Water and Blood

What you have here is a case of the KJV rendering it both "believe not", and ""disobedient" elsewhere, and newer versions making it more "consistent" by using "disobedient" everywhere it is used. They went the wrong way! The Greek definition of the word is simply to disbelieve (willfully and perversely). IT is derived from apeithes "unpersuad[e]able (i.e. contumacious). There is nothing there about "obeying" except for how it was translated in some places.
This all the more proves what we are saying, and eliminates many of your own prooftexts! It all the more shows "Obey the Gospel" means "faith"; NOT WORKS!

So these are all about "believing", and the physical act of baptism is tied to belief, not salvific in itself.

Calling on the name is something they did while being baptized. You cannot make the synonymous. Tow acts together. Like people today will call on the name when coming down to the altar (which is what has basically replaced baptism today). No one will say walking down to the altar in itself is "calling on the name", or that it saves.

If they were allowed to buy something for themseves. Usually, my parents would specify "bring back all the change" when they needed all the money for themselves.

That's not completely true either. They could expect you to get there and back the fastest way possible (like "go straight to the store").
It depends on other factors such as the overall relationship (whether certain disctretions in different areas are usually allowed). Likewise, we can look elsewhere to see if God allowed instruments, and we see He did. You have never been able to prove that this was rescinded because of the change of the covenants (i.e. that instruments were somehow like sacrifices, and superseded by singing only, like some [platonism-influenced] Church leaders claimed).

And man pleases himself by making issues wth which to exalt himself over others by claiming they are pleasing God, while others are only pleasing themselves. Most of us grew up in churches with instruments, and never even though of this issue until coming in contact with Campbellists. So we did not just fashion this according to what we want. No one ever saw any principle banning instruments in the New Testament. So once again, it was certain men who rose up making an issue of it, (always connected with some previous bias against others who they saw as sliding into worldliness) with the CofC being the latest group. This is more carnal than anything you accuse us of!

"supplement" means "replacement", not "addition". IT is not really two types of music, because the iinstruments carry the same melody the singers are singing. (in fact, it helps them keep in tune and in step; which is probably why they were added in the first place).

"Leavened" and "unleavened" are diametric opposites. To specify one excludes the other completely. The whole concept of "leaven" originally, in the Law was that it was to be put away during the Passover, so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven. These are two totally different analogies.

I was using "dunked" for "baptized". It obviously didn;t save him, so all he did was get wet.

So his motives were never right to begin with. "Believe" was sometimes used to mean "profess", even though they do not completely understand it, and are operating on a false presumption on what it is. We see this with the Jews in John 8, who Jesus goes on to call "children of their father, the Devil". This does not mean they were briefly saved and then lost it because of works. They believed "in vain", with the wrong motives.

No, that was the ultimate proof that BAPTISM was *NOT* what saved, and REPENTANCE was an entirely separate (mental) act that had the final effectiveness in salvation.

 

The word means "disbelieve". It doesn't matter how anyone translates it. That is what the Greek word was. They can't change that; I can't change that and you can't change that. (You argue over "NT worship", and "man's additions", but trust man's translational additions because it supports your position!)
"Beliveing" is a form of "obeying". If you're told to "believe" something, and you believe it; you have OBEYed! The trasnlators probaly realized this, and didn't count on legalists coming and taking it to support their ideas. Sorry, but you cannot get physical works into this.

It doesn't matter which ORDER it was said in. (That only comes up now with people trying to prove baptism as saving in itself). They were simultaneous. But clearly, it was the faith that saved; not the physical act.

Then he was never "Saved" to begin with. If his sins were "washed away", be would still be condemned for sin. We do not fall in and out of "salvation", based on works (which nobody does enough of anyway). Else, we are no better off than in the OT, only we have changed the works. That is NO GOSPEL (good news) at all!

I just explained to you above that "believing" was "in vain", meaning they were never saved. For Simon, the bapotism did NOT A THING for him, and when he was told to repent; he was not told to be baptized again. They "Accepted" and "professed" Christ on a false premise --the Jews, that He was bringing in a physical kingdom, and not saving them from their sins, which they were completely ignorant of; and Simon, that he could buy the power of the Spirit for his own misuse. He was plotting this ulterior motive from the beginning. You think that was GENUINE faith?!

OH NO? Look at v. 30, and 31, and afterwards. They "believed" in one sense, but it was not real belief.

 

Exactly. The old law was nailed to the cross taken out of the way (Col 2:14) and by work of the old law can no one be justified (Gal 2:16).

