For those who speak in tongues...

I agree with all you said except when you call baptism a work. Obedience to a command is called faith.

Heb 11:4, "By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice" - Man might say, by works Abel offered, but God says, by faith Abel offered.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah...in reverent fear constructed an ark. - Man might say, "by works Noah constructed an ark" but God says by faith Noah constructed an ark.

Heb 11:8 "By faith Abraham obeyed" - Man might say, "By works Abraham obeyed", but God says it is by faith.

Heb 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac". James even pointed out that "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" - James 2:21. So was it by faith or works that Abraham did this?

If your definition of faith is doing what God says, then these agree completely. That is exactly what Heb 11 shows, that faith is doing what God says.

James goes on, "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

Only a complete faith has works. A dead or incomplete faith has no works.

Notice what else James says in vs 23, "and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"-- and he was called a friend of God."

When was the scripture fulfilled that says Abraham believed God? When he only "believed" or after he obeyed? It was after he obeyed, the scripture was fulfilled that says he believed God.

Baptism is no different. By faith we are baptized. What is the source of faith? God's word (Rom 10:17). When we obey, the bible calls that faith.

Notice Gal 3:26-27, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

You are sons of God through faith because you have been baptized. This certainly agrees with Heb 11.

The only time baptism is ever associated with any type of work is in Col 2:12, "having 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.

 

No, faith is not called obedience. Learn basic grammar.
"By faith, Abel offered..."
"By faith" (prepositional phrase)
"Abel" Subject of the sentence--a noun.
"offered" the verb.

The prepositional phrase only tells how he did what he did. He offered a sacrifice. How? By faith. The action or obedience in no way is equal to the modifying prepositional phrase, "by faith." It does not say: Faith is obedience, or faith is offered. This is a twisting of Scripture that leads to destruction as Peter says in 2Peter 3.

By running, he won the race
Does running equal winning?

By medtitating he discovered gravity.
Does meditating equal discovering?

This is the way you are exegeting the Scriptures. It is wrong. Obdience does not equal faith and never has. Baptism is a command that is obeyed. It is done by man and received by man. It is a work of man.
DHK

 

DHK,

I have no interest in joining in this current debate, but I'm enjoying reading.

However, you said...

Just for the record mman didnt say faith is called obedience. He said obedience is called faith.

It might not be all that important to your point or his, but I just thought I'd point that out.

God bless,

Mike

 

No, faith is not called obedience. Learn basic grammar.
"By faith, Abel offered..."
"By faith" (prepositional phrase)
"Abel" Subject of the sentence--a noun.
"offered" the verb.

The prepositional phrase only tells how he did what he did. He offered a sacrifice. How? By faith. The action or obedience in no way is equal to the modifying prepositional phrase, "by faith." It does not say: Faith is obedience, or faith is offered. This is a twisting of Scripture that leads to destruction as Peter says in 2Peter 3.

By running, he won the race
Does running equal winning?

By medtitating he discovered gravity.
Does meditating equal discovering?

This is the way you are exegeting the Scriptures. It is wrong. Obdience does not equal faith and never has. Baptism is a command that is obeyed. It is done by man and received by man. It is a work of man.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I describe a faith that is alive, the only type of faith this is pleasing to God.

In Heb 11, it is evident that faith is belief/trust plus obedience.

You say faith does not equal obedience and never has. Let's put that to the test.

I say faith equals belief plus obedience. You imply faith equals belief only. Let's substitute the two definitions and see which one fits best.

Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days.

1) By believing God and obeying Him the walls of Jericho fell ...

2) By only believing God the walls of Jericho fell...

Since the walls fell by faith, did they fall because they only believed or did they fall because they believed AND obeyed? Surely nobody thinks the walls would have fallen if they had not obeyed. Remember, they fell by faith.

In James 2:23, when was the scriptured was fulfilled that said, "Abraham believed God"? It was after he obeyed.

You describe a faith that is dead, a faith apart from works. I describe a faith that is active and alive (James 2).

I know your reluctance to say that faith includes obedience is because of Eph 2:8-9. That is why you must reject that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16), that "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" (which really means "he that believes and is saved shall be baptized", right???), that baptism now saves us (I Pet 3:21), that baptism puts us into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27).

What merit is there in being immersed? What could that possibly earn? Nothing. People are immersed all the time in swimming pools, in the waters along the beach, in many ways and various times.

Can it not be said, "By faith, one is baptized into Christ" or "By faith, one is baptized for the remission of their sins", or we are buried with Him in baptism and raised through faith (Col 2:12)?

This is the ultimate in faith, doing something that makes no sense in terms of human reasoning.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Did He mean it? Was He trying to mislead us? Was He mistaken?

Here are the possiblities as I see it. Help me out if there are others.

Mark 16:16

1) True and it means what it says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

2) False and Jesus is a deceiver.

