Distortion of Scripture

I'm sorry. I addressed the first post to Earl. I meant, Ed. I apologize.

Ed, what does this scripture say it takes to be saved?

What does it say it takes to be condemned?

Which part of it do you not believe?

Nothing has to be added to understand this clear passage. I do not have the authority to add or take away from any scripture.

 

Brother mman: You err bad. Here are some of your bad errors:

1. Depending on your understanding of one verse
to set up your dogma

2. Being dogmatic about your error

3. Assuming everybody else is going to join in
being dogmatic about your error.

4. Picking a set of verses about 'baptism' and salvation.
I can pick a set of verses as big as yours that
omit baptism. A bit of common sense would help.

Mman about Mark 16:16: "Nothing has to be added
to understand this clear passage."

So why did you add something? I accused you of
adding to the scripture. How do you answer the charge?

Mman: "Ed, what does this scripture say it takes to be saved?"

Belief that leads to baptism.

Mman: "What does it say it takes to be condemned?"

Disbelief.

Mman: "Which part of it do you not believe? "

Which part are you having a problem with?
I don't have a problem with being baptized,
i was baptized 53 years ago after believing.

Joh 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his
only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth
in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

Everlasting life with no mention of baptism.
This most popular of all scriptures blows your
'baptism required for salvation' out of the water.

Rom 10:9 (KJV611 Edition):
That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus,
and shalt beleeue in thine heart, that God hath raised
him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

The verse that got me saved 53 years ago -- no mention
of Baptism. Yes, i first called Jesus my Lord in April 1952
while believing that God had raised Jesus from the dead.
And still today i confess that Jesus is my Lord and
my Savior.

Say, in case somebody want to know: 'should i repent
somewhere along in there?' -- I had to repent before
i called Jesus my Lord.

Mar 16:16-18 (KJV1611 Edition):
He that beleeueth and is baptized, shalbe saued,
but he that beleeueth not, shall be damned.
17 And these signes shal follow them that beleeue,
In my Name shall they cast out deuils, they shall
speake with new tongues,
18 They shall take vp serpents, and if they drinke
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them, they shall
lay hands on the sicke, and they shall recouer.

Strangely, i know of people who say you have to handle
snakes if you REALLY got saved.
Strangely, i know of people who say you have to speak
with unknown tongues if you REALLY got saved.
And i don't believe them a bit more than the ones
who say you have to be baptized before Jesus will save you.
I beleive, from the study of the whole Bible that the
best bet is: If you are saved, you aught to show you have
been saved by submitting to scriptural Baptism.
If Jesus saves you, you will be Baptized by Jesus with
with the Holy Spirit.

To think that water baptism is a feature
leading to salvation - wrong - it is a
distortion of scripture. True scriputral
baptism FOLLOWS salvation and is because
of baptism. BTW, baptism is so closely
associated with salvation as a sign of
salvation, that sometimes 'baptism' is used
to describe 'salvation'.

 

Ed,

bmerr here. You made the point (?) that Mark 16:16 does not specifically state that "...he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned."

How much more damned would one need to be than if they did not believe the gospel in the first place? One is no more damned by not being baptized than one would be for not believing.

You said you tried to avoid adding to the Scriptures, but requiring them to say more than they say in order to mean what they plainly mean is just as bad, don't you think?

Also, your contention that mman is, "Depending on your understanding of one verse to set up your dogma" is unfounded. If it were the case that mman, Frank, and I were asserting that "baptism only" was neccessary for salvation, then yes, we would be guilty as charged.

That, however, is not the case. We simply affirm that the New Testament of Jesus Christ requires that one be baptized in order to be saved. This would be in addition to hearing and believing the word of God, repenting of sin, and confessing that Jesus is the Son of God.

Scriptures for each of these requirements have been given, and include some of the very verses you and yours have presented to show that we are saved by "faith only".