They were childern by faith because they had been baptized and Paul makes that clear in Gal 3:26-27. </font>[/QUOTE]The “troublers” are of the kingdom gospel, as they believe only those to enter must be circumcised. So that is that other gospel that is the same, but different than we that have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.

Your Gal. 3:26-27 reference is to us, and not to them, for their salvation is different entering into the kingdom other than throughJesus Christ.
Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Correction:

If his sins were "washed away", he would NOT still be condemned for sin.
Continuing:

Yes, it was nailed to the Cross as a COMMANDMENT. We're not arguing if it is commanded or not; but whether it is forbidden simply because it is not commanded. Since you want to go this way, perhaps the whole principle in the examples your side keeps mentioning of what is not commanded is forbidden was "nailed to the Cross" as well!

Scriptures plainly teach that 5 of the 7 things in that first list were replaced by the second list. With giving, it doesn;t explicitly say that a tenth is replaced, but the principle of "as propspered" would supersede the command for a tenth. They are contradictory. One is a definite amount, and the other is variable.
But your side has shown no scriptural correlation at all that instruments were a shadow of a-capella singing.
And here's something else I just realized. Since "singing" and "instruments" are supposed to be so contradictory or diametrically opposite; like leavened vs. unleavened; then if they used instruments in the OT; they must not have sang! Are you willing to argue that there was no singing of the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in the OT, but only playing of melodies? If not; then we see right there that "sing" and "instruments" are not mutually exclusive.

You are talking what you do not know. It's not about what I want. I could care less about having instruments in service. I could care less about the standard organized "service". I have told you this about 3 times already. My point was not what people want, but the fact that it was already that way for us, so it was not like the Churches were all a-capella, and we decided we liked instruments, and brought them in.
We don't give them up because we seen no scriptural reason to. It's just an issue that some rise up (1 John 2:19, Acts 20:30) and argue over, for no other reason than pride (1 Tim.6:4). So why don't you give up this time-wasting, unfruitful argument? You don't want to. It's your will worship! (Ha, Ha, we worship this way; we are better than all of you!)

That's not to please man; rather that was for an "expedient" reason (To help people keep the notes and rhythm).

The way I was thinking of it, it is an "addition" that CHANGES the original thing completely. When we work on a supplement train schedule; it changes everyone's normal leaving times, and often route, etc.)

Still, the instruments are an accompaniment. It doesn't in any way take away from or change the singing. In fact, it can possibly help it!

Now that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. We write songs and sing them; how is that "made by God", any more than an instrument? (any material we make them with is also made by God).

But the distinction between them is solely that one ingredient. Therefore, they are opposite. Leaven CHANGES the other ingredients. Instruments do not change the singing.

 

I forgot to mention, that the "two words" are simply variations. one is "pisteuo", the other is a [without, non]+ pistos (trustful).

"All that believed had all things in common". What doies this have to do with anything. It is telling us something that those who "believed" did; but it does not say anythign about "obey"

Something that we physically DO, such as go down into a pool of water (even if you argue that it is done to us).

No; one represented the other; so they could be spoken of as the same thing.

I explained what "believed" meant. Once again; do you really think his "believing" with it's ulterior motive was saving faith?

He was told to REPENT; which in that case, meant to believe for the right reason.

Will get back later.

 

Just remember that that was spoken before the Cross, at Jews who added their own precepts to the Law. Once again, when we come into the NT, we do not simply trade one Law for another, so the "rules" for worship are not as tight as it was back then. So your restrictions on instruments are more of "commandments of men" than us using them!

Nobody suggested that the OC practices were "opposites" of the NC practices,. You had compared unleavened bread with leavened bread, in terms of substitutiong one for the other in the Lord's Supper. Those are opposites, not a "shadow" of one another. (both of which were used in both testaments).

But you have not proven this assertion. And now you make it sound like the singing ("no doubt") and "instrumental music was separate, or something, so that singing always means singing only, and instruments were always apart of some other production. No, the Bible can refer to music as singing and/or instruments with both being used in the same pieces.

I don't respond because it is some personal issue with me; but because when men rise up in the Church with unbiblical issues read into scripture, we are to challenge it. If you're saying we're wrong, then we should either change if we are, or prove that we're not wrong. So us responding to you does not prove that we're only trying to protect our own selfish "wants", or whatever. But now you need to prove that your (CofC/Campbellism) whole raising of the issue is not your own carnal one-upmanship (using a ridiculous issue to put down other christians).

