans 4:
15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 5:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

1 John 3:
4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

We cannot be under the law of God if we have never known of it.
God does not punish those who have never known His law.
God does not consider those who have never known His law to be transgressors of it.

Infants cannot possibly be transgressors of God's law, simply because they have never known it, never comprehended it, and therefore can never be held accountable to it.


WHO IS TO BE BAPTIZED?


If an infant is born innocent, when should he be baptized?
When he is accountable. What age is that?

An infant should be baptized when they are no longer an infant, and have demonstrated an understanding of the meaning of God's law, the meaning of baptism, and the manner of life which is expected of those who have been baptized.

An individual is accountable by virtue of their knowledge and understanding of these things, not necessarity their age. Some may come to a knowledge and understanding while they are yet young, some may come to that understanding later.

I personally would have reservations about baptising anyone under 13, for the simple fact that responsibility is a concept with which teenagers are still grappling at such an age, and which they tend not to appreciate until they are older.
The law of the land reflects this when it restricts certain activities as smoking, drinking, and voting, to age limits of 16, 18, or 21.

The New Testament demonstrates the immediate need of baptism when individuals have come to a correct and clear understanding of the gospel (e.g. Acts 8:12, 36-39; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15).
Infants are necessarily excluded, as they cannot possibly have a correct and clear understanding of the gospel.


HOW ARE WE TO BE BAPTIZED?


We are to be baptized by full immersion in water, not by sprinkling, or any other method.
Here are a few examples of how the word is used in Scripture. Let's see if they refer to immersion, or sprinkling:

John 3:
23And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Yes, baptism requires 'much water', at least enough to fully immerse a human body.
When you're going to be baptising a number of people, you're going to need a large body of water.

Matthew 3:
16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:

So, he was in the water to begin with. Does this sound like 'sprinkling' to you? Of course not - he was obviously immersed.

Mark 1:
5And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

So, they were baptised in the river, not 'sprinkled with a little bit of the river'.
There's quite a difference, isn't there?

Mark 1:
9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10And straightway coming up out of the water...

Combines the sense of Matthew 3:16 and Mark 1:5 - Christ was baptized in Jordan, and came up out of the water, having been immersed in it.

Acts 8:
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both [/b]into the water[/b], both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39And when they were come up out of the water...

Again, we find individuals going down into the water, and then coming up out of the water.

Apostolic baptism is obviously the full immersion of an informed adult in water.

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 12:55 AM
CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES INSISTED ON BAPTISM


John the Baptist insisted on baptism (are we surprised?):

Matthew 3:
5Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:
4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:
3And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Christ insisted on baptism (including his own):

Matthew 3:
13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Mark 1:
9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

Mark 16:
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, [/b]Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God[/b].
22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Paul insisted on baptism:

Romans 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore 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.

Galatians 3:
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


Peter insisted on baptism:

Acts 2:
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then 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 Spirit.

1 Peter 3:
21The 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

Paul was told he must be baptized without fail, and without delay:

Acts 22:
16And now [/b]why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins[/b], calling on the name of the Lord.

Paul insisted on baptism:

Acts 16:
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Interesting quote for consideration by those who refuse to be baptised:

Luke 7:
29And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him

Baptism was an important element in the apostolic faith

When the foundation doctrines of the apostles are expounded, baptism is there:

Peter says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 2:38

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 3:19,26

Philip says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 8:36-38 (Isa. 53:10)

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 10:36,37,43,47,48

Paul says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 13:24,38,39 (Psa. 2:12; Isa. 55:6,7)

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 17:30

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 26:18,20


Note also the intimate connection between baptism and salvation:

Mark 16:
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

Acts 2:
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:

Acts 16:
29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; [/b]and was baptized, he and all his, straightway[/b].

This is in absolute obedience to Mark 16:16 - word for word.

Although it may not appear so on first reading, this quote is a very powerful argument for the necessity of baptism.
If believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ was sufficient for salvation, there would have been no need for baptism.

Furthermore, it is evident that the baptism here was required as the outward sign of the inward faith. The word ‘believe’ means ‘to have faith’, and it is evident that the first act by which this man and his family were to demonstrate their faith was baptism. This is congruent with the apostolic doctrine that we are saved by faith and works.

Not faith alone, and not works alone. Nor are we saved by our works - we are saved because of our works wrought in faith.

Remember, the only works we ever do are merely an acknowledgment of the grace of God to save us from death - and what more symbolic act of God’s raising us from the dead than baptism?

Acts 10:
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

I’ve highlighted the two most important phrases, and it’s not hard to see why they are important:

Can any man forbid water?

He commanded them to be baptized.

Firstly, we see that the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’, if this is what our christian friend wishes to argue, did not prevent the baptism of water.
In fact, it was insufficient without it.

Secondly, we see that Peter commands baptism, even after these individuals have been ‘baptized with the Holy Spirit’, as you would say.

What is the meaning of this? The non-baptizing christian is at a loss to explain why his own conduct is tacitly condemned by Peter.
But to the one who understands the significance of baptism, it is clear.

The gift of the Holy Spirit was from God - it was a sign of His favour towards those on whom He bestowed His authority.
It was something God did to show His favour.

The baptism of the individual was from the individual - it was a sign of his acknowledgement of the gift of God.
It was something the individual did to acknowledge the favour of God.

The importance of the symbolism of baptism, especially in Romans 6, is really the key to the argument. It is the reason why we baptize, and the reason why the modern christian refuses to baptize.

You see, Paul tells us with painful clarity in Romans 6 that God expects our baptism to be a symbolic death.
Ask any christian today if they think that baptism with the Holy Spirit is intended to be a symbolic death, and ask what it means.

What it means, Paul tells us. It is intended to demonstrate our understanding that we must change our lives.
This, after all, is what the word ‘repent’ means. Paul is insistent that when we rise out of the waters of baptism, we are to strive to live as if we were already immortal.

The lofty height of this goal (unachievable as it is), is entirely lost on the modern christian, who sees no need for such a dramatic change of life as the apostle requires, and would never think of ‘putting off the old man’, and ‘the works of the flesh’.

In neglecting the ordinance, they have forgotten the principle which the ordinance is intended to teach - which demonstrates without doubt the vital importance of the ordinance.

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 12:58 AM
THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS


The earliest witness to Christian baptismal practies makes it very clear that they insisted on the water baptism, by full immersion, of informed adult believers.

The earliest Christian practice and writings say nothing of infant baptism:

- Nowhere mentioned in the gospels or Acts

- Nowhere mentioned in the apostolic letters

- The Didache (between 70 and 90 AD), specifies adults who are informed believers as well as full immersion baptism)

- The first mention of it is by Tertullian - and he is specifically opposing it

Tertullian also held to full immersion baptism (he uses the Latin word for 'immerse'), and he is entirely consistent with the Didache in requiring the baptism of adults.

The Didache

CHAPTER 7
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

The earliest Church Fathers managed to get this right, and they held to it devotedly.
Later on, of course, various novel practices crept in, and new doctrines necessitated the baptism of infants, but the earliest Fathers adhered pretty well to the apostolic teaching on baptism:

Those who are about to enter baptism should pray with repeated prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee - with allnight vigil and with the confessions of all past sins. This way they may express the meaning even of the baptism of John. The Scripture says 'They were baptized, confessing their own sins'.
Tertullian, c. 198, 3.678, 679.

Sound like infant baptism to you? How about this:

When we are going to enter the water, but a little before - in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president - we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, his pomp, and his angels.

Upon that, we are immersed (Latin: mergo, to dip, to immerse) three times, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel.
Then, when we are taken up, we tast first of all a mixture of milk and honey. Then, from that day, we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week.
Tertullian, c. 211, 3.94.

Does 'going to enter the water', and 'immersed', and 'taken up' sound like sprinkling to you?
Do these rituals sound like those expected of infants?

What did Tertullian say of infant baptism?

Let the children come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning - while they are learning where to come.
Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.

Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins?

...

If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation.
Tertullian, c. 198, 3.678.

Justin Martyr is even more specific - and is an even older witness, by perhaps 70 years:

'I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making.
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow.
But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

And for this (rite) we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him *who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins*, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness.

And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.
(Justin Martyr, First Apology of Justin Martyr, Chapter 61, Christian Baptism, Vol. 1,)

Hippolytus is just as clear:

'When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say: 'Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?' And the person being baptized shall say: 'I believe.'
Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once.

And then he shall say: 'Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?'

And when he says: 'I believe,' he is baptized again.
And again he shall say: 'Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?'
The person being baptized shall say: 'I believe,' and then he is baptized a third time.'
(A Baptismal Confession, Hippolytus, 3rd Century)

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 01:03 AM
Someone was making noises about baptism in Romans 6.
I believe the argument being made was that the baptism of Romans 6 is not water baptism. HA!

Romans 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore 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.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The word Paul uses is the Greek word which means 'immerse'. It is obvious that it refers to the immersion of individuals in water, since this was the established apostolic practice - as proved by the record of the Acts.

People speak much of 'Holy Spirit baptism', but this makes a mockery of the baptismal command of Mark 16.

Christ commanded his apostles to baptize people - did that mean he was commanding them to baptize people with the Holy Spirit? What a joke! I see no one baptizing people with the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. I see numerous occasions of the baptism by full immersion in water of adult believers. It seems to me that the apostles understood very well what Christ was on about - I'm not going to fault their understanding and deny it just because someone else thinks the apostles were at fault.

What does Paul say here in Romans 6? He speaks of baptism - the established practice of the full immersion of an adult believer in water.

Full immersion. That's what it means. When you bury someone, do you just throw a bit of dirt at them? Sprinkle it on their head perhaps? Rub it gently into their skin? Or do you dig a hole, put their body into it, and fill it in? Is a buried body surrounded with dirt or not?

What about when you plant a seed? Goes in the ground does it? Or do you just put it near a bit of dirt and hope for the best?

Baptism is immersion, which is why Paul describes it as burial and planting.

The importance of the symbolism of baptism, especially in Romans 6, is really the key to the argument. It is the reason why we baptize, and the reason why the modern christian refuses to baptize.

You see, Paul tells us with painful clarity in Romans 6 that God expects our baptism to be a symbolic death. Ask any christian today if they think that baptism with the Holy Spirit is intended to be a symbolic death, and ask what it means.

What it means, Paul tells us. It is intended to demonstrate our
understanding that we must change our lives. This, after all, is what the word 'repent' means. Paul is insistent that when we rise out of the waters of baptism, we are to strive to live as if we were already immortal.

The lofty height of this goal (unachievable as it is), is entirely lost on the modern christian, who sees no need for such a dramatic change of life as the apostle requires, and would never think of 'putting off the old man', and 'the works of the flesh'.

In neglecting the ordinance, they have forgotten the principle which the ordinance is intended to teach - which demonstrates without doubt the vital importance of the ordinance.

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 01:05 AM
While I'm here, I might as well head off the old 'Cornelius' argument...

Actually, the incident of Cornelius is an excellent example of the fact that water baptism is an ordained commandment of Christ, the obedience of which is critical to salvation - just as the obedience of any commandment of Christ is essential to salvation. If you are capable of obeying a commandment of Christ, and you actively refuse to do so, then at the Judgment Seat Christ will want to know why.

You'd better think about that one Freak...

The baptism of Cornelius was the outward sign of his inward change. It was an act of willing obedience which he performed in faith.

It was also specifically the reason why God sent Peter to him:

Acts 10:
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Cornelius is an obedient, God fearing man. What else could you ask for? A knowledge of the gospel message, and obedience to its commandments - that's what God asked for, and that's why Peter was sent.

3He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Cornelius is acknowledged to be a faithful servant of God, but...

5And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
6He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

...his life of obedience is incomplete! He is in need of more knowledge, and he must do something!

So tell me, what did Peter have Cornelius do?
He had him be baptized.

Ian Day
September 17th, 2001, 06:35 AM
Kevin,

Sorry to be so long replying to your posting on page 7! I was away yesterday at my grandson, Alexander's dedication.

As you don't like red, I'll reply in loc, in italics.


Originally posted by Kevin
Ian,

Thank you for explaining your post again. Thank you also for not using the red font this time ;). If I understand this correctly, and please correct me if I don't have this right, you are using the book of Hebrews to show that baptism could be sprinkling.

Yes. He promises to discuss baptism in ch. 6, and does so in ch. 9, with allusions in later chapters. Heb. 9:10 speaks of VARIOUS BAPTISMS.

First of all:
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek :D .

That is my point too!!!! :D
Because the Old Covenant Scriptures were written in Hebrew, that should be understood in Hebrew, NOT GREEK. Your Greek definitions are not relevant. Hebrews is writing about Old Covenant baptisms, and specifically mentions several. They are ALL by sprinkling.
[The only immersion baptism is that of Naaman.]
You will actually find a recipe for pickles in the discussion of the meaning of baptism in Greek.
Baptising by dipping and sprinkling is the mode derived from the Old Covenant baptisms.


The Greek word used for "baptize" (such as Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3) is "baptizo". It has the following definitions:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

There is no mention of sprinkling at all in those definitions. Let's look at Hebrews 10:22 again:

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.

The Hebrew author used the term "sprinkled" as a metaphoric representation to the Hebrews due to the signifacance of the sprinkling of blood in the Old Testament and the effect that it had. Note that this is speaking about the heart (which is spiritual not physical). When it comes to our bodies, it plainly states that it is to be washed. How does the Bible define "wash"? See below:

I think you are trying to avoid saying "baptism by sprinkling is a metaphoric representation to the Hebrews due to the significance of the sprinkling of blood in the Old Testament and the effect that it had. "
Baptism by sprinkling has its significance, as you seem to understand, (even if you delete "Baptism by".)
The significance of "sprinkling" is fully explained. The significance of "washing" is not. It cannot be assumed that washing means baptism by immersion. The link of baptism with sprinkling is clearly made. Do YOU wash your body by total immersion, or in the shower?

Acts 8:38-39

38) So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

39) Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

If sprinkling was acceptable for baptism, why didn't Philip fill up a cup or something and pour it over him? It says that they went down into the water and then came up out of the water. That is a far cry from sprinkling. Add to that the definition of the Greek word "baptizo", which is defined as immersion, dipping, etc., and nothing about sprinkling, and one can only come to the conclusion that baptism of total immersion is taught by the scriptures.

Look up the meaning of the Greek words translated "into" and "out of". Personal immersion is not implied. How he baptised him is not stated.

It is impossible to be "buried" into the death of Jesus through baptism by sprinkling. It's like saying that you can bury somebody who is dead by sprinkling some dirt on him. If you do that, there will still be a lot of the body exposed, thus it's not buried. When you bury somebody, they are completely hidden from view. That's why when you go to a graveyard ALL you see are tombstones, and nothing of the person's actual body.

As the burial is symbolic, a token sprinkling with earth, (as is done at funerals by relatives) is commital to the earth.
For the subject to kneel, to be sprinkled with water using cupped hands or a vessel dipped in water, and to stand ond confess Christ, does show identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. We're not play acting, we are declaring by the Word of the Gospel, and the Covenant sign what Christ has done for sinners, and the one baptised in particular.

Baptism by immersion may be more graphic, and I'm not arguing against immersion, but does not show the "sprinkled blood" significance. Or the outpouring of the Holy Spirit significance as in the case of Cornelius.

Now, I've just shown you a verse that shows a person being baptized by going down into the water and coming up out of the water, completely supporting immersion, as it's defined in the Greek. My question to you is this: Can you show me a verse in the New Testament that says we can be baptized by having our bodies "sprinkled" with water?

Hebrews 9:13-14. 1 Peter 1:2.
I'm arguing that the mode of baptism is not important. THe important things are the SUBJECT, a believer baptised into CHrist by the Holy Spirit, and the SIGNIFICANCE, the saving and cleansing blood of Christ.

Before you reply, try to understand the argument FOR sprinkling. I know the arguments for immersion, I was baptised by immersion after my conversion 44 years ago, and since then have only seen baptisms by immersion.

Ian Day
September 17th, 2001, 08:23 AM
THe arguments in John 3.

Note first that "born again" is more accurately translated "from above". We are talking about becoming a child of God.

Young's Literal Translation reads:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus his name, a ruler of the Jews,
2 this one came unto him by night, and said to him, `Rabbi, we have known that from God thou hast come -- a teacher, for no one these signs is able to do that thou dost, if God may not be with him.'
3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, `How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?'
5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'
9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, `How are these things able to happen?'
10 Jesus answered and said to him, `Thou art the teacher of Israel -- and these things thou dost not know!
11 `Verily, verily, I say to thee -- What we have known we speak, and what we have seen we testify, and our testimony ye do not receive;
12 if the earthly things I said to you, and ye do not believe, how, if I shall say to you the heavenly things, will ye believe?

It is reasonable to think that that as a Pharisee, Nicodemus had refused John's baptism, & Jesus referred to "born of water" as referring to his disobedience. His refusal to repent. I don't think the argument about whether it refers to water baptism or human birth can be resolved for sure.

In any case, John spoke of Christ baptising with the Holy Spirit. Jesus speaks of being "born of the Spirit."

What is all-important is being born of the Spirit, from above, and having new, spiritual life. Water baptism is symbolic, but of the real, Spiritual baptism into CHrist.

The reason for water baptism is that the subject has been born of the Spirit, from above, and shows a real repentance. Water baptism without being born of the Spirit is worthless. Water baptism of the born-from-above believer is significant of all that Christ has done for him.

Freak
September 17th, 2001, 08:52 AM
Evangelion,

Please keep your posts to a reasonable length. Thank you. They tend to be very long.

Did you deal with points I made. I think not. Go back and deal with my points and then we'll discuss this issue systematically.

Thanks.

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 08:58 AM
Ah, what have we here? It's Freak, running screaming in terror from my posts again. No surprise... You have to admire his consistency.

I just dealt with the issue of baptism in comprehensive and systematic detail. Deal with it.

You may wish to take it one post at a time. You should be able to manage that.

All of your arguments have been done and dusted. They are all essentially the same old heresy - that obedience to God is optional, and not what He requires of us.

tralon
September 17th, 2001, 09:02 AM
No, and no again.Simple water cannot possibly REGENERATE a soul to spiritual renewal to God.The word BORN in the greek means REGENERATE or bring to life.Only the word of God it self and the power of the Holy Spirit can create spiritual life.When Jesus was refering to being born of water in John 3:5 he was refering to the SPIRITUAL water of the Holy spirit.For water in this verse is joined by a CONJUNCTION "and".Both water AND spirit are joined by this conjunction.This also parallels Ezek.36:25-26.Jesus knew Nicodemus was familiar with this passage and so Jesus said that he should know what he meant.

But say for the sake of arguement Jesus meant water baptism in John 3:5, which it definitly doesn't.This would mean a person becomes water baptised BEFORE the holy spirit acts in his life.Are sinners who have no indwelling of the Holy Spirit then to be water baptised? This would be like asking unsaved sinners to celebrate the Lord's supper.It would have no meaning whatsoever to them.

Also just what is the New Testament pattern concerning water baptism anyway? All throughout the book of Acts we find one BELIEVES before they are water baptised.And how does one come to believe? Only by the word of God and the moving of the Holy Spirit in that person's heart and life.This is the bible example.

So by scriptural comparison and greek definition the "water" in John 3:5 cannot possibly be construed to mean ritual baptism, but only the regeneration work of the Holy Spirit.

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 09:15 AM
I am not arguing that the baptismal ritual effects a mental or moral change. I am arguing that it is the outward sign of an inward change.

But I see nothing in Scripture which says that we can ignore this commandment of Christ with impunity (are there any other commandments of Christ or God which you'd like to throw out while you're here?), and nothing which suggests a 'Holy Spirit regeneration' as you claim.

What I do find in Scripture is that the consistent practice of the apostles was the water baptism by full immersion of informed adult believers.

HopeofGlory
September 17th, 2001, 11:12 AM
Kevin

You said:
We differ yet again . The water is not speaking about the water of the womb, because ,again, verse 5 is an answer to a question asked about how one can be born again. Because this verse is an answer (it even starts with "Jesus answered") to the question of how to be born again, crawling up into our mother's womb as an adult isn't the answer. Water means water, and Spirit means Spirit.

Reply:
The verse is an answer, you must be "born" and then "born" again.

You said:
So, from these two verses, one who is baptized into Christ is "in Christ". And one who is "in Christ" is a "new creation". That "new creation" is in somebody who is dead to sin (Rom. 6:6) and walks in the newness of life (Rom. 6:4), hence being born again... which is exactly what Jesus is talking about in John 3:5- being born into a new creation.

Reply:
Those are great verses but "water" is not mentioned Roms. 6 and if "water" baptism was a required work it is only reasonable "water" would be found in the context but it is "NOT" there!

As I said before:
If we read Romans 5 we can see how we are baptized into his death. You say it is by obeying in water baptism but this is not what Paul said.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom. 5:1 (KJV)
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5:2 (KJV)

Faith is required not water baptism which you agreed was a "work". If a work is required then salvation must be earned.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Rom. 5:9 (KJV)

We are justified by His blood and the only way that can be received is by faith.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom. 5:15 (KJV)

We can not add to the finished work of Christ and this "gift" must be received "freely" or it is no longer a gift.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:19 (KJV)

It is not "our" obedience but by the obedience of "one" so that the gift may be "free".

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom. 6:3 (KJV)

Notice that it says baptized "into Jesus" not into "water". How are we to get into Jesus?...For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

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. Rom. 6:4 (KJV)

Here it says "into death" not "water" . In other words when we are baptized by the Spirit we are in His body and we died with Him and it is received through "faith".

You said:
Now there's the born of the womb part that you are looking for. Everybody is born of the womb. Everybody. And until people become "in Christ" through baptism (Gal. 3:27), they are of the flesh.

When a person becomes born again, through baptism (water and Spirit), they are reborn, spiritually. They are a new creature. They are of the Spirit instead of being of the flesh.

Reply:
I agree with you about Gal.3:27 and I noticed when you referred to baptism you left out "water" as did the verse! No, water is not required to be "born again". John 3:5 says "born of water" not reborn of water. You cannot continually "add" words to scripture that clearly are "NOT" there and call it truth!

As I said before:
Jesus replies, except a man is born of water (womb) and Spirit (born) he can not enter heaven. Let me say it another way, Jesus said "born" of water and that is what he meant "born" of water not "born again" or "reborn" of water and it is understood that "born" applies to "of the Spirit" not "born again" or "reborn" of the Spirit. These are two "borns" not one born again. You can argue that until the day you die but the verse will remain the same. This verse in no way proves "reborn of water"!

You said:
Not a problem. Here's the proof. Since you think the Acts 2:38 is the same baptism that John the Baptist performed, let's look at an example of each:

Reply:
They were the same "remission of sins" as I stated. Do you disagree?

You said:
Matt. 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

It is clear from this verse that one would not recieve the Holy Spirit as a result of his baptism (John's). After all, he said that He who comes after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit. So again, people baptized into this baptism would not recieve the Holy Spirit.

Reply:
It is clear we see the contrast of water baptism and Spirit baptism. John says....I baptize with water but (on the contrary) He will baptize with the Holy Ghost.

You said:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, AND YOU SHALL RECIEVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

In this baptism, people received the gift of the Holy Spirit. In John's baptism, they didn't. Two different baptisms. One that saves, one that doesn't. The baptism of Jesus one that saves and is the "one baptism" spoken of in Ephesians 4:5.

Now that I have shown that the baptism of Jesus gives one the gift of the Holy Spirt, I will demonstrate again that the baptism of Jesus includes water:

Reply:
You "imply" that one must be baptized in water "baptism of Jesus" as you call it before you can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Wrong again! Cornelius was water baptized after he received the Holy Ghost. It is clear your "baptism of Jesus" does not "give" the Holy Ghost. You cannot "add" water to Ephesians 4:5, it's NOT there.

You said:
Acts 8:35-36: Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36) Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

This is the baptism of Jesus (verse 35). After all, why would somebody preach Jesus and then baptize into another? The fact that the eunuch asked "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" proves that Phillip instructed baptism with water, or why would the enuch mention water at all? Phillip was instructing the eunuch about baptism, and it inlcudes water.

Reply;
There is no "baptism of Jesus" but (on the contrary) John the Baptist said He (Jesus) will baptize with the Holy Ghost. I do not argue that Phillip baptized with water but that is was the same baptism for "remission of sins" as John's or Peter's. Spirit baptism can not be performed by "man" but it is an operation of God.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Cor. 5:17 (KJV)
And "ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD", who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 2 Cor. 5:18 (KJV)

You said:
The baptism of Jesus consists of being baptized in water and then that person will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. Water and Spirit... [u]just like John 3:5 states. Remember, we cant be born again into a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17) unless we are "in Christ". And we become "in Christ" through baptism (Gal. 3:27).

How can one make it to heaven without being born again into a new creation and becoming dead to sin? You can't. The only way to achieve those things is to be "in Christ" ... by being "baptized into Christ." (Gal 3:27)

Reply:
The "baptism of Jesus" as you put it is "He will baptize with the Holy Ghost". By one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body is the "one" baptism in Ephesians. We are warned not to "add" to the word of God and that includes Gal 3:27. You continual use of references that do not include "water" as prooftext for "water" baptism is beyond reason. They do not prove "water" baptism is required or better to say......YOU HAVE NO PROOF!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terminology "baptism of Jesus" that you continue to use is not biblical...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You said:
Err... what would you like me to call it? The "baptism where one is baptized into Christ" as in Galations 3:27? If someone is "baptized into Christ" it is the baptism of Jesus.

