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

[Kevin]

Clete Pfeiffer,

If Paul was preaching the same Gospel as the Twelve then what was the point of bringing him into the picture to begin with.

Because Paul described himself as the chief of sinners, and was formerly a blasphemer, yet God decided to use him as a powerful insterment to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ. It gives hope to people who have sinned beyond what they feel is the point of no return. Also, Pual was known for his zeal in the persecution of Christ's body. By converting him to Christ, he served as powerful example that even a man who regarded himself as the chief of sinners could be saved, thus God used what was bad and turned it into a good insturment to proclaim His word.

Peter, James and John were specifically told by Christ to go and preach the Gospel to the whole world. They didn’t do it though. Instead they decided it would be better for them to stay in Jerusalem and preach to the circumcision believers and they sent Paul to the rest of the world.

You are correct to say that Christ told the 11 to preach to all the world. However, they still didn't get it that Gentiles were also part of the new covenent, despite the Lord's clear commandment to go to all nations.

Peter didn't quite get still, which is why Christ gave Peter the vision of the great sheet (Acts 10:9-13). This was to show Peter that he should not call the Gentiles, whom God had cleansed, unclean or common (Acts 10: 14-15).

When Peter finally got around to preaching to the Gentiles household of Cornelius, he observed them being Spirit baptized in verse 44 and knew that God was with the Gentiles also. This is exaplained when Peter defends his ministry of the Gentiles to the apostles in Judea in Acts 11:17-18:

Acts 11:17-18 (KJV)
17) Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18) When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

The apsostles were cyrstal clear at that point that the Gentiles were "granted repentance unto life" by God. Two gospels? Not a chance.

If there were 2 gospels, on for the Gentiles, and one for the Circumcision, did Peter speak a different gospel to the Cornelius Gentiles household as opposed to the gospel he preached to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)? If so, where does it say that he got a different gospel? If not, then you have to admit that the same gospel that saved the circumcized saved the Gentiles Cornelius household.

Galatians 1:11-12 & 15-20 “11 But I certify you, brethren that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”… 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

There's nothing in there to suggest that there are two gospels, despite that Paul didn't visit the other apostles before him at that time. He did later though, and Paul himself taught in Jewish synagogues at first:

Acts 18:6 (KJV)
6) And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

Now when Paul, who received the gospel by the revelation of Christ, preach a different gospel to these Jews before he went to the Gentiles? Did he carry around 2 gospels?

The fact is, Paul's main focus was on the Gentiles, but he didn't carry a different gospel for them as opposed for the circumcision. Indeed, Jesus Christ Himself said that Paul was a vessel to preach to the Gentiles, kings, and children of Israel. Observe:

Acts 9:15 (KJV)
15) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Now, as far as I know, Christ reveal ONE gospel to Paul... ONE. And Paul was to take this one gospel for Gentiles and Jews, which clearly shows there was not two gospels.

The fact is, we have accounts where Peter preached to the Gentiles (Cornelius), and Paul preaching to the Circumcision (18:6). Now, for there to be 2 different gospels, one for each one, Peter and Paul would have to carrying around two gospels with them, but there is no such evidence of this, nor would it make any sense.

And think about this - if there were 2 different gospels, and Paul and Peter preached to the Jews, then the Jews could be saved by more than one gospel, which makes no sense. The same applies to the Gentiles, Peter and Paul preached to them, and if Peter and Paul had different gospels, that would mean that the Gentiles could be saved by more than one way.

If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then why didn’t Peter get it?

Galatians 2:11-14 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 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?

Easy. Peter was human, and was not incapable of mistakes. Peter was eating with the Gentiles at first until the circumsized entered the scene, and that's when Peter played the hypocrite and sat with them instead of the Gentiles. Paul rebuked Peter for this. There is no evidence of two gospels here. You just make that assertion because of the weakness of Peter.

If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then why did he call it “My Gospel” instead of “the Gospel”, and why would he say things like “follow me as I follow Christ”? The twelve are never recorded as saying such things as “follow us”. We are never exhorted to follow Peter, or James, or John, or any Apostle except Paul. Why Paul?

He called it "my Gospel" simply because it was the gospel that he preached, not that it was any different from the gospel given to the 11. And just because Paul said things such as "follow us" doesn't mean that he preached a different gospel, but rather, that was Paul writing style. Peter and John wrote their epistles, exhorting them to follow Christ as well.

If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then he was unnecessary and redundant, serving more to confuse than anything else.

Unessary and redundant? Hardly! God chose Him as a vessel to Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel, he was yet another tool that God used to spread his word. By your logic I could argue that Peter should be the only one who preached to the circumcision, and that the other 10 were "unnecessary and redundant".

I could go on and on like this for quite some time, but I think the point has been made.

I see the point your are trying to make, but there are too many holes and scripture to show your point to be unscriptual. I've raised arguments and scripture to show this.

As for Abraham…

I make it a practice not to post lengthy quotes from other people’s work in order to make my points but I am going to make an exception here because the following quote is both clearer and shorter than what I would write on my own. It also addresses the rest of your post except for the Revelation part which I’ll get to.

Actually, it leaves out more than my Revelation argument. In my last post to you, I made the point to you that Matt. 25:41-46 is speaking of all the nations of the world (verse 32), which includes Gentiles, and that people were sent to hell for their lack of good works to mankind, showing that faith without works is dead, and it applies to all nations.

Nor does it cover my argument that Paul stressed that being circumsized or uncircumsized is not important, but keeping the commandments of God:

1 Corinthians 7:19 (KJV)
19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

This falls right in line with what John said in 1John 2:3-4, that those who claim to know Christ, yet do not keep His commandments are liars, and the truth is not in them. Paul agrees with this by saying that keeping the commandments of God is what's important.

Those things were not even touched by your copy of Bob Enyart's writings.

Now... getting back to Abraham, and what Bob had to say about it.

Abraham Is the Father of Two Groups

The two methods for justification, faith plus works and faith alone, are illustrated in Abraham who is the father of both groups of believers, the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision (Rom. 4: 11-12). If someone is justified after he is circumcised (as a religious ritual), Paul writes that such justification is a result of works and not faith only.

While there are two types mentioned here, uncircumcised and circumcised, it is ludicrous to think that there are two methods to be justified in the eyes of God. Either your justified in the eyes of God, or you're not. Nowhere in the Bible is there support for two ways of justifcation. Bob is forced to say this to be consistant with his 2 dispensations after the death on the cross theory.

Paul in Romans 4 is making the message quite clear: That faith is what justifies a man, and not works. But what Paul does NOT say is that we are not justified by faith and works working together to perfect faith. That's the message of James, who accounts that Abraham was justifed by works when he offered his son Isaac, and then goes on to say that faith working together with works is true faith. That's the kind of faith Paul is speaking of. Paul and James are in harmony... nowhere does James say that works alone justifes a man. His message in chapter 2 was to show that faith and works justify a man, not works only, or faith only, but faith and works. Good works is proof of true faith, the kind of faith that Paul mentions.

James goes on to say that Abrahams faith and works fulfilled the scriptures "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness", which is Genesis 15:6, the same verse Paul is referencing.

God must impute righteousness to a person for him to obtain salvation. Describing this process, Paul uses Abraham as an illustration of how to obtain righteousness. Paul quoted the Old Testament:

“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Rom. 4:3 from Gen. 15:6

Yup, the same verse referenced by James 2:23.

Paul emphasizes that Abraham believed (only) and it was accounted to him for righteousness. However, was this before or after Abraham was circumcised? Paul points out this question as a vital matter. For if Abraham was already circumcised, then Paul’s point about him being justified by faith alone would fail. The point would fail because circumcision was a work God required. Without the work of circumcision, God would judge and not justify a man (Gen. 17.14).

There are not 2 methods of justification. Abraham was justified by his faith in God. The question is, what kind of faith was it? Well, we know that Abraham had true faith, for he left his country (Gen. Ch. 12) as the Lord commanded (works), and was also willing to offer his only son Isaac (a work), which shows that he had true faith.

And Bob is right to note the significance when Paul said "How was it accounted? While circumcised or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised". However, Bob drops the ball to suggest that this would show that can be justified by two different methods. We are justifed by faith, but it's the kind of faith that produces obediene. We certainly are saved by our works, not at all. But we certainly aren't saved by a dead faith either, which is a faith that excludes obedience (works). Abraham had true faith, and was justified for it.

The reason Paul asked the question "was if before or after circumcision"... and then answered that it was before circumcision is to that the Jewish Christians could not use circumcision (works) for the basis of their argument that being circumcised is what justified Abram.

Do you think if Abram had stayed in his country, but believed what God said to him, that God would have accredited him righteousness? Nope. Abram had true faith - faith that led to obedience. That's why he was justified.

Now, I realize that there is no work or anyting to obey in Gen. 15:6, but I still contend that rightesouness was accredited to him because he had true faith, which is shown by the fact that he left his country, thus obeying God. I've often said in this thread that we are indeed saved by grace through faith. But I've also clarified this by saying that the faith that saves is faith that obeys. Just because Abram didn't have anything to obey in Gen. 15:6 does not mean that faith "only" will save a man.

To impute righteousness to someone, God requires that person to obey Him, whether he command is simply to believe, or to believe and do.

Bob hit the nail on the head by saying by saying that. Obedience is KEY to salvation, which is what I've been contending throughout this entire thread. But Bob adds to scripture by saying that there is more than one way to be justified in the eyes of God. :down:

So, again, Paul is not saying that we are exempt from keeping the commandments of God (works), as I pointed out when Paul said that keeping the commandments of God is what is important (1 Cor. 7:19). Now why would Paul say that if we are justified by faith "only"?

And if you're using this argument to try and justify that we don't need to be baptized for salvation, you are overlooking something - Paul is writing this to Christians, not unconverted sinners. These people had already been baptized, just as Paul was. Baptism is for unconverted people.

Paul, after preaching the gospel, had people baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 16:14-15, Acts 18:8, Acts 19:5). Why did Paul have these people baptized? Because it was commanded of all nations (Gentiles included) by Christ in the Great Commission:

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.

Also, Paul went on in Romans chapter 6 to speak about baptism, and what it's purpose is - to die with Christ, crucifying the old man, and thus no longer being slaves us sin. Romans 6:7 says that he who has died is FREE from sin. That is a conditional verse. It is those who have died with Christ though baptism who are free from sin. Being free from sin is certainly essential. Verse 11 sums it up - that we are dead to sin, but ALIVE to God through Christ. It is through baptism that this is accomplished. Clearly, baptism is essential for salvation, just read verses 1-11. Paul wrote about it and practiced it. It also goes right in line with what Christ said about salvation in Mark 16:16 - He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.

Christ also commanded we are to obey His commandments (verse 20). Do you think Christ meant this as an option? No way.

Okay now on to Revelation…

1. The book of Revelation was written by John who agreed to limit his ministry along with the rest of the twelve to Israel. (Gal. 2:9).

I realize that the book of Revelation was written by John, I even emphasized that in my last post to you because I wanted you to see a book that was written by somebody other than Paul which pertain to ALL poeple, and not just the circumcised.