3) False and Jesus was mistaken?

4) True, but Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized" when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

 

There is only one type of faith. You can find a good working definition in the dictionary if you wish. But COCers love to play with words, and dissect them every which way. It becomes a matter of semantics. Frank once posted about five different kinds of works. Am I correct on that? Or are there even more?? You remind me of BA&A, with whom we round and round in circles about faith. He wouldn't accept any dictionary definition of faith. Nor could he define it himself. The trouble that you have in your post here: a wrong definition of faith. Before you begin talking about living faith, dead faith, righteous faith, etc. you must know what faith is. Come to an understanding of what is faith. I will give you a working definition.

Faith is confidence in the Word of another.
Biblical faith is confidence in the Word of God.
People exercise faith everyday. If I take a taxi to the airport, and I ask him to do so, I have faith in his word that he will take me to the airport, and not to the museum. I have confidence in his word. Faith is confidence or trust that what he said he will do.

I have faith that when I put my car key into the ignition of my car and turn it that my car will start. 99% of the time it does. When it doesn't that one per cent, has my faith failed? Not at all. The car has failed. It was made by man and man is fallibe.
But I can put my faith, my confidence in the Word of God, who never fails, and be confident that what he has said that He will perform.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
--God doesn't fail. He is infallible. It is man that fails.
Look at Abraham, a man of faith, who defines faith for us.

Romans 4:20-21 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--First, Abraham was strong in faith. The promises of God were against all human odds; but he did not "stagger" or his faith did not waver.
--Second, He was fully persuaded. That is he was fully confident. Faith is confidence. He was confident that what God had promised he was able to perform. That is faith--confidence in God's Word; confidence in the promises of God. That is what Abraham had. We do not define it in terms of living and dead. He was confident that what God had said he was able to do. That is what faith is. There is no such thing as "living" faith. It does not have some magical intrinsic "living" quality to it. You are delving into the realm of the metaaphysical and even paranormal to attach "living" to faith. Faith is confidence. That is all. We all have faith. We use it every day. You have faith every time you open a door that that door will open. Who knows? Some day that door may not open; it may jar or jam, or get stuck in some way. You demonstrate your faith in so many ways each and every way. It is simple confidence in the things you take for granted every day. Faith in God is the same way, except that we ought not to take it for granted. However there is no faith in baptism. Baptism is direct obedience to a command. You obey. That doesn't take faith. It takes obedience. The two concepts are far apart from each other.

Your exegesis is wrong.
Remeber the definition of faith--confidence in the promises of God; confidence in the Word of another. They had confidence in the Word of God that what God had promised He would do. Thus the walls fell in accordance to God's promise. God's promise was that if they would walk around the city the walls would fall. That was conditional. Many of his promises are not conditional. Salvation is not conditiona. It is by grace. Anything by grace is an unconditional promise, otherwise it nullifies grace. See Romans 11:6
Note also that COCer take these Old Testament examples out of their context and apply them to salvation. The Israelites were already saved. This has to do with the Christian walk, not with salvation. In application God is saying to believers walk in my paths and you will be blessed. There is nothing about salvation here. They were already a saved people. Everyone of the Heb.11 illustrations are taken out of context by you because they speak of a people that are already saved, not by people that are unsaved and seeking salvation.

So is your position that Abraham was unsaved when God spoke to him and told him to leave Ur of Chaldees. And your position is that Abraham was still unsaved when he left Haran, God speaking to him there as well. Were the deede of Abraham recorded in Genesis 11 all done while Abraham was unsaved?? James 2:23 refers specifically to the work of Abraham offering Isaac. So you contend that Abraham was unsaved before then! Is that your position??

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

[qb]

Get a right definition of faith, and quit dealing with the paranormal. Faith is not magical.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. And you fail to understand this verse. "For by grace are ye saved through faith..." If salvation is by grace then it is not of works including baptism and any other kind of obedience. Jesus paid it all. Man pays nothing--not baptism, not any work at all--nothing.

These verses have all been explained, one by one, to you before. Most of them you take out of context.

Check Romans 6:3,4. It gives you a good explanation. It is symbolic. It is symbolic of our death to our old life of sin (buried), and our rising again to a new life in Christ.
DHK

 

Nowhere in Scripture is baptism ever called a sign gift. Sign gifts were supernatural in nature, given by the Holy Spirit. They were gifts of the Holy Spirit. They are listed in 1Cor.12, and baptism is not among them. The supernatural gifts of the spirit (i.e., sign gifts) were gifts such as the gift of miracles, gift of tongues, gift of prophecy, gift of revelatory knowledge, gift of healing, etc. Those are the sign gifts--miraculous gifts that don't exist today. They ceased at the end of the first century.
Baptism isn't a gift at all. It is a work--a work of obedience done by a believer to another believer in obedience to the command of Christ. It is not a gift; it is obedience to a command.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Signs then, as I shouldn't have used the word gift(s)

 

OK DHK, why was John sent to water baptise?