Reply:
I would like to call it as John the Baptist was "inspired" to call it..."He will baptize with the Holy Ghost".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Gen. 17:10 (KJV)

Kevin, pssst, that verse is from the Holy Bible do you believe it applies to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You said:
Before I answer this, I would like to sincerely apologize for my "pssst" remark. It was uncalled for, and I ask for your forgivness. I can see that I didn't edit it out in time. My apologies.

Reply:
Apology accepted.

You said:
The answer to this is, no. We do not have to become circumcised. How do I know this? Because circumcision was done away with in the old law. The book of Galations covers that very thing.

Reply:
I agree, the message has changed and has been progressively revealed to God's people who are now the body of Christ.

Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. John 5:33 (KJV)
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 (KJV)
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35 (KJV)
But I have GREATER WITNESS than that of John: for THE WORKS WHICH THE FATHER HATH GIVEN ME TO FINISH, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)

You said:
Now, if you can show me somewhere that says that disobedient people will have access to the tree of life, then I will withdraw my stress on the importance of obedience. God expected to be obeyed in the Old Testament, and He certainly expects to be obeyed in the New Testament.

Reply:
If you are a member of the body of Christ you will not need the tree of life because you are perfected in His body.
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph. 4:13 (KJV)

Freak
September 17th, 2001, 11:18 AM
Evangelion,

Let's try this again.

Where is baptism mentioned in 1 Cor. 15 where Paul reminded the believers of the Gospel. Did Paul make a mistake? I think not.

Please refer to Ephesian 1:13, 4:30, where Paul makes it clear that receiving of the Holy Spirit is by faith alone not by baptism. Will be awaiting for your response.

SteveT
September 17th, 2001, 01:39 PM
Here's the early church's understanding of this question, from Justin Martyr's First Apology, circa AD150 (i.e., within living memory of the Apostle John):

"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.127 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above;128 he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."129

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed."

Antipas
September 17th, 2001, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Kevin,

Let's try one more time.

In 1 Cor. chapter 15 (not verse 15 as you wrongly assumed), but chapter 15, did the Apostle Paul mention baptism when we reminded the believers of what the Gospel is?

Why don't you respond to Kevin's question? This is the third time that you've avoided it.


Antipas

tralon
September 17th, 2001, 02:24 PM
I realize many of the early church fathers subscribed to baptism regeneration.And this SAME practice is still carried on in the Roman Catholic Church today.But the question is, "Does this harmonize with what the Apostles of the bible taught?"

If this was the popular way to be saved in Apostolic times, then WHY don't we find one verse by the Apostle Paul that we need to be water baptised, as well as believe in Jesus to be REALLY saved? Where is that verse Steve? Don't say Paul didn't have time to mention it, because the theme of salvation was Paul's chief message? Also if water baptism was mandatory for salvation, then WHY did Paul say God has NOT CALLED ME TO BAPTISE, but to preach the gospel? I Cor.1:17 If water baptism was NECESSARY for one's salvation then Paul WOULD HAVE said God INDEED has called me to baptise and preach the gospel.But he didn't say that Steve, and that is the whole point.

Paul clearly said that after his departure or death FALSE TEACHERS would arise deceiving many.He said to be alert for them.Acts 20:29-32 Therefore if any person, no matter how famous, how noble, how eloguent, how humble or how knowledgeable teach you ANY OTHER GOSPEL than what PAUL TAUGHT they are a FALSE PROPHET and are accursed.Gal 1:8-9.

Steve TRUST IN THE BIBLE and ONLY the bible.For there lies your truth and not the writings of philosophers.Trust ONLY in Jesus.For you could be baptised in the Pacific ocean 20,000 fathoms deep and you still come out a WET SINNER.It's Jesus that saves you and nothing else.John 3:16

SteveT
September 17th, 2001, 03:08 PM
Tralon:

Who do you think better understood what John meant when he quoted Jesus saying "You must be born of water and the spirit...", the people who listened to him preach and worked by his side for decades until his death, or you reading a handful of his works 2,000 years later?

Why did Paul go around baptizing people, if he didn't believe it was necessary? In the very passage you cited,

"I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) "

Why did Paul baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?

You said "I realize many of the early church fathers subscribed to baptism regeneration..." That is not true. ALL of the early church fathers subscribed to baptismal regeneration. NONE of the early church fathers taught that "water" in John 3 referred to amniotic fluid.

You said, "WHY don't we find one verse by the Apostle Paul that we need to be water baptised?" But of course, others have already given you Romans 6:2-3. You insist that this "baptism" isn't "water baptism", but "spirit baptism". As the passage from Justin shows, however, if that distinction were intended by the Apostle, it was completely lost within a generation of his death and not recovered until your theologians "found" it a few hundred years ago. Yes, Paul warned about false teachers deceiving many, but he also said the church would be the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). There's a big difference between saying the false teachers would deceive many, and saying they would deceive the entire church for a millenia or two.

Ian Day
September 17th, 2001, 03:31 PM
Mathetes, Evangelion & any other cute kittens,


Originally posted by Mathetes
I am not arguing that the baptismal ritual effects a mental or moral change. I am arguing that it is the outward sign of an inward change.

But I see nothing in Scripture which says that we can ignore this commandment of Christ with impunity (are there any other commandments of Christ or God which you'd like to throw out while you're here?), and nothing which suggests a 'Holy Spirit regeneration' as you claim.

What I do find in Scripture is that the consistent practice of the apostles was the water baptism by full immersion of informed adult believers.
I'm glad you agree that baptism is an outside sign of an inward change. You seem to be maintaining that the inward change takes place when the outward sign is applied. And without the outward sign, the inward change is in doubt, because salvation requires obedience, and obedience requires baptism.

What I (& I think others) maintain is that the inward change, regeneration, being born again, from above by the Holy Spirit, MUST have taken place before baptism is carried out, otherwise there is no grounds for baptism. We baptise believers. We don't make believers by baptism.

Baptism is a sign of entry into the New Covenant by the blood of Jesus, a sign of death to sin & rising to live a new life in Christ, of the cleansing of the conscience by the applied blood of the sacrifice, of washing from sin, of being united with Christ and membership of his body and thus active membership of the church, etc.

A believer who refuses baptism may find the privileges of church membership refused. He may decline believers' baptism because he understands that his infant baptism was a covenant baptism analogous to circumcision, and therefore a valid baptism.

Whether believers' baptism is by sprinkling or immersion is a matter of church practice & understanding. We can disagree on that point.

[Mathetes]
But I see nothing in Scripture which ...... suggests a 'Holy Spirit regeneration' as you claim.

See:
John 3:3 (Young) Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, `How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?'
5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

Please note that Jesus does not begin by telling Nicodemus "You must be born of water and the Spirit." He begins by telling him he needs to be born from above. It is only in response to Nicodemus's objection that Jesus refers to "born of water."

If you are "born from above, of the Spirit" then you are "born of God" and a right subject for baptism.

See also:
Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 04:38 PM
Tralon, I think you're missing the point...


Originally posted by tralon
I realize many of the early church fathers subscribed to baptism regeneration.And this SAME practice is still carried on in the Roman Catholic Church today.But the question is, "Does this harmonize with what the Apostles of the bible taught?"


Actually, I didn't see baptismal regeneration there. What I saw was baptism in obedience to the commandment of Christ.
But anyway...

The fact of the matter is that the first century Christians practiced the full immersion of informed adult believers - baptism.

How many examples would you like? They're all through the Acts of the apostles. How do you explain this? Why did they do it? Did they do wrong? What is your answer?

Secondly, the Didache (a first century witness to the earliest doctrines and practices of the Christian community), states specifically that the practice was the full immersion of informed adult believers - baptism. No mention is made of the water 'changing' you or 'regenerating' you, because it doesn't. That's not the argument I'm making.



If this was the popular way to be saved in Apostolic times, then WHY don't we find one verse by the Apostle Paul that we need to be water baptised, as well as believe in Jesus to be REALLY saved?


Do you know that Paul was baptized? Yes, it was insisted on:

Acts 22:
16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

So what do the apostles have to say? What did they do?

Paul:

Acts 16:
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Romans 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore 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.

Galatians 3:
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Peter:

Acts 2:
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then 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 Spirit.

1 Peter 3:
21The 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

That's pretty clear.




Where is that verse Steve? Don't say Paul didn't have time to mention it, because the theme of salvation was Paul's chief message?


When the foundation doctrines of the apostles are expounded, baptism is always there:

Peter says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 2:38

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 3:19,26

Philip says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 8:36-38 (Isa. 53:10)

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 10:36,37,43,47,48

Paul says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 13:24,38,39 (Psa. 2:12; Isa. 55:6,7)

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 17:30

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 26:18,20

But perhaps you can explain the circumstances in which Cornelius was baptized?

cts 10:
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

I’ve highlighted the two most important phrases, and it’s not hard to see why they are important:

Can any man forbid water?

He commanded them to be baptized.

Firstly, we see that the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’, if this is what our christian friend wishes to argue, did not prevent the baptism of water. In fact, it was insufficient without it.

Secondly, we see that Peter commands baptism, even after these individuals have been ‘baptized with the Holy Spirit’, as you would say.



Also if water baptism was mandatory for salvation, then WHY did Paul say God has NOT CALLED ME TO BAPTISE, but to preach the gospel? I Cor.1:17 If water baptism was NECESSARY for one's salvation then Paul WOULD HAVE said God INDEED has called me to baptise and preach the gospel.But he didn't say that Steve, and that is the whole point.


You omitted the verses in which Paul specifically states that he did baptize people. Why did you do that? Paul's entire argument here is against the factionalism which had arisen within the Corinthian ecclesia, and he makes that clear. Certain brethren and sisters thought they were better than others, and were choosing to identify themselves with the individuals who had taught and baptized them, rather than with Christ.

Paul states most emphatically that he only baptized a few people (and why did he baptize them?), and furthermore that the gospel is not just baptism, but much more besides. He had been sent to preach the gospel, not just to get people wet - for without the gospel, baptism means nothing.



Paul clearly said that after his departure or death FALSE TEACHERS would arise deceiving many.He said to be alert for them.Acts 20:29-32 Therefore if any person, no matter how famous, how noble, how eloguent, how humble or how knowledgeable teach you ANY OTHER GOSPEL than what PAUL TAUGHT they are a FALSE PROPHET and are accursed.Gal 1:8-9.


Yes, but he said they would be disobedient to God's commandments, he said they would be abusers of the liberty in Christ, and he never once said that the hallmark of a false teacher was that they commandmed baptism.

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Ian Day

I'm glad you agree that baptism is an outside sign of an inward change. You seem to be maintaining that the inward change takes place when the outward sign is applied.


I am by no means arguing that the inward change takes place when the outward sign is applied. I am arguing that the proof of the inward change is the outward sign.

Why do I say this? Because repentance is our verbal and moral committment to turn from a life of sin and obey God. If the very next thing we say is 'Oh, but by the way, I refuse to be baptized, despite the fact that it has been commanded', then there has been no change. That's not obedience, that's rank disobedience, and clearly this individual is both unrepentant and unregenerate.

I find this absolutely incredible. We have been asked to repent and be baptized, and people will stubbornly refuse to submit to a 2 minute bath. I don't understand this at all. It's such a little thing, but so significant. If someone won't even obey this least of commandments, it's obvious that they're going to treat the rest of God's commandments with the same arbitrary contempt.

I used to really find it difficult to understand why Naaman in the Old Testament refused to immerse himself in the river Jordan as Elijah had commanded. It was such an insignificant thing, I thought that it would be ludicrous for anyone to object. Having spent years debating with the anti-baptism people, I now understand...



And without the outward sign, the inward change is in doubt, because salvation requires obedience, and obedience requires baptism.


Without obedience to God, repentance is in doubt. End of story.



What I (& I think others) maintain is that the inward change, regeneration, being born again, from above by the Holy Spirit, MUST have taken place before baptism is carried out, otherwise there is no grounds for baptism. We baptise believers. We don't make believers by baptism.


If your Holy Spirit argument was at all Scriptural, I might consider it. As it is, you make no argument whatsoever.

Nowhere do we find that baptism is the confirmation of 'instant salvation - just add water!'. Nowhere do we find that the 'regeneration' of the mind has been performed for us by the Holy Spirit. This nonsense started very recently, with the Christian mystics of the last 2 centuries. It's amazing how it's caught on.



Baptism is a sign of entry into the New Covenant by the blood of Jesus, a sign of death to sin & rising to live a new life in Christ, of the cleansing of the conscience by the applied blood of the sacrifice, of washing from sin, of being united with Christ and membership of his body and thus active membership of the church, etc.


Yes. So why do people treat it with contempt and refuse to be baptized?



A believer who refuses baptism may find the privileges of church membership refused. He may decline believers' baptism because he understands that his infant baptism was a covenant baptism analogous to circumcision, and therefore a valid baptism.


This is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with 'church membership'. I know of no church which penalises individuals for not being baptized. As for infant baptism, that's so patently a heresy that it's not even worth considering. But if you want to debate it, we can.



Whether believers' baptism is by sprinkling or immersion is a matter of church practice & understanding. We can disagree on that point.


I'm afraid not. Read Romans 6 and tell me if you bury someone by throwing a handful of dirt at them, or by placing them inside a tomb (or inside a hole in the ground).



Please note that Jesus does not begin by telling Nicodemus "You must be born of water and the Spirit." He begins by telling him he needs to be born from above. It is only in response to Nicodemus's objection that Jesus refers to "born of water."


Of course the regeneration of the mind is of critical importance.
There is no doubt about that. But Christ also commanded water baptism. He even submitted to water baptism. How can you deny this? How can you even explain it?



If you are "born from above, of the Spirit" then you are "born of God" and a right subject for baptism.


That is not what Christ said. That is not found anywhere in Scripture.



See also:
Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, [b]by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.


Unfortunately, this does not prove your case. It makes specific mention of the washing of regeneration and the Holy Spirit. As the example of Cornelius proves, not only did the gift of the Holy Spirit not preclude water baptism, it was inadequate without it.

JustAChristian
September 17th, 2001, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Let's try this again.

Did Paul mention baptism in 1 Cor. 15 where he reminded the believers of what the Gospel is?

Very simple question. Yet for some odd reason you avoid it.

Again the Gospel is centered on the person of Christ not an act that involves water. Though baptism is important (ever believer needs to be baptized). It is NOT however a part of the Gospel message, it is merely a response to the Gospel.

Paul stated very clearly justification is by faith (Romans 5:1). Justification is not by baptism as you wrongly claim. Yes, as a believer one should obey His commandments but not for salvation. That would be absurd since no human can keep any commandment without the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. So, one first needs to be saved, then they will have the power to live a life of obedience.

Freak,
You are trying to limit the definition of "Gospel". All the Gospel is not just that which Paul wrote about in 1 Cor. 15. Paul had written to the Romans that "But they have not all obeyed the gospel" (Romans 10:16). Paul had not mentioned anything in 1 Cor 15 that must be obeyed. So, the Gospel contains more than what is in that chapter. There are things about the Gospel that must be obeyed. Peter also says this. Hear him, are you listening? "Judgement must begin at the house of God:and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God" (1 Peter 4:17). The Gospel means "good news" and how we can be saved in Christ. It pleased God by the preaching of the gospel to save them who believed it (1 Cor. 1:21). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). Truly, we must conclude, that if a person is saved, he is saved because he heard, believed and obeyed the Gospel (Rom. 1:16; Romans 10:17; Mark 16:15-16). Done short change yourself and harbor a false conclusion. The gospel is through the writings of the apostles and inspired messengers of the New Testament. It is not just in 1 Cor. 15. O, by the way, Paul did mention baptism in 1 Cor. 15. Read on down where he talks about some who were baptizing some for the dead.

JustAChristian:)

Mathetes
September 17th, 2001, 07:01 PM
Very well said.

JustAChristian
September 17th, 2001, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Mathetes
Ah, what have we here? It's Freak, running screaming in terror from my posts again. No surprise... You have to admire his consistency.

I just dealt with the issue of baptism in comprehensive and systematic detail. Deal with it.

You may wish to take it one post at a time. You should be able to manage that.

All of your arguments have been done and dusted. They are all essentially the same old heresy - that obedience to God is optional, and not what He requires of us.

One of the hardest things in life is to see yourself in the wrong. Many people have come to that point and have made changes. I recall the great number on Pentecost in Acts 2. They saw themselves in error and repented and were baptized in order to be cleansed of sin. The blood of Jesus Christ is symbolically found in the water of baptism. The union of man and God is found in baptism. The birth unto a spiritual life is found in baptism. Only when we are willing to consider all the councel of God will we conclude the necessity of obedience of the gospel. Keep on preaching. You are doing a good job, but don't gloat! Thats not necessary. I don't think any of the apostles ever gloated over a victory over Satan as often we would want to do.

JustAChristian;)

HopeofGlory
September 17th, 2001, 08:16 PM
JustAChristian


One of the hardest things in life is to see yourself in the wrong. Many people have come to that point and have made changes. I recall the great number on Pentecost in Acts 2. They saw themselves in error and repented and were baptized in order to be cleansed of sin. The blood of Jesus Christ is symbolically found in the water of baptism.

Your wrong!

At Pentecost they did not believe Christ "die for their sins" and it is void of the message that His shed blood gave them remission of sins. Water baptism to them was not "symbolic" of His shed blood.
The burden is yours to prove otherwise with scripture or accept the fact that you are wrong.

tralon
September 17th, 2001, 08:52 PM
Here is your quote; "The blood of Jesus Christ is symbolically found in the water of baptism."

Well, what cleanses us from sin? The blood or water? Acts 3:19,I John 1:7. Are you saying no matter how much a sinner has faith in Christ, repents sincerely of his sins and is NOT water baptised he is not saved? Is that your conclusion?

Kevin
September 17th, 2001, 09:15 PM
Egads! This thread really took off.

I'm sorry to say that I'm going to withdraw from the debate. For one thing, I don't feel any progress is being made by either side, and it's very time consuming. Secondly, I recieved some bummer news and I'm not very motivated to debate at the moment. I will convey some closing remarks, however.

Quoted from Freak,


Because you seek to add baptism as a requirement to be saved. This is utter blasphemy.

Compare that with Mark 16:16 (Quoted from Jesus)


16) He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Those are the words of JESUS CHRIST!!! I didn't add anything! According to you, the words of Jesus are "utter blasphemy".

I'm assuming that you are going to point out that the condition for condemnation only mentions belief, and nothing about baptism. The answer to this is quite simple: If somebody doesn't believe, then that person is already lost and won't reach the point of baptism. For why would one get baptized into something that he/she doesn't believe in? They wouldn't, and therefore there was no need to mention baptism, because that person is already lost.

Pay close attention to the requirements listed in the begining of that verse that is required for salvation. Belief AND baptism. The significance of the word "and" is essential to understanding this verse's meaning. Two, not one, two conditions HAVE to be met before one can be saved: Belief and baptism! The latter part of that verse doesn't make any difference to the clearly illustrated requirements for salvation.

Jesus says that beleif and baptism will save you, and Freak says that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. HMMMMMM... I wonder who I'm going to believe.

And Freak, you calling me a Heretic is a compliment, coming from you. I'm very happy I don't share your castrated view on what the gospel is and your unbelief that obeying Jesus's commandments is necessary for salvation. Praise God I don't think that way!!

You never did show me a verse that says that disobedient people will have rights to the tree of life. You know why? Because they don't have rights to it!

God bless you all, and I hope that somewhere along in this discussion that somebody benefits and learns from it

Freak
September 18th, 2001, 08:19 AM
Jesus made it quite clear that is not baptism that would condemn a person but the "disbelieved"(v.16), baptism did not play in the equation at all. Baptism is merely a response of the believer. In no way does water save a person. The blood of Christ is sufficent (Ephesians 1:7).

By the way, nobody has dealt with Ephesians 1:13, 4:30 where Paul made it quite clear that the only requirement for receiving the Holy Spirit is faith. Water baptism plays no part. Though I believe baptism is important for the Christian it is not however the way to be saved. That would be absurd. The person of Jesus is sufficent. I think I'll stick with Jesus.

Ian Day
September 18th, 2001, 08:39 AM
Freak,

I agree with you on this one. We agree that baptism is a proper response for the believer, but that Jesus saves. Then comes water baptism, a covenant sign of all that Jesus has done for us.

Refusing & contemning baptism is of course an indication that we should doubt the conversion of such a person. I don't think the "no-baptism dispensationalists" on this forum are in that position. They see baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ as the true saving baptism, which we can agree with.

When sects like JWs & Christadelphians insist on their water baptism, only by immersion, then that has no value. They do not hold the head, the Lord Jesus Christ as God the Son & Son of God.

JustAChristian
September 18th, 2001, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by HopeofGlory
JustAChristian



Your wrong!

At Pentecost they did not believe Christ "die for their sins" and it is void of the message that His shed blood gave them remission of sins. Water baptism to them was not "symbolic" of His shed blood.
The burden is yours to prove otherwise with scripture or accept the fact that you are wrong.

You limit the preaching of the gospel to the written text. Just because it does not record in one certain text a certain phrase does not unequivically prove that a certain subject was preached. The context tells us that the people were penetant of the transgression against Christ and repented and were baptized for the remission of sins. The Lord added the baptized to the church and the church went about everywere preaching the same gospel (Acts 2:37-38; Acts 2:47; Acts 8:1f). The apostle who was then Saul of Tarsus was told to arise (from prayer) and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). He obeyed the gospel (Rom. 1:5; Rom 1:16). He went about teaching and preaching the gospel and performed water baptism upon those who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostles together consented with what Paul preached and what he did and did not say anything to hint that it was anyway different than what they were preaching. Today, the faithful Christian can take the Bible and preach and do the very acts that is appointed for them to do. That is the beauty of providence. God says that we will be judged by the word. We have the word and can be well pleasing if we do wrest it to our distruction.

JustAChristian

Mathetes
September 18th, 2001, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Ian Day
Freak,

I agree with you on this one. We agree that baptism is a proper response for the believer, but that Jesus saves. Then comes water baptism, a covenant sign of all that Jesus has done for us.


I haven't seen anyone here say that baptism saves in and of itself. It is the outward sign of an inward change - the dedication of the believer to their saviour. What's wrong with that?



Refusing & contemning baptism is of course an indication that we should doubt the conversion of such a person.


Well said!



I don't think the "no-baptism dispensationalists" on this forum are in that position. They see baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ as the true saving baptism, which we can agree with.


Anyone who says that a commandment of Christ is optional or unnecessary is flying in the face of an authority to which they ought to be subject.



When sects like JWs & Christadelphians insist on their water baptism, only by immersion, then that has no value. They do not hold the head, the Lord Jesus Christ as God the Son & Son of God.

Nonsense. All we have insisted on is the simple obedience to the clear commandment of Christ. Why is that so hard?

Is obedience part of the salvic process or not?

HopeofGlory
September 18th, 2001, 06:54 PM
You said:
You limit the preaching of the gospel to the written text. Just because it does not record in one certain text a certain phrase does not unequivically prove that a certain subject was preached.

Reply:
The written text is the gospel and there is no other. It seems you would have us "add" to the word. God has given explicit instructions on that subject!

You said:
The context tells us that the people were penetant of the transgression against Christ and repented and were baptized for the remission of sins. The Lord added the baptized to the church and the church went about everywere preaching the same gospel (Acts 2:37-38; Acts 2:47; Acts 8:1f). The apostle who was then Saul of Tarsus was told to arise (from prayer) and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16).

Reply:
Ananias instructed Paul and he was.... A DEVOUT MAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW Acts 22:12 (KJV)


You said:
He obeyed the gospel (Rom. 1:5; Rom 1:16).

Reply:
The power of God unto salvation that Paul referred to is not found at Pentecost.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor. 1:18 (KJV)

You said:
He went about teaching and preaching the gospel and performed water baptism upon those who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Reply:
He did baptize some but the above verse testifies that at a later date Christ sent him to the gentiles and was instructed "not to baptize". Paul received progressive revelations and at one point he was caught up to heaven.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal. 1:11 (KJV) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:12 (KJV)

You said:
The apostles together consented with what Paul preached and
what he did and did not say anything to hint that it was anyway different than what they were preaching.

Reply:
Paul said...But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal. 2:11 (KJV)

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Gal. 2:2 (KJV)

You said:
Today, the faithful Christian can take the Bible and preach and do the very acts that is appointed for them to do. That is the beauty of providence. God says that we will be judged by the word. We have the word and can be well pleasing if we do wrest it to our distruction.

Reply:
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the WORD of truth. 2 Tim. 2:15 (KJV)............it will avoid destruction!

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)

Christ offers His blood but the apostles did not believe so their remission of sins came through water baptism. The message of His blood (death) is not found at Pentecost because the apostles refused it.