Because there was no BAN on instruments, but probaly a variety of factors as to why they were not mentioned. If it is true that they weren't used; as it was said, it could have been because they were mostly hiding and on the run, and in people's homes, and didn't have many skilled musicians (and maybe instruments were costly for the average person back then), so they weren't needed. Then, when persecution ended, and the Church got its own buildings, and other signs of power, then some introduced them, seeing that the barrier to them had been removed. Others by that time had developed a Platonistic outlook on the world, (worship was to be somber and almost mournful, and joy/liveliness was carnal) and then took the former lack of instruments as some "rule" of the NT "spiritual worship", which they tried to read back into the NT (between the lines), and opposed them.
Whatever the case, there was no ban in the NT; no NT teaching that they were OT shadows of singing only-worship, and no issue made of it at all. Iw we really want to claim to follow the NT and "be silent where it is silent", then we will cease making such a ban, and following the paganized Medieval Church, which we reject on so many other issues developing then (Mary, real presence, infant baptism, monoepiscopacy, etc).

You want to throw charges of man and their selfish preferences; this takes two sides. Men opposed it because they didn't like them, because they had gnostic ideas about worship and liveliness, an instead of turning to the Bible to see if their ideas were scriptural; they simply read them into the Scriptures, and then up came these "bans" from between the lines that one could nowhere find in them otherwise. Today, people take any issue to cause division and prove they are the true Church. You are appealing to every [human] other authority except the Bible for your rule. You need to just admit that this is YOUR preference, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

If you are suggesting by this that I am lost (and hence you need to be "concerned" about me) just because of a doctrine of instruments (as well as being in "the true Church"), then you need to be concerned about yourself (as we are about you). You are trusting in a gospel of works--unbiblical ones at that--which is no gospel at all! It's not even like we're arguing over basic morality (adultery, killing, stealing, etc). This is what Jesus said the "vain worship" was.
No, this isn't for us, this is for you, because you get to see yourself as the lone preacher trying to "resue' all of us apostate Christians from all our false worship, and other things that have us condemned--just like every other cult leader. Since salvation is by faith in Christ, a person then must rraise up all of these other issues in irder to prove that he alone has the truth. I know; because I used to be into sabbatarianism (which has a much stronger case than this), and when I was shown how that was false, I realized how it was all about pride (being better than others); not God, nor concern for all those other souls.

All of this has just implicated song books as well.

Once again; there is evidence in Cor. that that may have been a meal beyond just wine and crackers, (which themselves may have been used as an illustration of any food and drink) and while this is somewhat speculatory, it is still therefore not a good example. It would not be to taste better, but because it was simply a meal!

Why wouldn't that please God? If instruments were so displeasing to God; then you would have to take the argument (of some of those Church leaders who opposed them) that He simply "allowed" them in the OT, because of the "hardness of their hearts" like He did divorce, and other things. But there is no proof of that. So why assume that it only pleases man, and not God?

 

Ocea gain, "believing" is MANIFEST by works. But the works by themselves do not make the act of "believing".

Not really; because hypothetically, if comeone picks up the Gospel, and believes it without coming in contact with another person, bhe is saved even though he didn't "confess". So "confess" is a visible sign of faith, like baptism. (hence the altar call replacing it in modern evangelism). But ultimately, it is about what is received in the heart. Then, we would ask, why wouldn;t one then go and show it, through confession, baptism, etc.? But yet again, whatever visible sign is a manifestation of faith, not faith itself.

NO; because this is done in the heart. The, like, or as apart of faith; it is to be manifest in a changed life.

That once again was "faith" MANIFEST in a work. If one of those wicked people in that day had buit their own ark, would they have been "saved by faith" as well?

No, YOU don't. You think it is something we DO, rather than something we RECEIVE; and THEN do things, out of gratitude, because we love Him. (John 14:15-21, 1 John 4:19)
Walls do not have faith. But the people did; and obeyed out of faith, and then God rewarded them with voctory. This is so simple, yet you have to try to make something else out of it!

Once again, faith manifest through a work. And God does the spiritual "work" of saving us, or making us His children; something we cannot do ourselves.

You are just not getting it. Baptism was a SIGN of something that takes place in the heart. Once again, Simon should have been saved regardless of his heart ocndition, then, if it is just the water that saves.

You don't believe it. It says his "belief" was of an ulterior motive. That's why all the baptismal water int he world could not save him. But you have to deny this, because your whole doctrine falls apart on it.