 

I don't doubt that some did speak in tongues in the early church. And in truth there is no biblical prescription that tongues must have ceased (unless one misinterprets 1 Cor 13).

But when I look at some of today's charismatic services I see some behaviors that don't seem to either glorify God or edify believers. Speaking in jibberish and running the aisles don't advance the gospel. In fact they may hurt the credibility of it if they are deemed "essential". Look at Galatians 5 and find a list of spiritual gifts that define the believer - and that serve to further the gospel.

It seems no coincidence that those who were raised speaking in tongues tend to do it and those raised not to believe in it do not do it. That suggests to me that its widespread use is a function of learned behavior and not a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Hillclimber is right in that none of us has it 100% right. I a charismatic believer wants to speak in tongues fine. I only have a problem with it when he/she asserts that it is a necessary feature of salvation or the indwelling of the Spirit.

 

Matthew 3:1-2 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

His baptism was unto, or because they had repented, the same reason that Peter baptized in Acts 2:38 The Greek word "unto", "eis" is the same word that Peter uses: "'for' the remission of sins," or because of the remission of sins.
DHK

 

Just by the buy,
an ex-pentecostal told me: "You haven't seen sircus have you not seen pentecostalism."

 

Maybe I could accept the above arguments FOR water-baptism on the basis of Calvin's argument for accepting the 'the Lord's Day, namely, 'order'. It only happens once in the life-time of any, so cannot gaurantee the baptised would never cause disorder afterwards, though. To me it remains looking patched on to impress, merely. And no wonder the holier-tan-thou-attitude the Church assumes because of baptism!
But I won't stir too much nor judge for the sake of peace and unity. Water-baptism per se cannot cause too much damage as long as the Church would stay humble. That would be difficult, in view of the RCC who maintained Apostolic Succession directly attributable to its maintaining of water-baptism as a sign of Apostolic Authority. (The reason I say WB eneded when Apostolic Authority ended. (It has nothing to do with dispensationalism.))

 

That sounds similar to this...

"So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another 'Whatever could this mean?' Others mocking said, 'They are full of new wine.'"

Referring to the Day of Pentecost.

Nothing new under the sun...

Sadly,

Mike

 

Ah yes, 1 Cor. 13 many a debate on that one and the interpetation. I'll lean on the promises.

As far as speaking "jibberish" or running the aisles goes. Some of that could be the true gift of tongues. Also if some one is running aisles it could be they are exercising thier faith or just plain excited because they got healed. EX: A lady who never moved fast (another lady was her witness to her doing everything slow) ran the aisles a couple of weeks ago. This does not happen every service this was one occasion that I have seen this in a while. But it didn't bring chaos it acually gave a message to others that your never too old. The Lord still uses the foolish things to confound the wise and the weak things to confound the mighty!
But yes there are some churches that I have to say go a little over board. But like the scripure in Galatians 5 that you mentioned you have to look at their fruits.

Speaking of Gal. 5, no offence but this scripture is speaking of the fruits of the Spirit not the gifts.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
(also in)
Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

These are those that the scripture says we will know them by thier fruits.

Now the gifts of the Spirit are those mentioned in 1Corinthians 12
1Co 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

I was raised Baptist and speak in tongues today. So that didn't work for me. The Baptist church I used to go to. I learned through a friend that in the old church records there was an account of a woman who was asked to leave for speaking in tongues.

Hats off to ~hillclimber too! I agree also. If we had it all right and knew it all.... we wouldn't be sitting here would we, but walking on the streets of glory! I believe that tongues are a gift and not mandatory for salvation.
BTW, I see many here on the BB with the other gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Cor.12 so I know the gifts are still here.

 

That's the same logic as saying Balaam's ass had a gift too, but I don't see any donkeys talking a fluent language do you??
Not all gift exist today.
I repeat my challenge. Show me one who has the gift of healing--that can heal all that can come to him--that can walk through the corridors of any given hospital and heal all the diseases that are there. They can't. Because the sign gifts have ceased.
DHK

 

DHK Here's my challenge to you......you find me a hospital where everyone wants to get healed and still believe healing is for today. You may think thats a odd request but heres why I say that. I was at a hospital last year helping a friend and met a very upset woman outside the ER. Upon telling me her brother had a heart attack I asked her if she would like to pray because I'd be more than glad to pray with her. She said, "No, I'm a Baptist." So until then I guess were at a stale mate my friend.

BTW, you arn't offended that I said, "I see many here on the BB with the other gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Cor.12 so I know the gifts are still here." Are you?

 

I agree that the quote that says that we do not need water baptism is false doctrine.