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood,which is shed for you. Luke 22:20 (KJV)
But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. Luke 22:21 (KJV)
And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! Luke 22:22 (KJV)
And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. Luke 22:23 (KJV)
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. Luke 22:24 (KJV)

Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. Luke 22:28 (KJV)
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; Luke 22:29 (KJV)
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke 22:30 (KJV)
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: Luke 22:31 (KJV)
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Luke 22:32 (KJV)
The apostles argued among themselves as our Savior was telling them of the power of his shed blood and speaks of Peter being converted. Peter will later be converted with the Gospel of Christ.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:53 (KJV)
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60 (KJV)
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? John 6:61 (KJV)
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? John 6:62 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:64 (KJV)
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. John 6:65 (KJV)
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. John 6:66 (KJV)
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? John 6:67 (KJV)
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68 (KJV)
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. John 6:69 (KJV)
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6:70 (KJV)

Jesus is telling them the way to eternal life is faith in his blood but it offends them. Peter says that Jesus has the words but he does not say he has faith in it. Peter does say that he believes Jesus is the Son of God. Remember in Luke 22:32 Jesus said that he would be converted later on. Jesus said he chose the twelve and one is a devil. His choosing them was not based on their faith in his death, burial , and resurrection which baptizes us into the body by the Spirit. His choice was based on their belief that he was the Son of God and they could be a witness to his death.

At Pentecost they did not believe Jesus died for their sins and we do not have any scripture to the contrary in the word of God.

Mathetes
September 19th, 2001, 06:36 AM
What we need is proof of these otherwise wild assertions:

- Where are we told that Paul was commanded not to baptize?

- Where are we told that those at Pentecost were not baptized into Christ?

- Where are we told that baptism is not part of the gospel message?

Baptism is important element in the gospel message.

When the foundation doctrines of the apostles are expounded, baptism is there:

Peter says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 2:38

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 3:19,26

Philip says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 8:36-38 (Isa. 53:10)

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 10:36,37,43,47,48

Paul says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 13:24,38,39 (Psa. 2:12; Isa. 55:6,7)

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 17:30

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 26:18,20

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Romans 6:1-6

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Colossians 2:9-15

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - 1 Peter 3:18-22

Ian Day
September 19th, 2001, 07:59 AM
Hope,

[HopeofGlory]
At Pentecost they did not believe Jesus died for their sins and we do not have any scripture to the contrary in the word of God.
I am amazed that you should make such a foolish assertion. The need for a blood sacrifice for sin is the great theme of Scripture, and the way the Covenant is ratified.

You are in the dangerous position of trying to prove your assertions by choosing Scriptures where particular truths are not stated, & in your opinion therefore not believed.

We have to realise that Peter was speaking at Pentecost under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He was declaring the truth of God. But not the whole truth in a few verses. He wasn't giving a lecture on systematic theology, but preaching the gospel.

Only 7 weeks before, the crowd had demanded the death of the Lord Jesus. They had called a curse on themselves with the words: "his blood be on us, and on our children."

Now the crowd, many of whom had indeed demanded the death of the one whom they now realised was their Messiah, were in terror under the conviction of their awful crime against the one promised from the beginning.

I have shown previously that the Hebrew understanding of baptism is the application of the blood of the sacrifice.

Those who rashly defied God with the self-curse : "his blood be on us, and on our children" were commanded to repent & be baptised in the name of the one the had rejected & crucified. And Peter reassures them: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. "

They would not be in ignorance of the significance of baptism. THe blood of the New Covenant in Jesus' blood, contrasted with the animal blood of the Old Covenant of Ex. 24.

When Peter sets out his teaching systematically he affirms:
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 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.

He goes on to show that baptism is a God-given sign of cleansing of the conscience, (not the washing, but the meaning).
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.

HopeofGlory
September 19th, 2001, 10:24 AM
- Where are we told that Paul was commanded not to baptize?

Response:
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

The verse is clear "for Christ sent me not to baptize"!
Why would Paul say such a thing and "disobey" the great commission? Water baptism in the dispensation of it's inception through obedience (works) "gave remission of sins" and it can not be argued unless you choose to go against the word of God. The message was one that not only had to be obeyed but it also demanded endurance to the end to receive that remission. Paul now understands by progressive revelation that message is no longer effectual for remission of sins and has been superceded by the cross.

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 1 Cor. 1:14 (KJV)



- Where are we told that those at Pentecost were not baptized into Christ?


Response:
That question can be answered with this question! Where are we told that they were? They were baptized in the name of Jesus. Beginning with John the Baptist water baptism was perform to manifest Christ to Israel (John 1:31). This manifestation was to get them to accept Him as the Son of God (Messiah). Israel was God's chosen messenger of the gospel and this was the "first step" in their training thus water baptism in His name was acceptance of that message. This recognition alone will not grant life eternally. We know that even the devils understand this much! The Pentecost experience was the realization of this manifestation to Israel and it was void of the witness of God which is the sacrifice of His Son for "remission of sins eternally".


- Where are we told that baptism is not part of the gospel message?


Response:
Baptism is a part of the gospel but (on the contrary) it is of God (Spiritual) not man (in water). This contrast is evident in scripture.

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: Matt. 3:11 (KJV)

This verse when considered in the light of water baptism was for "remission of sins" we can easily see that Christ will "replace" that message with His death at the cross for forgiveness of sins. When accepted by faith His substitutionary death for sin...by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV). Christ our Saviour is that body and that Spirit!

Jesus said... “I have greater witness than that of John”. John the Baptist verifies the words of Jesus.....“He must increase, but I must” decrease. John 3:30 (KJV) He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. John 3:31 (KJV)

1- 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 (KJV)

2-Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins Rom. 3:25.

The two different messages are clear to there meaning and how can we explain why #1 has water baptism for remission of sins and #2 has faith in His blood for remission of sins?

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Cor. 5:17 (KJV)

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation....2 Cor. 5:18 (KJV)

All things become new! This includes baptism. All things are now of God not man in "ONE" baptism.

Freak
September 19th, 2001, 03:11 PM
Math,

You asked: Where are we told that baptism is not part of the Gospel.

The Scriptural answer: 1 Cor. 15.

HopeofGlory
September 19th, 2001, 03:13 PM
Ian,

You said:
I am amazed that you should make such a foolish assertion. The need for a blood sacrifice for sin is the great theme of Scripture, and the way the Covenant is ratified.

Reply:
We should not assume a message is understood without scriptural "proof" and we certainly cannot "add" to the message what is not there for that truly is foolishness. Christ offered eternal life in this blood (death) to the apostles and It can be verified with scripture that it was not understood. Their response was "who can here (believe) it" (John 6:60).

You said:
You are in the dangerous position of trying to prove your assertions by choosing Scriptures where particular truths are not stated, & in your opinion therefore not believed.

Reply:
What you have not recognized is the vast difference between the blood offering of bulls and goats (law) and the precious blood of the lamb of God (grace). It is not my opinion but is factual within the word of God and we are instructed to rightly divide the word.

You said:
We have to realise that Peter was speaking at Pentecost under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He was declaring the truth of God. But not the whole truth in a few verses. He wasn't giving a lecture on systematic theology, but preaching the gospel.

Reply:
"All" scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim 3:16)! Peter was declaring the understanding given to him. We also know Jesus stated that Peter would be converted at a later date (Luke 22:32). This statement of Jesus was made right after He offered the "new testement in His blood" (John 6:53-56) of which the apostles replied "who can hear it". To say that Peter understood that Christ would die for His sins is to deny clear scripture to the contrary. When Jesus began teaching Peter of His death Peter spoke against it and Jesus replied...Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be "of men"( Matt. 16:23).
We know Peter did not understand the clear teachings of Jesus...
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day( Matt. 16:21) because after His resurrection...he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen (Mark 16:14). Peter's conversion continued after Pentecost
for he was instructed...Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15) but Peter had this to say concerning Cornelius....Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation ( Acts 10:28). At the Jerusalem council Paul confronts Peter... I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11). Peter admits the things he did not understand but were revealed to Paul....As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).

You said:
Only 7 weeks before, the crowd had demanded the death of the Lord Jesus. They had called a curse on themselves with the words: "his blood be on us, and on our children."

Now the crowd, many of whom had indeed demanded the death of the one whom they now realised was their Messiah, were in terror under the conviction of their awful crime against the one promised from the beginning.

Reply:
"His blood be on us" in that they had crucified the Messiah is a far cry from His blood has given eternal life to all who believe.

You said:
I have shown previously that the Hebrew understanding of baptism is the application of the blood of the sacrifice.

Those who rashly defied God with the self-curse : "his blood be on us, and on our children" were commanded to repent & be baptised in the name of the one the had rejected & crucified. And Peter reassures them: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. "

Reply:
I have clearly shown the apostles did not make the connection with His death for remission of their sins but they were "saved"
in obedience to water baptism. The "promise" was not received...The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).

You said:
They would not be in ignorance of the significance of baptism. THe blood of the New Covenant in Jesus' blood, contrasted with the animal blood of the Old Covenant of Ex. 24.

Reply:
They did not understand the death of Christ as I have shown. They were broken hearted at the fact their Messiah was dead and there was no rejoicing in His blood in that it gave them eternal life. They did not make the connection!

You said:
When Peter sets out his teaching systematically he affirms:
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 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.

Reply:
Remember Peter was converted and these teachings are a result of that conversion.

You said:
He goes on to show that baptism is a God-given sign of cleansing of the conscience, (not the washing, but the meaning).
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.

Reply:
The baptism that "saves" is an operation of God not man and Peter gives that meaning further clarity when he says "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" i.e. water baptism but (on the contrary) " the answer of a good conscience" i.e. faith.

I would like to thank you for your defense of the blood of Christ. It is truly a tragedy when one believes water baptism gives remission of sins. It is confusing to the unlearned when they read a scripture that clearly says repent of your sins and obey in water baptism and your sins will be remitted. Dispensationalism removes this works option and leaves only the finished work of Christ for remission of sins. I do not believe in clear cut dispensations but belief in progressive revelation in respect to what the listeners believed and what their actions and words testify.

servantofChrist
September 19th, 2001, 05:32 PM
Hi "Freak,"

You say no one has answered your challenge concerning 1 Cor. 15:2-4, which says that we are saved by "the gospel" but makes no mention of baptism.

Consider your challenge answered... Because I'm going to employ your own use of the scriptures, and the way you reason from them, and show just how erroneous they are:

You say that 1 Cor. 15:2-4 teaches that we are not saved by baptism because baptism is not mentioned in the passage. Then according to that, neither is the blood of Christ necessary [it says that He "died"; it doesn't say anything about blood being shed], neither is believing that Jesus is the Son God necessary, neither is repentance, nor confession necessary.

According to your own use of the scriptures and your own reasoning NONE of those things is necessary to be saved BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE MENTIONED IN 1 COR. 15:2-4 EITHER!

But although baptism is not explicitly mentioned, it is nonetheless IMPLIED. Because the subject of these verses in 1 Cor. 15 is "the gospel"; and Paul says, "By this gospel you are saved." And at the conclusion of the very first gospel message ever preached, when the condemned audience asked, "What shall we do?" The Holy Spirit's immediate response, through the apostle Peter, was: "Repent AND BE BAPTIZED, EVERY ONE OF YOU, in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS...." (Acts 2:38)

What do you think, Freak?

JustAChristian
September 19th, 2001, 08:01 PM
[I haven't seen anyone here say that baptism saves in and of itself. It is the outward sign of an inward change - the dedication of the believer to their saviour. What's wrong with that?]

When the Eunuch of Acts 8:36 passed along side a pool beside the road that lead down to Gaza, what did he see? He saw water. Just plain ole desert pool water. Not mountain water, not sea water but pure "dyed in the wool" desert water. What did he want from that water? He wanted to be baptized. Why did he want to be baptized? Did Phillip say to him "Now that you are saved, you aught to show the world that you are save by being baptized. Is that what he said? No!! He said "if you believe you may be baptized. Baptism was essential for him because he was still in his sins. How do I know he was still in his sins. Well, I look into the Bible and I see where someone who was later baptized was told that he still had his sins after praying a long while. That man was Saul of Tarsus (Acts 22:13-16). Now, if Saul was still in his sin after hearing and knowing and believing in Jesus, for the context tells me so, why was he still in his sins? If belief is all that is needed to be saved and to be saved is to be free from sin, why was Saul of Tarsus still in his sins? He was still in his sins because he had not obeyed the gospel (Romans 10:16; Mark 16:16). He had not been immersed into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27) where there is shelter from the storm! This is the same thing that prompted the Eunuch to be baptized. He was still in his sins. As long as Philip preached the gospel, the Eunuch had not obeyed the gospel. The gospel message tells us that we must believe in Jesus for what He is (John 8:24), it tells us that we must repent of our sins (Luke 13:3,5), it tells us that we must confess Christ before man (Matthew 10:32-33), it tell us that we must be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38), and it tell us that we must walk in the light of righteousness ( 1 John 1:7). The Eunuch went on his way rejoicing after his baptism. Why wasn't he rejoicing before? Well, he had learned that now with obedience to the commandments of the gospel he was saved. "By grace are you saved, THROUGH FAITH..." How, through believing. Grace comes after believing. Believing is doing (John 6:29). If we don't do it, we are not believing and we are not going to be saved. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). We must do that which has been presented from the gospel before we can be saved. Peter preached to Cornelius and his household (Acts 10) and they were later saved, but when? Were they saved before the preaching? No, or they were saved before faith, for faith come by hearing of the gospel (Romans 10:17) Were they saved after the Spirit decended upon them? No, because they had not obeyed the gospel (Romans 10:16). Then when was Cornelius and his house saved? After they obeyed the gospel (Hebrews 5:8-9). Trust and obey, for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus than to trust and obey!!"

JustAChristian

servantofChrist
September 19th, 2001, 08:54 PM
To all who think baptism is NOT necessary in order to be saved, would you please consider the following 2 points:

1. If there were no other passage in the entire New Testament on the subject of baptism, Matt. 28:19-20 alone should be sufficient proof that it MUST be obeyed. Especially if we understand and believe the meaning of the term - "Jesus is LORD."

Because Jesus gave a 3-part command which was UNIVERSAL in scope: "Therefore go and (1)make disciples OF ALL NATIONS (2) BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (3) and teaching them to OBEY EVERYTHING I have commanded you...." And He had just COMMANDED "BAPTISM"! To whom? "ALL NATIONS."
Question: If you had been there when the Creator of our universe (John 1:2) gave that command, would you have said, "OK, LORD, I hear you, but obeying your command for baptism is NOT necessary for someone to be saved; let's get that straight right now!"?

2. The Holy Spirit said, through the apostle Peter - "Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).

Those 4 words form an independent clause. "An independent clause is a group of words that has a subject and a predicate. They do not depend on anything else for their meaning. They express a complete thought" (Instant English Handbook, by Semmelmeyer and Bolander, p. 200).

Those 4 words spoken by Peter are a COMPLETE THOUGHT, a SELF-CONTAINED DECLARATION OF TRUTH. And "THEY DO NOT DEPEND ON ANYTHING ELSE FOR THEIR MEANING." No other words in this verse or anywhere else in the Bible contradict this plain statement of truth - "Baptism now saves you."

And I can well imagine why PETER, of all the inspired writers, made this statement. Because he was also the human vessel through which that same Holy Spirit said that baptism is "for the forgiveness of your sins" at the close of the first gospel message ever delivered (Acts 2:38).

Therefore, since baptism is "for the forgiveness of your sins," that is why "baptism now saves you," too.

Freak
September 19th, 2001, 09:28 PM
Servant Christ,

Repentance is not part of the Gospel neither is belief. These are responses to the Gospel message. The Gospel is centered in the person of Jesus Christ not baptism. By the way, the blood of Christ is inferred in 1 Cor. 15 when Paul speaks of His death.

Reread 1 Cor. 15 where Paul reminds the believers of the Gospel.

Mathetes
September 19th, 2001, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Repentance is not part of the Gospel neither is belief.


Heresy!

Peter says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 2:38

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 3:19,26

Philip says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 8:36-38 (Isa. 53:10)

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 10:36,37,43,47,48

Paul says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 13:24,38,39 (Psa. 2:12; Isa. 55:6,7)

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 17:30

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 26:18,20

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Romans 6:1-6

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Colossians 2:9-15

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - 1 Peter 3:18-22

Nowhere do they insist that this is a 'response' - it is part of the gospel message.



These are responses to the Gospel message. The Gospel is centered in the person of Jesus Christ not baptism.


Have you been baptized into Christ?

Freak
September 20th, 2001, 07:31 AM
Math,

You just don't get it do you?

*sigh*

Repentance is required of all people but it is NOT part of the Gospel. It is merely a response to the Gospel message. The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus Christ. It is centered on the person of Christ not an act involving water. Though I believe baptism is the first act of obedience for the new believer, I do not believe however baptism is required to attain salvation. That would be absurd to think baptism saves when Christ is sufficent.

Mathetes
September 20th, 2001, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Freak
Repentance is required of all people but it is NOT part of the Gospel. It is merely a response to the Gospel message. The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus Christ. It is centered on the person of Christ not an act involving water.


The gospel message is...

The good news concerning:

- The Kingdom of God

...and...

- The name of the Lord Jesus Christ

In other words:

- God's plan and purpose

- How we can become involved

It is the power of God unto salvation. It combines the promises of God with how we become involved.

Why do you suppose the apostles said this:

Peter says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 2:38

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 3:19,26

Philip says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 8:36-38 (Isa. 53:10)

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 10:36,37,43,47,48

Paul says: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 13:24,38,39 (Psa. 2:12; Isa. 55:6,7)

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 17:30

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Acts 26:18,20

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Romans 6:1-6

Paul says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - Colossians 2:9-15

Peter says again: Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism - 1 Peter 3:18-22



Though I believe baptism is the first act of obedience for the new believer, I do not believe however baptism is required to attain salvation. That would be absurd to think baptism saves when Christ is sufficent.


That's because you haven't the faintest clue about the salvic process. Baptism is necessary for salvation because it is a commandment, and obedience to the commandments of God is a necessary part of the salvic process.

It's not the getting wet which is important, it's the fact that you are obedient - submitting yourself, humble.

Freak
September 20th, 2001, 08:16 AM
Baptism is commanded not for salvation though. Just as we are commanded to evangelize. If you evangelize does not mean you have attained salvation. Math, your theology is quite flawed. Your putting the cart before the horse. Before one can obey the commandements you need the power and presence of Christ first. Jesus made it quite clear "apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). You need Jesus first then you can walk in obedience.

I'm not sure if your confused or ignorant, or perhaps both.

Mathetes
September 20th, 2001, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Freak
Baptism is commanded not for salvation though. Just as we are commanded to evangelize. If you evangelize does not mean you have attained salvation.


Try it again. Obedience to God's commandments is part of the salvic process. This means obedience to all commandments, to the best of your capacity.

Perfect obedience is never going to happen - but that's not what we're asked for. On the other hand, blatant and deliberate refusal to obey Divine commandment (which is what you keep preaching), is certainly going to earn you the wages of sin.

You want to deny that we must obey God's commadments so you can live your life in the libertine way you prefer.



Before one can obey the commandements you need the power and presence of Christ first. Jesus made it quite clear "apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). You need Jesus first then you can walk in obedience.


Oh what nonsense! I've never heard the like! You're a classic example of someone who's using the Bible to justify living as they please. It's disgusting.

Christ was emphasizing that those who do not have a covenant relationship with him are without hope. Look at the context. Those 'in Christ' are those who have been baptized into Christ, Paul tells us. Those who 'remain in him' are those who obey his commandments'.

You deny both, so no wonder you're not in Christ.

Freak
September 20th, 2001, 08:53 AM
You accused me of "not being in Christ"? You are the demon. You are the one who rejects the deity of Jesus Christ, the Triune nature of God, and justification is by faith alone.

Because of my commitment for Christ I have been detained and taken to jail. Because of my faith in Christ I have been nearly killed by those who hate God. My family has received many death threats because of our commitment to Christ. How dare you question my love and commitment to Jesus Christ. You are a heretic that needs to come to a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, who is God. Since you refuse to do this you are headed to a Christless eternity. You will be tormented day and night. But the Good news is that Jesus loves you, as do I.

By the way, do you love me Math? Did not Jesus commanded his believers to love one another. You have not blessed me, why? Did not Jesus tells us to bless one another. You are the one that is in question.

Math, I would urge you to study 1 Cor. 15, and Ephesians 2:8-9. You need to open your eyes to the Gospel and to how one gets saved. Paul made it clear it is not by "works" we are saved. Your works are utterly worthless to Him for attaining Salvation. Just trust Christ not works for salvation.

The main difference between you and me is this. You think Christ along with works is needed for salvation. I believe Jesus alone is suffcient for salvation. He does not need any help. He is able, trust Him.

tralon
September 20th, 2001, 09:06 AM
Freak your name calling and Christian attitude is deplorable.Here are your quotes.

"You are the demon"
"You are a heretic "
"You will be tormented day and night."

It is one thing to strongly disagree with a fellow board member, but to call them demonic names and wish them to an ever burning hell is dispictable as a Christian.I urge you to repent and publically apologise for your UNChristian behavior.

Sincerely
Tralon

Mathetes
September 20th, 2001, 09:22 AM
Yeah, well that's Freak for you... By their fruits ye shall know them...

Freak wrote:



You accused me of "not being in Christ"?


Most certainly! If you were his, you would look like him.
You would manifest his character. You would encourage people to obey his commandments, instead of leading them into sin and rebellion.



You are the one who rejects the deity of Jesus Christ, the Triune nature of God, and justification is by faith alone.


LOL! Justification 'by faith alone' is unScriptural. If you read the Bible you'd know that. Oh, and since Scripture is utterly silent on the Deity of Christ, there is nothing to reject.

But Scripture insists that you must believe he was utterly human...



Because of my commitment for Christ I have been detained and taken to jail.


Ha! It was probably nothing to do with Christ, and more to do with your pernicious and unsavoury behaviour.



Because of my faith in Christ...


Blah, blah, blah... I've never seen such blatant and hideous boasting! Boasting in your works no less! Boasting of your works! LOL! I knew you didn't believe in 'faith alone'!
You're too proud of your 'works', aren't you, you nasty legalist! :p



By the way, do you love me Math? Did not Jesus commanded his believers to love one another.


Yeah, but since you are not one of his, I treat you like a heathen and a publican. :o



The main difference between you and me...


The main difference is that I obey Christ, whilst you whisper in people's ears that they don't need to.

That's the main difference.

Freak
September 20th, 2001, 09:54 AM
The Christian Church looks at you Math with incredbile sadness because you seek to demonize the Lord Jesus. You reject that is He is God. This automatically places you and your group in the heretic catagory. The Christadelphian Cult that you belong to have for years promoted false teaching and dangerous lies that seek to undermine the Truth. But let it be known to all, your cult has failed by and large. Christians reject your cult and it's bizarre teachings. But it is sad however there are a few people who have bought into your cult's lies. This is terrible. But I trust many will leave your cult and come to Jesus who is God.

I knew it. Having problem loving a fellow human. I bless you my friend and truly love you as God loves you. Though you speak of Christ in the most hideous ways I still pray that God would save you.

HopeofGlory
September 20th, 2001, 11:26 AM
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:53 (KJV)

This statement by our Lord to the apostles offended them and their reply was "who can hear it"! They were taught that it was an offense to God to consume blood and we have to understand that Jesus knew the apostles would refuse it and yet the offer had to be made...to the Jew first! The law of works ran through their veins and was the center of their very being and it could not be denied. The "new" testament was being delivered to them and it was to be received by the spirit (faith) and was beyond the apostles comprehension and yet it would fulfill the prophetic words of Christ...The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43). This nation was of Gentiles and the new testament would be delivered to they by Paul. The training up of Paul would be as the apostles and was progressive but this training up would be accomplished by the Spirit of Christ. The Gentiles received the word of faith and not of works for they were not of the law and were without the offense.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)

Many do not understand these words of Christ Jesus and believe there is profit in their flesh. Christ is speaking of eternal life and how it is received and explaining it would not be possible of the flesh. The apostles were jealous of the law (works of the flesh) and refused this Spiritual offer of eternal life as many continue to do today. Spiritual things are not understood by those who believe eternal life can be attained by their obedience in the flesh.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; Matt. 26:27 (KJV)
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)

The new testament is written with the blood of Christ for remission of sins. Jesus explained that it could not be receive by the flesh but was to be received by the spirit. This is so simple and yet so hard for many to understand that it is by faith and not by works of the flesh. Faith in works is not faith in Christ and the two are not to be confused. The testament indeed was "new" and it supercedes any and all testaments before it. This "new" testament was not believed by the apostles and thus we do not see it revealed by them at Pentecost. The first to reveal this "new" testament "faith in His blood" for remission of sins was Paul. We can not avoid the truth of the matter which the apostles did not understand that this new testament for remission of sins superceded the old testament for remission of sins which was water baptism.

Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. Matt. 26:31 (KJV)

The offense of the cross is seen in the "works of the flesh" and they deny the power of God unto salvation.

c.moore
September 20th, 2001, 02:39 PM
hello freak

I know you are trying to teach these mormon doctrine followers the truth about the baptism, keep up the good teaching.

They even think they can take the place of Jesus Christ like the mormon false religion teaching in doing good works and keeping all the commandments , so they can build up points for heavenly salvation and pay for their righteousness.:D

I bet the most of the people who think baptism brings salvation don`t even know that Jesus is God almighty that goes along with their interpretation of the bible doctrine.

The most you can do is just tell them but the devil knows so bible so well he can trick these people in believing lies , and he is a professional deciever for these mormon water baptism doctrine gospel believers.

I always say when they stand before the throne of God they will hear two voices of the truth , first Jesus Christ , and then us.:)

I just want to put a word in to think about.

peace freak.

ps. I see you when you come preach in Germany by us on your international mission trip.

Ian Day
September 20th, 2001, 03:21 PM
Hope ,

How dare you slander the Apostles of the Lord, of whom the Lord Jesus said,
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being [yet] present with you.
26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.



