What is a heretick?

Price and Osteen are definitely WOF. See some of the links I posted -- there are quotes there by them that show them in this camp. I have also heard both of them mouth WOF teachings.

What Bible believing Christians are supposed to follow is the bible and if someone teaches against that, we are to reject it. We are not talking about minor, secondary beliefs here, but major beliefs about the nature of God and Christ, and about salvation.

We are warned by Jesus, Paul, and throughout the NT against false teachers. We are told to hold on to sound doctrine. And Paul says in Acts 20 that false teachers will arise from among those in the church to lead many astray. This is what is happening with the WOF teachers.

To say that Jesus did not atone for sin on the cross is a heresy. It is against God's word. To say that Jesus took on a sin nature and had to fight Satan is against God's word. These are false doctrines and are an insult to my Lord and Savior. Whether Copeland is a Chrisitan or not is not the issue, it's what he teaches.

Doctrine divides. It's why we don't consider Mormons or Jehovah Witnesse's to be Christian, for example. Just because some of us may have some things wrong does not give us an excuse to accept false teachings, especially when God's word tells us to reject them!

As far as Joyce Meyer goes, it does not matter how many people she draws. Many false teachers draw hordes of people. So we are to accept her because she draws a lot of people to hear her? That is not the measuring stick. The measuring stick is God's word. Joyce Meyer may know how to preach to women's needs but she mixes in bad teachings with it. I have listened to her and read some of her books. She does say some things that are okay, but that is the nature of false teachers. They will mix the good in with the bad and that is what makes it so misleading to people.

 

I saw stuff regarding Price, but not Olsteen. Not trying to debate, just objectively looking for info.

The only reason I'm following up in the first place is because WoF and Prsperity Gospel labels are easy labels, and pretty much any preacher has said something that, without the proper context, will give the appearance that they fit into one of these gategories. I've seen D james Kennedy and Jerry Falwell labaled as such, which I'd beg to differe with. My own pastor has been accused of such (which he's clearly not). Labelling a preacher Word of Faith, and Prosperity Gospel have become the contemporary McCarthyism of labelling someone a Communist.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact, with Price, I tend to agree with you. I'm simply critical of those labels, and think everyone should not just accept it because someone on some site said so. That's all. For example, Apologetics Index has on occaision been shown to be the Dr Dino of apologetics.

 

I see where you are coming from and I do not agree with using the labels carelessly. However, there is a definite Word Faith camp but it's not an organized church or group. No one goes around saying they are in it -- so we have to examine the teachings. Often WOF teachers will quote each other or express outright admiration for someone, like Copeland calling Hagin "Daddy Hagin" all the time and quoting him (and having him preach in his church). Kenneth Hagin Sr. is considered the Father of the WOF movement.

I don't have much time to look for stuff on Osteen but here's one link

Joel Osteen

I think Osteen is more subtle than the others. He comes on TV Sunday mornings here before I go to church and I have been listening to him off and on for several months. I have heard him say that a man lost his wife because he had always had a fear that he would lose her. Osteen followed this up by saying, in effect, how our thoughts are things and have a power. This is pure Word Faith teaching.

Actually, it is very similar to the New Age and the New Thought movement. I learned as a New Ager that I could create my circumstances by thinking and visualizing them, and also by saying them or writing them down.

When I had been a believer for about a week or something like that -- really brand-new, I turned on a Christian radio station and heard a WOF teacher. It was either Charles Capps or Kenneth Hagin. I heard him say he never got a headache because he did not allow himself to think he could get one. He went on teaching how we should think these things away, including all illnesses. I was stunned to hear the same things I had learned in the New Age. I was shocked it was on a Christian radio station! This is what started me on finding out what this man was teaching.

God allowed me to face a lot of heresy and bad teachings as a new believer. I was in a church that did not preach the gospel and where some people did not think the New Age or astrology were a problem. I went to so many bad churches, it was quite discouraging. I am not talking about minor stuff -- but major bad teachings.

Creflo Dollar and Rod Parsely are other WOF teachers.

 

I have great admiration and trust in Rev. Dr. Billy Graham, but you will find people who dislike him because it has been allegedly said that his organization will send a saved person back to the Roman Catholic Church. I think if we look long enough we can find things that we all disagree about even as evangelical Christians.