If either side is depending on their understanding of one verse to set up their dogma, it is you and yours' misuse of Eph 2:8, 9, while you reject or "seek a deeper meaning" for others that speak against you.

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle "black".

I think it's safe to say that you are the one in the majority in this debate. Biblically, a BAD place to be.

Yes, it would. The honest, common sense approach to the Bible is to search out all the Scriptures pertaining to a subject, and find the sum of what God's word (Ps 119:160 ASV) says about it.

We do not have liberty to compare lists of verses, see which is longer, and reject the shorter of the two. Those who do so place their souls in peril.

Can you give me just one passage of Scripture that says that baptism is a sign of salvation? If there was just one that said that we should be baptized to show that we are already saved, I'd believe it. Just one - Please?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bob,

bmerr here. Correct. Those are the steps of salvation given in that text. What of other texts speaking of salvation? Can we just ignore them? What would keep someone from choosing one of the others and ignoring the one you gave?

Unless, of course, one began to read in Acts, instead of in Romans. Even if one did start in Romans, they'd get to chapter 6 before they got to chapter 10!

This is a common misuse of 1 Cor 2:10-14. Remember that at the time of Paul's writing, there was no complete written revelation from God. God's word came through the apostles and other prophets, and was later written down by inspiration in the epistles.

Paul is not contrasting the saved and the unsaved in this text. He is contrasting the inspired man with the uninspired man. Look at it closely.

1 Cor 2:

10 But God hath revealed them [the things from v. 9] unto us [apostles] by his Spirit [inspiriation]: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, by the Spirit of God.

12 Now we [apostles] have received, not the spirit of the world, by the spirit which is of God; that we [apostles] might know the things that are freely given to us [all men] of God.

13 Which things also we [apostles] speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural [uninspired] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The idea that one must be saved in order to understand the Bible collapses under its' own weight. Consider this:

If I can't understand until I am saved, but I can't be saved unless I believe, and I can't believe what I don't understand, then how can anyone be saved?

God didn't give us His word to fool us. While it is true that there are "some things hard to be understood" (2 Pet 3:16), most things are not really all that hard to figure out, if we approach with objectivity.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr: "I Pet 3:31 - Baptism saves us"

None of the chapters of 1 Peter have a 31st verse???

Bmerr: "Rom 6:3-4 - We are baptized into Christ"

This is a clear 'baptism is a sign of salvation' picture.

Rom 6:3-4 (KJV1611 Edition):
Know ye not, that so many of vs as were baptized into Iesus Christ, were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore wee are buryed with him by baptisme into death, that like as Christ was raised vp from the dead by the glorie of the Father: euen so wee also should walke in newnesse of life.

'Like' and 'as' are both clues of a metaphor.
We are not literaly 'buryed with him by baptisme' but
it is a spiritual metaphor - A SIGN.

I don't have time to go through all your 'baptism saves'
scripturs right now. But the three i've looked at, not
a one shows your contention that 'baptism saves'.
Jesus saves. People get baptized because Jesus saves.

 

Bmerr: "I Pet 3:31 - Baptism saves us"

None of the chapters of 1 Peter have a 31st verse???

Bmerr: "Rom 6:3-4 - We are baptized into Christ"

This is a clear 'baptism is a sign of salvation' picture.

Rom 6:3-4 (KJV1611 Edition):
Know ye not, that so many of vs as were baptized into Iesus Christ, were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore wee are buryed with him by baptisme into death, that like as Christ was raised vp from the dead by the glorie of the Father: euen so wee also should walke in newnesse of life.

'Like' and 'as' are both clues of a metaphor.
We are not literaly 'buryed with him by baptisme' but
it is a spiritual metaphor - A SIGN.

I don't have time to go through all your 'baptism saves'
scripturs right now. But the three i've looked at, not
a one shows your contention that 'baptism saves'.
Jesus saves. People get baptized because Jesus saves.