[Hope]
Many do not understand these words of Christ Jesus and believe there is profit in their flesh. Christ is speaking of eternal life and how it is received and explaining it would not be possible of the flesh. The apostles were jealous of the law (works of the flesh) and refused this Spiritual offer of eternal life as many continue to do today. Spiritual things are not understood by those who believe eternal life can be attained by their obedience in the flesh.
Paul commended the Apostles with thsese words:
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

At the end of his life, Peter did not apologise for his mistakes:
2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 [b] That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

I grant that they were slow to learn, and even that they were in error concerning eating with Gentiles, even circumcision, as recorded in Galatians. Such errors are NOT taught in their Holy Spirit inspired preaching, or in their writings.

This was due to fear of man, or fear of giving offence. Peter did know he should eat with Gentiles:
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
H'e'd even had a special vision concerning Cornelius.

HopeofGlory
September 20th, 2001, 05:40 PM
You said:
How dare you slander the Apostles of the Lord, of whom the Lord Jesus said,

Reply:
What are you defending, the words of Jesus or the apostles?
It is clear the apostles did not discern the body of Christ!

You said:
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Reply:
I agree, it says "shall be taught" and it is also clear when we read the following verses that Jesus referred to his body as the bread of life which "would be" offered at the cross.

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. John 6:46 (KJV)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47 (KJV)
I am that bread of life. John 6:48 (KJV)

You said:
John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being [yet] present with you.
26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Reply:
Again, future tense "shall teach" and we can see that it was revealed to John at a later date but you will not find this revelation at Pentecost.

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8 (KJV)
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1 John 5:9 (KJV)
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 1 John 5:10 (KJV)

You said:
Paul commended the Apostles with thsese words:
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Reply:
It says "now" revealed and by who? It says "my knowledge" (Paul's)! By what means? A "mystery" that is "now" revealed!

You said:
At the end of his life, Peter did not apologise for his mistakes:
2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Reply:
Agreed but but he goes on to include Paul as a holy prophet and has this to say about Paul's teachings:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Pet. 3:16 (KJV)
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 2 Pet. 3:17 (KJV)

Peter credits PAUL as the one who delivered the things that were "hard to be understood".

If we go back a bit we will see what those things were that Paul used to instruct Peter:

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Gal. 2:14 (KJV)
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal. 2:16 (KJV)
But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. Gal. 2:17 (KJV)
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Gal. 2:18 (KJV)
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. Gal. 2:19 (KJV)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Gal. 2:20 (KJV)
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

You said:
I grant that they were slow to learn, and even that they were in error concerning eating with Gentiles, even circumcision, as recorded in Galatians. Such errors are NOT taught in their Holy Spirit inspired preaching, or in their writings.

Reply:
Again, I agree with you but actions speak louder than words and it can not be argued that they were in error and did not discern the body of Christ when it was offered as the "new" testament in his blood.

You said:
This was due to fear of man, or fear of giving offence. Peter did know he should eat with Gentiles:
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
H'e'd even had a special vision concerning Cornelius.

Reply:

Peter was instructing the Gentiles in the law of which he still believed! He withdrew because those of the circumcision believed "it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation".

I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

We should not be concerned in the offense of men for we cannot please man if the cost is offense of the cross of Christ.

rapt
September 20th, 2001, 08:57 PM
Ian:

What I (& I think others) maintain is that the inward change, regeneration, being born again, from above by the Holy Spirit, MUST have taken place before baptism is carried out, otherwise there is no grounds for baptism. We baptise believers. We don't make believers by baptism.

Baptism is a sign of entry into the New Covenant by the blood of Jesus, a sign of death to sin & rising to live a new life in Christ, of the cleansing of the conscience by the applied blood of the sacrifice, of washing from sin, of being united with Christ and membership of his body and thus active membership of the church, etc.

A believer who refuses baptism may find the privileges of church membership refused. He may decline believers' baptism because he understands that his infant baptism was a covenant baptism analogous to circumcision, and therefore a valid baptism.

Amen.

I only recently came to understand "covenant" baptism, that is, that a child raised in a Christian home is included in the parent's spiritual inheritance as long as he follows what is right. (But I reject once-saved-always-saved)

Freak
September 21st, 2001, 11:17 AM
It's amazing nobody has dealt with the scriptures that I was pointed out at the beginning, my first post on this thread.

tralon
September 21st, 2001, 11:46 AM
You state a man is saved solely by just believing in Jesus as his Savior and you quote John 3:16 and Acts 16:31.I agree man is saved by faith, but is that ALL that the bible says on the matter?.What about Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19 and Rom 8:9,Col 1:23 and Heb 5:9?

Are these things ESSENTIAL to one's salvation as well? Mustn't a person repent, be baptised with the Holy Spirit and try to be obedient to God as well, in working out their salvation?

If believing were all that was necessary for going to heaven, then why even go to church? Why repent of your daily sins or any sins you ever comitted for that matter? Why desire to be filled with the Holy Spirit anyway? Why be obedient? Just believe and live like the rest of the world does.

I'll tell you why , because God is the author of eternal SALVATION to all who OBEY HIM." Not just believing.As John MacArtur rightly says, a true Christian has a faith that WORKS or he has an empty faith.Freak you expouse "easy believeism" which is widely taught in Christendom today and that is why it is hard to tell some Christians apart from the unsaved in the world today.

Freak
September 21st, 2001, 12:06 PM
Tralon,

I believe what Jesus says: In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:33). Jesus calls all humans to acknowledge His Lordship over their lives. I call all to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm afraid your confusing sanitfication and salvation. Santification is the process we (Christians) abide in Christ and seek to obey all He has commanded. This occurs after one is saved. You cannot obey Christ without first experiencing the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit which comes by faith alone in Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30).

Salvation occurs when one puts their faith and faith alone in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not easy as you propose. It is not easy for humans to recoginze that they need someone greater than themselves to save them from their self and sin. Pride is often a hinderance to these people and often leads one to eternal death. It is not easy bowing to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, it is laying down ones life completely to Jesus.

rapt
September 21st, 2001, 02:05 PM
tralon:

You state a man is saved solely by just believing in Jesus as his Savior and you quote John 3:16 and Acts 16:31.I agree man is saved by faith, but is that ALL that the bible says on the matter?. What about Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19 and Rom 8:9,Col 1:23 and Heb 5:9?

Are these things ESSENTIAL to one's salvation as well? Mustn't a person repent, be baptised with the Holy Spirit and try to be obedient to God as well, in working out their salvation?

If believing were all that was necessary for going to heaven, then why even go to church? Why repent of your daily sins or any sins you ever comitted for that matter? Why desire to be filled with the Holy Spirit anyway? Why be obedient? Just believe and live like the rest of the world does.

I'll tell you why , because God is the author of eternal SALVATION to all who OBEY HIM." Not just believing. As John MacArtur rightly says, a true Christian has a faith that WORKS or he has an empty faith. Freak you expouse "easy believeism" which is widely taught in Christendom today and that is why it is hard to tell some Christians apart from the unsaved in the world today.

AMEN. Such a "gospel" is perverse; it is merely the license for sin that Jude condemned (Jude 3,4). It promises liberty but stumbles it's hearers into corruption, and delievers nobody from corruption for very long, if at all. It makes every warning to the believer "OF NONE EFFECT", so whoever believes it "worships God in VAIN" (Mat 15:6-9). It basically calls God a liar, who warns every believer (to "endure unto the end to BE saved", to "take heed lest you fall, whenever you THINK you stand", and "take heed lest there be in any of YOU an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God"), for it supposes salvation to be something separate from sanctification, as if one is totally and securely saved while yet unsanctified, and assumes sanctification as merely optional. They foolishly call them "heretics" who say "Not everyone that calls Jesus "Lord Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of God, but ONLY THEY THAT DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER" (which of course must include Jesus Himself, though they adamantly deny that are denying Christ and His gospel).

If Jesus' gospel is accursed to them, then it should be obvious who (along with their gospel) is the truly accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)

One poster blasphemed the everlasting gospel by even having said "Acts 2:38 will send you strait to hell"!

Any man that calls Jesus Christ and/or the gospel that Peter preached (which IS the gospel of Christ) "accursed" (which by saying it will "send you strait to hell" is the SAME AS) is not of God.

Ian Day
September 21st, 2001, 02:52 PM
Tralon, Rapt,

You charge Freak with promoting the "easy believism" gospel. I do not see that in his postings.


[tralon]
If believing were all that was necessary for going to heaven, then why even go to church? Why repent of your daily sins or any sins you ever comitted for that matter? Why desire to be filled with the Holy Spirit anyway? Why be obedient? Just believe and live like the rest of the world does.
He makes it quite clear that that is NOT the gospel he affirms.

[Freak]
I believe what Jesus says: In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:33). Jesus calls all humans to acknowledge His Lordship over their lives. I call all to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm afraid your confusing sanitfication and salvation. Santification is the process we (Christians) abide in Christ and seek to obey all He has commanded. This occurs after one is saved. You cannot obey Christ without first experiencing the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit which comes by faith alone in Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30).
Try to understand that salvation, having new life in CHrist, being born from above by the Holy Spirit, results in holy living.

HopeofGlory
September 21st, 2001, 05:54 PM
Ian,

Try to understand that salvation, having new life in CHrist, being born from above by the Holy Spirit, results in holy living.

Amen to that! It is clear holy living DOES NOT grant salvation! To believe that man's obedience merits salvation is clear blasphemy to the "finished" work of Christ.

Freak,
I agree with you 100% that it is faith alone in the righteousness of Christ and not of works. You keep defending our Saviour with that message and by the grace of God it may save some from the flames.


But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isa. 64:6 (KJV)
And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. Isa. 64:7 (KJV)

tralon
September 21st, 2001, 06:17 PM
"It is clear holy living DOES NOT grant salvation"


God's word says -"he[Christ] became the author of eternal SALVATION unto all them that OBEY him"Heb.5:9

"Follow peace with all men, AND HOLINESS, without which NO MAN SHALL SEE THE LORD" Heb 12:14

"My sheep HEAR my voice, and I know them, and THEY FOLLOW ME" John 10:27

"For if ye[Christians] live after the flesh, ye SHALL DIE...."Rom 8:13

Ian Day
September 22nd, 2001, 12:43 AM
Tralon,

Of course your texts are valid.

If we cannot show our faith by holy living, then our faith is not saving faith. We are saved FROM SIN, not to CONTINUE IN SIN.

Our salvation depends on the righteousness of Christ, and at the judgement will stand IN CHRIST ALONE.

Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this [is] his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.[/b]

I have selected from Romans 3 & 4. Please study the chapters, & read on.

Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

Rom 3:8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 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:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 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;
26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

In no way are we claiming, saving faith without obedience, as you slanderously report, "Freak you expouse "easy believeism" which is widely taught in Christendom today and that is why it is hard to tell some Christians apart from the unsaved in the world today."

rapt
September 22nd, 2001, 05:59 AM
Ian,

I see easy believism blaspheming Christ's gospel from Freak's very first post in this string:
The heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!
As expected we have heretics spreading their destructive doctrines on this forum
This pawn of Satan embraces and promotes a doctrine that will lead many to eternal hell. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. Baptism is not a requirement!

...when addressing the people of His day, Jesus was asked: "What must we do to do the works God requires?", Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent" (John 6:28-29). Note no mention of baptism.

Jesus made it clear O2bewise: I AM THE GATE; WHOEVER ENTERS THROUGH ME WILL BE SAVED (John 10:9).

Again no mentione of baptism, apparently to o2bewise Jesus must have misspoken here.
I would urge my fellow believers in the Lord Jesus to come against O2bewise's devilish doctrines. This man degrades our Lord when He speaks against Him by stating Baptism is required to be saved. This is in direct opposition to what our Lord said. Jesus said just come unto Him and you will be saved.

Some unbelievers once asked the disciples: "What must I do to be saved?"

They replied: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (Acts 16:31).

Note again no mention of baptism. Just belief in the Lord Jesus.

I'm sorry, Ian, but I see NOTHING LESS than "easy believism" in Freak's very first post. He has an empty understanding of what "faith" is according to the scriptures. He slanders the very doctrine of Jesus Christ by omitting baptism, since when one RIGHTLY DIVIDES all the scriptures concerning salvation, he finds that Jesus INDEED said "He that believeth AND IS BAPTISED shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned".

Christ commissioned his disciples to "go into all nations TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, BAPTISING THEM...". Yet Freak blasphemously calls this very doctrine a "devilish" one that will send people to hell. It is his doctrine of DENIAL of the gospel of Christ that is and has sent millions to hell. Anyone adding to or taking away from the gospel will have their part taken out of the book of life, and the plagues written in the bible will be added to him (Rev 22:18,19).

Freak even quotes Lk 14:33, which says that anyone who doesn't forsake all he has cannot be His disciple. Can't Freak see that he has CONTRADICTED HIMSELF? We don't see any mention of "forsaking all" in many other places where Jesus spake of the requirement to be His disciple! Can't he see that he hasn't yet "forsaken" his stubborness to completely believe all the things Jesus commanded? Can't he understand that Christ did not always give every requirement of discipleship (salvation) every time he gave an answer, but by the word "believe" that's what He MEANT? He didn't ALWAYS say one must "forsake all" to be His disciple, did He? He didn't always say to "repent". He didn't always say one must "endure to the end" to be saved. But once He did ask "Why call ye me Lord Lord, and DO NOT THE THINGS THAT I SAY?" By such a question He obviously meant to ask all those "easy believers" who take the word "believe" and vainly run with it like Freak does, who twist the grace of God into a license for sin (disobedience) by perverting the word "believe" to mean nothing but a hollow agreement of who Christ is wherein no obedience is required.

DEVILS believe like that! (James 2:19)

WE must repent, forsake all, be baptised, and WALK IN THE TRUTH to be saved. One is only in a saved condition as long as he abides in Christ. It is not a one time profession, it is a lifetime discipline, or one is decieving himself that he is saved "eternally" when he is yet in his sins.

Baptism is "for the remission of sins" according to Peter and Christ.

Certainly one must believe Christ to be saved. But it is changing the word "believe" into a lie and making the Word of God of none effect to say that baptism is "not required" just as it would be to say that forsaking all, repentance, continuance in the faith, love of the brethren, and many other requirements are not required, for if one truly "believes" in Christ he WILL submit to ALL of His doctrine. Baptism is only one requirement for salvation according to the doctrine of Christ and the apostles.

Faith without obedience to ALL the requirements of Christ for salvation is DEAD, being ALONE. So much for "faith alone".

rapt
September 22nd, 2001, 06:10 AM
HOG:

We can not avoid the truth of the matter which the apostles did not understand that this new testament for remission of sins superceded the old testament for remission of sins which was water baptism.

That is total NONSENSE. Peter understood the gospel of Christ (all except for the fact that He would yet grant the gentiles repentance too), and preached it in Acts 2:


Acts 2
38
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.
39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

He had a PERFECT understanding of what gives us "remission of sins", and commanded it be done! Baptism for the remission of sins was given while the OT was yet valid through John, but Jesus brought in grace and truth by the New Covenant, which did NOT "supercede" it all, it confirmed it. Jesus taught His disciples to go into all the world with the gospel that included baptism for the remission of sins...AFTER He died and rose again.

HOG overlooks the fact that Peter had that same day RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and was speaking as the Spirit gave him utterance! Will he say that the Holy Spirit "didn't understand" what He was saying, or that He was lying??

I think we will all agree that if someone doesn't understand, it certainly wasn't the Holy Spirit through apostle Peter, it is those who reject His doctrine.

When the Holy Spirit led Peter into yet more truth, and showed him that the gentiles too could be saved and receive HIM, did Peter forsake water baptism for the remission of sins?

Certainly NOT!

c.moore
September 22nd, 2001, 06:31 AM
Hello Freak

you are doing a good job for Jesus Christ who is God Jehovah .

what`s up wth this group the Christadelphian, do they hate chritians that believe Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God?.

Do they think they are christian ????.

Do they believe he healing at least or do they believe it died with the apostals???

Are they worst than the mormons and JW`s?????.

do they think the the mormon doctrine that baptism saves, and when some one is not water baptized they are on their way to hell ??????.

Thanks if you can answer me
your evangelist friend in Germany from boston.

rapt
September 22nd, 2001, 06:39 AM
To be sure, Mr. Moore, I am no way a Christadelphian. I am not part of any denomonation or nondenomonation.

Freak
September 22nd, 2001, 08:38 AM
Hello my dear friend C. Moore.

It has been very trying to teach these cultisits the things of the Lord Jesus. Even with the slander and distortions I will continue to seek to defend the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise the Lord Jesus for believers like yourself that seek to defend the truth among the cults.

Yes, the Christadelphian Cult denies the Deity of the Lord Jesus. They deny the Triune nature of God and other essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. They attempt to cover themselves with the title "Christian" but discerning Christians need to be aware that this group is very dangerous. They seek to promote "doctrines of demons" that the apostle Paul warned us about. This group is not as large as the Mormons or JW's but "may" be more dangerous because they use the Holy Scriptures more so than these other groups, but their twisiting of Scripture is shameful. They may use the Scriptures but they deny it's power as they rip it apart for their own devilish doctrines.

They along with these other groups deny salvation is by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. They seek to add works to the finished work of Christ. They believe Christ is not enough, one needs works, in order to get saved.

Rapt,

You are seeking to undermine the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did on the Cross. You continue to promote a devilish doctrine. You believe good works will help you get to heaven and twist Scripture to try to prove your point. This is utter blasphemy. The Apostle Paul made it clear that it is not by "works" one is saved (Ephesians 2:8-9). Yes, I believe good works are a byproduct of ones salvations but they DO NOT SAVE YOU! If you believe good works are essential for salvation then you are preaching a different Gospel. You seek to slander me and I would urge you to stop. I preach Christ and His Lordship.

rapt
September 22nd, 2001, 08:41 AM
Luke 24:
45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


Matt 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying...
9
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Was Luke wrong to not mention baptism, when he spake of remission of sins being preached?

Was Peter wrong when he OBEYED this command in Acts 2 and elsewhere, saying that we must repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, that we might receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Was Paul wrong to obey it? (Even if Paul himself didn't baptise, he preached the same gospel of Christ! Jesus himself didn't do the baptising, but his disciples did: Jn 4:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=Jesus+baptized+not+disciples&SearchType=AND&version=KJV&restrict=&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&language=english))

Are they not all wrong who DENY it, preaching any other gospel?

tralon
September 22nd, 2001, 08:52 AM
Ian, I certainly agree with your post that we can only be saved by the grace of God through Christ's rightousness.But the issue I was trying to get accross was, that God does NOT honor a faith that is not a PRACTICING faith.See Heb 11. A true Christian must attempt to OBEY God in whatever he is taught to do as the word of God states.Christianity is a WALK of obedience as well as a heartfelt faith.


Today in most churches where "easy believeism" is preached, one is told all they have to do is believe AND GOD WILL TAKE CARE OF THE REST.BECAUSE YOU'RE ETERNALLY SECURE.I've known tons of people in my lifetime that consider water baptism as an option.Some when they get back home from church, live exactly the SAME lifestyle as the unsaved.When you confront them.They say, "God understands my weaknesses, and besides I'm saved."

Many times in Sunday school class the teacher will ask a SIMPLE question pertaining to the lesson and the majority of the class doesn't even respond.Because they haven't studied their lesson, let alone are they familiar with ther own bible and whart it teaches.

The thing that disturbs me is that alot of preachers are subscribing to this "easy believeism" teaching ,so they can increase the population of their churches.They use entertainment and anything to make the Christian families FEEL comfortable. They certainly DON'T want to preach a hard sermon on hellfire or practical "holiness" for everyday life.Most sermons contain scattered bible verses with added illustrations from the preacher and a joke or two thrown in.Just enough to make it sound SPIRITUAL but not to preachy.They DON'T want to UPSET anyone.Because they want them to return next week.

Years ago a great Baptist theologian Lewis Chafer wrote a book entitled "the Spiritual man" In this book he described the ideal of what a Christian should be.But at the same time he admited that MOST Christians are CARNAL or wordly Christians and do not live up to what they should be in Christ.His analysis was excellent and truthfull.But his error was not in saying that most Christians are carnal, rather than spiritual, but they will continue to be saved irregardless of their carnal behavior.This is where Chafer and I part company.

This SAME ideaology has crept into the modern church today.Our churches are FILLED with CARNAL Christians who do not realize that God expects his people to live holy lives. For Christians arn't saved IN their sins, but are saved FROM their sins. A Christian is saved to bring FORTH good works and to crucify the flesh.Of course we are NOT perfect and we will falter.But our primary goal should be to become more Christlike and wanting to OBEY what our Lord and Master wishes.That is what being a disciple is all about.

rapt
September 22nd, 2001, 11:40 AM
Amen, tralon, preach it!


2 Timothy 4
3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.


1 Timothy 4
1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2
Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.


Jude 1
4
For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.


Acts 20
29
I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30
Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.




Though Jesus spake more about hell than anyone, most professing Christians don't want to hear any "fire and brimstone preachers"; they only wanna hear about "love, love, love; all ya need is love". "Faith ALONE" is "Lord lord" alone, without obedience to the Lord, which is DENIAL.

The five foolish virgins were somewhat believers, but they didn't make it.

The foolish man heard the word, but he didn't DO it. His house will fall.

Not everyone that says "Lord, lord" will enter the Kingdom of God. (It's not just for the phyisical Jews, either, all you disps that think it is. To enter the Kingdom of God means to be saved) Our salvation while yet in this life is a probation; we are to walk in fear, preparing ourselves, even as Noah moved with fear and prepared the ark for the SAVING of his household. He worked on that ark most of his life, didn't he (I don't remember how long he lived, but I do remember the ark took 120 years to build) Yet today, people are told their only responsibility is to walk down an eisle and "say a little prayer", and that's all there is to it: "NOW YOU'RE ETERNALLY SAVED, AND YOU CAN'T EVER DO ANYTHING TO LOSE IT".

What a crass, cheap definition of the most important decision in a person's entire life! It completely smacks of the commercialism of the denomonations; of the smooth way of the false prophets of old, and it degrades and trivializes salvation into a few moment, "four-step" program of carnality that denies the lifetime commitment commanded by the true gospel in order to obtain complete salvation.

And they have the gall to call that "evangelism"???

. . . :mad:

JustAChristian
September 22nd, 2001, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Freak
It's amazing nobody has dealt with the scriptures that I was pointed out at the beginning, my first post on this thread.

I don't know. I thought I did a pretty good job on you earlier. Maybe we are not reading the same board. You were saying that 1 Cor. 15 gospel doesn't contain anything about baptism, I believe. Well, neither did Paul mention anything about repenting, but I believe repentence is of the gospel. He mentioned nothing about believing, but I believe that faith is of the gospel and I could go on and on. Not being a part of a certain context doen not negate a particular subject. Paul told the elders at Ephesus that he shunned not to declare "all the counsel of God" but he didn't limit it to the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians. You are going to have to take another route, Freak, for this road your following want get you anywhere.

JustAChristian

rapt
September 22nd, 2001, 01:52 PM
Such blindness makes me remember one poster that said that because the word "covenant" is not found in Genesis concerning God's commandment to Adam and Eve, therefore there couldn't have been any covenant.

That's about as bright as saying that this sentence:

He fell down the stairs doesn't say ANYTHING about the man stumbling because the word "stumble" isn't used!

How does one deal with such childishness, and the unwillingness to admit when one is wrong?

I guess Paul said it: "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant".

JustAChristian
September 22nd, 2001, 06:53 PM
May I prepose that the Scriptures teaches that water baptism is for, in order to obtain, the remission of past sins. We learn about this when we go to the verses that teach this. Passages on repentence is not found in verses that we go to in learning about faith. Likewise, passages on faith is not to be sought where we look for teaching about repentence. Passages on faith and repentence are not the place to learn about baptism unless this is where baptism is discussed. From all this we should conclude that the places to go to in order to learn about baptism is in the verses that teach baptism.

Baptism is commanded in the New Testament. It is not an option (Acts 10:37-38; 2:38; Mark 16:16; John 7:29-30). It is for penitent believers in a immersion in water (Acts 2:36-38;Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:4). The meaning of the word"baptizo" proves this. The act of baptism is for the remission of sins of the alien sinner, the forgivness which takes place in the mind of God.

With a view to the verses cited above, we must conclude that baptism stands between the sinner and salvation of his soul (Mark 16:16). It is as simple to conclude this as it is to conclude that he that eats and digests his food shall live, but he that does not eat shall die. Really, it doesn't take a genius. Baptism stands between the sinner and remision of sins (Acts 2:38). Baptism stands between the sinner and becoming a son of God (Galatians 3:26-27). If one is not baptized he or she is not in Christ. Salvation is in Christ along will all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:10). If one is not baptized, he or she cannot be born again (John 3:3-5). He or she has not put on Christ.

Baptism in a body of water, for the remission of sins, spiritually washes away sins. (Actas 22:16). Saul of Tarsus had to be obedient to the command delivered by Ananias in order to have his sins removed. Can a son of God be in the likeness of Christ with the stigma of past sins untouched by the blood of Christ? I really don't think that harmonizes with the balance of the teaching of the apostles. Baptism must be understood to stand between the sinner and the blotting out of his or her sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19).