For one some people believe that Jesus did not die for all sinners, but merely for His hand picked elect. This is part of the theology that came from Augustine and was systematized by John Calvin. So five point Calvinists are heretics also because they deny verses like I Timothy 2:6 & I John 2:2. These are major differences within Christendom and yet most of us do not say that a Calvinist is unsaved because he or she tries to twist these verses into what this Roman Catholic theologan taught, namely. Augustine. John Calvin never got off all the theological barnacles/heresy that he took into his heart because of the alleged great authority of Augustine.

So some pastors who really think that Jesus went to a literal Hell are wrong, but it is less important that some Christians who teach that Jesus autocratically damns who ever He pleases to send to the regions of the damned.

This leaves many Word of faith leaders nearly untarnished compared to other greater heresies that have been ingested by some sincere Christians.

At least they are not out telling people that Jesus damns non-elect babies because of some sovereign will that God possesses, merely to show His mighty power in doing whatever He pleases to do.

 

This is not a matter of differing views on the same God or the same Jesus. I am no Calvinist, but I would never say that Calvinism is not Christianity. They are not saying that Jesus did not atone for sins on the cross; they are not saying that God depends on man to get his plan of salvation to work.

I have no problem saying that Word-Faith teachings are not Christianity. Why? Because they are presenting a different Jesus and a different gospel. That Jesus paid for our sins on the cross is the cornerstone of our faith; it is taught throughout the NT. Jesus said, "It is finished." The debt was paid. That suffering for our sins and shedding of blood is one of the key doctrines of Biblical Christian faith and this is what WOF teachers deny.

They turn Jesus into a failure on the cross because he had to go fight Satan. Some say Jesus became like a worm and took on the sin nature of Satan. Not only is this is a different Jesus but I consider it a blasphemy. This is not the Jesus of the Bible.

They also believe that when Adam and Eve sinned, God was "locked out" of his own creation and that he had to work through man to get things right again. He was dependent on man to do this. This is not the God of the Bible, but the WOF God.

When someone teaches a different gospel (that atonement was not made on the cross) and presents a different Jesus (a Jesus that took literally took on a sin nature, from Satan yet!) than the one taught by the Bible, we must reject it. The line has to be drawn somewhere. One cannot just keep saying we have our differences. This is not a matter of differences but a matter of a counterfeit Jesus and gospel. I reject their teaching and their Jesus. Their Jesus is not the Jesus who paid for my sins on the cross.

 

Marcia:

I agree with some of your post. However, you would be shocked to find out that many Mormons believe in the triune nature of God. My father in-law is a patriarch of the Mormon church and believes in the triune nature. I liken it to most of the denominational world using mechanical instruments in worship when the founders or scholars of these groups vehemently opposed them ( Wesley, Barnes, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon).

I disagree with your opinion about baptism for the remission of sins. The Bible does not teach baptism saves separate and apart from the word, faith, repentance, confession, blood, grace, and faithfulness. If you wish to discuss the issue, I would be happy to do so.

 

Frank, let me hasten to go on record and say you have me mixed up with someone else on the baptism issue. I have never believed in baptism for the remission of sins!!!!!! Who are you responding to on this? It's not me!

 

Marcia,

You said, 'This is not a matter of differing views on the same God or the same Jesus. I
am no Calvinist, but I would never say that Calvinism is not Christianity.

Ray is saying, 'To say that Jesus only died for His elect is a most severe distortion of Christ's Gospel.'

You said, 'They are not saying that Jesus did not atone for sins on the cross;'

Ray is saying, 'They are saying that Christ did not die nor did he even conceive of the idea of dying for every man, woman, boy and girl, all of whom are sinners. This is a contorted view of Jesus Divine atonement toward all sinners. Jesus ransom was ' . . . for all and not merely to the small 'flock' [Luke 12:32 & Matthew 7:14d] that He is going to save for eternity in Heaven.'

You said, 'they are not saying that God depends on man to get his plan of salvation to work.'