Paul was baptized, and not by one of the 12 apostles but someone else. Ananias baptized him in water. He even told Paul to arise and be baptized, and calling on the name of the Lord, wash away his sins.

The association these early Christians made between baptism and salvation was such that when the Ethiopian eunuch was ready to receive the Gospel, Philip baptized him. Philip probably mentioned baptism in his presentation of the Gospel because the eunuch suggested it.

 

1. I was raised in church. I prayed a 'sinner's prayer' at 5 years old. But I think I really understood enough and repented when I was about 10 or 11. I remember going up to an altar call. I considered it a 'rededication' at the time. I remember and praying and giving my life to God. I was baptized in water soon thereafter.

2. The first time I spoke in tongues was a few months after I was baptized in water, again at an altar call, a generic altar call for prayer for any need type of thing. I sang in tongues first.
3. Do you believe that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?---No, of course not.

4. Did you grow up in a church? If yes, was it a charismatic church?---- I grew up in a number of churches because we followed my dad's work around. We went to Pentecostal churches mostly. We went to one for a couple of years that was labeled Charismatic.

5. Do you believe in any other sign gifts?-- I do not see where scripture calls certain gifts 'sign gifts' or specifies that those gifts that can serve as signs are a separate category from the rest. But I suppose you would say yes, since I believe in all the gifts of Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12, including apostleship. I do not know if apostleship per se is classified as a 'sign gift' by those who use the designation. I have seen some of these gifts in action.

6. What geographic area do you live in?--- Jakarta, Indonesia.

7. Did you attend a Bible school or seminary? If yes, what school and what was the highest level of education completed?----No, but I have a Bachelors in Linguistics from a state university for what it is worth.

8. Can you recommend any *scholarly* works on the gift of tongues as you believe it? (Key word being scholarly)----I cannot think of any on the subject of tongues. I came across some articles from someone with a doctorate named Ruthven on the issue of cessationism. There was a summary of some of the main points of his book. One article contained a debunking of Benjamin Warfield's old _Counterfeit Miracles_ book written way back when.

 

Matthew 3:1-2 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

His baptism was unto, or because they had repented, the same reason that Peter baptized in Acts 2:38 The Greek word "unto", "eis" is the same word that Peter uses: "'for' the remission of sins," or because of the remission of sins.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Give me a break! It is the same phrase used in Matt 26:28, "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Do you have any problem understanding what "for the remission of sins" means here? Did Jesus shed his blood because people's sins were already forgiven? To be consistent, you MUST teach that it was.

This is the only time this Greek phrase is used not in connection with baptism. If you can understand it's meaning in Matt 26:28, you can understand it in Acts 2:38.

The term "eis" is found some 1,750 times in the Greek New Testament, and it is never translated ‘because of’ in the common versions .... The standard Greek lexicons do not view eis as meaning ‘because of’ in Acts 2:38.

1. Arndt & Gingrich define the term in Acts 2:38 to mean “in order to.” They translate the entire phrase "eis aphesin hamartion" as ‘for the forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven’ (p. 228).
2. Thayer himself rendered the expression "eis aphesin hamartion" as “to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (p. 94). That is, it is a prospective phrase, not retrospective!
3. In the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Balz, p. 399), Elliger cites Acts 2:38 as an example of eis being used “to indicate [the] purpose” of the act under consideration.
4. Ceslas Spicq noted regarding Acts 2:38, “Water baptism is a means of realizing this conversion, and its goal – something altogether new – is a washing, ‘the remission of sins’” (p. 242).
5. Finally, Doctor Daniel B. Wallace has stated in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics that the “causal” use of eis in Acts 2:38 (i.e., “because of” instead of “in order to”) has been demonstrated to fail in terms of linguistic evidence (p. 370)

If one’s position has the force of divine revelation behind it, one doesn’t need to resort to such a gross manipulation of phrase "eis aphesin hamartion" in Acts 2:38. And if it doesn’t, it should be abandoned for the sake of truth, if you are interested in truth.

Find just one translation that backs up this false claim that "eis" means "because of", in Acts 2:38. Just one translation. ONLY ONE! If it must mean "because of", surely one group of translators got it right? I'm having trouble finding one. Please help me.

 

I speak in tongues and I would have to agree with you. Of course, i see some behaviors and practices in churches where people do not speak in tongues that are not scriptural either.

[/QB][/QUOTE]
It seems no coincidence that those who were raised speaking in tongues tend to do it and those raised not to believe in it do not do it. That suggests to me that its widespread use is a function of learned behavior and not a gift of the Holy Spirit. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Maybe it is more of a case of 'ye have not because ye ask not'. Those who are raised believing in speaking in tongues are more likely to ask for it. Some of them may be more inclined to believe when they ask. It would expect that there would more healings among believers who grew up in churches that were inclined to ask God for healing and really believe Him for it.

 

You are the logical end of dispensationalism.