Baptism stands between the sinner and rconciliation unto God in one body (Eph. 2:14-16). The one body is the church (Eph 1:32). Finally we must conclude that baptism stands between the sinner and rejoicing because of the remission of sins (Acts 8:39; Acts 16:34; Acts 8:8). What caused the rejoicing and when did it occur? Thus, if one can be saved without baptism-- he or she can be saved

1. Without obeying Christ (Mark 16:16).
2. Without entering the Kingdom (John 3:5).
3 Without remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
4. Without blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19).
5. Without washing away of sins (Acts 22:16).
6. Without entering Christ (Romans 6:3).
7. Without the death and blood of Christ (Romans 6:3).
8. Without Christ having risen (Romans 6:4; 4:25).
9. Without walking in newness of life (Romans 6:4).
10. Without being redeemed (Ephesians 1:7).
11. Without being in Christ, putting on Christ and being a child of God. (Galatians 3:26-27; Eph 1:3).

Obey Christ in baptism and live eternally with Him. He commanded it. It is a part of the Gospel. It is essential for salvation. If not, disprove my proof texts.

JustAChristian

rapt
September 22nd, 2001, 08:33 PM
AMEN, JustaChristian! Right on! :)

(You know, as I read your list, it seems to me that the dispensationalists suppose that the fleshly Jews were/can be saved by a gospel that omits most if not all of those things)

Ian Day
September 22nd, 2001, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by JustAChristian
May I prepose that the Scriptures teaches that water baptism is for, in order to obtain, the remission of past sins.
......................
Thus, if one can be saved without baptism-- he or she can be saved

1. Without obeying Christ (Mark 16:16).
2. Without entering the Kingdom (John 3:5).
3 Without remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
4. Without blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19).
5. Without washing away of sins (Acts 22:16).
6. Without entering Christ (Romans 6:3).
7. Without the death and blood of Christ (Romans 6:3).
8. Without Christ having risen (Romans 6:4; 4:25).
9. Without walking in newness of life (Romans 6:4).
10. Without being redeemed (Ephesians 1:7).
11. Without being in Christ, putting on Christ and being a child of God. (Galatians 3:26-27; Eph 1:3).

Obey Christ in baptism and live eternally with Him. He commanded it. It is a part of the Gospel. It is essential for salvation. If not, disprove my proof texts.

JustAChristian
Q1 "May I prepose that the Scriptures teaches that water baptism is for, in order to obtain, the remission of past sins. "

Of course you can, BUT its not true. Baptism, like circumcision, like the Lord's Supper, is a sign. It is a sign to the believer of what it means to be IN CHRIST. But it does not itself effect salvation. It is a sign for the saved believer.

Just as the sign of circumcision, [was] a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised:

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Please note that Romans 6 comes after Romans 1-5. Paul is writing systematic theology.

Baptism is the New Covenant SIGN of all those things but for the believer already who has repented & turned to God in faith.

Hebrews 9 shows us primarily that it is a sign of the applied blood of the sacrifice of Christ, the reality of which is attained by the renewing, regenerating of the Holy Spirit.

To make the sign of righteousness by faith in Christ essential to obtaining that righteousness is to deny that saving righteousness is by faith in Christ.

Huguenot
September 22nd, 2001, 09:36 PM
In the first century Church it was unheard of a person who was a Christian but not baptized. I am uncomfortable with the idea that some seem to express that "Baptism is optional". It kinda sounds like going to Burger King when they ask would you like cheese with your Whopper. On the other hand the Baptismal regeneration theory teaches infused grace that places salvation in a sacrament and not Christ.


I agree with Ian that it is a sign. To make a silly illustration, If one sees a Taco Bell sign one expects to find a restaurant. One would not expect the sign for a Taco Bell to be erected in an empty field nor would one expect to find a Taco Bell with no sign in front of it.

Is that illustation clear as mud?

:D

I do think it is dangerous to say Acts 2:38 is not applicable today. It is! I think balance is the key to avoid hyper Dispensational "No Baptism" Theology on one hand and Baptismal Regeneration on the other.

Freak
September 22nd, 2001, 09:41 PM
Rapt & Just,

It is apparent you have chosen to remain spiritual darkness. That is a shame for you are degrading the Lord Jesus and His great salvation. You trust in baptism where I trust in Christ.

Since Christ was baptized do you believe He did it for a sign/symbolic reason or for Salvation??????????????

I hope and pray you will not say Jesus was baptized for salvation.

Interested in your answer.

JustAChristian
September 23rd, 2001, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by Ian Day

Q1 "May I prepose that the Scriptures teaches that water baptism is for, in order to obtain, the remission of past sins. "

Of course you can, BUT its not true. Baptism, like circumcision, like the Lord's Supper, is a sign. It is a sign to the believer of what it means to be IN CHRIST. But it does not itself effect salvation. It is a sign for the saved believer.

Just as the sign of circumcision, [was] a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised:

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Please note that Romans 6 comes after Romans 1-5. Paul is writing systematic theology.

Baptism is the New Covenant SIGN of all those things but for the believer already who has repented & turned to God in faith.

Hebrews 9 shows us primarily that it is a sign of the applied blood of the sacrifice of Christ, the reality of which is attained by the renewing, regenerating of the Holy Spirit.

To make the sign of righteousness by faith in Christ essential to obtaining that righteousness is to deny that saving righteousness is by faith in Christ.


You failed to follow a systematic path of disprove my conclusion. Putting assertions in place of proof is not a viable solution to debate. Where does baptism ever speak of itself as a sign? We can not be a part of Christ without baptism: Note, 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." What were they added to? The Church. When were they added to the church? (Acts 2:47). Salvation is in the body (Eph 1:3) The body is the church (Col. 1:18). We are baptized into the church. Its that simple.

JustAChristian

Freak
September 23rd, 2001, 08:40 AM
Answer my question Just a Christian....

rapt
September 23rd, 2001, 12:23 PM
Oh, Lord Jesus, if what Ian and Huguenot are saying is true, please convince me; I don't want to be a blind Pharisee; I want to know and believe the truth, not adding to or taking from Your commandments.

I have been studying with the Church of Christ, and am finding that they suppose that they are the only church. They deny being a "denomonation". I believe they are correct to say that Christ is not divided, as into many denomonations, for that is indeed confusion; Christ's doctrine is ONE, not many. But every cult I've ever been in has always claimed to be the ONLY church. So I discern a high red flag, warning me of danger.

They also have recently tried to refute the holiness churches' doctrines, some of which are indeed errors, but others that seem to me to be correct. They say that baptism in Jesus' name is a "misunderstanding", and that we must be baptised into the titles "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". But I don't believe for a second that Peter had any "misunderstanding" the day he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and spake as the Spirit gave him utterance, and taught baptism in Jesus' name! (Acts 2:28) I believe that there is ONE NAME given among men whereby we must be baptised and saved, and that is Jesus Christ (or Yashua, if you prefer Hebrew Acts 4:12). That is the name above all names, both in Heaven and Earth (Ephesians 1:21; Philippians 2:9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=name+above+every+&SearchType=AND&version=KJV&restrict=&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&language=english)).

The CoC also claims that the holiness church is in error concerning the gifts of the Spirit, and the baptism thereof. They claim that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit was only ever received by the Apostles, and that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are now "done away". I think they are in error on both points, even though what I've seen practiced in the holiness church is very often an abuse of the gifts (if they are gifts at all to begin with), such as when a number of people in a congregation speak in "tongues" simultaniously (if it can even be called "tongues"; I think much of what is practiced is pure emotionalism; it is not spoken as the Spirit gives utterance), when scripture clearly forbids that, calling it "confusion". Also, any ONE person is forbidden to speak out loud in a congregation in tongues whenever there is no interpretation (1Cor 14). In such a case, one that truly speaks in an unknown tongue must do it "to himself and to God", keeping silence in the church . Anyone speaking out of his own emotionalism has no right to do it out loud or silently; he should completely DENY such a thing; it is of the flesh and not of God.

The holiness church is in great error to claim that a person is not saved unless he speaks in "tongues" (especially since they accept emotionalism in the place of the Spirit's utterance as evidence of His baptism), since scripture clearly shows that the Spirit doesn't give everyone the same gift, operation, or administration (1Cor 12) (i.e, not everyone will speak in tongues any more than everyone is a prophet, an apostle, or has the gift of miracles or healing).

In conclusion, I think the gifts are still given by the Spirit to the church as He will, but the church's responsibility is to restrict their use to scriptural guidelines, and not allow the confusion of emotionalism to rule rather than the Holy Spirit. If things are done decently and in order, as the scripture commands, there would be no abuse. I think baptism is still commanded, but I see a similarity between (OT) circumcision and (NT) baptism, in that circumcision could never have circumcised one's heart any more than baptism can wash away sins, for just as one can be immersed time after time and still never rise up "dead in Christ", so outward circumcision was also worthless unless true faith abode in one's heart. It seems true that both are signs; acts of obedience to the commandment of God, but not the very thing that cleanses the heart.

The blood of bulls and goats could never make a sacrificer's conscience perfect, but the blood of Christ can, and that is only ever obtained by faith, not by outward ceremony. On the other hand, disobedience to the commandment of God disannuls faith, for faith without works is dead.

I pray that my understanding will be a faithful response to what scripture commands rather than a fleshly reaction to those that deny the scriptures, including the NT commandment to be baptised.

JustAChristian
September 23rd, 2001, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Rapt & Just,

It is apparent you have chosen to remain spiritual darkness. That is a shame for you are degrading the Lord Jesus and His great salvation. You trust in baptism where I trust in Christ.

Since Christ was baptized do you believe He did it for a sign/symbolic reason or for Salvation??????????????

I hope and pray you will not say Jesus was baptized for salvation.

Interested in your answer.

The Bible tells us:

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Psalms 119:172 ¶ My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness.

The verses tell us that Jesus was baptized to fulfil all righteousness. The commandments of the law disclose God's righteousness. It was essential for Jesus to show the righteousness of God in obeying His commands as a man. Jesus was baptized to fulfil the command of God.

Secondly, Jesus was baptized in order that God could manifest Him to the Jewish nation as the Messiah. (Matt. 3:17; John 1:31; Acts 10:38).

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 23rd, 2001, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Answer my question Just a Christian....

Baptism is the point at which a person is united with Christ into His death and resurrection into "newness of life" (Rom 6:3)
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. 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.

When explaining good works, you said "but those who are saved but do no good works, still get in but have no special credit."
There is not a single passage of scripture to butress this ascertion. In fact the bible says, concerning those who are interested in eternal life, "To them who BY PATIENT CONTINUANCE IN WELL DOING seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:"(Rom 2:7), and again, "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. {9} And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, IF WE FAINT NOT." (Gal 6:8-9), and again, "And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they BE NOT UNFRUITFUL." (Titus 3:14), and again, "Every branch in me that BEARETH NOT FRUIT He(God, the Father) taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:2) People that "do no good works" as you put it, do not have a shred of evidence of being connected to Christ and the eternal purpose of God, for Eph 2:10 says "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." "Good works" in this sense sre not works that earn salvation, but actions that are EVIDENCE of the working of salvation in a believer's life!--an important truth to see indeed!!

JustAChristian

rapt
September 23rd, 2001, 12:57 PM
JustaChristian:

Where does baptism ever speak of itself as a sign?

Where was circumcision ever spoken of as a "sign" in the OT? The only scripture I ever found that called circumcision a sign is in the NT.

There were other signs given beside circumcision, which could never have saved anyone who practiced them without faith in God. If they had faith in the sign without faith in God, they would have only deceived themselves (such as eating unleavened bread just before the Passover; keeping the Sabbath; sacrificing animals, etc.)

Noah, who moved with fear, had been in the process of preparing the ark long before his typical baptism took place. (Now I don't say this to coddle or justify anyone who supposes that they can either omit or put off being baptized, since Noah did just as he was commanded, and did not procrastinate) His "baptism" was a sign of his faith, and his faithful obedience was what saved him. Had he not had a good conscience toward God, he would never have built the ark, and would have perished with the wicked.

Abraham too walked in faithful obedience before he received circumcision:


Romans 4:12 (Abraham was) the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

I still think that if we truly "believe" in Christ, we will DO WHAT HE COMMANDED, but we will trust in Him and not any outward ceremony only (which even any unfaithful hypocrit can perform) to save us.

rapt
September 23rd, 2001, 01:09 PM
JustaChristian:

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.

Good point, JustaChristian! I believe Jesus made an exception here, and saved this man though he wasn't baptized. But the man is not a model to follow! We had better not hope that we too will recieve death bed amnesty when we have rejected God's commandment, for WE KNOW BETTER!

And I CERTAINLY AGREE with all you replied to Freak concerning good works. Jn 15:2 especially knocks his false doctrine down, as do the many others you quoted. :)

Freak
September 23rd, 2001, 10:30 PM
I would urge all of those who embrace that false teaching that baptism is essential for salvation read what Paul had to say in Romans 8:30: Whom He justified, He also glorified.

Note the words Paul used. The Apostle made it clear after you are justified you will be glorified. And we know justification occurs by faith in Christ (see Romans 5:1-"having been justified by faith"). So when you place your faith in Christ-not only are you justified but will be glorified. Notice no mention of baptism.

rapt
September 23rd, 2001, 11:32 PM
I would urge all of those who embrace the false teaching that "baptism (or obedience to any other commandment of Christ) is not essential for salvation" to read what John said about what happens to everyone who adds to or takes from the God's Holy Word, and what Paul said about anyone perverting the gospel of Christ:


Revelation 22
18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

(So much for "once-saved, always-saved"! No one ever gets their name IN the book who never was born again!)


Galatians 1
6
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7
which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. (NIV)

8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

God only gives the Holy Spirit to "THOSE THAT OBEY HIM", and if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not Christ's child. (Rom 8:9; Acts 5:32 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Rom+8%3A9%3B+Acts+5%3A32&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english))


Acts 5
32
And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.


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.

The children of disobedience are the children of God's WRATH; THEY WILL NOT BE SAVED, even if they ever once truly believed. (2Pet 2:20-22; 2Pet 3:17; James 5:19.20; Heb 3:7-15; Jn 15:2; Mat 3:10-12; Jn 14:15 with 1Cor 16:22; 1Jn 2:4; 1Cor 6:9,10; 1Jn 3:7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2Pet+2%3A20-22%3B+2Pet+3%3A17%3B+James+5%3A19%2C20%3B+Heb+3%3A 7-15%3B+Jn+15%3A2%3B+Mat+3%3A10-12%3B+Jn+14%3A15%3B+1Cor+16%3A22%3B+1Jn+2%3A4%3B+1 Cor+6%3A9%2C10%3B+1Jn+3%3A7&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english))

rapt
September 23rd, 2001, 11:48 PM
For anyone who thinks they can object that Rev 22:18,19 is limited to the book of Revelation alone, consider what the spirit of prophecy is to begin with:


Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus IS the spirit of prophecy.

...and remember, Rev 22 is not the first time adding or taking away from God's word was forbidden:



Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


Luke 16
1
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2
And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3
Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4
I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
5
So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
6
And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
7
Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.

This UNJUST STEWARD was put out of his position because he wasted his lord's goods. To have a place to stay once he got kicked out, he then did not require the full amount of payment from his lord's debtors. IN THE SAME UNJUST WAY, THE FALSE TEACHERS DO NOT REQUIRE FULL OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL IN ORDER TO EITHER OBTAIN OR RETAIN THEIR POSITION IN A CHURCH THAT TEACHES FALSELY . So they "take away" from what we are commanded to do and pervert the gospel, and scratch the itching ears of the disobedient.

Ian Day
September 24th, 2001, 04:40 AM
Why was Jesus baptised ?

In what way did he "fulfill all righteousness" ?
WHere is baptism commanded in the Old Covenant Scriptures, for if baptism is not therein commanded, why should the Lord have sought baptism ?

Let's have a closer look at the Scriptures:

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
28 But what think ye? A [certain] man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I [go], sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen [it], repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

In these verses, Jesus is implying that John's baptism gave him authority. Priestly authority.

Jesus Christ was High Priest while on earth
In what way was Jesus a priest while he was on earth? Hebrews makes it clear that as a descendant of Judah, he could not be a priest. He was not a priest descended from Aaron. But, Aaron's priesthood was ‘typical' of Christ's eternal priesthood, for Jesus is ‘a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.' The tabernacle (temple) worship was not the true worship to which all must conform, but it was a copy of the heavenly pattern. (Heb. 8)

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, and was proclaimed king, son of David, by the people. He entered the temple and drove out the traders, saying, ‘It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers.'‘ Matt. 21:13.

Next day the chief priests and elders challenged him. Only a priest had authority to cleanse the temple. THey were priests, and they had the authority. 2 Kings 23:4.

Matt. 21:23-27. Note that Jesus answered their challenge with his own challenge. They dared not answer. Jesus seemed to be implying that he was consecrated priest by his baptism by John.

By his baptism, at the age of thirty, Jesus was submitting to the ceremonial washing for the priesthood, by a priest. The Father God owned the appointment of the Son of God, and anointed him with the Holy Spirit. Thus he was consecrated as the Great High Priest.

Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

By his baptism Jesus was submitting to the legal act of righteousness required when a priest was consecrated.

JustAChristian
September 24th, 2001, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by rapt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JustaChristian:

Where does baptism ever speak of itself as a sign?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I do not find any place where it speaks of baptism as a sign.

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 24th, 2001, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Freak
I would urge all of those who embrace that false teaching that baptism is essential for salvation read what Paul had to say in Romans 8:30: Whom He justified, He also glorified.

Note the words Paul used. The Apostle made it clear after you are justified you will be glorified. And we know justification occurs by faith in Christ (see Romans 5:1-"having been justified by faith"). So when you place your faith in Christ-not only are you justified but will be glorified. Notice no mention of baptism.

On what grounds do you consider baptism not a part of faith? I have always believed that faith comes before baptism and is a prerequesite to baptism (Acts 8:36-37). Without faith it is impossible to please God. (Heb. 11:6). We are saved by grace when we do that which is received from Christ, the apostles and inspired writers, by faith. It is not faith alone that saves, but the faith that obeys (Rom. 1:5; Heb 5:8-9). I have no doubt that we are justified by faith, but not by faith alone. If we were, then even repentence would not be required for salvation (Luke 13:3; Act 17:30-31). Do you believe that one can be saved with repentence?

JustAChristian:)

rapt
September 24th, 2001, 07:33 AM
JustAChristian,

I agreed with you on page 13 that Freak is blind to say that since baptism is not mentioned in some scriptures that refer to eternal life, therefore it isn't required. But my agreement with you is now applicable to your own blindness to the fact that baptism is a sign, and not the very substance of salvation, even though the NT never calls it a "sign" in so many words.


you:

I do not find any place where it speaks of baptism as a sign.




me, from page 13:

Such blindness makes me remember one poster that said that because the word "covenant" is not found in Genesis concerning God's commandment to Adam and Eve, therefore there couldn't have been any covenant.

That's about as bright as saying that this sentence:
quote:

He fell down the stairs

doesn't say ANYTHING about the man stumbling because the word "stumble" isn't used!

How does one deal with such childishness, and the unwillingness to admit when one is wrong?

I guess Paul said it: "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant".

Freak
September 24th, 2001, 08:41 AM
Just a Christian,

The burden proof lies with you to prove to me that baptism is somehow in Romans 5:1 for example or Ephesian 2:8-9. Perhaps you can find some hidden mystical meaning behind these verses that many do not see.

That fact remains: baptism is never mentioned as being a part of justification. Paul made it clear the "righteous shall live by faith" (Galatians 3:11) not by baptism. Yes, we should be baptized, it is commanded, as is the need to evangelize and to love one another. But in no way are these acts essential for salvation. These acts are the byproduct of salvation. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Did you ever read Jesus' words when He spoke in John 10:9 and said quite clealry He was the way to be saved. Jesus never mentioned baptism, did Jesus make a mistake? I think Not. I believe you have though.

HopeofGlory
September 24th, 2001, 01:52 PM
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Luke 12:50 (KJV)
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51 (KJV)
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. Luke 12:52 (KJV)
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 12:53 (KJV)


Did this baptism bring division? What was this division and where is the line of division drawn?



And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. Matt. 20:23 (KJV)


We are to be baptized with this baptism and there is ONE baptism. How does this baptism relate to WATER? If water baptism was completed by Jesus for the priesthood then why was He baptized again. Was Jesus baptized twice as the scripture says?

Ian Day
September 24th, 2001, 02:23 PM
Hope,

It would be profitable to list other 'dry baptisms' to show that the secular Greek definition of baptism is not the way we should understand the sign & its significance.

Ther reference to one baptism in Eph 3 relates to the unity of Jew & Gentile in Christ. It is a common baptism for both Jew & Gentile. There is no difference in the Gospel.

John & James, and all believers are baptised into Christ's death. Baptised with Christ's baptism.

HopeofGlory
September 24th, 2001, 03:34 PM
Rapt

My user name is HopeofGlory and I ask you to stop using "HOG" .
I hope this is not to much to ask of you because I take it personally of which I am sure you are aware. Christ is my "hope of glory" and your disrespect of that hope out of frustration does not benefit your arguments. If the name is longer than you wish to type please use "hope" and if you must personally attack me I am sure you can find some other way to accomplish it.

You said:
Peter understood the gospel of Christ (all except for the fact that He would yet grant the gentiles repentance too), and preached it in Acts 2:

Reply:
The gospel is Christ DIE FOR OUR SINS and Paul was the first to preach it. Do you have any scriptures to the contrary where this was understood at Pentecost.

You said:
He had a PERFECT understanding of what gives us "remission of sins", and commanded it be done! Baptism for the remission of sins was given while the OT was yet valid through John, but Jesus brought in grace and truth by the New Covenant, which did NOT "supercede" it all, it confirmed it. Jesus taught His disciples to go into all the world with the gospel that included baptism for the remission of sins...AFTER He died and rose again.


Reply:
The "new testament" was written in the "blood" of Christ and Christ taught it would be for remission of sins. A new testament is just that "NEW" meaning it replaces the old. This new testament in His blood for remission of sins is not manifested at Pentecost. How do you explain this fact?

You said:
Peter had that same day RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and was speaking as the Spirit gave him utterance! Will he say that the Holy Spirit "didn't understand" what He was saying, or that He was lying??

Reply:
Peter was not lying and the words He spoke were true and God honored those words of truth but that does not mean the "new" testament was not in effect to all those who believed. They were saved but they did not receive eternal life at Pentecost.

You said:
I think we will all agree that if someone doesn't understand, it certainly wasn't the Holy Spirit through apostle Peter, it is those who reject His doctrine.


Reply:
This is only double talk as if to imply I said the Holy Ghost lied and to some how connect this lie to me. This is extremely unfair! I have never said the Holy Ghost lied.

You said:
When the Holy Spirit led Peter into yet more truth, and showed him that the gentiles too could be saved and receive HIM, did Peter forsake water baptism for the remission of sins?

Reply:
Peter did not deliver the "new" testament (His shed blood for remission of sins) to cornelius or any other Gentile.
I can't understand why you will not respond to my post and the scripture references I use with your own interpretation if you disagree. You opt to wait several post later and respond with things like I said the Holy Ghost lied or something. If you disagree with me then reply directly to what I said. If you want to debate with me I have no problems with it but I don't called your method of attach debating scripture. Start a thread and I will join you if you wish to prove me wrong but leave the name calling out of it and debate me point for point.

If you be ever so kind as to clear these questions up for me I would appreciate it:

1- Why did the apostles respond with "who can hear it" when Christ offered the new testament in His blood if you believe they discerned the Lords body?

2-Why was the new testamant His shed blood for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) and yet the apostles still preached water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost?

3-If Peter quoted Jesus word for word on baptism are we to believe the "new" testament was not worthy of the same?

4-Why is there not one word about they must believe the death of Christ was for their sins or His blood was shed for the forgiveness of their sins at Pentecost?

HopeofGlory
September 24th, 2001, 03:56 PM
Ian,

You said:
It would be profitable to list other 'dry baptisms' to show that the secular Greek definition of baptism is not the way we should understand the sign & its significance.

Reply:
Jesus is speaking of His death of which we must identify by faith and I agree it does not include water.

You said:
Ther reference to one baptism in Eph 3 relates to the unity of Jew & Gentile in Christ. It is a common baptism for both Jew & Gentile. There is no difference in the Gospel.

Reply:
His death brought unity to all people and that unity is in His body.

You said:
John & James, and all believers are baptised into Christ's death. Baptised with Christ's baptism.

Reply:
When we have faith in His death for remission of sins we at that very moment are baptized by one Spirit (Christ is that Spirit) into one body both Jew and Gentile.

Can you explain where the "division" is and how it applies to His death and why would Jesus need to be baptized a second time?

Ian Day
September 24th, 2001, 05:11 PM
Hope,

You seem to be replying as if I was arguing, rather than contributing to the discussion.

Dry baptisms include baptism with the Holy Spirit; with fire; on the cross; with a sword; across the Red Sea; under the cloud; in the ark. The insistence on immersion in water obviously does not apply. The usage of the word Baptism has a much wider meaning than dipping in water.

The fact that the true, saving baptism is by the Holy Spirit into Christ does not mean that water baptism is not commanded. It is. It is a New Covenant sign, with a significance as discussed in earlier posts.

You ask: "Can you explain where the "division" is and how it applies to His death and why would Jesus need to be baptized a second time?"

The Old Covenant included all the descendants of Abraham. THe great division was between Jew & Gentile. Under the New COvenant, salvation is real & personal. When one in a family turns to Christ, he is in the family of God, and divided from the human relationship.