2. It was written not to Gentile churches but to Jewish ones. (Rev. 2:9, & 3:9)

Sorry, but that's inaccurate. Look at Rev. chapter 2:1. It's addressed to the church of Ephesus. Are you going to say that this was a Jewish only church? Paul wrote to the Ephesians, and we know that they were a Gentile church:

Ephesians 2:11 (KJV)
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

So we have John who supposedly had a gospel only for the circumcision, writing to a Gentile church. What did John record?

Revelation 2: 2,5 (KJV)
2) I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
5) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

A gentile church being told by Christ that they have to repent and do the first works. Faith only? Not a chance... not even for a Gentile church.

This isn't the only Gentile church listed either, but this post is already long, and it defeats your notion that the book of Revelation was not written for Gentiles.

3. The context is clearly in keeping with the law and the kingdom principles of the nation of Israel.

The context pertains to the obedience of Christ... by ALL the churches and ALL the nations as Christ commanded in Matt. 28:20.

4. The teaching and warnings given by Christ are very much in keeping with that of the synoptic gospels, and the circumcision epistles. But are in open conflict with that taught by Paul.

Open conflict with Paul? What about the Gentile church of Ephesus as mentioned above, whom Paul wrote to?

All seven letters to the seven churches start with “I know your works…”

Thats how the message to the Gentile church of Ephesus started too (Rev. 2:2).

I’ve been intentionally brief with regards to the book of Revelation because it has been my experience that when people bring up Revelation the conversation tends to veer off into wacko land and I want to avoid that.

I can assure you that I won't venture into "wacko" land with Revelation. The points I brought out were pretty straight forward.
My argument still stands:

Revelation 20:12-13 (MKJV)
12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13) And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.

Revelation 22:14 (MKJV)
14) Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.

Obedience has always been expected by God. The disobedient will never inherit the kingdom of God, and you cannot be obedient to God without keeping His commandments.

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Francisco
c.moore,

Please excuse me for interjecting my thoughts into your conversation with Kevin. I just read the excerpt from christian-bible-studies.com and found it interesting you would use this excerpt to support your position that water baptism is unnecessary:

The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, BAPTISM IN WATER and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although ALL PART OF OUR SALVATION PACKAGE, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time.

***snip***

Here we see that Paul was interested in these disciples' relationship with the Holy Spirit. HE SHOWED THEM THEIR NEED TO BE BAPTISED IN WATER and the Holy Spirit.

How in the world do you see these statements as supporting your position that baptism in water is a heretical ritual and has no part in our salvation??? Clearly this author would support mine and Kevin's position that water baptism IS part of our salvation.

Yet this author also believes in Holy Spirit baptism, and acknowledges that it also is a part of our "salvation package", as this authors puts it, and as I would certainly agree.

Maybe you can study this authors works to understand how he or she can coalesce the need for water baptism AND Holy Spirit baptism...

God Bless,

Francisco

But didn`t you read the part about Acts 2 being the Holy Spirit baptism like I claim, and other s also ??

This is why I mention that we must look at the whole context of the chapter to see which baptism is water baptism or Spiritual baptism, or the new baptism i think kevin believes the in the name of the Lord baptism, which I see three kinds of baptism here, and the bible say´s there is one , faith, and one baptism.

Some how there is a confussion.

Let me ask you how do you know which baptism is Spiritual when not water is included in the verse???


Do you believe the water of John baptism or this new thing the (In the name of the Lord baptism)?

God Bless

 

[Clete]

Kevin,

This response to your agruments is going to be VERY brief and so before I get to it I thought I might explain why I'm being so intentional brief.
1st it's not my intention to be insulting or to act as if your arguments are invalid! On the contrary, they are quite valid. It's just that I am limmited on time and addressing every single point is not entirely necessary. What I would like to do is try to boil things down to one or two primary points of disagreement between the two of us and address those directly. This should work pretty well while debating this particular issue because there are dozens of potential points about details that can be made, all if which hidge on only one or two primary issues (what I call the "big picture"). In other words, if we can get the big picture into view then the details take care of themselves.
Now, with that having been said, if I do not respond to a particular point that you feel strongly needs to be addressed then by all means tell me and I will do so.

Nowthen, our disagreement here can be boiled down quite a bit!

Your position(Water baptism is necessary for salvation) falls apart if the Nation of Israel had a differnent Gospel than that preach by Paul for the Body of Christ. And conversely my position falls apart if the Gospel preached by Paul is the same Gospel preached by Christ to the Nation of Israel!

So, then I want to ask you a question and then give you the advantage of reponding before I make my case. (I happen to be making this post from out of town and will need to be home with a few resorces in order to do a proper job of making the case.)

My question to you is this:

What is the gospel?

I antisipate that, put simply, your answer would be "Beleive and be baptised" or something similar, and that fine but what exactly to you have to believe?

God bless you and yours!
Clete

 

[Francisco]

c.moore,

Originally posted by c.moore:

But didn`t you read the part about Acts 2 being the Holy Spirit baptism like I claim, and other s also ??

This is why I mention that we must look at the whole context of the chapter to see which baptism is water baptism or Spiritual baptism, or the new baptism i think kevin believes the in the name of the Lord baptism, which I see three kinds of baptism here, and the bible say´s there is one , faith, and one baptism.

Some how there is a confussion.

Let me ask you how do you know which baptism is Spiritual when not water is included in the verse???


Do you believe the water of John baptism or this new thing the (In the name of the Lord baptism)?

God Bless

You must be reading the text you posted with the same filter of preconceived notions with which you read scripture! The author doesn't say the baptism Peter speaks of in 2:38-39 is what you are calling Holy Spirit baptism. What he does say is:

It is God's will that every Christian be baptised in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38,39).

He is, of course, talking about Peter's promise that those who receive water baptism will receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit:

Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call."

So, how do I know Peter was talking about water baptism? Because he was exhorting them to be baptized then, that very day, and verse 41 says three thousand accepted Peter's message and were baptized. We both know that water baptism is the only baptism men can perform, and we also know Holy Spirit baptism happens only when the Spirit decides to fall on a person. So the three thousand that were baptized that day were baptized with water.

You told me above that you 'must look at the whole context of the chapter'. I agree, but the context of the chapter does not agree with your position. Rather, it agrees with mine. Three thousand people accepted Peter's message that day and were baptized. We know a person can't just elect to be Holy Spirit baptized, so water baptism is how they were baptized. Now, considering the context of the whole chapter, we must consider then that Peter understood water baptism to confer some measure of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and particularly the forgiveness of sins.

You also mentioned Paul's words about one faith and one baptism:

Originally posted by c.moore:

and the bible say´s there is one , faith, and one baptism

This would present many problems for someone like yourself who believes water baptism has no effect and no part of our salvation when scripture repeatedly gives examples of WATER baptism into Jesus Christ. And that would confuse the issue of what Paul meant by 'one baptism'. You would have to ask yourself, 'which baptism was Paul speaking of as the "one" baptism.' But for me it presents no problem at all. The one baptism, water baptism into Jesus Christ, confers several 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' including forgiveness of sin and a sacramental joining to the Body of Christ. Christian baptism, performed by men through the authority of God, confers these gifts through obedient submission to the Jesus' command that we should be baptized. By obediently submitting ourselves to a share in his death, we are all 'united together' and joined into a share of His resurrection and our sins are forgiven:

For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, (Rom 6:5)

Because we are all 'united together' through baptism, Paul refers to this baptism as the 'one baptism':

There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

It is through that ONE BAPTISM that we are 'united together in the likeness of His death' into the ONE BODY. How does Paul tell us this being 'united together' takes place? By being 'buried' with Jesus' through baptism:

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death... (Rom 6:4a)

Now have you ever heard of being 'buried' in Holy Spirit baptism? Not hardly, that's a ridiculous anaology. But being 'buried' during water baptism is a perfectly logical analogy because we go under the water, as if we are buried.

What does Paul tell us happens when we submit to this rite of water baptism, being symbolically buried with Jesus, and being joined to His death? We are born again!:

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. (Rom 6:4b)

Surely this is one of the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' that Peter promises through water baptism. It is obviously by the ONE SPIRIT that we are joined through WATER BAPTISM into the ONE BODY, so we are then 'born again of water and the Spirit', just as Jesus told Nicodemus before He and his disciples went into Judea and set up a baptism ministry.

Another 'gift of the Holy Spirit' Peter must certainly have been referring to was the forgiveness of sins when he said, 'be baptized every one of you... for the forgiveness of your sins.' And Paul's view of water baptism agrees completely:

For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 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. For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Again, Paul is saying that through obediently following Jesus' command to be water baptized, we receive the gift of the forgiveness of our sins. Surely this was also one of the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' Peter was referring to in Acts 2.

Originally posted by c.moore:

Let me ask you how do you know which baptism is Spiritual when not water is included in the verse???

Well, that's a fair question. I would say primarily by the application of a common sense reading of the immediate context and the broader context, bearing in mind the historical interpretations.

What I mean by 'immediate context' can be illustrated by looking again at Acts 2, just as I did above. When you read through the next few verses, you realize that Peter is exhorting people to repent and be baptized right then, while he was standing before them, not after they've given it some thought and mulled it over a while. In fact, 3,000 people did accept Peter's message about Jesus Christ and they were baptized that day (vs. 41).

Now comes the application of common sense. Unless you are telling me that a man can command the Holy Spirit, the third person of our triune God, when to come and fall on someone in 'Holy Spirit baptism', then Peter certainly could not have been exhorting them to Holy Spirit baptism. Because water baptism is the ONLY baptism a man can perform, then it was certainly water baptism that Peter was referring to when he exhorted the people to be baptized.

What I mean by the 'broader context' would be other situations in which Peter performs or discusses baptism, as well as what the other NT authors say about baptism. For instance, we see Peter specifically ask for water to baptize Cornelius, and that after he saw the Holy Spirit had fallen on Cornelius. Why the insistance on water baptism? Because Peter knew that it is through being 'buried with Jesus' through baptism (Rom 6:4) that we are united to the resurrection of Jesus and are 'born again' to 'walk in newness of life'. You can also see what baptism Peter was discussing in 1 Peter 3:20-21. He draws a very specific reference to 8 people in Noah's Ark who were saved through water, then Peter says this event prefigured our Christian baptism which saves us. You can also see water baptism in the baptism of the eunuch by Philip. You can see the reference of water baptism in Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus, and you can see the author of that Gospel emphasize Jesus' teaching about water baptism by showing Jesus and the disciples setting up a baptism ministry immediately following His discussion of the subject with Nicodemus. And you can see the basis of these Christian beliefs about baptism throughout the old testament, particularly in Ezekial 36, when God promise to regenerate the people, forgiving their sins through sprinkling them with clean water, and promising to install a new heart and His Spirit within the people after this. So that is what I mean by the broader context.

And finally, what I mean by the 'historical interpretations', is a look back at what Christians as a whole have believed in regard to baptism throughout the ages, but particularly what the earliest Christians believed about baptism since they recieved their instruction in the faith from the apostles themselves or from direct disciples of the apostles. Looking back at all the writings of the first couple hundred years of christianity, all the writers (including non-Christian historians, etc...) all wrote about the forgiveness of sins, the joining to the Body of Christ, and the receipt of the Holy Spirit through WATER BAPTISM. And what you may find surprising is NO ONE held your views about baptism until over 1800 years later. Look at what the earliest Christians believed:

The Letter of Barnabas

"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).

