What would you do?

My first thought was, “I’d never invite someone to speak that I didn’t completely trust to teach the church.
But you said you knew him well.

I’m uncomfortable speaking in large crowds yet I think I’d probably raise my hand and interrupt the speaker with a question... just to insure I understood him correctly.

Rob

 

If I were pastor of a church & was gonna have a guest preacher for whatever reason, I would make sure his doctrines matched those that I had preached to the congregation since I became their pastor. And if I had the chance to help choose my permanent replacement as pastor, I'd do my best to find & recommend one who held the same beliefs as myself.

 

The preacher should finish or correct the message by using he book of James to show putting action to show ones faith?

 

Maybe the dude has gone astray & started believing that false doctrine. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

 

There are Scriptures that align salvation and Baptism.

John arrived from the wilderness to preach baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Later the disciples of John complained tha Jesus’s disciples baptized more folks.

However, baptism in Scripture goes beyond water. It is more often used to indicate something one endures and is a survivor of.

Is it possible that this thinking is in play and that water has nothing to do with what the preacher was talking about?

It is clear in Scripture that unless one is baptized (into Christ) that person is not saved.

1 Peter 3:21 - 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 good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Colossians 2 - 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.​

 

Well, ACTUALLY, Sir, a new believer SHOULD be baptized ASAP, but he/she is already saved. There's but one way of salvation, & we have the clear example of Jesus saving the repentant thief on the cross who couldn't possibly have been baptized. If a person comes to Jesus in repentance, belief, & submission, He saves that person at once. If that person dies immediately after that, before baptism, he/she is still saved.

There are some people who can't be baptized. but GOD knows who can or who can't. My late mom-in-law was wheelchair-bound late in her life, & couldn't swim when she could walk, but she insisted on being baptized til some of her church elders strapped her into a wooden chair & dunked her into the creek at one of their baptism services. And between baptism services, a new believer died before he could be baptized. (That church obviously conducts baptisms only in summer, as they have no indoor facility & baptize in a creek.)

Yes, I'm a Baptist, an IFB, but I keep baptism in its proper perspective. It's JESUS who does the saving, & He doesn't need water to do it!

 

It is impossible to come to any kind of belief without some kind of repentance [change of mind] prior. Submission is a work [no where in the written word of God is submission commanded as any kind of requirement in order to be saved].

 

You completely missed the point.

I was not dismissing water baptism, but pointing out that baptism from above (see Scriptures given in post #27).

Unless one is Baptized as show in those two verses, there is no salvation.

 

So, Jesus DIDN'T save the thief on the cross ?

Baptism in the Holy Spirit doesn't come til AFTER salvation.

 

Know his doctrine before putting him in the pulpit.

 

Not according to the teachings of baptisms, which also if taught the error of baptismal regeneration could also be prevented. John the Baptist taught it saying, ". . . I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. . . ." -- Matthew 3:11-12. The two baptisms done by our Christ are the Holy Spirit to be saved, and the yet future lake of fire for the lost.

 

Again, you keep pointing to water, I am pointing to Spirit. One must be baptized as both passages state (not water) or they are not saved.

Look at Colossians reference.

I ask if the preacher was using this and not telling about the water.

Here again is the Colossians passage:
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.10And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.

11In Him you were also circumcised in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.

13When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses,14having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

The baptism is not water, it is salvation.

If one is not thusly baptized, the are not saved.

 

There are other interpretations of that passage. ". . . performed by Christ and not by human hands. . . ." So as not to refer to water baptism, which is done with human hands. ". . . And having been buried with Him in baptism, . . ." And the term, baptism, unqualified, yet still to be understood in that context, to refer to water baptism. Being understood the same way as in Romans 6:3-4.

 

No, it does not “refer to water baptism” but the very days of Christ from death to resurrection.

Not all use of the word “baptism” includes water. Rather, many passages concern the trial, the events, that which will cover over for a special cause.

Just as water baptism is merely an outward picture of that baptism already having occurred in salvation offered by the baptism the
Lord when through in the days of crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.

Btw, Romans six does not refer to water either, but to that action that must occurs for one to be saved.

Again, was this what was being preached, but heard and aligned inappropriately as water?

Perhaps it would have been wise for the OP presentation to include a link to the message. Probably isn’t available.

 

The hermeneutic I referenced, the unqualified term "baptism" refers to water. A qualified term would not refer to water, such as Acts 1:5 or 1 Corinthians 12:13. Now can you explain your hermeneutic as to how you are qualifying the term "baptism" in Colossians 2:12 not to refer to water. Thanks. While we may not be able to come to a common agreement, that may not need to be required. It is nice to be able to understand how a conclusion is arrived at.

 

It is distinct by the earlier reference to water and washing dirt off, but this by context and in contrast is not of water.

If you allow, may I encourage your consideration of the following.

Hermeneutics can be a wonderful tool when used correctly, however, when it fails, it it typically in that one assumes the use of a word carries the same thought throughout or despite the context.

For example:
If one does not recognize that a different Greek Word is used for the same English word used in a passage (as in 1 Timothy 2), they may assume the meaning of the words are the same.

Also, the same defined Greek Word (as in this case immerse) can be accurately used but not carry the context in the same manner as it is in this passage. This is often the case with homophones and homonyms.

Hermeneutics is merely a tool, as with any tool, if it is not used properly or outside context clues and even a bit of language studies, often misconceptions may occur.

For example:
In 1 Timothy it is reads:

10For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.​

Now Herman can attempt to hang on to universal salvation, for Savior is how the Greek uses the word and note that even the ESV presents Savior as capitalized adding more support for some.

However, you and I know the Word is also used as deliverer, preserver. So Herman’s hermeneutics isn’t truly supportable, for God as savior delivers and preserves all, but not all are redeemed.

Now I know I’m being a bit over stating, however, your smart enough to be discerning, and to take what is offered in elementary form and appropriately.

 

You did a good job not explaining what I had asked. I assume it made sense to you.