Jesus' water baptism was as a priest, at age thirty, and he was baptised with the Holy Spirit as he came up from the water. His second baptism was the cross, into death. Presumably he spoke of the cross as a baptism to show the significance of the baptism he commanded.

rapt
September 24th, 2001, 06:06 PM
I won't call you the acronym for Hope of Glory anymore. I will use an acronym for the term Jesus and John used to refer to the enemies of the gospel, because that is what you prove yourself to be.

S/V:

The gospel is Christ DIE FOR OUR SINS and Paul was the first to preach it. Do you have any scriptures to the contrary where this was understood at Pentecost.

This new testament in His blood for remission of sins is not manifested at Pentecost. How do you explain this fact?

Haven't you ever even taken the time to READ Acts 2, S/V?


Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have CRUCIFIED AND SLAIN:
24
Whom God hath RAISED UP, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25
For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand
moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would RAISE UP CHRIST to sit on his throne;
31
He seeing this before spake of the RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32
This Jesus hath God RAISED UP, whereof we all are witnesses.
33
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35
Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38
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.
39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Who but the blind cannot see in these scriptures the preaching of the DEATH, BURIAL, RESURRECTION, and LORDSHIP of Jesus Christ?

Is not this the New Testament gospel?


S/V:

Peter was not lying and the words He spoke were true and God honored those words of truth but that does not mean the "new" testament was not in effect to all those who believed. They were saved but they did not receive eternal life at Pentecost.

WHAT? Did you add a "not" where you didn't mean to, S/V? Was the New Testament in effect at Pentacost or not?

HOW CAN ANYONE BE "SAVED", YET NOT RECEIVE the promise of ETERNAL LIFE?

Explain THAT.

You are obviously completely confused, so you should pack it up, go home, pray, and study hard before presenting any more foolishness, for you will be held accountable whenever you say the bible doesn't say something that it does INDEED say (or vise-versa).

I said:
I think we will all agree that if someone doesn't understand, it certainly wasn't the Holy Spirit through apostle Peter, it is those who reject His doctrine.

You replied:
This is only double talk as if to imply I said the Holy Ghost lied and to some how connect this lie to me. This is extremely unfair! I have never said the Holy Ghost lied.

You might as well have! It is quite obvious who is double-talking, S/V, and it's you that's being unfair to the truth Peter preached. The Holy Ghost had Peter preach the gospel of Christ's grace, and yet you say they that heard it did not hear the New Testament gospel, nor did they receive eternal life EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE "SAVED". THAT'S DOUBLE TALK. Who gets saved outside of hearing the gospel?

You can't even seem to make up your mind if the New Testament was in effect at Pentacost or not! So tell us, did they hear the New Testament gospel, repent, be baptised, and therefore receive the Holy Ghost, remission of sins, salvation, and the promise of eternal life at Penatcost, or did Peter and Holy Ghost lie?

You can't have it both ways, S/V; either Peter by the Holy Ghost did not preach the New Testament gospel, but lied instead, or those people DID hear the gospel and were indeed given the promise of eternal life when they were baptized, and YOU are who lied against the truth.


S/V:

1- Why did the apostles respond with "who can hear it" when Christ offered the new testament in His blood if you believe they discerned the Lords body?

If you would have READ Jn 6, and compared it with what Jesus said about His "sheep" in the 10th chapter, you would have understood that it was NOT the believing apostles that rejected Jesus' words:

Jn 6:48
I am that bread of life.
49
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Only disciples that failed to CONTINUE in Christ's Word fell away. There were many more than twelve, as the context shows. They did not endure sound doctrine. The twelve Apostles DID believe Jesus; they were the Sheep that heard his voice and FOLLOWED him (Jn 10). It may have been a "hard saying" to hear, and they may not have understood Christ's sacrifice completely then, but by Acts 2 they certainly did.


2-Why was the new testamant His shed blood for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) and yet the apostles still preached water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost?

I have shown you Acts 2 to refute the assertion that they did not preach the New Testament gospel, which includes faith in Christ as the Messiah, the death, burial, resurrection, and Lordship of Jesus Christ, and water baptism. To access the benefit of Christ's blood, and the remission of sins thereby, they were commanded to BE BAPTIZED IN WATER IN the name of Jesus Christ. Certainly only those that had faith in Christ would be obedient to the faith.

You claim that they didn't recieve eternal life from Peter's gospel at Pentacost. But they were not obligated to be baptised again later into a new gospel under Paul! Only those believers in Christ that had not heard of the Holy Ghost were commanded to be baptized in water again (Acts 19:1-5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Acts+19%3A1-5&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english))


3-If Peter quoted Jesus word for word on baptism are we to believe the "new" testament was not worthy of the same?

Your argument is a lame one; one that suggests that anyone preaching the gospel had to quote Jesus word for word, and include EVERYTHING He ever said before they had preached "the gospel". Consider the fact that Jesus didn't quote every prophecy of the OT every time he preached, nor did He quote it word for word.

He that is faithful in the least is faithful with much; he that is unjust with the least will be unjust also with much.


4-Why is there not one word about they must believe the death of Christ was for their sins or His blood was shed for the forgiveness of their sins at Pentecost?

Read Acts 2 again until you see that that is the very message Peter preached. Once Peter rehearsed to them what they had done, they BELIEVED that they had crucified Christ, the Messiah, and THAT'S WHY they were pricked in their hearts and said "What shall we do?" Peter didn't have to say "ye must believe"; all he did was tell them the truth and they BELIEVED IT, and repented!

rapt
September 24th, 2001, 06:08 PM
Ian:

Jesus' water baptism was as a priest, at age thirty, and he was baptised with the Holy Spirit as he came up from the water. His second baptism was the cross, into death. Presumably he spoke of the cross as a baptism to show the significance of the baptism he commanded.

A very good point to assume, Ian.

JustAChristian
September 24th, 2001, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by rapt
JustAChristian,

I agreed with you on page 13 that Freak is blind to say that since baptism is not mentioned in some scriptures that refer to eternal life, therefore it isn't required. But my agreement with you is now applicable to your own blindness to the fact that baptism is a sign, and not the very substance of salvation, even though the NT never calls it a "sign" in so many words.




"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:22-23, NKJV).

The is probably one of the most accepted verses on the subject of signs. There are many applications of the term both the New and the Old Testament. A sign is something that indicates a fact or quality. A jesture that conveys information. A mark or symbol having a specific meaning such as a $ sign. A plaquard bearing information. Any trace or indication ( it was a "sign" of rain). Baptism is a burial. In this sense, maybe you could say it was a sign of something that indicates a fact. It is certainly not a jesture that conveys information or a mark or symbol having specific meaning such as a $ sign. It is certainly not a plaquard bearing information or any trace or indication. God gave the sabbath as a sign between Him and Israel (Exodus 31:17) throughout their generation. It was not given to the Gentiles, else it no longer becomes an exclusive action between God and Israel, which is expressed in the cited verse.

I find that the Scriptures depict Baptism as a similarity with a burial (Romans 6:3-5) and a similarity with a washing (Acts 22:16), but nowhere do I find it to be a sign. Sorry, rapt!

JustAChristian

rapt
September 24th, 2001, 08:02 PM
Is not burial, or the gravesite a sign that someone is dead?

Would you go looking for someone at Taco Bell whose tombstone you saw in a graveyard?

Neither would a Jew expect to be found in synogogue on the Sabbath to practice Judaism now who has been baptised into Christ, would he? (unless he was there to testify of Christ)

Neither would we expect to find a believer drinking himself drunk at a brothel who had been baptised, would we.

HopeofGlory
September 24th, 2001, 08:17 PM
Rapt,

You said:
I won't call you the acronym for Hope of Glory anymore. I will use an acronym for the term Jesus and John used to refer to the enemies of the gospel, because that is what you prove yourself to be.

Reply:
More of the same! A dog will always be a dog it seems.
You are in the same boat with all those who trust in their filthy rags for salvation.

You said:
Haven't you ever even taken the time to READ Acts 2, S/V?

Reply:
No mention of Christ die "for their sins". Maybe you should read it again!

You said:
Who but the blind cannot see in these scriptures the preaching of the DEATH, BURIAL, RESURRECTION, and LORDSHIP of Jesus Christ?

Reply:
They were told they had killed the Messiah and that He rose again but they did not accept His death for remission of sins.
Try as you may the fact Christ die "for their sins is not there.

You said:
WHAT? Did you add a "not" where you didn't mean to, S/V? Was the New Testament in effect at Pentacost or not?

Reply:
No it was not! I will tell you again the new testament is "HIS BLOOD WAS SHED FOR REMISSION OF SINS". Do you understand what that means? It is not that hard to comprehend is it? It is like this....Christ die for sinners and in order to receive eternal life you must believe it. Devils believe Christ died and that He was the son of God.


You said:
HOW CAN ANYONE BE "SAVED", YET NOT RECEIVE the promise of ETERNAL LIFE?

Reply:
Well it is like this....Jews were "saved" out of Egypt but then God destroyed most of them.

You said:
You are obviously completely confused, so you should pack it up, go home, pray, and study hard before presenting any more foolishness, for you will be held accountable whenever you say the bible doesn't say something that it does INDEED say (or vise-versa).

Reply:
(((LOL))) Rapt or what ever you are, you need to listen more and learn to show respect to those who put up with you on these forums.

You said:
The Holy Ghost had Peter preach the gospel of Christ's grace, and yet you say they that heard it did not hear the New Testament gospel, nor did they receive eternal life EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE "SAVED". THAT'S DOUBLE TALK. Who gets saved outside of hearing the gospel?

Reply:
The gospel of the circumcision is not the gospel of the uncircumcision. In other words get water baptized for remission of sins (ACTS 2:38) is not the same as faith in His blood for remission of sins (Roms 3:25). Only a blind idiot could not tell the difference.

You said:
You can't even seem to make up your mind if the New Testament was in effect at Pentacost or not! So tell us, did they hear the New Testament gospel, repent, be baptised, and therefore receive the Holy Ghost, remission of sins, salvation, and the promise of eternal life at Penatcost, or did Peter and Holy Ghost lie?

Reply:
Well let's see the new testament is....."For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" and Acts 2:38 is repent and be water baptized for remission of sins. Like I said before only a blind idiot can't tell the difference.
Let me make it clear to you...THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT REVEALED AT PENTECOST...is there any part of that you don't understand?

You said:
You can't have it both ways, S/V; either Peter by the Holy Ghost did not preach the New Testament gospel, but lied instead, or those people DID hear the gospel and were indeed given the promise of eternal life when they were baptized, and YOU are who lied against the truth.

Reply:
I will explain it for you. The death of Christ for remission of sins was in effect at Pentecost BUT the apostles refused it so their sins were remitted by obedience to water baptism. What part of that do you not understand?

You said:
If you would have READ Jn 6, and compared it with what Jesus said about His "sheep" in the 10th chapter, you would have understood that it was NOT the believing apostles that rejected Jesus' words:

Reply:
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:27 (KJV)
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:28 (KJV)

What we must seek is eternal life! What is it that we must believe to receive eternal life?

Jesus said...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV) This was not to be taken naturally but was to be received Spiritually by faith. Jesus explains it with these words...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV) The apostles did not receive theses words of Jesus but said....This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60 (KJV) These words were not to be understood until Paul revealed this truth after Pentecost through revelations received from Jesus Christ. Paul was the first to teach that the blood of Christ was shed for our sins.
Faith in his blood is the very essence of our salvation unto eternal life. We are saved the moment be believe. Those at Pentecost did not have this faith and thus did not receive eternal life. The kingdom was put on hold and it was offered to the Gentiles because they did not believe. It is never even mentioned to them that Christ died for their sins. or that his shed blood washes away their sins. Where is the faith in what we believe in mentioned at Pentecost?

Romans 3:25 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;

The apostles did not believe in his shed blood and they had no understanding of it. Their remission of sins came through water baptism. They were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ through faith.

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luke 22:20 (KJV)
But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. Luke 22:21 (KJV)
And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! Luke 22:22 (KJV)
And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. Luke 22:23 (KJV)
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. Luke 22:24 (KJV)

Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. Luke 22:28 (KJV)
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; Luke 22:29 (KJV)
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke 22:30 (KJV)
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: Luke 22:31 (KJV)
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Luke 22:32 (KJV)


The apostles argued among themselves as our Savior was telling them of the power of his shed blood and speaks of Peter being converted. Peter will later be converted with the Gospel of Christ.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:53 (KJV)
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60 (KJV)
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? John 6:61 (KJV)
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? John 6:62 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:64 (KJV)
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. John 6:65 (KJV)
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. John 6:66 (KJV)
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? John 6:67 (KJV)
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68 (KJV)
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. John 6:69 (KJV)
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6:70 (KJV)

Jesus is telling them the way to eternal life is faith in his blood but it offends them. Peter says that Jesus has the words but he does not say he has faith in it. Peter does say that he believes Jesus is the Son of God. Remember in Luke 22:32 Jesus said that he would be converted later on. Jesus said he chose the twelve and one is a devil. His choosing them was not based on their faith in his death, burial , and resurrection which baptizes us into the body by the Spirit. His choice was based on their belief that he was the Son of God and they could be a witness to his death.
At Pentecost they did not believe Jesus died for their sins and we do not have any scripture to the contrary in the word of God.

We have to believe in the "blood of Christ" that washes away our sins and that Christ "died for our sins". At Pentecost they did not believe this but we see the apostles refused it. Not once will you find this message given at Pentecost and I will ask you "how could they be accepted into the body of Christ without it? Their remission of sins came through water baptism. They were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ through faith.
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and



You said:
Only disciples that failed to CONTINUE in Christ's Word fell away. There were many more than twelve, as the context shows. They did not endure sound doctrine. The twelve Apostles DID believe Jesus; they were the Sheep that heard his voice and FOLLOWED him (Jn 10). It may have been a "hard saying" to hear, and they may not have understood Christ's sacrifice completely then, but by Acts 2 they certainly did.

Reply:
Wrong Again! If the apostles had believed in the new testament they would have delivered it at Pentecost.

You said:
I have shown you Acts 2 to refute the assertion that they did not preach the New Testament gospel, which includes faith in Christ as the Messiah, the death, burial, resurrection, and Lordship of Jesus Christ, and water baptism. To access the benefit of Christ's blood, and the remission of sins thereby, they were commanded to BE BAPTIZED IN WATER IN the name of Jesus Christ. Certainly only those that had faith in Christ would be obedient to the faith.

Reply:
You have completely lost you mind!

You said:
You claim that they didn't recieve eternal life from Peter's gospel at Pentacost. But they were not obligated to be baptised again later into a new gospel under Paul! Only those believers in Christ that had not heard of the Holy Ghost were commanded to be baptized in water again (Acts 19:1-5)

Reply:
No one was commanded to be baptized in "water" again. If they were water baptized for remission of sins why would they need to do it again. It is all to stupid to believe!

You said:
Your argument is a lame one; one that suggests that anyone preaching the gospel had to quote Jesus word for word, and include EVERYTHING He ever said before they had preached "the gospel". Consider the fact that Jesus didn't quote every prophecy of the OT every time he preached, nor did He quote it word for word.

Reply:
Well if the Lord Jesus gaven the new testament to me I would have written it down in His exact words the first chance I got but I guess to YOU that would sound lame. (((((LOL)))))

You said:
He that is faithful in the least is faithful with much; he that is unjust with the least will be unjust also with much.

Reply:
I agree! ((((LOL)))))

You said:
Read Acts 2 again until you see that that is the very message Peter preached. Once Peter rehearsed to them what they had done, they BELIEVED that they had crucified Christ, the Messiah, and THAT'S WHY they were pricked in their hearts and said "What shall we do?" Peter didn't have to say "ye must believe"; all he did was tell them the truth and they BELIEVED IT, and repented!

Reply:
Peter did tell them the truth in that they had crucified their Messiah but that is a far cry from YOU MUST HAVE FAITH IN HIS SHED BLOOD FOR REMISSION OF SINS and that does not mean repent and get water baptized for remission of sins.

HopeofGlory
September 24th, 2001, 08:26 PM
An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Matt. 12:39 (KJV)


A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. Matt. 16:4 (KJV)


And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. Mark 8:12 (KJV)


And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. Luke 11:29 (KJV)

Freak
September 24th, 2001, 10:00 PM
Please refer to my last post.

Ian Day
September 25th, 2001, 02:58 AM
Hope,

Are you trying to prove that baptism was not & is not a sign ?????
And that no signs were in fact shown by the Lord ???????

Originally posted by HopeofGlory
An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Matt. 12:39 (KJV)


[Justa Christian]
"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:22-23, NKJV).

The is probably one of the most accepted verses on the subject of signs. There are many applications of the term both the New and the Old Testament. ....
I find that the Scriptures depict Baptism as a similarity with a burial (Romans 6:3-5) and a similarity with a washing (Acts 22:16), but nowhere do I find it to be a sign.

Luk 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Luk 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

It is no coincidence that Jesus later spoke of his death as a baptism, and that the sign of death & resurrection is one aspect of the significance of baptism.

rapt
September 25th, 2001, 03:03 AM
hope:

(((LOL))) Rapt or what ever you are, you need to listen more and learn to show respect to those who put up with you on these forums.

Amen. I apologize for my disrespect in refering to you as S/V. God convicted me that I have not been as gracious as He would have me to be.

hope:

Try as you may the fact Christ die "for their sins is not there.
Peter was speaking to JEWS who knew Isaiah 53, which DOES manifest that the death of Messiah was FOR THEIR SINS.
Why do you keep saying "Christ die for sinners"? Did Christ DIE or not, hope? Did Jesus come in the flesh and die? You said "Devils believe Christ died and that He was the son of God.", so I know that you can say "died" if that's what you mean.

I asked, concering your statement about what happened in Acts 2:

"HOW CAN ANYONE BE "SAVED", YET NOT RECEIVE the promise of ETERNAL LIFE?"

You replied:


"Well it is like this....Jews were "saved" out of Egypt but then God destroyed most of them."

Amen He did! They were saved only AS LONG AS THEY OBEYED GOD. Eternal Security is a lie of Satan, who first taught it to Eve when he hissed "Ye shall not surely die" if you disobey God. He that endures the doctrine of God until the end of his life shall receive the promise of eternal life.

You said:

"The gospel of the circumcision is not the gospel of the uncircumcision. In other words get water baptized for remission of sins (ACTS 2:38) is not the same as faith in His blood for remission of sins (Roms 3:25). Only a blind idiot could not tell the difference."

Here lies the root of the problem: you believe in two seperate and disctinctly DIFFERENT GOSPELS even after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is where you are in great error. (Gal 1:6-9) Circumcision was NEVER part of the gospel of Christ. If you think it was, the burden of proof is upon you. "the circumcision" was merely speaking of those that had already been circumcised.

You said:

"THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT REVEALED AT PENTECOST"

So you should pray, study hard, and stop displaying such a contradiction to the truth.

You said:

"I will explain it for you. The death of Christ for remission of sins was in effect at Pentecost BUT the apostles refused it so their sins were remitted by obedience to water baptism. What part of that do you not understand?"

Oh my God! So you think that God just overlooked unbelief and rejection of the New Testament gospel, and saved unbelievers anyway, based on the fact that they were Jews! Yours is a completely dark view of the nature of God to begin with, so it's no wonder you believe there could have ever been two different gospels after Christ died! This is unbelief and heresy on your part (not Peters!), and such an one as that would strengthen the hands of evildoers so that they would not repent of unbelief, but that would offer them another way of salvation!

Yours is the same doctrine as the false prophets:

Ezekiel 13
22
... with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him... (remission of sins while yet in unbelief)

Jer 23:14
I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
15
Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets; Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem (like Darby, Scofield, Pentacost, Walvoord, Hal Lindsay, David Jeremiah, John MacAurther, Oral Roberts, Tim LaHaye, Adrian Rogers, Dave Hunt, Vernon Magee, Robert Theime, and a host of others including those influenced by the MBI and the DTS; the wide way that leads to destruction) is profaneness gone forth into all the land.
16
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: (they make you worship God in vain Mat 15:6-9) they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.
17
They say still unto them (the unbelieving Jew) that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.
18
For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? (This is the same as saying: "This is an hard saying, who can hear it?")


You said:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV) The apostles did not receive theses words of Jesus but said....This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60"

I answered this and explained it already. The Apostles did not reject the truth like those who failed to continue in faith with Christ like you claim they did. I might say "this is a hard saying, who can hear it?" while I believe whatever I'm refering to, just as Jeremiah did, quoted above. I would merely be acknowledging the fact that most would not believe it.

Again you said:

"Paul was the first to teach that the blood of Christ was shed for our sins."

And again I say that that truth was revealed in the OT by Isaiah in the 53rd chapter, as well as many other places, even as the New Testament testifies to (Acts 10:43) so you are incorrect.

You said, manifesting the error of dispensationalism:

"The kingdom was put on hold and it was offered to the Gentiles because they (the Jews at Pentacost) did not believe.

This statement proves that you subscribe to the dispy "great parenthesis" theory that is derived from the misinterpretation of Dan 9 that claims that the seventy weeks were somehow divided: the last week from the first successive sixty nine, and that it is yet to be fulfilled. Such an idea completely denies and destroys the time element of the prophecy, supposing that God meant to say 350+ weeks instead of that only 70 weeks were "determined" (Dan 9:24). (What God determines, He brings to pass when He says it will happen!) The "great parenthesis", i.e., "Kingdom put on hold" doctrine denies that Christ was who confirmed the New Covenant by signs and miracles (including his death and resurrection) with the believing Jews during the last week of that prophecy, it denies that Christ was cut off in the midst of that 70th week, and that His one and last sacrifice caused the efficacy of animal sacrifices to cease forever before God, and it denies that it was Christ who determined to pour His wrath out upon Jerusalem, to desolate it and destroy the temple for the overspreading of her abominations, which indeed He did by the use of the people of the prince that came (in 70AD), just as the prophecy specifically said He would. It denies the fulfillment of that prophecy, and thereby robs the Jewish people (and everyone else) of the truth of the only prophecy that specifically stated the exact time their messiah would be revealed on the scene of history.

God's time prophecy was no lie, and He certainly knows how to add. Had He have meant for the prophecy to stretch out over 2000 years beyond the 490 years (70X7) stated (from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [around 454 BC]), He would have said so. Daniel could not have "known" nor "understood" any such gap, but the angel told him to know and understand a specific time period, and what was to be fulfilled with it.

Such a wrenching of a fulfilled time prophecy by disps adds to, takes way, and destroys the Word of God, and has deceived you into supposing that God "put the Kingdom on hold". He did no such thing. (Rev 22:18,19) To accept such a falsehood can only result in the same fall from grace that Paul warned the Galatians happens to everyone who receives "another gospel" which includes circumcision (Gal 5:1-4), which you have apparantly accepted as legit.

If Jews today had heard Peter preach the very same sermon as he preached at Pentacost, would it not be clear to them (who know Isaiah 53 and BELIEVE the prophets) that it was the blood of Jesus that was shed for their transgressions?

Of course they would! Only unbelievers would deny it, or fail to hear Peter saying that very thing in that Acts 2 sermon. The veil is still on the heart of anyone who cannot discern that Peter preached the New Testament gospel at Pentacost.


You:

The apostles did not believe in his shed blood and they had no understanding of it. Their remission of sins came through water baptism. They were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ through faith.

So you appear to believe that the Apostles were not even part of Christ's body, just as you claim there were two ways to be saved. You deny the Spirit baptism of Acts 2 that the bible clearly shows, and deny the validity of the faith of the Apostles. By such glaring unbelief, you show that you do not believe the scriptures at all, but rather the doctrine of men that makes God's Word of none effect. Jesus (along with Jeremiah) said they that do so worship God in vain. (See my signature)


Peter will later be converted with the Gospel of Christ.

You suppose it had not yet happened at Pentacost. When they were baptized by the Spirit, into what body were they baptized if not into Christ? God's Spirit is not divided. The Jews at Pentacost believed the same gospel that went later to the Gentiles. Any "other gospel" is accursed.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Luke 24
46
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48
And ye are witnesses of these things.
Paul was not the first to bear witness of this; ALL the prophets did long before Paul:

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
...but Peter bore witness to it after Christ's death FIRST AT JERUSALEM, just as Christ said it would happen. You deny that and say instead that Paul was the first to bear witness to it, but Paul wasn't even in Jerusalem when he first did. Paul had first preached in the synogogues in Damascus, not Jerusalem, so the New Testament was NOT first preached by Paul, or Jesus didn't know what He was talking about.

So then scriptures above reveal these truths:

1. Jesus said that remission of sins through faith in His name/blood would FIRST be preached in Jerusalem, then go into all the world.

2. Peter fulfilled this prophecy at Pentacost.

3. Paul gets converted after Pentacost, and preaches the New Testament to the Jews and Grecians at Damascus.


You quote the scripture, but then deny it:

Jn 6:66
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68 (KJV)
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. John 6:69 (KJV)


Jesus is telling them the way to eternal life is faith in his blood but it offends them. Peter says that Jesus has the words but he does not say he has faith in it.

If it had offended them, they would have departed with the other disciples that left. But rather than the Apostles being offended, as you suppose they were, they BELIEVED Him, and so they continued with Him! You accuse them of offense and unbelief while scripture shows their faith.