Notice the date of this letter. This was written during the lives of the apostles, probably by a student of Barnabas the apostle. So immediately following Jesus' death, the early church believed water baptism was the means of becoming a Christian and washing away our sins.

Hermas

"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]). [/b]

Hermas, the friend Paul mentions in Romans 16:14 certainly understood water baptism was the means for forgiveness of sins. Would you have us believe that a friend of the great apostle Paul, a friend who Paul found it appropriate to send special greetings to, would be teaching falsely? I don't think so c.moore. Hermas knew very well that Jesus taught the apostles that baptism into Him forgave sins.

Justin Martyr

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . 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 you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Justin, the first of the great Christian apologists, also saw water baptism as the means by which our sins are forgiven and we are born again.

Irenaeus

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Irenaeus is an interesting author since he was taught by a direct disciple of John the apostle, Polycarp. To believe your interpretation we would have to believe that this great bishop would somehow have bungled the lessons taught him by Polycarp, or that Polycarp bungled the message he was taught by the apostle John. Neither of these scenarios seems even remotely likely.

Tertullian

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
...
"Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins" (ibid., 7:2).

Tertullians second quote above puts it as simply as possible, that the rite of baptism is a corporal act, but it's effect is spiritual. So all the early Christian writers I've cited have been in total agreement that through water baptism we receive the spiritual effects of forgiveness of sin and joining to the ONE BODY.

I could continue for many pages with examples of the writings about the beliefs of the early church, written by authors like Augustine, Origen, Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, but I think the for examples above are enough to illustrate what I mean by the 'historical interpretations' regarding baptism.

I hope that answers your question regarding how you can tell what 'baptism' is being referenced in a verse that does not mention 'water' or 'spirit', but just to clarify - water baptism is the ONE BAPTISM through which we receive the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit'. These guaranteed gifts are the remission of sin and the regeneration of the Christian who obediently submits to water baptism. However, through the laying on of hands and at times with apparently no prompting at all, the Holy Spirit can be received for different reasons and confer different gifts upon people. I think this is what you are referring to as Holy Spirit baptism. So through water baptism we all receive gifts from the Holy Spirit that are necessary for our salvation, the gifts of washing away our sins and the gift of regeneration. This is what the author of the article you quoted meant when he said:

He showed them their need to be baptised in water and the Holy Spirit.

and

The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, baptism in water and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although ALL part of our salvation package, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time.

However, through 'Holy Spirit baptism' other measures of the Spirit can be recieved by different people, and different gifts are conferred to each person who receives a greater share in the Spirit. Again, the author of the article you posted agrees with me and Kevin:

Some say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit no longer exists today. Others take another approach and say that EVERY born again Christian was baptised in the Spirit at his conversion. Both kinds of teaching have the effect of robbing believers of something very important that Christ provided for them as part of their necessary inheritance in this life.

We will see from the Bible that the baptism in the Spirit is not the same as regeneration. It is important that we do not allow tradition - even "evangelical tradition" - to take a higher place than the Word of God in our doctrine and in our lives.

Regeneration, including the gifts of forgiveness of sins and being united together in the likeness of Christ into the ONE BODY, comes through the ONE BAPTISM of the regenerating waters. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is different from regeneration or being born again of water and Spirit. Holy Spirit baptism comes through the laying on of the hands of a duly ordained minister of God's grace, or through the unprompted descent of the Holy Spirit on an individual. The author of the article you quoted seems to agree with this completely, and he rejects your idea that every believer is baptized in the Spirit at his conversion. He is certainly correct about that!

That is the baptism I believe in c.moore, the baptism of water passed from the apostles to the early church, the washing of water that regenerates the believer, uniting him to the death of Jesus through burial in the baptismal waters, forgiving our sins, and making us a new man to walk in the likeness of new life, born again.

So again c.moore, I would suggest you study the view of this author and try to understand how baptism in water for certain gifts of the spirit can still coalesce with other ways of receiving the Spirit and the other gifts conferred upon some people who receive a larger measure of the Spirit. Consider carefully what this author says about the necessity of being baptized in water AND the Holy Spirit while he acknowledges a difference between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism, and that both water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism are part of our 'salvation package.' When you can see both aspects synthesized into one belief, then you are approaching the absolute and fullest truth about baptism. I don't agree completely with this author, but it is certain that he does not agree with your position at all, so that is why I originally asked why you would use an argument contradictory to your own position. Now I realize you didn't understand the message this author was propagating. Read it again, slowly, and you'll see what I mean c.moore.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Kevin]

Not so fast there...

Not so fast there...

Clete Pfeiffer,

1st it's not my intention to be insulting or to act as if your arguments are invalid! On the contrary, they are quite valid. It's just that I am limmited on time and addressing every single point is not entirely necessary.

Believe me when I say that I completely understand the time limitation. I've had to stop debating for a bit because it was taking too much time away from my family life.

However, I do feel the necessity that you address my points, for if you can't defeat them, your dispy theory fails.

I do want my points addressed, after all, I put a lot of work into construction my aguments. If you are limited on time... that just fine. Take your time and address them, saving your progress as you go. Then when you are finished, post it.

What I would like to do is try to boil things down to one or two primary points of disagreement between the two of us and address those directly.

That won't be necessary if you address the standing arguments.

Now, with that having been said, if I do not respond to a particular point that you feel strongly needs to be addressed then by all means tell me and I will do so.

See above.

Your position(Water baptism is necessary for salvation) falls apart if the Nation of Israel had a differnent Gospel than that preach by Paul for the Body of Christ. And conversely my position falls apart if the Gospel preached by Paul is the same Gospel preached by Christ to the Nation of Israel!

I've asked you questions regarding this, and if you answer them, it would help to narrow this issue down.

My question to you is this:

What is the gospel?

I antisipate that, put simply, your answer would be "Beleive and be baptised" or something similar, and that fine but what exactly to you have to believe?

I will happily answer this question, just as I have consistently done throughout this debate, after what is on table has been addressed. If I answer it now, what's on the table will be lost in cyberspace, because we will be going off on a tangeant.

Please understand, Clete, it's not just you, I'm simply tired of having my arguments go unanswered, especially from people like Freak.

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

The Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptized (Acts 8:12). Many were healed and delivered. They were born again through repentance and faith in Christ

Now you know I'm going to disagree with that. One isn't born again until they bury their man of sin and walk in the newness of life, which is done with baptism. How can one be born again while still living in their sins? A death must occur before a rebirth can happen, and the Bible is clear that we die with Christ through baptism (Romans 6:4).

So this is why I said I will check because , it looks like you are correct and I need :help: :think:

I'm glad you finally see it as the scriptures say it, and I respect you for admitting your error. :up:

As Francisco, has pointed out, the article that you posted actually supports our position, but I don't agree with every point in it.

This is why I mention that we must look at the whole context of the chapter to see which baptism is water baptism or Spiritual baptism, or the new baptism i think kevin believes the in the name of the Lord baptism, which I see three kinds of baptism here, and the bible say´s there is one , faith, and one baptism.

Well, technically, there are multiple baptisms. What Paul refer's to as the ONE baptism is the one that unites us in Christ death, the one that Christ commanded in the Great Commission. The baptism that Christ commanded in the Great Commission was for MAN do do, and the only baptism that man can do is water baptism - in the name of the Lord.

Let me ask you how do you know which baptism is Spiritual when not water is included in the verse???

I've tried to show you this but you just don't believe me. When the Bible shows how something is done, that's how it's done, period. When you want to know if "baptism in the name of the Lord" is water baptism or Spirit baptism, you just have to find an example that show what kind it is.

We know from Acts 10:47-48 that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water. Now, whenever people are baptized in the name of the Lord, it is done with water, otherwise you have to provide evidence that baptism in His name can be performed by more than one method.

You finally admit that the Samaritas were water baptized first. Guess what it says about this water baptism... what was it called? Take a look:

Acts 8:16 (MKJV)
16) For as yet He had not fallen on any of them, they were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.

They were water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Coincidence? Nope... it's the same baptism spoken of in Acts 10:47-48.

Your article also admits that in Acts 19:1-6, that the were first water baptized. What was that baptism called, c.moore? Take another look:

Acts 19:1-6
1) And it happened in the time Apollos was at Corinth, Paul was passing through the higher parts to Ephesus. And finding certain disciples,
2) he said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? And they said to him, We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit is.
3) And he said to them, Then to what were you baptized? And they said, To John's baptism.
4) And Paul said, John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe into Him coming after him, that is, into Jesus Christ.
5) And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6) And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Again, we see that the water baptism that happend first was, yup, you guessed it, baptism in the name of the Lord.

So there we have 3 cases were water baptism turned out to be baptism in the name of the Lord! But for SOME reason, when people were baptized in the name of the Lord (Jesus Christ) in Acts 2:38, you want to say that was Spirit baptism, which has NO support whatsoever.

 

[Clete]

Kevin,

I'm not sure if your following me exactly. It isn't my intention to evade your arguments.

What I am saying is that if your nondispensationalist point of view is correct then so are are ALL of your arguments. And the existance of a new dispensation for the Body of Christ IS my entire argument. Therefore, if I can substantiate the existence of a new gospel then I win and if I can't I lose! And I state it that way intentionally because at least in the context of this debate the burden of proof is on me! I was, after all, the loose cannon that brought the dispensational argument up in the first place. I simply asked for your understanding of what the Gospel is, in order to define terms and to give us a place to start.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Kevin]

Clete,

I'm not sure if your following me exactly. It isn't my intention to evade your arguments.

Ok. Like I said, just take your time and please address them. I'm not putting you on a time limit to respond, so there is no logical reason for you not to address them.

What I am saying is that if your nondispensationalist point of view is correct then so are are ALL of your arguments. And the existance of a new dispensation for the Body of Christ IS my entire argument.

I realize what your position is, which is why I raised my arguments and points to refute your position. If you can't defeat my arguments then your dispy theory falls flat.

Therefore, if I can substantiate the existence of a new gospel then I win and if I can't I lose!

But you've already attempted to substantiate the existence of a new gospel, which is exactly what I refuted with my arguments.

And I state it that way intentionally because at least in the context of this debate the burden of proof is on me! I was, after all, the loose cannon that brought the dispensational argument up in the first place.

Yes, the burdon of proof is on you, and I await your replies to my agruments. Take your time. Why do you not want to address them?

I simply asked for your understanding of what the Gospel is, in order to define terms and to give us a place to start.

That's just it, Clete, we have already "started", and the ball is in your court. I'm simply waiting for a reply to my arguments, and then we can continue.

Like I said, I've spent a good amount of time and effort constructing my arguments, so I only ask for the courtesy of you answering them. I've already told you that time is not an issue to me, so I don't see what the problem would be in addressing them.

 

[Clete]

Kevin,

At the risk of making you angry, I'm going to give this one more shot.

You just said,"If you can't defeat my arguments then your dispy theory falls flat."

No it doesn't. Your entire argument is simply enterpretation of scripture through a nondispensatioanl point of view. The only thing you've proven is that scripture can be interpreted in that way. It does nothing to disprove dispensationalism.