 

mman,

You said...

mman, this is not rocket science here. This is actually more along the lines of...

2 + 2 = 4

(while you are saying 2 + 4 = 2)

Again, this is not complicated. Its very very simple.

1) Cornelious and his family are sitting there listening to the gospel being presented.

2) As they were listening to the gospel they began speaking in tongues.

mman, the gift of tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, meaning that only one who is saved can exhibit that gift. While they were listening they entered into saving faith and were obviously... (they spoke in tongues, remember?)...sealed into the body of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit at that time.

3) Then...AFTER that...they were water baptised.

And the scriptures even tell us exactly...PRECISELY...why they were water baptised:

Because THEY HAD ALREADY RECIEVED THE HOLY SPIRIT....

"who can forbid water that these should be baptised, seeing as they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

I honestly dont know how God could make it any clearer.

God bless,

Mike

 

D28guy:

What was the purpose of the Holy Spirit falling on the apostles on the day of Pentecost? Was this a saving act or sign for other?

Luke 10:20 tells us their names were written in Heaven.

Remember, Cornelius was a Gentile. He was the first Gentile convert. Let me ask you a question. Did you start speaking in foreign languages just as you began to hear your first gospel sermon?

This was a sign given for the Jews, letting them know that the Gentiles were to included. It didn't save the Apostles on the day of Pentecost and it didn't save Cornelius. In fact, he was commanded to be baptized in water.

There is no other example given that even comes close to being comparable to Cornelius.

Acts 2:38 - baptism is for the remission of sins. You either believe that or you don't.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be save - You either believe this or you don't.

Acts 22:16 - Be baptized and wash away your sins - You either accept this or you don't

I Pet 3:21 - Baptism now saves us - You either believe this or you don't

Gal 3:26-27 - Baptized INTO Christ - You either accept this or you don't

I could go on, but these are plain passages telling us about baptism. They applied to Cornelius, those in Acts 2, and to us.

 

Mman: "Acts 2:38 - baptism is for the remission of sins. You either believe that or you don't."

I don't believe your interpretation of what those
words mean.

Act 2:38 (Geneva Bible):
Then Peter said vnto them, Amend your liues,
and bee baptized euery one of you
in the Name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes:
and ye shall receiue the gift of the holy Ghost.

This scripture cleary denotes that it is the
Name of Iesus CHrist which remits sins.
Baptism by the Holy Ghost follows remission of sins
(AKA: salvation).

 

Baptism is a symbol of Jesus death, burial and resurrection. Is is not a symbol of our salvation.

Can we actually die, be buried and raised again to pay for our sins? No, we have to obey a form of this. We do that in baptism.

We are baptized into his death. We are buried with Him (Christ) through baptism. Just as Christ was raised, so are we.

Read verse 8. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

How did we die with Christ? He just told us, in baptism. Ok, what if we didn't die with him (i.e., what if we were not baptized)? Can we expect to live with him?

Rom 6:17, But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

What form of doctrine? That which he just described in verses 3 and 4.

You can search the bible from cover to cover and you can not find another way to get INTO Christ, other than through baptism.

(And since you couldn't figure it out, bmerr was refering to I Pet 3:21).

 

This scripture clearly teaches that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ if for the remission of sins.

Did they have any trouble understanding? No, the were baptized that same day, about 3000 of them (vs 41). This was water baptism. The purpose, as stated in verse 38, was for the remission of sins.

I simply believe what the verse says. No explanitions are really necessary.

 

When i was in the first 4 grades, the teachers
had figured out they didn't need to teach
phonics to new readers. I still don't know
much phonics, though it is very necessary for
spelling.

People tell me - it is spelt just like it
sounds. No, it is spelled just like the
sounds are phonetically supposed to be spelled.

Mman: "I simply believe what the verse says. No explanitions are really necessary."

Sorry, Sir, but that makes no sense. You
are puting meaning into the words. You are
believing your understanding of the words.