Peter was converted after Christ died from his offense that Christ had prophecied:

Matt 26:31
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
32
But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
33
Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
34
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

When he was, he strengthened the brethren by his testimony in Acts 2. He was then ready to die for the faith of the crucifixion of Christ and the remission of sins through the New Testament, whereas before he was not ready. His offense was not unbelief as you assert.

You:

At Pentecost they did not believe Jesus died for their sins and we do not have any scripture to the contrary in the word of God.


You deny that they believed Jesus or the prophets then, for all the prophets bore witness to that fact (Acts 10:43 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Acts+10%3A43&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)). You deny that the Apostles were accepted into the body of Christ even though they were baptized by the Holy Ghost at Pentacost, and in spite of the many scriptures that clearly say that the body of Christ is not divided into Jew/gentiles. What utter darkness and unbelief of the bible! You accuse the faithful Apostles of unbelief, and exalt your own unbelief in place of the truth. This is the spirit of antichrist.

You:

At Pentecost they did not believe (in the "blood of Christ" that washes away our sins and that Christ "died for our sins") but we see the apostles refused it. Not once will you find this message given at Pentecost and I will ask you "how could they be accepted into the body of Christ without it? Their remission of sins came through water baptism. They were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ through faith.

If you expect any respect you must first have respect toward the Word of God. You deserve no more than what you give God's Word. By your unbeliving diatribe against the truth, you show no respect for it at all. What a shame.

Your only "hope of glory" will be in repentance and belief in the truth, which will require a denial of the folly of dispensational false teaching. I pray that you can see the falsehood of it soon, in Jesus' name.

Matt 3:7-12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Mat+3%3A7-12&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

rapt
September 25th, 2001, 03:27 AM
Tell us Freak if you too accept the heresies of dispensationalism like "hope" does, or what variation of disp doctrine you embrace, if any.

I already know that you swallow the eternal security doctrine of Satan, which disps do also.

Ian Day
September 25th, 2001, 03:29 AM
Hope,

Rapt has shown you the error of your system of belief. He's saved me the time I would have spent refuting your errors concerning the Goespel preached at Pentecost, etc.

You forget that the whole Jewish theological system was based on sacrifice for sin, right from Genesis 3. And they understood baptism as the sprinkled blood of the Covenant. (Ex. 24, Heb. 9) And that John's first testimony to Jesus was "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

Philip applied Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian.

Hope, you are greatly deceived. You are reading the Scriptures through dark dispensational glasses, and imposing a false hermeneutic on the Word of God.

rapt
September 25th, 2001, 03:38 AM
You're welcome Ian. That post took me over three hours to complete.

It's a hard saying; what disp can hear it? But I pray hope will hear it.

You bring up an excellent point about the whole Jewish system being based on blood sacrifice. If Acts 2 was preached in unbelief in Christ's blood, then where was the sacrfice for sin? We don't read that they all sacrificed animals that day at all for the remission of sins; nay, they were baptised into the body of the Christ by faith in the crucified one for it. Hope claims they had faith in baptism rather than in the blood of Christ, but that is a gross error that denies that they understood the blood of Christ to have FULFILLED all animal sacrifices, even as Dan 9 said it would.

IF anyone puts faith in water baptism over and above the blood of Christ for forgiveness, then they don't understand the gospel. But that does not negate the requirement to be baptised in water or say that it is not part of the New Testament gospel.

Ian Day
September 25th, 2001, 04:21 AM
Rapt,

Afghanistan needs true prophets, not false ones.

[Rapt]
Location: Florida, but relieved that the false prophet Benny Hinn has left, and wishing all the false prophets would make a pilgrimage to Afganistan today.

THe doctrine of eternal security of the believer, preservation & perseverance of God's elect, is soundly based on Scripture. But that's for another thread.

rapt
September 25th, 2001, 05:09 AM
Concerning that I said about false prophets going to Afganistan, amen, Ian, I'm sorry. I should not have said that at all, and I thought I had already changed it. It was not a loving thing to say. I will change it now.

Concerning the false doctrine of eternal security, and it's origin being the first lie Satan ever told in the garden of Eden, yes, that is for another thread.

Freak
September 25th, 2001, 07:57 AM
I do not embrace disp. theology I however do embrace Biblical theology. The Apostle Paul believed this: He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30).

JustAChristian
September 25th, 2001, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Freak
Just a Christian,

The burden proof lies with you to prove to me that baptism is somehow in Romans 5:1 for example or Ephesian 2:8-9. Perhaps you can find some hidden mystical meaning behind these verses that many do not see.

That fact remains: baptism is never mentioned as being a part of justification. Paul made it clear the "righteous shall live by faith" (Galatians 3:11) not by baptism. Yes, we should be baptized, it is commanded, as is the need to evangelize and to love one another. But in no way are these acts essential for salvation. These acts are the byproduct of salvation. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Did you ever read Jesus' words when He spoke in John 10:9 and said quite clealry He was the way to be saved. Jesus never mentioned baptism, did Jesus make a mistake? I think Not. I believe you have though.

You jump around making statements and inferring suppositions when in fact you should be defining your premise. What is faith? Give all your viewers a statement. We'd like to know what your think faith is. What does in contain and what is not contained? Making statements like you do make me believe you have no idea what you are talking about, but are only reading what others are saying and paraphraseing at that. Come on Freak, what is faith?

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 25th, 2001, 07:38 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian Day
[b]Why was Jesus baptised ?

In what way did he "fulfill all righteousness" ?
WHere is baptism commanded in the Old Covenant Scriptures, for if baptism is not therein commanded, why should the Lord have sought baptism ?

QUOTE]

John the baptized was sent to prepare a way for the coming of the Lord. His message was given to the Jewish economy. It was a message accompanied with baptism. It was a message sanctioned by God. (Luke 3:4; John 1:23). Jesus, as a man and Jew was of that economy. Since they were commanded to be baptized unto repentence for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), it would behoove Christ to give the perfect picture of obedience. His accepting the command of God deivered through the faithful prophet, within that economy constitutes a measure of the Law of God and a very part of it. The kingdom and authority of Christ did not begin until after the death and resurrection of Christ. Until that time, the Law of God to the Jews was sustained.

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 25th, 2001, 07:49 PM
What do you know about “Faith?” It ranks prominent in the Christian religion. It’s a subject however, that is misunderstood by many and thus is vital that we give it a period of study.

A definition of faith is seen in the letter to the Hebrews. The Bible says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). Further we read, “But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb.11:6) Faith is relying on our limited knowledge of a fact until we have actual knowledge of it. I know that San Francisco, California exist, but I have no personal knowledge of that fact. I must depend upon supporting evidence such a pictures and maps to help me accept it. If I ever go to San Francisco some day, I will see it and will have personal knowledge. That is my faith working today.

Jesus said and it is recorded in the Bible to “have faith in God” (Mk. 11:22) So to what we have seen before, we have at least two statements to believe in God. We must believe in God and that He is. It should not be hard for the average person to accept the existence of God based just on the factors around him. The heavens and the earth are God’s handy work and show His existence (Psalms 19:1-3). Who created all that we see and have if not a Supreme Being? You might want to accept “the big Bang” hypothesis, but remember, Matter can not come from Non-matter. There has to be a first cause designer, and that is God.

Jesus goes on to say, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me” (Jn. 14:1). If we do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and sent from God to redeem us of our sins, then we will die in ours sins ( Jn 8:24). The Bible abounds in information to show that ;Jesus is and that He is God’s only begotten Son. There is no reason not to accept Him for what He is and promises to do for the faithful. Yes in deed, Jesus is!!

Someone might be asking, “Why should I accept the Bible? Isn’t it some book of stories written by a lot of people with many contradictions in it?” Well, the Bible is a book written by about 40 different people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It has been accused of having many contradictions, but if you know of one would you point it out to me?

The Bible tells us that we must believe in the writings of Moses saying, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings , how shall ye believe my words” (Jn 5:46-47). We are called to accept Jesus by faith, but this is not possible unless we are willing to accept what Moses wrote of Him.

The Bible continues by telling us to believe in the writings of the Prophets. The apostle Paul tell in one of his sermons recorded in the Book of Acts, “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts 26:22). The writings of the prophets greatly told of God, Jesus and all that is sufficient to believe in them. We can not ignore their knowledge. We are called upon to believe the Gospel for salvation (Mk 1:15 ; 16:15-16) This is the message of the life and work of Christ on earth. It is the means by which man will be saved ( Rom 1:16).Unless we believe the gospel, we cannot be save from our sins.

For today, let me conclude by saying that as the apostle Paul believed in the promises of God, we to must come to accept them in fullest of faith, for such is essential to benefit from God’ s promises. Continue to seek the Lord, and have a great day.

JustAChristian:)

HopeofGlory
September 25th, 2001, 07:56 PM
To all,

Dispensationalism has many flaws but not as many as covenant theology. Covenant theology is far better than Rapt's doctrine of works will ever be. Freak's faith alone in the blood of Christ for remission of sins of which I agree will never be proven wrong because it does not contain doctrine of men. I agree that there are dispensations as to different requirements to please God but do not consider myself a dispensationalist but I see the word of God revealed progressively to us. As freak said the best method is biblical theology when a man seeks to know God his Saviour, through the word of God and has no doctrine to prove for this man is not offended but receives the word of God freely. Salvation is not in knowledge of biblical doctrine but it is received by sinners who are without hope and understand that there is nothing they can do of themselves to be saved. This hopeless sinner needs only the simplicity of the gospel which is Christ died for his sins and if he truly believes he is accepted by a loving God. I can testify this is true for I was once without hope but this simple truth was all I needed. I do not need biblical proof of my relationship with my Saviour because He has proven Himself to me personally without any doctrine. A hopeless sinner will never have to be hopeless again when he has faith in Christ and Him only. When we stand before God we must be spotless without one speck of sin to be accepted and this can only be found in the finished work of Christ when He offered Himself as a spotless sacrifice for us. What is sad when we think about it is when we concern ourselves with proving our doctrines while the lost are without hope and all they need is the simplicity of the Gospel without the confusion of doctrine. My doctrinal beliefs may not be perfect but the simple fact of it is I don't need them because my hope is in Christ Jesus.

agape
September 25th, 2001, 09:43 PM
BAPTISM: OUT WITH THE OLD - IN WITH THE NEW

Water baptism is not essential to salvation as so many Christians today believe and teach. How do we know? We know because the Bible tells us so. The Word of God makes it very clear that we are to be baptized; HOWEVER, God purposely informs us that we, since the day of Pentecost, are to be baptized with holy spirit.

Acts 1:4-5:
And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me.
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

We need to remember that John did not minister the Gospel of the Grace of God. He was a prophet of God under the old covenant and was appointed to "prepare the way of the Lord." John baptized in order that Christ should be made manifest to Israel.

John 1:31:
And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

The promise of the Father according Acts 1:4, is equaled to "be baptized with the Holy Ghost," which is to "receive power from on high." In other words, with the coming of the greater (holy spirit), the lesser (water) came to an end. It was not available then to be baptized with holy spirit because Jesus Christ had not yet died for the sins of the world. The replacement of material water with holy spirit was initiated on Pentecost, after Jesus Christ fulfilled all the law and paid the full price and penalty for our sins.

Galatians 3:27:
For as many of you as have been baptized (by holy spirit) into Christ have put on Christ.

I Corinthians 12:13:
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Being baptized into the "body of Christ" does not mean baptized with the old physical element of water, but with the new spiritual element of holy spirit. I Corinthians 12:13 makes it clear that we are all "baptized" by one Spirit...not by water, into the one body of Christ.

I John 1:7:
But if we walk in the light as he is the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Christ has done the cleansing for us. Our only work is to accept Him. He then washes away our sins.

If we are to rightly divide the Word of God, we must allow the Bible to speak for itself and not read into it the theologies and doctrines of men. Today, whenever the word "baptize" is mentioned, water is immediately associated with it because of the influence of religious doctrines, but we have just seen from the few above scriptures that water is never mentioned. It is in the "name" of Jesus Christ. It is in what He accomplished for us on the cross. Water baptism was an exemplification of the greater to come, which is to be baptized or born again of God's Spirit. The outward cleansing of the flesh by washing or baptism was to "symbolize" spiritual cleanliness. However, water does not cleanse one on the inside. Only holy spirit can cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

There are many scriptural accounts which clearly show that water was no longer necessary after the day of Pentecost; however, there are other verses of scripture which indicate the use of water in baptism and which must be understood.

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

This is the same Peter who spoke in Acts 2:38. Why did he include water in Acts 10 when earlier he did not? In Acts 2:38, after the day of Pentecost, Peter was preaching in the synagogue and was still influenced by water baptism. He simply reverted to his previous doctrine and added water. However, please note that Peter himself clarifies this same account later in Acts 11.

Acts 11:16:
Then remembered I [after I had ordered water baptism] the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

This record signifies that he did not baptize the Cornelius household of believers with water.

In Acts 19 Paul asked certain disciples at Ephesus regarding what Apollos did.

Acts 19:2-3:
...Have ye received the Holy Ghost since [when] ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism [water].

These verses indicate that water baptism did occur; however, it was due to the fact that Apollos had not yet been fully instructed even though something much greater had come to replace the water.

Acts 21:20:
...Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law.

These people believed and therefore were saved; but the revelation had not yet been given explaining the magnitude of the coming of the holy spirit on Pentecost so the believers were still zealous for the law. One of the requirements of that law was to be water baptized. People are still zealous for the law and, to this day, do not accept that which is addressed to them from Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians. Water baptism is never stipulated in these Church Epistles. We need to believe God's Word and act accordingly. Those who give the religious traditions of men first place and cleave to the law of water baptism as an essential to salvation, will never grasp the completeness of who they are and what they have in Christ Jesus.

Since the day of Pentecost, we are indeed free from the law; and again, part of that law was water baptism. According to Galatians 5:1, we are to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty [boldly with a fearless mind] wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled [no longer held in] again with the yoke of bondage."

According to Romans 10:9,10, there is no mention of water baptism as a necessary means for salvation.

Romans 10:9-10:
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.

The above scriptures tells us exactly what to do in order to be saved and makes no mention of water baptism. To say that water baptism is required in order to achieve salvation is to say that Jesus Christ did not fulfill all the law. It also makes the statement that the blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for the remission of sins, his death and resurrection was not adequate enough for one's salvation and therefore water baptism is necessary. Is this logical? Certainly not.

Water baptism came before Pentecost. Baptism by holy spirit or the "new birth" came on the day of Pentecost and is absolutely necessary for salvation. To be baptized into Christ is to be born again of God's Spirit. When we do Romans 10:9 and 10, we receive Christ in us, the hope of glory. We then live and walk "in" Christ. This can never be accomplished with water...an earthly or physical element. We are born again (Greek word for "again" is anothen and means "from above or from a higher place") which is a spiritual element.

Ephesians 2:7-9:
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast

According to Ephesians 2:9, it is NOT of works. Jesus Christ did the work and He alone paid the price for our redemption. We are saved through "faith," which is according to what Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross.

There are many arguments or different viewpoints concerning "water baptism;" however, the Word of God makes it plain and simple.

Acts 1:5: "For John truly baptized with water; BUT [sets the contrast] ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost [holy spirit] not many days hence [the day of Pentecost]."

Can God's Word make it more plain? John truly baptized with "water," BUT ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

God bless you,
In His Righteousness,
Agape

HopeofGlory
September 25th, 2001, 09:44 PM
Rapt,

You said:
I apologize for my disrespect in refering to you as S/V. God convicted me that I have not been as gracious as He would have me to be.

Reply:
Thank you Rapt!:)

You said:
Peter was speaking to JEWS who knew Isaiah 53, which DOES manifest that the death of Messiah was FOR THEIR SINS.
Why do you keep saying "Christ die for sinners"? Did Christ DIE or not, hope? Did Jesus come in the flesh and die? You said "Devils believe Christ died and that He was the son of God.", so I know that you can say "died" if that's what you mean.

Reply:
How can you possibly believe this when Peter can against the Lord when He spoke of His death...

From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Matt. 16:21 (KJV)
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. Matt. 16:22 (KJV)
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matt. 16:23 (KJV)
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Matt. 16:24 (KJV)

If Peter was against His death it simply does not make sense for him to have understood Isaiah 53.


You said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well it is like this....Jews were "saved" out of Egypt but then God destroyed most of them."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They were saved only AS LONG AS THEY OBEYED GOD. Eternal Security is a lie of Satan, who first taught it to Eve when he hissed "Ye shall not surely die" if you disobey God. He that endures the doctrine of God until the end of his life shall receive the promise of eternal life.


Reply:
Rapt we are not debating eternal security, are you trying to kill us both, we are dealing with enough as it is don't you think? For the sake of rebuttal though it only proves they did not have eternal life because the new testament was not effectual in that dispensation.


I said:
"The gospel of the circumcision is not the gospel of the uncircumcision. In other words get water baptized for remission of sins (ACTS 2:38) is not the same as faith in His blood for remission of sins (Roms 3:25). Only a beep beep could not tell the difference."

You said:
Here lies the root of the problem: you believe in two seperate and disctinctly DIFFERENT GOSPELS even after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is where you are in great error. (Gal 1:6-9) Circumcision was NEVER part of the gospel of Christ. If you think it was, the burden of proof is upon you. "the circumcision" was merely speaking of those that had already been circumcised.

Reply:
I simply believe what the bible says.....
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Gal. 2:7 (KJV)
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) Gal. 2:8 (KJV)

Rapt, I never said circumcision was part of the gospel!
I consider the circumcision to mean the Jews as compared to the Gentiles. Take a deep breath you'll be ok.

I said:
"THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT REVEALED AT PENTECOST"

You said:
So you should pray, study hard, and stop displaying such a contradiction to the truth.

I said:
"I will explain it for you. The death of Christ for remission of sins was in effect at Pentecost BUT the apostles refused it so their sins were remitted by obedience to water baptism. What part of that do you not understand?"

You said:
Oh my God! So you think that God just overlooked unbelief and rejection of the New Testament gospel, and saved unbelievers anyway, based on the fact that they were Jews! Yours is a completely dark view of the nature of God to begin with, so it's no wonder you believe there could have ever been two different gospels after Christ died! This is unbelief and heresy on your part (not Peters!), and such an one as that would strengthen the hands of evildoers so that they would not repent of unbelief, but that would offer them another way of salvation!

Reply:
God never overlooks unbelief but He is long suffering to those He loves and that includes you and me. To believe that God is loving and long suffering is not a dark view. The only way of salvation I would offer is the same that was offered to me and that is Christ die for your sins. God makes that offer and I know it works and can testify with assurance.

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. 21:43 (KJV)

The above happen to the Jews.

You said:
Yours is the same doctrine as the false prophets:


Reply:
Watch out rapt, you don't want to be an accuser of the brethren.


You said:
The Apostles did not reject the truth like those who failed to continue in faith with Christ like you claim they did. I might say "this is a hard saying, who can hear it?" while I believe whatever I'm refering to, just as Jeremiah did, quoted above. I would merely be acknowledging the fact that most would not believe it.

Reply:
I am not sure what you mean by that. Hear in that verse is to be interpreted as....Of uncertain affinity; to be able or possible:—be able, can (do, + -not), could, may, might, be possible, be of power.


I said:
"Paul was the first to teach that the blood of Christ was shed for our sins."

You said:
And again I say that that truth was revealed in the OT by Isaiah in the 53rd chapter, as well as many other places, even as the New Testament testifies to (Acts 10:43) so you are incorrect.

Reply:
Refer to the top of this post. Peter did not believe Isaiah 53.

You said:
You said, manifesting the error of dispensationalism:

"The kingdom was put on hold and it was offered to the Gentiles because they (the Jews at Pentacost) did not believe.


Reply:
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. 21:43 (KJV)

You said:
This statement proves that you subscribe to the dispy "great parenthesis" theory that is derived from the misinterpretation of Dan 9 that claims that the seventy weeks were somehow divided: the last week from the first successive sixty nine, and that it is yet to be fulfilled. Such an idea completely denies and destroys the time element of the prophecy, supposing that God meant to say 350+ weeks instead of that only 70 weeks were "determined" (Dan 9:24). (What God determines, He brings to pass when He says it will happen!) The "great parenthesis", i.e., "Kingdom put on hold" doctrine denies that Christ was who confirmed the New Covenant by signs and miracles (including his death and resurrection) with the believing Jews during the last week of that prophecy, it denies that Christ was cut off in the midst of that 70th week, and that His one and last sacrifice caused the efficacy of animal sacrifices to cease forever before God, and it denies that it was Christ who determined to pour His wrath out upon Jerusalem, to desolate it and destroy the temple for the overspreading of her abominations, which indeed He did by the use of the people of the prince that came (in 70AD), just as the prophecy specifically said He would. It denies the fulfillment of that prophecy, and thereby robs the Jewish people (and everyone else) of the truth of the only prophecy that specifically stated the exact time their messiah would be revealed on the scene of history.

God's time prophecy was no lie, and He certainly knows how to add. Had He have meant for the prophecy to stretch out over 2000 years beyond the 490 years (70X7) stated (from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [around 454 BC]), He would have said so. Daniel could not have "known" nor "understood" any such gap, but the angel told him to know and understand a specific time period, and what was to be fulfilled with it.

Such a wrenching of a fulfilled time prophecy by disps adds to, takes way, and destroys the Word of God, and has deceived you into supposing that God "put the Kingdom on hold". He did no such thing. (Rev 22:18,19) To accept such a falsehood can only result in the same fall from grace that Paul warned the Galatians happens to everyone who receives "another gospel" which includes circumcision (Gal 5:1-4), which you have apparantly accepted as legit.

If Jews today had heard Peter preach the very same sermon as he preached at Pentacost, would it not be clear to them (who know Isaiah 53 and BELIEVE the prophets) that it was the blood of Jesus that was shed for their transgressions?

Of course they would! Only unbelievers would deny it, or fail to hear Peter saying that very thing in that Acts 2 sermon. The veil is still on the heart of anyone who cannot discern that Peter preached the New Testament gospel at Pentacost.


Reply:
Rapt, the "new" testament is not complicated and is easy to understand to all who have ears to hear....
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
.... and it is was not manifested at Pentecost.

To be continued.....

agape
September 25th, 2001, 09:45 PM
To Those Who Honestly Want To Know:

Many of today's religious groups were founded upon various beliefs regarding baptism. It is so easily explained in the Bible and those who do not or will not accept the truth that we need only Jesus Christ and what He did for us through his death and resurrection for our salvation have not honestly studied the scriptures. The Word of God tells us to "diligently" study the Word of Truth to show ourselves approved before God. We need to study God's Word without the interpretational and doctrinal inconsistencies brought to the subject by man.

To discover the true meaning of "baptism" we must search the Scriptures and observe its varied usages. Of course, "baptism" now an English word: the Greek "baptisma" is directly transliteratd into English.

The root form of the word "baptisma" is "bapto," which means "to dip"." Bapto is also part of the word translated "dippeth," embapto. From this root "bapto" arise four words:

1. Baptiso - to make things bapto, dipped.

2. Baptismos - the act of dipping or washing which is the act of baptizing: this does not occur in any Church epistle: the four occurrences of this word are in Mark 7:4, 7:8, Hebrews 6:2; 9:10.

3. Baptisma - the RESULT of "baptismos:" it is used twenty-two times in the Bible: thirteen refer to John's baptism, five to the Lord's baptism, three are found in Paul's epistles, and last is in Peter.

4. Baptistes - the one who does the baptizing.

There are only a few instances where these words are not "directly" transliterated into English as "baptize," but are instead translated as follows:

1. Bapto is translated "dip" in the only three places where it is used.

Luke 16:24:
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip [bapto] the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

John 13:26:
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [bapto] it...

Revelation 19:13:
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped [bapto] in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

2. Embapto is translated as follows in its only usages.

Matthew 26:23:
And he answered and said, He that dippeth [embapto] his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

Mark 14:20:
And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth [embapto] with me in the dish.

John 13:26:
Jesus answered. He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [bapto] it, And when he had dipped [embapto] the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon [Bapto is used in both instances in John 13:26 in several critical Greek texts.]

3. Baptizo is consistently transliterated "baptize" except in three usages.

Mark 6:14:
And King Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroard:) and he said, That John the Baptist [baptizo] was risen from the dead and therefore mighty works do shew forth themseves in him.

(The form of this word "baptizo" is the participle with the article. It is accurately translated "the one who baptizes.")

Mark 7:4:
And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptizo], they eat not...

Luke 11:38:
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed [baptizo] before dinner.

In these two last usages the action is self-evident; when a Pharisee returned from the market, he wakhed himself before eating.

4. Of the four uses of "baptismos" it is only once translated "baptism" -- Hebrews 6:2. In the other occurrences both the Authorized and Revised Versions are correct in rendering the baptismos as "washing." The references are quite clear because they refer to the ordinances of divine service which were carried on in the tabernacle.

Mark 7:4:
And when they came from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the wahing [baptimos] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Mark 7:8:
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing [baptismos] of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Hebrews 9:10:
Which stood [serving] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings [baptismos], and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation [rectification].

From ever Biblical usage of the word "baptism," we can only conclude that the root meaning and the basic thought in baptism is washing. Therefore, we should note three other words in the Greek which also mean "to wash."

1. Nipto - to wash a portion of one's body.

Matthew 15:2:
Why do thy disciples transgress the traditon of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

2 Louo - to bathe or wash the entire body; from which we also get our word "absolution."

Hebrew 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.