Your answer each question I posed concerning Paul inidivualy which misses the point. The listing of several questions using the same opening phrase each time, was merely a literary devise. The point was and still is that Paul was not necessary.
God is not a respector of persons, if nothing was differnent, He didn't need Paul, He had 12 (not 11) Apostles to do His bidding ALL of whom were given the Holy Spirit (with which would have come the power and wisdom needed to fulfill the task) in Acts 2.

As for your Matt 25:41-46 argument, my rebuttled is again...dispensationalism. The book of Matthew (chapters 25 and 28 included) records Christ ministry on earth to the Nation of Israel who's mission it became to go unto the whole world! That was God's plan in the previous dispensation. God wanted Israel to repent so that God would send Jesus back to be there King! See Peters sermon in Acts 2. They didn't repent and so God cut them off. Now, there is no Jew or Gentile because things are now different. Do you see! Once there were Jews and Gentiles, now there's not! Somethig must be different!

You also said "While there are two types mentioned here, uncircumcised and circumcised, it is ludicrous to think that there are two methods to be justified in the eyes of God. Either your justified in the eyes of God, or you're not. Nowhere in the Bible is there support for two ways of justifcation. Bob is forced to say this to be consistant with his 2 dispensations after the death on the cross theory."

Do we have to be circumcised today? Was there ever a time when circumcision was REQUIRED? See my point?....A Change!
As a matter of fact Paul had a debate concerining circumcision in th first century, I wander how they relsoved that one? Oh yeah! we're told how they resolved it in Gal. 2. Oops theres that dispensationalism again!

You also said, "There are not 2 methods of justification. Abraham was justified by his faith in God. The question is, what kind of faith was it?"

This seems to be the crux of your argument. And I respond in this way:
If works = faith then faith is not faith but works. Because "dead faith" is merely a figure of speech. "Dead faith" is not really faith at all. Understanding this then, Paul's statement in Romans 4 doesn't make sense. "To him who DOES NOT WORK, but believes (has faith in) God, who justifies the UNGODLY, his FAITH is account as righteousness"

And lastly (at least for now) you said"Open conflict with Paul? What about the Gentile church of Ephesus as mentioned above, whom Paul wrote to?"

You have no evidense that it was a Gentile church. The fact that at least some of the other 7 were, and that there tone, phrasing, and message was very similar, and the fact that John agreed allong with the other 11 Apostles to minister to the Jewish converts in Gal. 2 is evidence that it was not a Gentile church but a Jewish one. Again, two different interpretations of the same scripture. one based on dispensationalism and the other not!

Now VERY little of what I've said here is real evidence for dispensationalism. Its merely a rehashing of what has already been said. I said (in effect) that dispensationalism is true, and you said (in effect) no its not.

Dispensationalism boils down to the Gopsel. Is it different now than it was? or not?

So again I arrive in the same place only with a lot more words this time.

What do you say we must believe and/or do to be saved? What is the Gospel?

 

[Kevin]

Clete,

At the risk of making you angry, I'm going to give this one more shot.

You just said,"If you can't defeat my arguments then your dispy theory falls flat."

No it doesn't.

Yes, I am perturbed by your response, because it shows that you have either skimmed over my arguments and given default dispy answers, or, you simply fail to see just how my arguments do indeed defeat the notion that there were two gospels after the death on the cross. I'll demonstrate:

Your answer each question I posed concerning Paul inidivualy which misses the point. The listing of several questions using the same opening phrase each time, was merely a literary devise. The point was and still is that Paul was not necessary.

Your point of Paul not being needed has already been refuted by me showing you that I could take that same argument and say that 10 of the apostles weren't necessary sense Peter was around.

As for your Matt 25:41-46 argument, my rebuttled is again...dispensationalism. The book of Matthew (chapters 25 and 28 included) records Christ ministry on earth to the Nation of Israel who's mission it became to go unto the whole world! That was God's plan in the previous dispensation. God wanted Israel to repent so that God would send Jesus back to be there King!

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said that you either skimmed over my arguments and gave default dispy answers, or you fail to see how it would indeed kill your dispy theory. You are so caught up in your dispy theory that you seem to miss who Matt. 25: 41-46 is referring to. You just put a blanket statement and say well, Jesus was speaking to the Jews therefore all of it applies to Jews and Jews only, and that they were to go out into the whole world. That's just plain wrong. Here is WHO Matt. 25:41-46 applies to according to the scriptures:

Matt. 25:32-33 (MKJV)
32 And all nations shall be gathered before Him. And He shall separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats.
33) And indeed He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats off the left.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but this is the scene of Judgement Day, which has NOT happened yet therefore it would be under the current dispensation. And on this day of Judgement, ALL NATIONS, which include the Gentile nations, will be judged. Verse 33 says that they will be divided - sheep and goats. Matt. 25:41-46 speaks about the goats, who came from all nations, on Judgement Day. The goats in these passages were sent to hell because they didn't do good works unto man.

So, in case you don't see how this kills your dispy theory, I'll sum up:

• Matt. 25:32-46 is referring to Judgement Day
• That means that this scene will happen in this current dispensation, where you say faith only will save
• For your dispy theory to be true, works will not have ANY effect on our salvation on this day depicted in Matt. 25:32-46
• Veses 41-46 clearly show the goats being condemned to Hell for their lack of good works, in this dispensation

Now, unless your are bold enough to say that Christ's vision of Judgement Day is wrong, this shows that faith and works saves a man, and not faith only, which you claim is all that is needed for this dispensation. Paul did NOT preach a different gospel of easy believism.

And once again, I noticed that you have YET to comment on the fact that PAUL said that keeping the commandments of God is what's important, which means....works.

1 Corinthians 7:19 (KJV)
19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

What Paul just said is what John said in 1 John 2:3-4. Different gospels? Hardly.

Do we have to be circumcised today? Was there ever a time when circumcision was REQUIRED? See my point?....A Change!
As a matter of fact Paul had a debate concerining circumcision in th first century, I wander how they relsoved that one? Oh yeah! we're told how they resolved it in Gal. 2. Oops theres that dispensationalism again!

The matter of circumcision does not change how one is justifed. We are justifed by faith that is alive with obedience. I can assure you that a child that was circumcised and then grew up and didn't have faith in God would not be justifed. But the person who has faith, and is obedient to God, such as Abraham, by that kind of faith we are justifed.

Of course we are required to be physically cirumcised, but we are required to do things like believe, repent, confess, be baptized, and continue to live an obedient life to God, which certainly includes the keeping of Christ's commandments. Heh... I think I just answered your question.

See Peters sermon in Acts 2. They didn't repent and so God cut them off. Now, there is no Jew or Gentile because things are now different. Do you see! Once there were Jews and Gentiles, now there's not! Somethig must be different!

Say what?! :doh: They didn't repent??? What translation are you reading from? In Acts 2:38, Peter told them to REPENT and be baptized. Verse 41 shows that 3,000 DID repent and were baptized. Where does it say God cut off Israel in Acts 2?

You also said, "There are not 2 methods of justification. Abraham was justified by his faith in God. The question is, what kind of faith was it?"

This seems to be the crux of your argument. And I respond in this way:
If works = faith then faith is not faith but works.

Your answer reflects nothing I said. Show me where I said that works = faith? Show me. What I've said many, many times is that true faith = faith + works, just as James says.

Because "dead faith" is merely a figure of speech. "Dead faith" is not really faith at all.

No, dead faith is certainly possible. Dead faith is defined by the Bible as faith that has no works. If dead faith didn't really exist, then James would not have said that faith without works is dead, which means it's a dead faith.

For example, I have faith that if I went to college and got degrees in this and that and worked really hard, I could make a lot of money. Now, if I acted upon that faith, my faith would profit me. But if I didn't act upon that faith, all I would have is my faith, and nothing more, which would not do me any good.

Understanding this then, Paul's statement in Romans 4 doesn't make sense. "To him who DOES NOT WORK, but believes (has faith in) God, who justifies the UNGODLY, his FAITH is account as righteousness"

Sure, it makes perfect sense. Paul is saying that faith is what saves us, not works. But if our faith, which saves us, does not produce good works, that faith is useless in the eyes of God. It's as simple as that.

Paul himself even said that we are made in Christ Jesus for good works:

Ephesians 2:10 (MKJV)
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

And again, Paul stated that keeping the commandments of God is what matters, which you have continually ignored (see above).

And lastly (at least for now) you said"Open conflict with Paul? What about the Gentile church of Ephesus as mentioned above, whom Paul wrote to?"

You have no evidense that it was a Gentile church.

Now this really irks me. This shows me that you skimmed over my arguments, for I showed proof of this in my post to you!! If you aren't going to take this debate seriously, please let me know so I don't pour so much time into it with you. I'll even quote word for word from my post to show you this:

Sorry, but that's inaccurate. Look at Rev. chapter 2:1. It's addressed to the church of Ephesus. Are you going to say that this was a Jewish only church? Paul wrote to the Ephesians, and we know that they were a Gentile church:

Ephesians 2:11 (KJV)
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Did you just happen to miss that?! It's in my post just above the bottom.

Again, two different interpretations of the same scripture. one based on dispensationalism and the other not!

How hard is Ephesians 2:11 to understand? How do you interpret that? Here, I'll even show verses 11 and 12 to help clarify:

Ephesians 2:11-12 (NKJV)
11) Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called Uncircumcision by what is called Circumcision made in the flesh by hands -
12) that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Now, are you still going to contend that I don't have any proof that the Ephesian church was a Gentile church? I hope not, because if you can't see that from these very clear verses, there's just no way I'm going to get you to see anything.

It is QUITE clear that the church of Ephesus was a Gentile church, therefore my Revelation argument still stands, which leaves you to still answer:

Revelation 20:12-13 (MKJV)
12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13) And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.

Revelation 22:14 (MKJV)
14) Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.

We are going to be jugded by our WORKS (which you contend has nothing to do with our salvation), and it is those who do His commandments who will have rights to Heaven. Perhaps this is why PAUL said that keeping the commandments of God is what matters (1 Corinthians 7:19)!

And you still haven't told me if Peter was carrying 2 gospels around with him. After all, he preached to the Jews in Acts 2 and to the Gentiles in Acts 10. Did he have 2 gospels, or just one? If he had 2, where did God give him this second gospel (verse please)? If he only had one, well then, what we have here is a case where ONE gospel, which came from Peter, was sufficient for salvation for both Jew and Gentile. No second dispensation needed. What's your answer, Clete? This put's your dispy theory right on the line, as does my Revelations arguement, which shows that we aren't saved by faith only.

I await your reply, and please don't overlook my arguments.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Kevin
Yes, I am perturbed by your response, because it shows that you have either skimmed over my arguments and given default dispy answers, or, you simply fail to see just how my arguments do indeed defeat the notion that there were two gospels after the death on the cross. I'll demonstrate:

I assure you that I did not skim over anything. I read it fully. Its just that I don't think its necessary to respond to simillar arguments with the same answer over and over. You insist on dealing with the details, and you were here before I was so very well. Here we go....

Your point of Paul not being needed has already been refuted by me showing you that I could take that same argument and say that 10 of the apostles weren't necessary sense Peter was around.