Let me read you the riot act
(usually used for those who
think one and only one version of the
Bible can possibly be correct):

--------------------------
I believe the Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that my understanding
of all the Bible is inerrant.

You believe your Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that your understanding
of all your Bible is inerrant.

Surely i have respect enough for my
Brother in Christ that i will allow you your
opinion. If further you believe your
opinion, i will allow that also.
But i will receive the same consideration
for my opinion/belief.
I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible
said versus your opinion of what the Bible said.
What the Bible said is true, what
the Bible means is your opinion or
is my opinion.
Don't get your opinion of what the Bible meant
get confused with what the Bible said.

 

mman,

They spoke in tongues because they entered into faith and were born again. Speaking in tongues is...a...gift...of...the...Holy...Spirit.

There could be 1, 2, 10, or 50 other reasons why that gift might be given, but it doesnt change the fact that they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and therefore born again.

No, and that is 100% irelavent. It doesnt matter. Sometimes God grants tongues, sometimes He doesnt. Justification is through faith alone, not faith plus speaking in tongues. The day of pentecost and in the room with Cornelius were 2 times when God did choose to grant tongues. And there are 2 good reason why. He wanted to make crystal clear that...

1) Justification is through faith alone.

2) Water baptism comes after salvation.

That could very well be a 2nd reason why God granted tongues. But they could not have spoken in tongues if they we not born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in tongues doesnt save anyone. And people who have never spoken in tongues are no less saved if they have embraced Christ by faith.

Faith alone in Jesus Christ saves. In these cases tongues gave evidence that they were born again...before being water baptised.

We are all expected to be water baptised after we are born again.

Yes there is.

The thief on the cross.

("Remember me when you come into your kingdom...justified")

The day of pentecost.

(As they were listening to the gospel they began speaking in tongues)


The Ethiopian eunuch.

(Scripture says Philip "preached Jesus to him". Not preached Jesus + water baptism. Ethiopian: "What hinders me from being baptised?" Phillip: "If you believe with all your heart, you may.".)

The Phillipian Jailer

(Jailer: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Paul or Silas: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. You and your household".)

I believe it. It does not mean what you believe it means.

Water baptism...as all that I have posted proves...is indeed for the remission of sins, with "for" meaning "because of" the remission of sins.

I believe it, but it does not mean what you think it means.

Someone who believes and is baptised is indeed saved. They became saved at the moment they entered into saving faith alone.

I accept it. But it does not mean what you think it means.

I do. But it does not mean what you think it means.

I accept it. But it does not mean what you think it means.

So can I.

Then why does God say different? At the time God gave us the scriptures was God getting old and feeble and he made mistakes?

God says...

And dont forget, in the scriptures "baptism" does not always refer to water baptism. John the Baptist said...

"I indeeed baptise with water. But there is one coming who is mightier than I, whos sandle straps I am not worthy to loosen. He will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire"

God bless,

Mike

 

To All,

bmerr here. Sometimes I don't know where to start. I guess I'll start with Ed.

Ed, the 1 Pet 3:31 reference is an obvious typo from mman's July 27 post. It's far less than I'd expect from you to try and make a point out of it. I think everyone knew that 1 Pet 3:21 was the intended verse.

This comment is actually a bit disturbing, Ed. Here's why. It seems as though you are taking the position that man is not able to properly interpret the Bible, and that each person's opinion of what the Bible means is to be given equal consideration. In other words, it seems like you're saying that truth is relative.

I really don't think you intended to say anything like that, but that's lind of what it sounded like. I hope I'm wrong, and if so, I apologize.

You see, the idea that truth cannot be known, and that man cannot ever really understand the Bible, is the voice of post-modernism. "Your truth is true for you, but not neccessarily for me."

The Bible says otherwise. Jesus said "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). If we can't really know the truth, then we can't really ever be free.