If a person PRETENDS to "believe" and change his lifestyle (which anyone can do), then he has not really REPENTED. His heart is stillt he same. there are such things as "tares", remember (i.e. those in the congregations who were false believers).

Not at the time of baptism. But later, his real motive became evident, and it was clear he had not repented, but was only trying to USE the power of the Holy Spirit for his own selfish gain. Like many false preachers today.

 

Like Simon. That's why I don't see why you didn't see that point. You think he was a true worshipper just because he wwent through the motion of being baptized.

You are the one giving a command God never gave. He never commanded instruments, but we do not command them or say hHe commanded them. The issue is are they forbidden or commanded to be omitted. It is only MEN in the early church and afterwards who commanded that. Therefore it is a commandment of men.

Faith is believing God enough to do whatever He tells you. In the Old Testament, works were emphasized more, but while some were faithful and did what God said; especially in the particular one time commands we see illustrated in these examples, overall, men did not keep God's commands, and God really demanded perfection. Just like it may be possible to have dead "belief" without works; it is also possible to have "dead works" without faith. Peoplewent through the motions, thinking that doing those works saved them (like Simon), but their hearts still weren't right. Since no one was perfect; those who ended up justified were those who obeyed in faith (so we see they are still two separate items). Since no one does all the works God commands consistently or perfectly,then salvation cannot be tied to any one work; or ACT (since you try to challenge the designation of the word "works"). You yourself admit that we are not perfect, so it is about "faithfulness". So then it can't be by any particular work. It also can't be by an amount of works, else, you would have to have a "cutoff line, where "OK, that's one sin too many; salvation revoked until you repent again".

He is in Christ when he believes. Believing back then was accompanied by baptism. In reality, he was saved as soon as he believed, before baptism. But nobody could really see that until he was actually baptized, so that was looked at as the actual act of getting into Christ. Nobody sat and picked it all apart arguing "was he saved by the water, or before?" To the watching world, he entered Christ when he went down into the water. But once again, there were tares (like Simon) who went through the motion, but did not really repent. Rather than them actually being saved, and then losing it when their true motives became evident (as if people's view of him was what made him saved or revoked it), he was never saved then.

 

Let's take a step back. This was in response to your statement that there would be false worshippers. If people can "worship" falsely; they can "believe" falsely! If I took your line of reasoning; I would day, "no; I believe the Bible, when it says they worshipped, so they were not false. They simply turned from worshipping". But that is not what it says!
The context clearly shows; that while he may have "formerly" practiced sorcery (as if that alone proved he was saved); he now simply plotted to manipulate the power of the Holy Spirit in its place! Note v.13 18, 19, where he was watching Philip, and eveutally approacehd Peter, and was totally focused on "miracles and signs", just like he was using under sorcery. He smply wanted a greater, divine power to continue his old practice with! This was not genuie belief; but rather the same "belief" of those Jews in John 8, who Christ said were "f [their] father, the Devil". You are taking a word in our common use of it and refusing to see its full range of uses in the Bible!

You have it completely backwards! Those baptized under John were not baptized for a wrong reason or motive. They were baptized by an OT prohpet for a right reason; but the true Christ whom he pointed to was here, and has superseded John, as both Jesus and John himself had testified! So they needed to be baptized into Christ. On the other hand, we have a person who went through the motions of being baptized in Christ, but with an ulterior motive, which is exposed by the apostles. He has no need to be baptized again, but to repent of his evil plans (which would mean accepting Christ truly in his heart; and not as a genie to continue his bewitching of people) is what he now needs to do, thus proving baptism is not the key to salvation.

And by your logic, we can't have song books either. Once again, you take the liberty for yourself to decide for us what is "expedient" or not. We really must look at the situation to determine what is a supplement, and what is a compliment (basically). And once again; I showed you a possible case (in which Communion is a general meal) where other foods could be allowed. It depends on how we understand it. If we assume that communion was a specific special ceremony of "unleavened bread and wine", then that would automatically exclude anything else. If we understand it as a meal, of which elements of the Passover Seder Christ and His apostles partook, were used as the first example of (and the fact that people could be glottonous of it is an evidence of this), then other things are allowed.

We were arguing both issues in the "Denominations" thread, and even a "baptism" thread, but one died down, and the other went on past that, so it is consolidated here. It is all the same methods of interpreting scripture your group uses anyway, so the issues are very much related.