First of all, your argument doesn't refute anything! It merely gives a nondispensational interpretation of why Paul was chosen.
Secondly, why do you continue to imply that Matthias was not a bona fide Apostle. Christ gave the 11 remaining Apostles authority to act in his absense.

Matt. 16:19 "19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

They chose through the casting of lots (this method has Biblical precident) that Matthias would replace Judas and God showed His aproval by given Matthias the Holy Spirit at the exact same moment that He gave to the other eleven. (Act 2)
So there were at the time of the Demascus Road conversion of Paul, 12 bona fide Apostles already in office, with the Holy Spirit, ready to go.
Why 12? Why not 13? Because of Israel. 12 patriarcs, 12 tribes, in the future, 12 thrones that the apostles will sit on ruling the Kingdom of Israel. Notice, not 13 (the number of judgment and rebelion in the Bible), not 11 (which denotes disorder, disorganization, because it is one short of...12 (the number for government, as in a kingdom).
So, IF there was no new dispensation of Grace given to Paul, THE (singular) Apostle to the Gentiles, then either Paul was the 13th and therefore out of place, doesn't fit into the prophisied picture of Israel, Apostle or he was a fraud.

You are so caught up in your dispy theory that you seem to miss who Matt. 25: 41-46 is referring to. You just put a blanket statement and say well, Jesus was speaking to the Jews therefore all of it applies to Jews and Jews only, and that they were to go out into the whole world. That's just plain wrong. Here is WHO Matt. 25:41-46 applies to according to the scriptures:

Matt. 25:32-33 (MKJV)
32 And all nations shall be gathered before Him. And He shall separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats.
33) And indeed He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats off the left.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but this is the scene of Judgement Day, which has NOT happened yet therefore it would be under the current dispensation. And on this day of Judgement, ALL NATIONS, which include the Gentile nations, will be judged. Verse 33 says that they will be divided - sheep and goats. Matt. 25:41-46 speaks about the goats, who came from all nations, on Judgement Day. The goats in these passages were sent to hell because they didn't do good works unto man.

So, in case you don't see how this kills your dispy theory, I'll sum up:

• Matt. 25:32-46 is referring to Judgement Day
• That means that this scene will happen in this current dispensation, where you say faith only will save
• For your dispy theory to be true, works will not have ANY effect on our salvation on this day depicted in Matt. 25:32-46
• Veses 41-46 clearly show the goats being condemned to Hell for their lack of good works, in this dispensation

Now, unless your are bold enough to say that Christ's vision of Judgement Day is wrong, this shows that faith and works saves a man, and not faith only, which you claim is all that is needed for this dispensation. Paul did NOT preach a different gospel of easy believism.

This entire section stems from two problems.

1. It once again is a nondispensationalist interpretation of scripture which does not do anything to disprove dispensationalism. It is merely proof that such an interpretation is posible!

2. It shows an ignorance of what dipensationalism teaches.
The Judgement day that these and other passages refer to does not occur during this dispensation. In fact the sheep and the goats judgement doesn't occur for another two, yet future dispensations, both of which deal directly with the Kingdom of Israel (NOT exclusively, but primarily).

And once again, I noticed that you have YET to comment on the fact that PAUL said that keeping the commandments of God is what's important, which means....works.

My quotation from Bob Enyarts "The Plot" addressed this directly.

Quoting from The Plot...
"To impute righteousness to someone, God requires that person to obey Him, whether he command is simply to believe, or to believe and do.

Eternal life is knowing God (John 17:3). A good relationship involves trusting and believing one another. If someone knows God, he will trust and obey Him. Hence, if someone believes God, he knows God, and therefore has eternal life. On the other hand, if God tells someone to circumcise (a work of the flesh) and that person refuses, it is easy to see that person does not believe or trust God, and therefore, that person is headed for hellfire. Not that a work of the flesh could save anyone, but that God required it before He would impute righteousness.
For members of the Body of Christ, however, God requires no work whatsoever, but faith only:

“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness…” Rom. 4:5"

What Paul just said is what John said in 1 John 2:3-4. Different gospels? Hardly.

Again, nondispensational interpretation. Just as my interpretaion does prove dispensationalism yours doesn't disprove it!

The matter of circumcision does not change how one is justifed.

Tell that to Moses...God was on His fixing to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son.

We are justifed by faith that is alive with obedience. I can assure you that a child that was circumcised and then grew up and didn't have faith in God would not be justifed. But the person who has faith, and is obedient to God, such as Abraham, by that kind of faith we are justifed.

This statement is entirely true, IF nondispensational theology is true. If not, then it was true before the dispensation of Grace and will be again after the dispensation of grace ends.

Of course we are not required to be physically cirumcised, but we are required to do things like believe, repent, confess, be baptized, and continue to live an obedient life to God, which certainly includes the keeping of Christ's commandments. Heh... I think I just answered your question.

You answered one of my questions, I asked three:
"Do we have to be circumcised today? Was there ever a time when circumcision was REQUIRED? See my point?....A Change!"



[/QUOTE]Say what?! :doh: They didn't repent??? What translation are you reading from? In Acts 2:38, Peter told them to REPENT and be baptized. Verse 41 shows that 3,000 DID repent and were baptized. Where does it say God cut off Israel in Acts 2?[/QUOTE]

You missunderstood what I was saying here. You accidently mixed the end of one point with the begining of another. Its my fault though I definately could have been clearer.
My point was that Peter preached (in Acts 2)that if Israel would repent then God would send Jesus back and they would recieve their Kingdom. Yes some 3000 people were saved that day, but the Nation as a whole did not repent (this part is not is Act 2) but its leaders officially rejected Jesus as their Messiah, after hearing Stephen preach under the inspiration of the Spirit and the stoned him. God therefore "cut off" Israel and grafted in the Gentiles.
None of this proves anything however, because it is merely my dispensational interpretation of which I'm sure you have a nondispensation view, neither of which disproves the other.

Your answer reflects nothing I said. Show me where I said that works = faith? Show me. What I've said many, many times is that true faith = faith + works, just as James says.

Look if a=a+b and b is not equal to zero then a = 0. Either way one of your variables is meaningless! And since we agree that faith isn't meaningless then works must be! (IF dispensational theology is right) Please don't make me be so technical! Isn't my point obvious...

If God requires works then "faith without works" is not faith at all! You might even say that such faith is dead. If, on the other hand, God requires only faith and not works, then to attempt to add works shows at minimum a lack of faith although it would not imply a complete absense of it. Again, ALL interpretation based on your theological point of view. Neither position disproving anything.

No, dead faith is certainly possible. Dead faith is defined by the Bible as faith that has no works. If dead faith didn't really exist, then James would not have said that faith without works is dead, which means it's a dead faith.

For example, I have faith that if I went to college and got degrees in this and that and worked really hard, I could make a lot of money. Now, if I acted upon that faith, my faith would profit me. But if I didn't act upon that faith, all I would have is my faith, and nothing more, which would not do me any good.

See response to previous quote. in particualar the last sentence of my response.

Sure, it makes perfect sense. Paul is saying that faith is what saves us, not works. But if our faith, which saves us, does not produce good works, that faith is useless in the eyes of God. It's as simple as that.

See again the last sentence in the reponse 2 quotes ago.

Paul himself even said that we are made in Christ Jesus for good works:

Ephesians 2:10 (MKJV)
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

I have never denied that we should have good works. What I deny is that they have anything to do God imputing righteous to us.(saving us)

And again, Paul stated that keeping the commandments of God is what matters, which you have continually ignored (see above).

Refer back to my quote of Bob's book "The Plot"

Now this really irks me. This shows me that you skimmed over my arguments, for I showed proof of this in my post to you!! If you aren't going to take this debate seriously, please let me know so I don't pour so much time into it with you. I'll even quote word for word from my post to show you this:

Sorry, but that's inaccurate. Look at Rev. chapter 2:1. It's addressed to the church of Ephesus. Are you going to say that this was a Jewish only church? Paul wrote to the Ephesians, and we know that they were a Gentile church:

Ephesians 2:11 (KJV)
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Did you just happen to miss that?! It's in my post just above the bottom.



How hard is Ephesians 2:11 to understand? How do you interpret that? Here, I'll even show verses 11 and 12 to help clarify:

Ephesians 2:11-12 (NKJV)
11) Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called Uncircumcision by what is called Circumcision made in the flesh by hands -
12) that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Now, are you still going to contend that I don't have any proof that the Ephesian church was a Gentile church? I hope not, because if you can't see that from these very clear verses, there's just no way I'm going to get you to see anything.

It is QUITE clear that the church of Ephesus was a Gentile church,

I DID read this and did respond!
What you are perhaps missing is that both the Dispensation of Law AND the Dispensation of Grace coexisted for a time. There were many people saved under Law (the 3000 in Acts 2 for example) and they remained under Law until they died. Thus, John had converts from many different nations all of whom were members of the Circumcision believers. He wrote(actually the letter was from Jesus)to them and Paul wrote to the Uncircumcision believers.

therefore my Revelation argument still stands, which leaves you to still answer:

Revelation 20:12-13 (MKJV)
12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13) And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.

Revelation 22:14 (MKJV)
14) Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.

We are going to be jugded by our WORKS (which you contend has nothing to do with our salvation), and it is those who do His commandments who will have rights to Heaven. Perhaps this is why PAUL said that keeping the commandments of God is what matters (1 Corinthians 7:19)!

If dispensational theology is true your point here is not.

And you still haven't told me if Peter was carrying 2 gospels around with him. After all, he preached to the Jews in Acts 2 and to the Gentiles in Acts 10. Did he have 2 gospels, or just one? If he had 2, where did God give him this second gospel (verse please)? If he only had one, well then, what we have here is a case where ONE gospel, which came from Peter, was sufficient for salvation for both Jew and Gentile. No second dispensation needed. What's your answer, Clete? This put's your dispy theory right on the line, as does my Revelations arguement, which shows that we aren't saved by faith only.

No, Peter did not have two gospels! And no it does not detroy dispensatioanlism to say so.
The context here is that of God teaching Peter, the leader of the current dispensation that things are changing! The key factor here is not that he went to a Gentile (actually a procelyte Jew- see Acts 6:5) but WHY he went there. Peter actually preached the same message that he preached in Acts 2, the only Gospel he knew at he time. It is intesting to note that with this one exception there is no record of the Twelve going to Gentiles. Before or after. Nor is there any record of their early converts going to the Gentiles. Including the book of Revelation.

Now, my primary point with this response was that we could go on and on forever giving eachother our differing interpretations of scripture and never make any progress at all.

What I would like to do (if you are agreeable to it) is look at the actual systems of interpretation themselves to see if we can determine if one is superior to the other. To do so may call for starting a new thread(which I've never done because I'm new to TOL and therefore don't know how!) If you would prefer to do that we can and we'll let this one continue without my input, or we can continue here. Whichever you wish is good for me.

Whichever we do (if either), what I want to debate is WHY dispensationalism is better or worse, as a system. I'm not interested in debating the various conclusions that dispensationalism comes to verses your system (what ever it happens to be.) I wish I could explain what I'm after more clearly, but oh well, it will become clear soon enough.