It is possible for man to properly interpret the Bible. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus is questioned by a certain lawyer as to what should be done to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks him, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

Jesus is asking the man, "what is written, and what is your interpretation of it?"

In response to the man's answer, Jesus said, "Thou hast answered right..." The implication here is that the man could have answered wrong!

God has given us logic and common sense enough to understand His word. The thinking that man is unable to understand God's word implies one of two things about God:

1. God is not intelligent enough to effectively communicate with His creation, or

2. God is cruel and unjust, and will judge man according to a Standard which he cannot comprehend.

Of course, neither of these is true.

Secondly, you made reference to the KJ onlyists (my assumption). I used to be one of those, actually. Over all, that bunch generates much more heat than light, but I will give them credit for one thing. They rightly point out some really horrendous errors in some very popular versions of the Bible, the NIV in particular.

In short, let me say (and I think you'd agree), the list of reliable translations is alot shorter than the list of not-so-reliable ones. The KJV is on the short list. It's what I use, and what I recommend, but I don't try to force it on folks anymore.

Oh yeah, You said that baptism is a picture, or symbol of salvation. I disagree. Baptism is a picture of something - the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Bible says that when we obey a form of the doctrine delivered to us, we are then made free from sin (Rom 6:17), and become the servants of righteousness.

Although, if you want to insist that baptism is a symbol of salvation, I would urge you to recall that in the Bible, the symbolic always precedes the real.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

D28Guy,

bmerr here. You mentioned Cornelius, the thief on the cross (ttoc), the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Phillipian jailor (PJ). These have all been discussed at length in other posts, but repetition is the key to learning, so I'll hit the high spots again.

Cornelius - In Peter's chronological (by order - Acts 11:4) account of the events at Cornelius' house, we learn that it was "as [Peter] began to speak [that] the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us [the apostles] at the beginning" (11:15).

We can also read the words Peter was speaking as he began to speak in Acts 10:34, 35, none of which come close to mentioning Jesus Christ, or His death, burial, and ressurrection.

If Cornelius was saved when the Holy Ghost fell on him, he was saved by hearing that God is no respecter of persons, and that in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him.

Is that the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can someone be saved by believing nothing but that? Certainly not!

Cornelius and household heard the gospel after the Holy Ghost fell on them. Their speaking in tongues, though from God, neither saved them, nor did it indicate that they were saved.

ttoc - It is not provable from Scripture whether or not he had been baptized. Either way, it is irrelevant. The conditions of pardon under the New Testament did not apply to him, since he died under the OT. Heb 9:16, 17 tells us that the death of the testator is required for a testament to be of force. Jesus was not yet dead when He promised ttoc paradise.

Was ttoc saved? Definitely!

Was ttoc saved without baptism? Maybe, maybe not.

Was ttoc saved under the NT? No!

He just carries no weight as an example of a NT conversion. If you want to teach salvation without baptism, you'll have to find a different example.

Ethiopian eunuch The contention is that Phillip preached unto him Jesus, not baptism. Nevertheless, the eunuch requested baptism at the first opportunity. Why?

Phillip also "preached Christ" to the Samaritans (Acts 8:5-13). We read therein that preaching Christ includes "...preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ" (8:12). No mention of baptism there, either. And yet, oddly enough, in the same verse, we see that "...they were baptized, both men and women.

Here are two examples of preaching "Jesus", or preaching "Christ", that both resulted in folks being baptized. I'd say that the command to be baptized is implied in both cases.

Phillipian jailor - We simply do not know if he had heard the gospel or the name of Jesus Christ prior to Acts 16:30. It seems logical to say that if he had heard the gospel, he would not have needed to ask what to do to be saved. He would have already known.

However, in 16:32, we find that Paul and Silas "...spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house."

It is at this point, and not before, that we can say with certainty that PJ could have had faith by which to be saved. All the events concerning the conversion of PJ and houshold (hearing, believing, repentance, and bapitsm) are summed up in verse 34 with the phrase, "...believing in God with all his house." This is the very thing he was told to do in verse 31.