3. Pluno - to wash or rinse inanimate things; ordinarily this word is used in speaking of washing clothes.

Revelation 7:14:
And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest, And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

These three Greek words fully cover the subject of washing. The word "wash" is used in the definition of each one of the above words. Therefore, we must logically conclude that the verb "baptizo" has a meaning common with all of these three aforementioned Greek words, yet must be distinct from each. A close study of each usage of baptizo reveals that "baptizo" does not denote the removal of bodily uncleaness or filth, but rather the removal of ceremonial uncleanness and is symbolic washing.

The outward cleansing of the flesh by washing or baptism was to symbolize spiritual cleanliness. Entrance into the tabernacle was conditioned by baptism which meant the cleansing of the flesh at the laver by merely dipping to indicate ceremonial washing or cleansing. (See Exodus 30:18-24.)

The ceremonial cleansing, called washing and baptism, applies specifically to Israel. The laver of the tabernacle, the sea and the ten lavers of Solomon's temple, and the river of Ezekiel are all applicable to Israel - the first two under the Old Testament and the latter in the future when paradise is reestablished on earth. These two times which apply only to Israel are together Biblically called the kingdom period. The question thus becomes: What about baptism in the period of time between the law and the new paradise, between the time of Solomon's temple and the river of Ezekiel?

The day of Pentecost founded a new period or administration. At that time another change came in relation to baptism regarding the Church.

Acts 1:4-5:
And being assembled together with them [the apostles], [Jesus Christ] commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saidth he, ye have heard of me.

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

John truly baptized with water...BUT, BUT, BUT ye shall be BAPTIZED WITH HOLY GHOST "without water" not many days hence.

God bless you,
In His Love,
Agape

rapt
September 25th, 2001, 09:47 PM
Dispensationalism has many flaws

What are a few of them, in your estimation?


Rapt's doctrine of works I refuse to take the credit for having originated any works; that was Christ's and His Apostle's doing. Credit them. It is God's doctrine, and they are God's works, not any of my own imagination or commanding.


Salvation is not in knowledge of biblical doctrine

Where did you get that idea? Is it taught amongst disps? It is not scriptural.


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


sinners who are without hope ... understand that there is nothing they can do of themselves to be saved.

Not without faith, of course, but with faith they can OBEY THE GOSPEL. We are all commanded to do that if we are to be saved.

I do not need biblical proof of my relationship with my Saviour because He has proven Himself to me personally without any doctrine.
That is a very shakey way to think, for if you stop and consider, that's the same attitude of those who go from meeting to emotional meeting seeking to be entertained with such nonsense as being "slain in the spirit", or to "learn how" to speak in tongues, isn't it?

Can you really afford to ignore the scripture, and let your feelings be how you judge yourself?

If they speak not according to this word, it because they have no light in them, said the prophet Isaiah, but that's not the method of judging things according to a modern emotionalist. He refuses to judge anything by scripture, for in his mind he knows best, and that's good enough for him. Let us forsake such darkness and let scripture be our supreme guide.


What is sad when we think about it is when we concern ourselves with proving our doctrines while the lost are without hope and all they need is the simplicity of the Gospel without the confusion of doctrine. My doctrinal beliefs may not be perfect but the simple fact of it is I don't need them because my hope is in Christ Jesus.


Sound doctrine saves; false doctrine damns. No one teaches anything without giving "doctrine", for all doctrine IS a teaching.

John 17
17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Isaiah 8
20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

agape
September 25th, 2001, 09:47 PM
To be baptized in someone's name sets a person apart from the masses. When the children of Israel were baptized "in the cloud and in the sea" (I Corinthians 10:2), there were (1) sanctified, separated out from the Egyptians and (2) were identified in that baptism with Moses. The same pattern can be found today. When you are baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ," you are (1) sancified (I Corinthian 1:2, Acts 26:18), separated out from the unbelievers who are not saved, making you a member of the Church, and you are (2) identified with Christ (Romans 8:17) and all the authority His Name represents, just as Israel was indentified with Moses. So it can be seen that water baptism was indeed instituted by God, but only for Israel and the kingdom, and then for only a limited period of time.

I Corinthians 6:11:
And such were some of you: but ye are washed (cleaned), but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

We are washed, literally cleansed in the "name of the Lord Jesus, (our Lord and Savior) and by the "Spirit" (holy spirit, new birth, new nature) of our God.

Paul is saying "Now that you are clean, why do you want to go by their [the unbelievers] unethical standards?"

Since the day of Pentecost every person who desires to be born again by God's Spirit must believe on Jesus Christ (this is the "name"...all that He accomplished for us on the cross...his death, his resurrection...in that name alone is their salvation...not in "water.") At that moment he is given something far greater than the benefits of water baptism: righteousness, justification, sanctification and redemption. To be born again is to have Christ within; He is the hope of glory; He cleanses us from all sin. It's a spiritual baptism.

To understand "in the name of Jesus Christ" I suggest you read all that He did for us in that name. And, it is in that name alone that we are cleansed from all unrighteousness and given the nature of God in Christ in us...the hope of glory. Water baptism could not and will never be able to accomplish what we freely received through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. If people still desire to stay under the law of the old covernant and be water baptized, then so be it. The truth still remains.

Romans 10:9-10:
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.

If water baptism was essential to salvation after the day of Pentecost, I'm sure God would have included it in the verses above. Let us also remember that water never cleanses one on the inside. This can only be accomplished by being baptized (by holy spirit) "in the name (the accomplished and finished works) of Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son."

God bless you,
In His Grace,
Agape

agape
September 25th, 2001, 09:49 PM
It is only God who can save and only the Holy Spirit who can put anyone into Christ. In Rom. 6:3,4 we are told that those who have been baptized into Christ (by the Holy Spirit) have been baptized into His death. It is in His death that we died to sin (verse 2). Since we died with Him we were also buried with Him by means of that baptism into His death; buried, not in water but in His tomb. And when He arose we arose with Him to new life.

This is not symbolic language for water could never symbolize crucifixion, burial in a rock tomb or resurrection to new life. This is all a Spiritual reality which we are to reckon true by faith. This baptism into Christ transforms the life and breaks the power of the sin nature. Could water ever do this? Only God can, and God did, by making us one with Christ through this divine baptism.

This divine baptism, then, presents a spiritual obligation. Because we have been baptized into Christ and thus have died to sin and are now alive unto God, we are commanded to “reckon” ourselves “to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:11). Our baptism into Christ is the only true basis for Christian living. We died to sin only in Him and are alive spiritually only in Him. Put water here and we miss the whole lesson God would teach us...we miss the power to live pleasing to Him!

rapt
September 25th, 2001, 10:15 PM
Agape:

To be baptized in someone's name sets a person apart from the masses.
So it can be seen that water baptism was indeed instituted by God, but only for Israel and the kingdom, and then for only a limited period of time.
If people still desire to stay under the law of the old covernant and be water baptized, then so be it. Well, people still today believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, both Jews and gentiles, and praise God! ...some still even OBEY it! And they still get baptized in water, just as Christ had commanded his disciples to go into ALL THE WORLD to do, (it's not for the Jew only) since the gospel of Christ NEVER CHANGED. Halleluyah! And the gentiles are now entering the kingdom of God regardless of the doctrine of men that endeavors to hinder and rob them of it! Thank you Jesus!

Lk 11:52 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+11:52&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off)
Jn 3:3,5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Jn+3%3A3%2C5&version=KJV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)

agape
September 26th, 2001, 01:58 AM
rapt,


Well, people still today believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, both Jews and gentiles, and praise God! ...some still even OBEY it! And they still get baptized in water, just as Christ had commanded his disciples to go into ALL THE WORLD to do, (it's not for the Jew only) since the gospel of Christ NEVER CHANGED. Halleluyah! And the gentiles are now entering the kingdom of God regardless of the doctrine of men that endeavors to hinder and rob them of it! Thank you Jesus!

Matthew 28:19:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This verse was spoken shortly before Jesus ascended into heaven; it gave last minute instructions. Jesus Christ fulfilled all the law, he suffered, was crucified and died for our sins. He was raised from the dead, and now he is about to ascend unto His Father. Do you mean to say after all that he did and went through for the "remission of our sins" he instructed them to baptize with water (the same physical element used by John...under the law, old covenant...and which was utilized before Jesus Christ himself fully redeemed mankind) when it would be available for them to be baptized in Christ, which is to be born again of God's Spirit??

Was Jesus Christ confused when he stated what is written according to Acts 1:4-5?

"And being assembled together with them [the apostles], [Jesus Christ] commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father [on the day of Pentecost], which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

For John truly baptized with water; but {CONTRAST] ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

What part of "BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST... PNEUMA HAGION....GIFT OF HOLY SPIRIT...THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER...POWER FROM ON HIGH" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

With the coming of the greater (holy spirit) the lesser (water) came to an end (Praise God). This replacement was initiated on Pentecost. On Pentecost the replacement first applied.

Galatians 3:27, 28:
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Being baptized into the body of Christ does not mean baptized with the old physical element of water, but with the new spiritual element of holy spirit. Baptized into Christ can only be accomplished with holy spirit. God in Christ in us. If we need water to do this, then Jesus Christ is not sufficient enough as our complete Lord and Savior. I doubt very much he needs the aid of water when his blood TOTALLY cleansed us from our sins.

We need to honestly do II Timothy 2:15 and stop taking verses of scripture out of context and haphazardly scatter them all over the place.

I mentioned in my post that if one desires to be water baptized no one should forbid him. However, his water baptism would only be a display or public declaration of his faith in Jesus Christ. His salvation is only through the accomplished and finished works of Jesus Christ.


Lk 11:52; John 3:3,5

Luke 11:52:
Woe unto you, lawyers! [pertaining to the law] for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

How dare you loosely and unjustifiably accuse me of Luke 11:52 just because I do not agree with your doctrine or belief.

You left out the context of that chapter:

Luke 11:46-54:
And he said, Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers [pertaining to the law]! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they shall slay and persecute:

That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge [him] vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Boy are you ever way out of line!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

John 3:3-6:
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

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.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Here's a prime example of taking scripture out of context and privately interpreting it to fit one's belief.

"Except a man be born of water AND of the Spirit..." means except a man be born first of flesh (in the womb...water) and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Jesus states and confirms this in verse 6; "That which is born of the FLESH is FLESH, and that which is born of the SPIRIT IS SPIRIT." Nicodemus at least understood that part of it when he said; "can he enter the SECOND time into his mother's womb and be born (again)?

It is clearly seen from these verses that Jesus Christ was NOT talking about "water baptism."

Verse 7:
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

How does one get born again?

Romans 10:9-10:
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.

(Our true confession or declaration of our faith in God and His Son, Jesus Christ is with our mouth...not water...by which confession is made unto salvation).

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.

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

There is no mention of "and shalt be baptized by water" in the above verses. So, let's not put them there.

I will mention this again; if one needs to be baptized because of his or her believing, or to publicly declare one's faith in Christ, then by all means be baptized in water. However, to teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation is not in accordance with the truth and accuracy of God's rightly-divided Word. The blood of Jesus Christ alone totally and completely cleansed us of our sins. He paid the full price or penalty for our sins because obviously, water baptism could not accomplish this. Through his death and resurrection, we received holy spirit, the new birth...God's righteous nature is now our new nature and we have the promise of eternal life.

God bless you,
Agape

Ian Day
September 26th, 2001, 04:07 AM
Hope, & all two gospels, "Gospel of the Kingdom, Dispensation of Grace" folk,

I think it was Hope who quoted:
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. 21:43 (KJV)

Our Lord makes it clear in this Scripture passage that the Kingdom is for the Gentiles. Note also:

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Act 1:8 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.

THe "two gospel" doctrine in plainly false.


[Hope]
If Peter was against His death it simply does not make sense for him to have understood Isaiah 53.
As for proving that Peter did not believe Isaiah 53 when he preached under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, having been baptized with the Holy Spirit that day by showing that before the crucifixion Peter rejected the idea that his Master should be betrayed & killed:
Our Lord carefully explained after his resurrection:

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

How dare you say that they still did not understand, when Scripture records that the Lord Jesus [i] opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

May I suggest that it was not Peter who did not understand the Scriptures, but YOU.

I will add that Acts was written by Luke, who was converted under Paul's preaching, after Paul's New Covenant, Gospel of Grace Theology had become public knowledge, even to Peter. In his letters there is no suggestion that Peter acknowledges any mistake or misunderstanding in his Gospel message. ANd we find there the same Everlasting Gospel.

Agape, please note:

What is recorded in Acts is the way Christ's command to the Apostles was OBEYED, not disorted, or misunderstood.

Acts 1:8 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.

Therefore Peter preached the death & resurrection of Christ, and his ascension to the throne of David.

THerefore Peter preached "repent & be baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

THerefore Peter commanded baptism, which is the New Covenant sign of the blood of the Everlasting Covenant, the blood of Christ.

Hebr 9:10 ... divers BAPTISMS, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new Covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first Covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first [Covenant] was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the Covenant which God hath enjoined unto you.

Who above all people needed their conscience purged, but those who had denied their Messiah ?
THey had rashly said, "his blood be on us, and on our children."
And the Lord's wonderful reply was, "the promise is to you and to your children." He gaciously adds, "and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. " The Gentiles are counted in to that glorious promises.

What a wonderful God we serve ! Don't distort his gracious Word.

Ian Day
September 26th, 2001, 05:27 AM
Agape, Hope,

Why do you go to such extreeeeme leeeeeenghts to prove that the command of CHrist should not be obeyed ????????????????


[Agape]
Matthew 28:19:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This verse was spoken shortly before Jesus ascended into heaven; it gave last minute instructions.

Jesus Christ fulfilled all the law, he suffered, was crucified and died for our sins. He was raised from the dead, and now he is about to ascend unto His Father.

Do you mean to say after all that he did and went through for the "remission of our sins" he instructed them to baptize with water (the same physical element used by John...under the law, old covenant...and which was utilized before Jesus Christ himself fully redeemed mankind) when it would be available for them to be baptized in Christ, which is to be born again of God's Spirit??

Was Jesus Christ confused when he stated what is written according to Acts 1:4-5?

"And being assembled together with them [the apostles], [Jesus Christ] commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father [on the day of Pentecost], which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

For John truly baptized with water; but {CONTRAST] ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."
If I understand you, you are saying that when our Lord commanded:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

that he was commanding them to baptize, NOT with water but with the Holy Spirit????

How did the Apostles baptise with the Holy Spirit ???? THey cannot. THat is the work of Christ himself. THey could only teach, and baptise those who believed.

What did they understand the Lord meant by the command ?? What they did in Acts 2. Preach the crucified & risen Christ, and they commanded repentance & baptism.

Our Lord had taught them in detail after his resurrection. He'd promised that the Holy SPirit would lead them into ALL things.

Did the Apostles misunderstand, under the direct guidance of the Lord, and under the power of the Holy Spirit ???? I think not.

Did they so misunderstand the Word of their Lord, that they still taught Old Covenant ritual????? I think not.

Baptism in water is a New COvenant sign of the applied blood of the sacrifice of Christ. True cleansing, which does not leave us besmurched with ashes or blood.

And baptism in water is for those who have received the true baptism with the Holy Spirit into CHrist. It does not save, and the Holy SPirit is not given by water baptism. But it speaks to the believer of the cleansing blood, and of the new life given by baptism with the Holy Spirit.

It is a sign both to the believer of all that CHrist has done for him, and to the church of the submission of the believer to Christ, and membership of the Church, the body of Christ. That the new believer in Christ is prepared to be identified with the One just disowned, rejected & crucified, believing HE IS RISEN !!!
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

HopeofGlory
September 26th, 2001, 04:08 PM
The need for a blood sacrifice for sin is the great theme of scripture but the blood of bulls and goats was a mere shadow that could not take away sin. What we must recognize is the vast difference between the blood offering of bulls and goats (law) and the precious blood of the lamb of God (grace). The apostles remained jealous of the law (works) after the cross even up to the Jerusalem council (Acts 21:20). Paul’s epistles clearly reveal the law was an offence to the cross (Roms. 5:19-20) and it was the most important message second only to the cross which done away with the law. The line of opposition was clear, it was the law against the cross therefore the "promise" was not received at Pentecost as Peter confirms with these words ....The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). The factual evidence within the word of God can not be denied and we are instructed to rightly divide the word.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:53 (KJV)
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)

This statement by our Lord to the apostles offended them and their reply was "who can hear (believe) it" for they did not discern the Lord‘s body! The law taught that it was an offense to consume blood and we have to understand that Jesus knew the apostles would refuse it and yet the offer had to be made...to the Jew first! The law of works ran through their veins and was the center of their very being and it could not be denied.

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Rom. 5:20 (KJV)

The "new" testament was being delivered to them and it was to be received by the spirit (faith) and was beyond the apostles comprehension and yet it would fulfill the prophetic words of Christ...The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43). This nation is the Gentiles and the new testament would be delivered to them by Paul (Rom. 3:25). The training up of Paul would be as the apostles and was progressive but this training up would be accomplished by the Spirit of Christ and began with his conversion on Damascus road when his name was Saul. After Paul’s conversion we see a progressive change in the message and Paul will participate in the old message until he has progressively received the “mystery” revelations from Christ (Gals. 1:11-12) and at one point Paul was even caught up into heaven (2 Cor. 12:14). Ananias was the one that instructed Paul to be water baptized for remission of sins after the cross and he was.... A DEVOUT MAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW Acts 22:12 (KJV). Paul did baptize some but scripture testifies that at a later date Christ sent him to the gentiles and was instructed "not to baptize"(1Cor 1:17). Why did Paul go against the great commission? It is because Paul received progressive revelations of a greater witness (John 5:36) that was of God. Water baptism in the dispensation of it's inception through obedience (works) "gave remission of sins" and it can not be argued unless you choose to go against the word of God. The message was one that not only had to be obeyed but it also demanded endurance to the end (works) to receive that remission. Paul now understands by progressive revelation that message is no longer effectual for remission of sins and has been superceded by the greater witness of God at the cross.

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 1 Cor. 1:14 (KJV)

The Gentiles freely received the word of faith in the new testament and not of works for they were not of the law and were without the offense (Acts 13:39-46).



It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)

Many do not understand these words of Christ Jesus and believe there is profit in their flesh. Christ is speaking of eternal life and how it is received and explaining it would not be possible of the flesh. The apostles were jealous of the law (works of the flesh) and refused this Spiritual offer of eternal life as many continue to do today. Spiritual things are not understood by those who believe eternal life can be attained by their obedience in the flesh.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; Matt. 26:27 (KJV)
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)

They did not understand the death of Christ as I have shown. At Pentecost they were broken hearted at the fact their Messiah was dead and there was no rejoicing in His blood in that it gave them eternal life. I have clearly shown the apostles did not make the connection with His death for remission of their sins but they were "saved" in obedience to water baptism.

Baptism is a part of the gospel but (on the contrary) it is of God (Spiritual) not man (in water). This contrast is evident in scripture.

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: Matt. 3:11 (KJV)

This verse when considered in the light of water baptism was for "remission of sins" we can easily see that Christ will "replace" that message with His death at the cross for forgiveness of sins. When accepted by faith His substitutionary death for remission of sin...by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV). Christ our Saviour is that body and that Spirit!

We cannot assume a message is understood without scriptural "proof" and we certainly cannot "add" to the message what is not there for that truly is foolishness. Christ offered eternal life in this blood (John 6:54) to the apostles and it is verified with scripture that it was not understood. Their response was "who can here (believe) it" (John 6:60). It is clear the Pentecostal message does not contain the shed blood of Christ for remission of sins.

"His blood be on us" in that they had crucified the Messiah is a far cry from His blood has given eternal life to all who believe.

It was preached that Christ died and rose again but it was not revealed that it was the power of God unto salvation but was reveal by Paul in this dispensation of grace.

Some would have us believe the preaching of the gospel is not limited to the written text and because a certain message is not record at Pentecost does not prove that message was not preached.

The written text is the gospel and there is no other and we are commanded not to"add" to the word. God has given explicit instructions on that subject!

The new testament is written with the blood of Christ for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28). Jesus explained that it could not be receive by the flesh but was to be received by the spirit...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life John 6:63 (KJV). This is so simple and yet so hard for many to understand that it is by faith and not by works of the flesh. Faith in works is not faith in Christ and the two are not to be confused. The testament indeed was "new" and it supercedes any and all testaments before it. This "new" testament was not believed by the apostles and thus we do not see it revealed by them at Pentecost. The first to reveal this "new" testament "faith in His blood" for remission of sins was Paul (Rom. 3:25). We can not avoid the truth of the matter which the apostles did not understand that this new testament for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) superceded the old testament for remission of sins which was water baptism (Acts 2:38).

Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. Matt. 26:31 (KJV)

The offense of the cross is seen in the "works of the flesh" and they deny the power of God unto salvation contained in the “new“ testament for remission of sins.

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Rom. 7:5 (KJV)
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom. 7:6 (KJV)

We must defend the words of Jesus and not the actions and words of the apostles because it is clear the apostles did not discern the body of Christ!

Paul had this to say:
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Eph. 3:2 (KJV)
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph. 3:3 (KJV)
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Eph. 3:4 (KJV)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit Eph. 3:5 (KJV)

It says "now" revealed and by who? It says "my knowledge" (Paul's)! By what means? A "mystery" that is "now" revealed!

Paul was the first to reveal the "new" testament in the blood of Christ for remission of sins and it is clear and to the point for all who have ears to hear.

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; Rom. 3:25 (KJV)
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:26 (KJV)
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Rom. 3:27 (KJV)
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom. 3:28 (KJV)

Ian Day
September 27th, 2001, 04:44 AM
Hope,

You make a lot of extraordinary statements, but I can agree with one:

[1Way]
The factual evidence within the word of God can not be denied and we are instructed to rightly divide the word.
Please prove that the Apostles did not understand the teaching of Christ using Scriptures AFTER the the risen Christ taught them. Quoting John 6 does not prove that they still did not understand in Acts 2, after the risen Lord Jesus had instructed them, & after the Holy Spirit was poured out on them.

Quoting 2 Peter 3 hardly proves that Peter did not understand Paul, unless you believe that Peter himself was unlearned and unstable and misused the Scriptures to his own destruction.

[1Way]
The "new" testament was being delivered to them [the Apostles] and it was to be received by the spirit (faith) and was beyond the apostles comprehension.
I am sorry for the Apostles. And for the Lord Jesus. He chose them specifically to teach them the great truths of the New Covenant Gospel of grace. He shared with them the bread & wine of the Last Supper, sharing with them the typical cup of the New Covenant in his blood. He commissioned them to take the Gospel to all the world, and poured out the Holy Spirit on them, to empower them and lead them into all truth.

And they failed.

The "New Wine" burst the "Old Bottles" mistakenly chosen by the Eternal Son of God.

The question is: Did the Apostles fail to comprehend the teaching personally taught them by the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit of God, or has 1Way failed to comprehend ?????

JustAChristian
September 27th, 2001, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by agape
BAPTISM: OUT WITH THE OLD - IN WITH THE NEW

Water baptism is not essential to salvation as so many Christians today believe and teach. How do we know? We know because the Bible tells us so. The Word of God makes it very clear that we are to be baptized; HOWEVER, God purposely informs us that we, since the day of Pentecost, are to be baptized with holy spirit.



Do we have Holy Spirit baptism today? Do we have water baptism today? When Paul wrote the Ephesians, he said there was (is) one baptism (Eph 4:5). Now this is fact. It was written by an apostle of God who did water baptism. Would Jesus approve of such a statement from Paul (1 Cor 14:37). Peter says the same thing essentially (1 Peter 3:19-21). Paul was cleansed through water baptism (Acts 22:16). Believing that water baptism and obeying it is faith in action (Romans 1:5). Than is the real faith!!

JustAChristian

JustAChristian
September 27th, 2001, 05:44 AM
One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (Eph. 4:5). Paul only wrote about what Christ told him to write (1 Cor 14:37). He practiced only one baptism (Acts 19:1-6). The gifts of the Holy Spirit came after water baptism. The salvation of the soul comes today after water baptism (Mark 16:16).

JustAChristian

HopeofGlory
September 27th, 2001, 10:16 AM
Ian,

You asked:
Why do you go to such extreeeeme leeeeeenghts to prove that the command of CHrist should not be obeyed ????????????????

Reply:
If we read Romans 5 we can see how we are baptized into his death and the contrast of the old testament of obedience as compared to the new testament of obedience. You say it is by our obeying in water baptism but this is not what Paul said.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom. 5:1 (KJV)
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5:2 (KJV)

Faith is required not water baptism obedience which is a "work" of the flesh. If a work is required then salvation must be earned.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Rom. 5:9 (KJV)

We are justified by His blood in the new testament and the only way that can be received is by faith.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom. 5:15 (KJV)

We can not add to the finished work of Christ and this "gift" must be received "freely" or it is no longer a gift.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:19 (KJV)

The contrast is clearly defined when compared with...And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Acts 5:32 (KJV)

It is not "our" obedience but by the obedience of "one" so that the gift may be "free".

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom. 6:3 (KJV)

Note the contrast! It says baptized "into Jesus" as compared to "into water". How are we to get into Jesus?..."For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body"...and it is the "one" baptism for us today.

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. Rom. 6:4 (KJV)

Here it says "into death" not "water" . In other words when we are baptized by the Spirit we are in His body and we died with Him and it is received through "faith" freely by the obedience of one.

Know ye not that the "new" testament baptism is "into his death" and should not be confused with the "old" testament baptism that was "into water".