Holy, in Him,
Clete

 

[Kevin]

Clete,

I assure you that I did not skim over anything. I read it fully. Its just that I don't think its necessary to respond to simillar arguments with the same answer over and over.

Well, I said that because there were arguments that you didn't even touch, which I would hardly term as responding to over and over.

You insist on dealing with the details, and you were here before I was so very well. Here we go....

Details are very important. Little detail can change entire meanings, are valuable for proving arguemtns, and therefore should not be overlooked.

First of all, your argument doesn't refute anything! It merely gives a nondispensational interpretation of why Paul was chosen.

Sure it does, it's by taking the basis of your argument and applying it the other apostles, I could claim the most of them were "unecessary". Both are valid, therefore cancels that argument out.

You know what's funny... when Christ gave a commission as He did to the eleven in Matt. 28:19-20, it was quite clear. Now, where are the scriptures that show Christ giving Paul a different commission than that of the 11? Not ONE time did Christ even hint that He was giving Paul a different gospel. Not once. Dispensationalism relies on taking certain scriptures (of the author's choice), comparing them to others and saying "There we have a new gospel", when in fact there isn't a single verse to show that a "new" gospel had come than was given to the 11.

The difference is that I can show where Christ gave the Great Commission and what was involved in that commission. You, and other dispy's, cannot provide a single verse where Christ says that a new gospel has come about. Not ONE.

Secondly, why do you continue to imply that Matthias was not a bona fide Apostle. Christ gave the 11 remaining Apostles authority to act in his absense.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. Matthew was certainly a genuine apostle. I refer to the 11 because there was only 11 when the Great Commission was given, which you say is no longer a valid commission because we are supposedly under a different gospel now.

Why 12? Why not 13? Because of Israel. 12 patriarcs, 12 tribes, in the future, 12 thrones that the apostles will sit on ruling the Kingdom of Israel.

Yes, but do you not know that is figurative? When Christ said in Matt. 19:28 that the apsotles would judge the 12 tribes of Israel, Christ was not referring to the 12 physical tribes, but rather, those who are redeemed in Christ. After all, the 11 were commissioned to go out and spread the gospel to the world (12 after Matthew was chosen), which means that more than the physical tribes are being spoken of here.

Notice, not 13 (the number of judgment and rebelion in the Bible)

Where do you get that?

not 11 (which denotes disorder, disorganization, because it is one short of...12

11 denotes disorder and disorganization? Hardly:

Exodus 26:7 (MKJV)
7) And you shall make curtains of goats' hair to be a tent over the tabernacle. You shall make eleven curtains.

So when God was giving instruction for how His tabernacle was to be built, he was instructing it to be built in a disorganized way by commanding that eleven curtains be made?

Numbers 29:20-21 (MKJV)
20) And on the third day eleven bulls, two rams, fourteen lambs of the first year without blemish;
21) and their food offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, according to the law;

Well, according to the law eleven bulls were offered. Was the law "disorganized?"

So, IF there was no new dispensation of Grace given to Paul, THE (singular) Apostle to the Gentiles, then either Paul was the 13th and therefore out of place, doesn't fit into the prophisied picture of Israel, Apostle or he was a fraud.

No, God has all sovereignty, and if He decides to use Paul as a vessel to spread His word, then He has every right to do that. That does not make Paul any different from the other apostles, nor does it make his message any different. Again, there is NOT one single verse that you can point to where God specifically tells Paul that he on a mission with a different gospel. Not one.

It shows an ignorance of what dipensationalism teaches.

I know exactly what dispensationalism teaches. It teaches one can arbitrarily go through the Bible, select certiain scriptures, and call that a new dispensation.

With my position, the current dispensation that I believe in can be Biblically backed without controversy - that a new dispensation began by Jesus dying on the Cross. This is clearly defined in the Bible, and is unquestionable:

Hebrews 9:15-16 (MKJV)
15) And for this cause He is the Mediator of the new covenant, so that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, those who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16) For where a covenant is, the death of him covenanting must be offered.

This shows when and how the New Covenenant began, and thus a new dispensation came with it. Again, you have no conclusive verses to show that there is yet another dispensation beyond the one that came after the death on the cross. That very dispensation can be clealy seen when Christ commissioned the 11 to go out and spread the gospel. Nowhere else do we see a new commission. All you have is a different interpreation of existing verses that do not mention anything about a new dispensation.

The Judgement day that these and other passages refer to does not occur during this dispensation. In fact the sheep and the goats judgement doesn't occur for another two, yet future dispensations, both of which deal directly with the Kingdom of Israel (NOT exclusively, but primarily).

You have yet to prove this supposed new dispensation that we are under, much less future dispensations. You say that we are in the dispensation where we are the body of Christ, and I agree with that. You say that the current dispensation (body of Christ) differs from the supposed first dispensation right after the death on the cross. Are you saying that in these future however many dispensations may come, that when Judgement Day comes, that they who will be judged are not going to be members of the body of Christ... or will people continue to be part of the body of Christ throughout these supposed dispensations?

What it boils down to is that on Judgement Day, people will be condmenmed for their lack of works, which you claim has nothing to do with our salvation. That's a fact.

You're trying to say that faith only saves.... so at what future dispensation does works begin to play a role in our salvation since we know that people on Judgment Day will be sent to hell for their lack of good works?

And once again, I noticed that you have YET to comment on the fact that PAUL said that keeping the commandments of God is what's important, which means....works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



My quotation from Bob Enyarts "The Plot" addressed this directly.

Quoting from The Plot...
"To impute righteousness to someone, God requires that person to obey Him, whether he command is simply to believe, or to believe and do.

So even Bob admits that works plays a part in our imputed righteousness.

That conflicts with your view of Romans four, where you claim this to show that works has nothing to do with our righteousness. Which is it?

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness..." Rom. 4:5"

This is simply saying that works do not account for righteousness. But faith that produeces works, does.

I know I know... that just my interperation from a non-dispy viewpoint, which I've been hearing a lot lately. So let's look at it from your perspective, that fiath only justifies a man. That means that I can just sit on my backside and not repent of my evil ways... but as long as I have faith, that faith will save me, depsite what I do.

What Paul just said is what John said in 1 John 2:3-4. Different gospels? Hardly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



Again, nondispensational interpretation. Just as my interpretaion does prove dispensationalism yours doesn't disprove it!

What an easy answer. Why not show me how my interpretation is in error? Let's look at the two, side by side:

1 John 2:3-4 (MKJV)
3) And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments.
4) He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

and then theres....

1 Cor. 7:19 (MKJV)
19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

John says that if we don't keep His commandments that we don't know Christ. Would you agree with me that John is putting importance on keeping the commandments of Christ? I think so.

Then there's Paul's verse, who supposedly has a different gospel than John. Paul says that circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Clearly Paul is saying that what's important is keeping the commandments of God. Can't you see that both John and Paul are stressing the importance of keeping the commandments of God. It's practically spelled out. Yet when I show this obvious comparison, all I get is the easy out answer of:

"Again, nondispensational interpretation. Just as my interpretaion does prove dispensationalism yours doesn't disprove it!"

How is my interpretation wrong here?

The matter of circumcision does not change how one is justifed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



Tell that to Moses...God was on His fixing to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son.

You're right, bad wording on my part. The premise that I was trying to establish is that works alone does not justify a man - it takes faith plus works. That's why I continued after my bad wording and said that if a person was circumcised but later in life was not obedient to God, he wouldn't be justified... even though he had been circumcised.

We are justifed by faith that is alive with obedience. I can assure you that a child that was circumcised and then grew up and didn't have faith in God would not be justifed. But the person who has faith, and is obedient to God, such as Abraham, by that kind of faith we are justifed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



This statement is entirely true, IF nondispensational theology is true. If not, then it was true before the dispensation of Grace and will be again after the dispensation of grace ends.

Ah... there's the example of I was just speaking of! Glad you saw it. As for your response... when does the dispensation of grace end (according to scripture)?

Of course we are not required to be physically cirumcised, but we are required to do things like believe, repent, confess, be baptized, and continue to live an obedient life to God, which certainly includes the keeping of Christ's commandments. Heh... I think I just answered your question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You answered one of my questions, I asked three:
"Do we have to be circumcised today? Was there ever a time when circumcision was REQUIRED? See my point?....A Change!"

No sweat... I'll answer all 3 right now:

• No we don't have to physically circumcised
• Yes, there was a time when it was required
• Yes, I see your point

By the way, I never said that I don't believe that there are no different dispensations. I just contend that there are no more dispensations after the one given after the death on the cross.

My point was that Peter preached (in Acts 2)that if Israel would repent then God would send Jesus back and they would recieve their Kingdom.

Where do you get this idea? Are you speaking of a physical kingdom? Peter went out in Acts 2 to preach, which was the beginning of the NT church (whom Christ said He would build His church on) - the body of Christ, in Whom they were baptized into.

after hearing Stephen preach under the inspiration of the Spirit and the stoned him. God therefore "cut off" Israel and grafted in the Gentiles.

Where do you get that God "cut off" Israel after the stoning of Stephen? In fact, if Israel was "cut off" why did Christ make Paul a minister to kings, children of Israel, and the Gentiles (Acts 9:15)?

Look if a=a+b and b is not equal to zero then a = 0

Wrong. You took away from your what the equation says. It a=a+b. That states that TWO things equate to "a". If you take either one out of the equation, and try to say it equals "a", you've changed the equation. True faith = Faith + Works. True faith != Works. True faith != Faith. True faith = faith + works... simple as that.

Either way one of your variables is meaningless! And since we agree that faith isn't meaningless then works must be!

Tell that to the people in Matt. 25:41-46. I know, I know... you say this day will happen in some future dispensation... that you have yet to prove.

Please don't make me be so technical! Isn't my point obvious...

Your point is incorrect since your answer relies upon changing the original formula.

If God requires works then "faith without works" is not faith at all!

Yes it is, it's dead faith.

You might even say that such faith is dead.

Yup, just as the apostle James calls it.

If, on the other hand, God requires only faith and not works, then to attempt to add works shows at minimum a lack of faith although it would not imply a complete absense of it.

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide me with that elusive verse that says God requires faith "only".

Again, ALL interpretation based on your theological point of view. Neither position disproving anything.

When you break it down to the details, false interpretation is easier to spot.

See response to previous quote. in particualar the last sentence of my response.

Oh, you mean: "ALL interpretation based on your theological point of view. Neither position disproving anything."? Well, with that frame mind, we might as well end all theological debates and just throw the Bible away... because anybody can use the "that's your interpretation" answer and nothing get's settled. Again, that's why I pay attention to detail... and if my interpretation is wrong, don't just tell me that that's just my interpretation, show me how my interpretation is wrong.

Sure, it makes perfect sense. Paul is saying that faith is what saves us, not works. But if our faith, which saves us, does not produce good works, that faith is useless in the eyes of God. It's as simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



See again the last sentence in the reponse 2 quotes ago.
.

There you go again... Show me HOW my interpretation is wrong, especially in light of the fact that Paul said what's important is keeping the commandmetns of God!

I have never denied that we should have good works. What I deny is that they have anything to do God imputing righteous to us.(saving us)

Ok... so they don't play a role in our salvation now, but in some future dispensation, God is going to change His mind and say that works do play a role in our salvation as seen on Judgment Day in Matt. 25: 41-46. Riiiiiiight.