I hope this helps.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr,

Bmerr, are you serious? You have to be joking. Your saying that Cornelious and those with him did not hear the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Here is the whole thing, bmerr...not one little snippet...

"10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.

10:35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

10:36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ--He is Lord of all--

10:37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:

10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they F53 killed by hanging on a tree.

10:40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,

10:41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

10:42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.

10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word."

Not according to God, bmerr. Here it is again...

10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they F53 killed by hanging on a tree.

10:40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,

10:41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

10:42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.

10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.

So, you believe a lost doomed child of the devil can excercise a gift of the Holy Spirit?

He was hanging from a cross being executed, bmerr!!! THAT is when he placed his faith in Christ, and that is when Christ pronounced him saved.

Goodness gracious, man...you are literally argueing against the scriptures in the 1st example and now you are argueing against the words of Christ Himself in the 2nd one.

But those with Cornelious and Cornelious himself were born again under the new covenant, as where the jailer and the Ethiopian.

How do you suppose they baptised him while dying on a cross, bmerr.

The Lord Jesus Christ can make an exception any time He feels like it, bmerr. He is God you know. But either way, the other examples I gave ARE from the new covenant

I did. Several of them.

Because after one is born again, we are expected to be water baptised.

Of course they were water baptised, bmerr. Christians are to water baptise new converts.

There is indeed the command to be water baptised. It is AFTER one has been born again through faith alone.

Thats all well and good, bmerr...but the thing you are missing is the chronolgy of events...

16:30: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household"

16:32: "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to to him and to all his household"

16: 33: And they took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immedietly he and all his family were baptised"

They were water baptised at the last...after being told...

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household"

Why didnt he say to them "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be water baptised and you will be saved."?

Because that is not the gospel.

God bless,

Mike

 

D28guy,

bmerr here. Admittedly, I'm a little loopy on pain medication, but no, I wasn't joking. If you stop reading in Acts 10, it does, in fact, appear as though Cornelius heard the gospel first, and then spoke in tongues. I'll give you that.

That's why I directed your attention to Peter's retelling of the incident in Acts 11. Acts 10 gives us the events that transpired. Acts 11 gives us the order in which they took place.

So the Bible tells us (if we read a bit further) that Cornelius and household spoke with tongues before they heard the gospel, for it was "...as [he] began to speak"..., and not after, that they spoke in tongues.

So what was the purpose for their speaking in tongues? My opinion (and that's all it is) is that the six Jewish brethren who accompanied Peter (and possibly Peter as well) needed to be convinced once and for all that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached unto them. They needed confirmation that what was going on was approved by God.

If Peter still had need of such confirmation, then the sight of these Gentiles speaking in tongues (my guess is that it probably was Hebrew) would certainly prompt him to say what he said in 10:34, 35. It is following this statement that Peter begins to preach concerning Jesus.

As far as Jesus making an exception as He sees fit, well, I guess He could, but it would mean violating His own word, His own Testament. Seeing as Acts deals largely with conversions, it seems more likely that the "rules" would be given several times, as opposed to "exceptions" to the rules.

If there is an exception taking place in the conversion of Cornelius, I'd sooner believe it was an exception regarding who would speak in tongues than an exception regarding how men must be saved.

Concerning PJ, of course he was baptized after he was told to believe. The question is, what exactly did PJ know about Jesus or the gospel before Paul and silas spake unto him the word of the Lord in 16:32?

As I pointed out, we cannot know for sure that PJ had ever heard the name of Jesus Christ or the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection until verse 32.

Why didn't Paul tell PJ "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be water baptized and you will be saved"? Because PJ would not yet have known the purpose of baptism, and how it pictures the death, burial, and ressurrection of Christ.