Yes it does earn you. Be baptized; and then you are saved from Hell by being in Christ. That is earning, through an act we DO. Read Rom.4:4,5 on this.
To you "being in Christ" really doesn't mean anything, because you are quickly out of Him by not continuing to "walk in Him" through works. (as you claim with Simon!)

Repentance is a total change of our minds, that begins to change our acts. It is not about missing or not missing a few things. That only becomes a person's focus when he places his salvation on things he does.

But you are so focused on the "baptism" part of it; you can't see that that is only something that accompanies "believe"/"repent". Never do we see baptism by itself. That is why, as DHK has always pointed out; Christ did not have to say "He sho does not believe, and is not baptized shall not be saved". Clearly, the focus is on believe with baptism being a [visble] accompaniment, and not the other way around! Remember, your favorite passage on "faith without works" says "I will show you my faith BY my works" (James 2:18), not "I will show you my works to prove they are gaining salvation for me".

Not yet; because in 7:54, another group of people were also "cut to the heart"? Were they "believing"? No; quite the opposite; they gnash their teeth and then go on to stone Stephen! "cut to the heart" is the initial felling of conviction by the Spirit, and we can still react to it in one of two ways: believing, or resisting! Sorry, as much as you accuse me of not using scripture; all you are doing is picking out of them words and statements without even checking contexts and other uses of them, which completely disprove your points. The argument becomes basically on what scripture does not teach moreso than what it does, anyway.

They needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved. The group in ch.7 DID something aftert their conviction; but that they did SHOWed that they were not converted. The same with Simon. And I would have to go partly along with the person who pointed out that this was different than today; because as we see in the account of Simon, people were baptized but still had not received the Spirit. That was accomplished by the laying on of hands. So in this initial period when the apostles were still alive, and the NT not yet written and circulated; we had this physical process of being baptized and having apostles and their helpers laying hands on people to bring them into Christ. But this would not continue on forever. It was a special instance in Acts. Just like Church of Christ does not believe any of the other spiritual "gifts" recorded then continue to the present.

Once again, you are picking it apart to prove youir point. Don't forget, Christ said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is
in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Matt.10:32,3) If a person truly believes; he will confess. He is saved at the point he believes, and then he is to confess and obey by being baptized. If he refuses to confess and be baptized; he shows he must not have believed in any true sense.

He's showing (confessing Christ before) the person who is baptizing him. That is apparently enough. Otherwise; if it is all about water; a person should have been able to baptize himself.

Baptism was the approved sign of receiving Christ, which applied His blood to them, which is what paid for their sins.

I have never argued between those two words. Still, even with "for", you can't contradict the rest of the Gospel by having the remission of sins tied to this single act IN ITSELF, istead of it simply accompanying the acceptance of Christ into one's life.why would one be baptized? Because it was to accompany believing, which placed him in Christ, and gained him remission of sins. So therefore, they can speak of "baptism for the remission of sins". But it was not simply a token act which BY ITSELF, or perhaps with "belief" accompanying it, gains you remission of sins. That is completely backwards.

If they walked in Christ, they would have shown themselves to have truly believed! You, focusing on BAPTISM, are trying to take that whole instance of baptism down, with Simon, so that if he didn't really believe; then none of them baptized with him did. Salvation is purely an INDIVIDUAL matter. Their salvation depends on what each individual did with the truth they were given. This one person had an evil ulterior motive, and proved he was not really believing, but rather trying to gain power for himself; which he had already been doing (i.e. "his old life"). That has nothing to do with all of the others dipped into the same pool with him.

On one hand, they are so basic they should be easily remembered; but then on the other hand, they get swept aside when we do give them to you; and you conter them with these other scripotures that you havge interpreted to prove your point. How about the basic "BELIEVE on the Lo9rd Jesus Christ; and you shall be saved"? (Acts 16:31). You jump right to the baptism in v.33, and then using v.34 try to redefine belief as "baptism" itself! (or if it wasn't you who did that, it was one of the others). But he didn;t say "be baptized into Christ and you shall be saved", so even though that may have accompanied belief; it still was not the FOCUS, or actual act that brought salvation. Then, we have all the other scriptures, such as "by grace are you saved, through faith...not of works", that do not even mention baptism. But all of these you somehow strech to bring back to baptism. (usually bt redefining "faith" and "works"). So as I said, it is more about what scriptures do not teach, so quoting them over and over to you does not even do any good! (Especially when I am often in a rush, and it takes a half hour or more to make one of these posts).

 

[double post due to initial incomplete load]