And again, Paul stated that keeping the commandments of God is what matters, which you have continually ignored (see above).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



Refer back to my quote of Bob's book "The Plot"

Bob says that works can play a role in our imputed righteousness, which contradicts that you don't think that works have anything to do with our salvation.

It is QUITE clear that the church of Ephesus was a Gentile church,

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



I DID read this and did respond!

Yeah... you responded with: "You have no evidense that it was a Gentile church." If you read my original evidence to show from the book of Ephesians that it is indeed a Gentile chruch, then you basically ignored it. All you said was "you have no evidence that it was a Gentile church".

What you are perhaps missing is that both the Dispensation of Law AND the Dispensation of Grace coexisted for a time.

I disagree. While the Mosaic Law technically existed, and some people tried to keep it despite the fact that a new dispensation had arrived, doesn't mean that the dispensation of the Law was in effect. The 11 went out and preached Christ, not the Mosaic Law.

And you didn't even acknowledge my point that the Ephesian church was indeed a GENTILE chruch. Based upon:

Ephesians 2:11-12 (NKJV)
11) Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called Uncircumcision by what is called Circumcision made in the flesh by hands -
12) that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Do you or do you not think that the Ephesian church was Gentile - yes or no?
If you answer no, like I said in my other post... there's no sense going on if you can't see that clear message.

If you answer yes, then you have to acknowledge that my Revelation arguement still stands because the church of Ephesus was part of that book. You can't claim that Revelations was to Jewish churches only!

There were many people saved under Law (the 3000 in Acts 2 for example) and they remained under Law until they died

Those people weren't under the Law in Acts 2! Peter preached Crhist to them, not the Law!

therefore my Revelation argument still stands, which leaves you to still answer:

Revelation 20:12-13 (MKJV)
12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13) And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.

Revelation 22:14 (MKJV)
14) Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.

We are going to be jugded by our WORKS (which you contend has nothing to do with our salvation), and it is those who do His commandments who will have rights to Heaven. Perhaps this is why PAUL said that keeping the commandments of God is what matters (1 Corinthians 7:19)!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



If dispensational theology is true your point here is not.

Was the Ephesian church Gentile - yes or no? That will answer if my point here is valid or not, for they were subject to these conditions.

No, Peter did not have two gospels! And no it does not detroy dispensatioanlism to say so.

Ok, so you admit that ONE gospel from Peter was sufficient for salvation for BOTH Jew AND Gentile. No second dispensation needed at all.

The context here is that of God teaching Peter, the leader of the current dispensation that things are changing!

The only thing God was teaching Peter was for Peter not to call what God had cleansed common or unclean (Acts 10:15).

The key factor here is not that he went to a Gentile (actually a procelyte Jew- see Acts 6:5) but WHY he went there.

First of all, Acts 6:5 mentions nothing about Cornelius. Second of all, his purpose of going there was to preach to gospel unto salvation to the Cornelius household.

Peter actually preached the same message that he preached in Acts 2, the only Gospel he knew at he time.

Well, yeah... it was the only one given by Christ!! And again, it was sufficient for both Jew and Gentile. That being actual fact, that it saved both Jew and Gentile, why would a NEW gospel come if the current one already saved both?

It is intesting to note that with this one exception there is no record of the Twelve going to Gentiles.

Oh really? Then why is the traditional tomb of John located in Ephesus? John did actually minister there after Paul. In fact, it was off the coast of Ephesus on an island called Patmos that John recorded the book of Revelation. History shows that the apostles eventually spread out from Judea.

History also shows that Peter settled in Rome, where he later died. He died under the persecution of the Roman Emporer Nero. Now why do you suppose that is? Could it be that he was preaching the Gospel?

But even that isn't necessary to show that there wasn't two gospels. The fact that Peter had one gospel which was sufficient for both shows that there's no need for a different gospel. And as I've said before, nowhere in scriptre do we find Christ giving Paul a different gospel. Nowhere.

What I would like to do (if you are agreeable to it) is look at the actual systems of interpretation themselves to see if we can determine if one is superior to the other. To do so may call for starting a new thread(which I've never done because I'm new to TOL and therefore don't know how!) If you would prefer to do that we can and we'll let this one continue without my input, or we can continue here.

Not too long ago, this thread turned into a dispy conversation, and the moderator moved that portion somewhere else. I'm not going to hop between two threads... I learned in the past that it takes up too much time. I'm pretty sure there is an entire area for Dispensationalism, but that's not my cup of tea, I like to debate baptism, and it's necessity (which Paul practiced by the way, the same one as the other apostles).

So if the moderator moves this part again... I won't be following, as I didn't the last time it happened.

Whichever we do (if either), what I want to debate is WHY dispensationalism is better or worse, as a system. I'm not interested in debating the various conclusions that dispensationalism comes to verses your system (what ever it happens to be.)

I uses verses because that's the authority we are given by God to use. I test dispensationalism accroding to the scriptures, and I really have no reason to change that. We are, after all, supposed to test the Spirit, and that is done by comparing what is said to the word of God.

 

[Catholicious]

Re: The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!

Re: The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!

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".

Freak, how can you make such a bold statement? A heretic is someone who departs from the faith but yet baptism as the normative initial step towards salvation in JESUS CHRIST has been part of traditional Christianity since its start so hold can holding this view be a departure from the truth?

I will not say that it is the only way [the thief on the cross] as O2bewise may have stated [was not here just registered] but it is the normative way.

An example of scripture that states otherwise is as follows:

1 Peter 3:21 (RSV)
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


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!

Freak, the only place that scripture uses the phrase "faith alone" is here:

James 2:24 (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

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).

There is more to salvation than a one-time in your life proclamation in JESUS CHRIST ... this is a dangerous statement that may lead many astray. This might give one the idea that subsequently they can lead a life of sin and still be saved ... WRONG! If salvation can be summed up in one line, it would have to be "sola gratia" [grace alone] but definitely not "faith alone". Luther ADDED that phrase to his initial version of the Bible written in German but it was later removed.

 

[Francisco]

Kevin and Clete,

Gentlemen, while Kevin's responses to Clete's arguments are very sound and complete, I feel compelled to interject a couple of questions that Clete's arguments bring to mind. They are:

1. Clete, you continuously claims Paul was the only apostle to the gentiles. That is incorrect. And that erroneous idea lies at the base of your dispensationalist theory.

Peter was the first apostle to the gentiles. In Acts 10 God showed Peter the vision of unclean animals being lowered from heaven, then sent Cornelius' men to Peter, then sent the Holy Spirit down on Cornelius in front of Peter, all to show Peter that gentiles were to be included in the Christian faith. Peter then performed the first baptism of a gentile.

At the council of Jerusalem, right in front of Paul and all the other apostles, Peter stood up to address the council regarding the imposition of the requirements of the Mosaic law upon newly converted gentiles. Of course Peter declared that circumcision should not be imposed on the gentiles. Peter began his speech in front of the council, including Paul, by saying:

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from the early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Acts 15:7)

It is clear Paul was not the first or only apostle to the Gentiles. This being the case, your idea that Paul was commissioned to preach a different gospel to the Gentiles is nonsensical. Why would God change his message to the Gentiles from what Peter was preaching to them "from the early days", from the time of the baptism of Cornelius when Peter preached to Cornelius and the other Gentiles? Where is your scriptural support for this idea?


2. Clete, your theory that Paul was the only preacher to the Gentiles, the basis of your dispensationalist theory, can also be proved erroneous from scripture. I've already shown that Peter preached to Gentiles in Acts 10, and claimed to be the one chosen by God to give the gospel message to the Gentiles. Kevin has already shown that John also preached to the Gentiles, suppporting his argument scripturally by showing John composed Revelation from the island of Patmos, which is off the coast of Ephesus which was certainly Gentile country.

I would also point out the following instances of the apostles and some of the Jewish-Christians appointed by the apostles, preaching to the Gentiles and recorded in scripture:

* Philip preached to the Ethiopian eunuch, who was a servant to the queen of Ethiopia and certainly was not a Jew, he was a Gentile.
* Barnabas, not an apostle but appointed by the apostles in Jerusalem, was sent to the Gentiles at the church in Antioch, also a Trukish city and definitely in Gentile country.
* It was James who wrote the letter to the Gentiles at the coucil of Jerusalem.
* It was Barsabbas and Silas, two Jewish Christians from the church at Jerusalem, who brought the letter to the gentiles.
* Peter addressed his first epistle to 5 Gentile churches, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.
* Peter's second epistle is addressed to all Christians which necessarily includes Gentile-Christians.
* Peter was also in Antioch with the Gentiles, according to Paul's letter to the Galatians.
* All three of John's epistles are intended for Gentile converts because they all three address a gnostic/donetist heresy that arose in the Greek and Roman churches denying the divinity of Christ and that he died on the cross. The heresy was propagated by Valentinus, a Roman student of Greek philosophy, Marcion of Sinope (Turkey/Gentile), Menander and Satornil in Antioch (Turkey/Gentile).
* The epistle of Jude was written by a Jewish-Christian author to all Christians which also includes Gentile-Christians.

In addition to scriptural evidence there is hard archaeological evidence that John lived in Ephesus and Thomas preached at least as far as modern India and Pakistan.

All this irrefutable evidence begs the question, 'Why would all these Jewish-Christians, including some of the twelve, be preaching to the Gentiles if God had given Paul a different message to be preached to the Gentiles? Wouldn't they get confused hearing two different gospels?


3. Clete, you also continue to imply that a dispensational interpretation is a valid message, and try to force such an interpretation upon us, but you have never shown any validation of this method. In fact there can be no validation for this method, particularly on a historical basis or an authoritative basis. Dispensationalism was created in the mid-1800s by John Nelson Darby, and was propagated by Schofield through commentaries in his Schofield Reference Bible. Before that time, there is no historic record of this 'dispensationalist theory', and as far as I can tell,

The only claim of authority for this theory was 'visions' experienced by Darby and some of his "Brethren" (Plymouth Brethren), in which they received "rediscovered truths" that were supposedly lost after the apostolic age when the early church fell into apostasy. How laughable. Isn't this along the same lines as Joseph Smith's claim, the founder of Mormonism, claimed?


I am very interested in hearing how you explain obvious conflicts between dispensationalism and scripture, particularly:

1. Why the many Jewish-Christians from the church at Jerusalem preached to the Gentiles if God gave Paul a different message to deliver to them?

2. Upon what authority do you claim the validity of dispensationalism? Is it upon the authority of the visions seen by Darby and company, or upon some other 'authority' ?

3. How would you explain why God would allow the church to fall into apostasy for 1800 years before revealing the "rediscovered truths" to the Plymouth Brethren, particularly in light of the fact Jesus promised his church would be invincible even against the powers of Hell itself?

I look forward to your reply.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Francisco
c.moore,

Please excuse me for interjecting my thoughts into your conversation with Kevin. I just read the excerpt from christian-bible-studies.com and found it interesting you would use this excerpt to support your position that water baptism is unnecessary:

The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, BAPTISM IN WATER and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although ALL PART OF OUR SALVATION PACKAGE, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time.