If you would do me this favor, I'd be thankful. Would you please demonstrate from Scripture why we should be baptized, if not for the remission of sins, or to enter Christ, or to be added to the church, or to be saved? A couple of verses would be sufficient.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr,

Gladly.

Matt 28:19

"Go therefore and make disciples, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

We water baptise because the Lord Jesus Christ has told us to do it.

Acts 10: 44-47

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured on the gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered 'Who can forbid water, that these should be baptised, who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have'?."

We water baptise after conversion because the testimony of God found in Romans, Galaciens, Ephesians, and the entirety of the scriptures concerning justfication is overwhelmingly that we are justified through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

And the testimony of the scriptures make clear...on the day of pentecost, the Cornelious conversions, the Ethiopian Eunuch, the Phillipian jailer, etc...is that water baptism is for believers, and follows salvation.

It is a beautiful picture of the death to our old life,(down into the water) and new birth into our new life,(up from the water) that has taken place as a result of our embracing Christ.

God bless,

Mike

 

Mike,

bmerr here. I'd agree that baptism is for believers, since we cannot please God without faith (Heb 11:6). However, the Bible tells us that "...baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh [dirt], but the answer [appeal, request] of a good conscience toward God) by the ressurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3:21).

So baptism is not a bath for the body to wash away dirt, but an inquiry, or appeal (marginal reading from ASV) of a good conscience toward God.

It's saying, "Okay God, I believe that Jesus died for my sins and was raised from the dead. You said that if I repent of my sins, and submit to baptism by the authority of Christ, then you'll clear my record of sin. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I'll trust you to do as you've promised."

Baptism is not a picture of our anything. It's a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, a form of the gospel, and like as He was raised by the power of God, even so we should rise to walk in newness of life.

There's no doubt that we are justified by faith, as the many Scriptures you alluded to state. But the Bible also states quite clearly that we are not justified by faith only.

I know that's one against a multitude. But the Bible only has to say something once for it to be true. The words "faith only" are only found once, and they're preceded by the words, "not by".

Please understand that I mean no slight to the requirement of faith! As stated earlier, without faith, it is impossible to please God. It's also impossible to obey God without faith, and Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey him (Heb 5:8, 9).

If you think about it, to believe is to obey. Look at 1 Pet 2:7:

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner.

Those who believe are presented as the opposite of those who are disobedient. Conversely, unbelief is the opposite of obedience. So believe is to disobedience as unbelief is to obedience. They're opposites. In short, belief = obedience, and unbelief = disobedience. yet? I'm writing this, and I'm about turned around, myself!

Of course, there's the kind of belief the chief rulers had in John 12:42, 43 which reads,

Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him: but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: 43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Now you affirm salvation/justification by faith alone. The faith you speak of is mental affirmation of the facts of Jesus, unless I have it wrong (and please correct me if I do).

By that definition, are you not kind of cornered into saying that these men were saved?

Like I said, I may have your position wrong, and I'm very willing to be corrected if that is the case. But if no works of any kind are required for one to be saved, then it seems to me that these men would have to be saved.

However, if works of obedience, (which James tells us are what makes faith perfect, or complete), are allowed, such as repentance, confession, and baptism, then these men were clearly not saved, since they knew who Christ was, but did not confess Him (Luke 12:8-9; Mat 10:32-33).

The Scriptures are very clear that "by deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." (Rom 3:20). However, Peter (Acts 10:35) and James (James 2:17-26) both affirm that there is a class of works that is required to be accepted by God.

I really don't think we're all that far apart on this, Mike. I think if we can figure out what the different Bible writers meant when they spoke of "works", we can come to an agreement, or at least get closer to one.

Other duties earnestly call me away for now. I'll talk to you later.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

The discussion of "Baptism: Essential or Mandatory",
has been moved to:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3327.html

Sorry for stealing the "Distortion of Scripture"
Topic. Read the OP = Opening Post, to see
what the original subject was all about.