If I understand you correctly, I am not sure that they are wrong at this point either. God did not send angels to witness to His truth and neither did Jesus stay on earth for these many millenniums to Personally and bodily testify to His truth. His plan was to ascend back to Heaven to prepare a place for us. [John 14] It is my understanding that we are to be His witness to salvation and His truth so people can receive Christ as personal Savior. Indeed, it is His redemptive plan but we cooperate in getting the ministry done. The Apostle Paul seems to say that all Christians should witness to their faith in Jesus. In II Corinthians 5:20 God says, 'Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ . . . '

You said, 'I have no problem saying that Word-Faith teachings are not Christianity.
Why? Because they are presenting a different Jesus and a different gospel.'

Ray is saying, 'Baptist types like to discredit the above named pastors as not being genuine and out of the faith. I am not convinced that they believe all these distortions that you say they preach. If I hear them preach I have never heard these kinds of aberrations that you say they teach.'

You said, 'That Jesus paid for our sins on the cross is the cornerstone of our faith; it is
taught throughout the NT. Jesus said, "It is finished." The debt was paid.
That suffering for our sins and shedding of blood is one of the key doctrines
of Biblical Christian faith.'

I agree with your above statement 100%.

You said, ' . . . and this is what WOF teachers deny.'

I do not believe they deny the atonement of Jesus for humanity. Anyone can make a web page and say any given pastor believes this, this, and this. The question has to be asked are they bias against that denomination or group of independent churches. To get the facts straight you have to ask the individual pastor as to what he or she believes. If people don't believe in the 'gifts of the Spirit' are for today, of course, they are going to look for or make up falsehood about Pentecostal people. This should not be happening.

You said, 'They turn Jesus into a failure on the cross because he had to go fight Satan.
Some say Jesus became like a worm and took on the sin nature of Satan.
Not only is this is a different Jesus but I consider it a blasphemy. This is not
the Jesus of the Bible.'

I simply do not believe your above statements are factual. These views are off the scope and as you have said, are profane and irreligious.

You said, 'They also believe that when Adam and Eve sinned, God was "locked out" of
his own creation and that he had to work through man to get things right
again. He was dependent on man to do this. This is not the God of the Bible,
but the WOF God.'

Ray is saying, 'These are bias statements from people who have been taught to despise other Christians who do not preach 'their party line.' While some of us sit around in our 'dead orthodoxy' these people are winning men and women to Jesus Christ. These people are ' . . . gathering' [Matt. 12:30] people to Jesus rather than turning sinners and saints away from Christ. In another passage in the N.T. the disciples complained to Jesus that other disciples did not join their twelve, and our Lord said, {something to the effect} that 'he that is not against me is with Me.'

You said, 'When someone teaches a different gospel (that atonement was not made
on the cross) and presents a different Jesus . . . '

Ray is saying, 'Pentecostal types believe not only that Jesus died for His elect, but for every human sinner. Only those who believe and trust in Jesus will be saved. I am not a Pentecostal but I know what they believe.

You said, '(a Jesus that took literally took on a sin nature, from Satan yet!) than the one taught by the Bible, we must reject it. The line has to be drawn somewhere.'

Ray is saying, 'I hate the words that you allege were said by any Christian as ended with your ! point. I would rather say that Jesus took the sins of the whole world on His shoulder or into His sacred Being so we never will have to suffer for our sins ever again.'

You said, 'One cannot just keep saying we have our differences. This is not a matter of differences but a matter of a counterfeit Jesus and gospel. I reject their teaching and their Jesus. Their Jesus is not the Jesus who paid for my sins on the cross.'

Ray is saying, 'I am sure that people say things that are not true about what your pastor preaches, just because they might not like your group of people. Notice in II Timothy 2:17-21 notice that two Christian disciples believed that the bodily resurrection of the saints was already in the past. But, Paul in writing to Timothy said that the Lord God knew about this grievous error and yet Jesus still received these men as His own people of God. Jesus did not cast them out of His love and eternal care because of some aberrant and deviant theological error. God's words to us are this. 'Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knows those who are His . . . . (and that) in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth; and some to honor and some to dishonor.'

If people believe that Jesus is Divine and they have personally received Christ as their only hope of Heaven and everlasting life, they are saved, even if they do not fit into our narrow framework of denominationalism.