***snip***

Here we see that Paul was interested in these disciples' relationship with the Holy Spirit. HE SHOWED THEM THEIR NEED TO BE BAPTISED IN WATER and the Holy Spirit.

How in the world do you see these statements as supporting your position that baptism in water is a heretical ritual and has no part in our salvation??? Clearly this author would support mine and Kevin's position that water baptism IS part of our salvation.

Yet this author also believes in Holy Spirit baptism, and acknowledges that it also is a part of our "salvation package", as this authors puts it, and as I would certainly agree.

Maybe you can study this authors works to understand how he or she can coalesce the need for water baptism AND Holy Spirit baptism...

God Bless,

Francisco

I don`t agree with all of the link either but I poited this link out because what he explained about the Spiritual baptism, and about Acts 2, and what he mention about the importants of the spiritual baptism.

No , he said ,and I agree with the author about the water baptism is a symbolic baptism of the spiritual baptism, which also freak , myself and other great ministry teaches like Copelands , Creflo Dollar, and I am pretty sure Billy Graham the great Evangelist would agree and teach that water baptism doesn`t save , and I never seen Billy graham with a giant swimming pool baptizing people into a new in the name of the Lord baptism.
Now one of the church I got baptized had people get water baptized as soon as they came to the alter call,and I would think Kevin or your church is like this, but many Evangelist don`t stand on that belief to save , they stand on love to Jesus and Faith and trust in Jesus not water.
The first christian walk is thefirst love, then spiritual walk like born again spiritually , baptized spiritually , the blood of Jesus spritually and faith walk spiritually all this equal SAVED Eternal life.
Next step water baptism, joining a group or church, bible studying , fellowships, renewing of your mind , and your flesh dieing from your practises of sins.


God Bless

 

[Freak]

Re: Re: The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!

Re: Re: The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!

Originally posted by Catholicious

Freak, the only place that scripture uses the phrase "faith alone" is here:

You haven't read much of the Scriptures have you? Water is not by the basis we obtain justification.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."

"The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith."

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand."

"Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring-"

Need I continue?

 

[c.moore]

hello Francisco

you said:You must be reading the text you posted with the same filter of preconceived notions with which you read scripture! The author doesn't say the baptism Peter speaks of in 2:38-39 is what you are calling Holy Spirit baptism. What he does say is:

It is God's will that every Christian be baptised in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38,39).

He is, of course, talking about Peter's promise that those who receive water baptism will receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit:

Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call."

So, how do I know Peter was talking about water baptism? Because he was exhorting them to be baptized then, that very day, and verse 41 says three thousand accepted Peter's message and were baptized. We both know that water baptism is the only baptism men can perform, and we also know Holy Spirit baptism happens only when the Spirit decides to fall on a person. So the three thousand that were baptized that day were baptized with water.

You told me above that you 'must look at the whole context of the chapter'. I agree, but the context of the chapter does not agree with your position. Rather, it agrees with mine. Three thousand people accepted Peter's message that day and were baptized. We know a person can't just elect to be Holy Spirit baptized, so water baptism is how they were baptized. Now, considering the context of the whole chapter, we must consider then that Peter understood water baptism to confer some measure of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and particularly the forgiveness of sins.


Quote c.moore

Ac: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.

What is meant first of all by repent?
Is repent for remission of sins???
after repent is the word (and) meaning something elsi is this correct??

This something else is a baptism inthe name of Jesus ,and not in the name of peter or Paul or larry, but in the same phrase again is remission of sins, and when the remission of sin is done the Holy Ghost come and a gift is given from the Holy Ghost.

But when the Holy Ghost come are people filled????

When they are filled is this called a Spiritual baptism???

How many time is remission of sins done here in this verse???

God Bless

 

[c.moore]

Kevin you said:
Acts 19:1-6
1) And it happened in the time Apollos was at Corinth, Paul was passing through the higher parts to Ephesus. And finding certain disciples,
2) he said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? And they said to him, We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit is.
3) And he said to them, Then to what were you baptized? And they said, To John's baptism.
4) And Paul said, John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe into Him coming after him, that is, into Jesus Christ.
5) And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6) And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Again, we see that the water baptism that happend first was, yup, you guessed it, baptism in the name of the Lord.



Quote c.mooe
In verse 3 they admit they were baptized in John water baptism.

the first baptism i see here was the John baptism and in verse 4 and 5 I see that this is that baptism which John talk about in John 1:33.

Kevin let me ask you in John 1:33 who is Him in that verse, and what baptism which will come after John baptism mention in verse 30???

be Blessed

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

I guess it would be too much to hope that you would finally understand what baptism in the name of the Lord is after our discussion about the Samaritans, were you conceeded that they were water baptized first.

Remember in Acts 8:16 where it said that the Holy Spirit had fallen upon none of them for the had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus?

And then the apostles came up from Jerusalem and laid hands upon them so that they would receieve the Holy Spirit? Remember that?

Well, Acts 19:1-6 follows the same pattern. They were preached to, they were baptized in the name of the Lord (verse 5), and then an apostle laid hands on them so they could receive the Holy Spirit (verse 6). SAME THING AS THE SAMARIAN ACCOUNT. The only difference is that these people were baptized into John's baptism, and therefore needed to be rebaptized in the name of the Lord.

If you think Acts 19:5 is referring to Spirit baptism, then why did Paul lay his hands on them SO THAT THEY COULD RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT (verse 6)? They were Spirit baptized and then Paul needed to lay hands upon them so the could receive the Spirit they were just supposedly baptized in? THINK about it.

the first baptism i see here was the John baptism and in verse 4 and 5 I see that this is that baptism which John talk about in John 1:33.

In verse 4 Paul explains that they need to beleive in Christ. Upon doing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord in verse 5. AFTER that they were Spirit Baptized by the laying on of Paul's hands.

All John 1:33 is saying is that Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit, which He does! When those people were baptized in 19:5, it was done with water, because that's the ONLY kind of baptism that man can perform (can man command the Holy Spirit?), and it was commanded to be done by Christ, by man, in the Great Commission. Spirit baptism happend in verse 6, not 5.

Something tells me that you're just not going to see that, though. You're too hung up on Spirit baptism that you fail to see how baptism in the name of the Lord is performed. We have perfect example of how it's done in Acts 10:47-48, but to you, in other places where people are baptized in the exact same name, it refers to Spirit baptism... which directly goes against the Biblical example that we have, and that man CANNOT perform Spirit baptism, yet MAN commanded people to be baptized in the name of the Lord, so it HAS to be water. MAN cannot command Spirit baptism. As John 1:33 points out, it is Christ who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, NOT man.

 

[Francisco]

c.moore,

I don`t agree with all of the link either but I poited this link out because what he explained about the Spiritual baptism, and about Acts 2, and what he mention about the importants of the spiritual baptism.

No , he said ,and I agree with the author about the water baptism is a symbolic baptism of the spiritual baptism,

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The author of the article you posted clearly state he believes water baptism is 'part of our salvation package' and then concurred with Paul's teaching about their 'NEED to be baptized in water.' No, the author never implied water baptism is only symbolic. I agree that water baptism includes an aspect of symbolism, but it is not a symbol of what will happen in the future or anything that has already happened. It is an external symbol of the internal change that is taking place during the faith act of baptism, through which our sins are forgiven and we are joined to Christ through baptism into his death (Rom 6).

I also agree with the author in regard to the importance of receiving the Holy Spirit. However, I believe, just as the early Christians believed, that through the faith act of baptism we receive a certain measure of the Spirit. Peter declared to the crowd on Pentecost that they should be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and they would receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I believe that! And just as the Spirit descended on Jesus when He came out of the baptismal waters of the Jordan River, I believe we also receive the Spirit in some measure at our baptism. Understand though that I do fully believe in, and have personally experienced the receipt of a larger measure of the Spirit apart from baptism, and have witnessed others who have received a fuller measure of the Spirit manifested in supernatural gifts of the spirit like the gift of speaking or interpretting tongues and the gift of being healed or of being an instrument to heal others. My point is that I believe we receive the Spirit in baptism, but that in no way precludes our receiving the Spirit subsequent to baptism, which we all do in different measures.

which also freak , myself and other great ministry teaches like Copelands , Creflo Dollar, and I am pretty sure Billy Graham the great Evangelist would agree and teach that water baptism doesn`t save , and I never seen Billy graham with a giant swimming pool baptizing people into a new in the name of the Lord baptism.

Regardless as to how much I agree or disagree with the article you posted, the article disagrees with your position that water baptism is of no effect, regardless of how many televangelists you name. I'm sure these 'great televangelists' you've named would be honored to see you consider them as 'great' as you and Freak. You say Billy Graham, 'the greatest evangelist' agrees with you, however I say Paul, the greatest evangelist, agrees with me, according to Romans 6. In addition, while you may have agreement with Creflo Dollar and Ken Copeland, I am in agreement with Ignatius of Anitoch, bishop and student of Paul, Peter and John; Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and every other great father of the church who lived during the apostolic period and the patristic era that followed. These are the Christian leaders who learned the faith directly from Jesus, the apostles, or their direct disciples and their disciples. I'm also in agreement with most of the protestant reformers, insofar as baptism in water having a spiritual effect, and I'm in agreement with over 80% of all Christians of today. Your belief has no basis in history or apostolicity, and can only be argued by ignoring or explaining away through convoluted mental gymnastics, all the verses that show we will be judged based on our deeds and actions, not merely on our belief. And the only modern agreement you have is a small fraction of believers on the fringes of Christianity, those who would follow man-made traditions and ignore the traditions handed down by the apostles.

Now one of the church I got baptized had people get water baptized as soon as they came to the alter call,and I would think Kevin or your church is like this,

I can't speak for Kevin's church, but you have the wrong idea about my church altogether. We don't take anything so lightly that we can base it on any one simple or emotional act. We want to know the individual learns the gospel, accepts the gospel, and truly understands what baptism into Jesus Christ is about. Then they are baptized. The process of a non-Christian being baptized into the faith in my church usually takes many months, or even more than a year.

but many Evangelist don`t stand on that belief to save , they stand on love to Jesus and Faith and trust in Jesus not water

And in my church we stand on the belief in and love of Jesus, as well as obedience to the commands He gave us, including baptism. You want a cheap version of Christianity, one in which you can profess belief and be saved forever and act any way you want to. But that flies in the face of the many teachings of Jesus and the apostles that we must continue to obey Him to remain in Him.

The first christian walk is thefirst love, then spiritual walk like born again spiritually , baptized spiritually , the blood of Jesus spritually and faith walk spiritually all this equal SAVED Eternal life.

I wish you would make up your mind. When it suits you, you claim salvation comes strictly from faith, but now you say salvation comes from faith and actions. Which is it? Faith alone, the unbiblical 16th century invention of Martin Luther, or Faith working through love, the teaching of Christ and the apostles? And if you say faith working through love, then why do you reject the faith act of baptism to which Christ commanded us?

Also, I would be interested to know exactly how long this 'faith walk' is that you mentioned. Does that mean you have to walk in the faith for one day and you are guaranteed salvation, or do you have to walk in this faith walk the rest of your life? What happens if you fail to walk in this 'faith walk' more than a few days, months or years?

God Bless,

Francisco