You said, 'quote: 'But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a
gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:8'

Ray is saying, 'Joyce Myers and Pastor Copeland types are not preaching other than the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of these people have not studied in Bible colleges or seminaries, and sometimes get off track; but I would guess that we can find things in the Bible that you might not have had 'light' on which you should believe, and there are perhaps some ideas that you have perhaps even taught which are in error. That is why at the judgment-it will be Jesus who gathers His sheep and rejects the lost. [John 5:22b]

Yes, and before you say it, I know there are a lot of things taught in seminaries that are not found in the precious Word of God. That is why we have to check and re-check everything we teach with the Bible, even if it requires that we research the Hebrew and Greek about any given verses.

Calvinism is one view of Christianity as well as Arminianiasm. The Biblical view, meaning as the Lord sees things is taken from both perspectives. In some areas both have heretical aspects.

 

Ray, it is on record what the WOF teachers say. I have heard some of them say it. And this information is not coming from Baptists but from several ministries I'm familiar with who are not Baptists for the most part. One man I know used to be in the WOF movement and knew some of these people. But that is not the point. The point is they do deny that Jesus atoned for sins on the cross. I even quoted some of this. Nobody is making this up or lying about it.

This is not about personal attacks -- we are not talking about the persons but their teachings. We are to examine teachings. I have put info here about what they teach. These teachings go against some essential doctrines of Christianity.

I have heard Copeland say that God has a body. I have heard him say faith is a force. I have heard him say that we can create with our mouths and words like God. If you want to think I'm saying this out of some personal agenda, then that is just your way of denying the facts. I have no idea why you want to defend these false teachers but you seem to be doing that.

The issue is not whether they have said these things, because there is more than enough evidence that they have, but whehter these things deny teachings in the Bible. The teaching that Joyce Meyer, Copeland and others have about Jesus going to hell to fight Satan and pay for sins is on the record. This Jesus they talk about is a false Jesus, not the Jesus I have believed in. When he suffered for our sins on the cross and shed his blood to atone for our sins, to have someone say that was not sufficient, that he had to go to hell to fight Satan and that he took on Satan's sin nature is a denial of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It is a false gospel. We are to reject false gospels and false Christs.

 

Marcia:

I am aware by your statement that you do not believe one has to be baptized to be saved.

I reponded that baptism was a part of the essentials of salvation. "The Bible does not teach baptism saves separate and apart from the word, faith, repentance, confession, blood, grace, and faithfulness." The Bible teaches baptism is an essential part of salvation, not that it saves by itself.

Do you believe baptism is essential to salvation? Maybe you misunderstood my statement in quotes. Perhaps, I misunderstood you.

 

I believe that regeneration by the HS, or baptism of the HS, is essential. I do not believe water baptism is essential to salvation, though the Bible teaches we should do it out of obedience.

I am aware of the arguments for water baptism as essential for salvation and the refutations of it. I also think it has been discussed on another forum on this Board.

 

Marcia:
I am aware that Holy Spirit baptism happened 2 times in Biblical history ( Acts 2:1-4, Acts 10).
Holy Spirit baptism was performed by Christ ( Mat. 3:11). The baptism commanded to last until the end of the world has human administrators ( Mat. 28;18-20). These facts alone would prevent the one baptism that saves from being Holy Spirit baptism. ( Eph. 4:5). Furthermore, Holy Spirit baptism was a promise to be received, not a command to be obeyed, ( Joel 2:28, Luke 24:44-51, John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13, Acts 2;1-4,17). The baptism of the Bible is a command to be obeyed ( Acts 10:48, Mark 16:16). Therefore, the baptism of the new testament that saves must be water baptism ( See Acts 8:12-18).
The heretical position is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, it hs beeen discussed on other threads. However, the topic was raised on this thread. Therefore, I am responding to it.

 

There is no water or mode of baptism suggested in Acts 2:21 or in 16:31. Neither is there any water or mode of baptism suggested in Romans chapter six.

Roman 6:4, I Corinthians 12:13, and Galatians 3:26-27 clearly indicates that those who have received Christ [John 1:12] have been baptized into the Father, the Son, and the precious Holy Spirit.

A baptism into the Holy Spirit subsequent to being saved is a misnomer, and yet I would be inclined to believe that a saved person can be filled with the Spirit of God after initially coming to Christ.

No one can be disobedient to the Lord and still claim to be filled with the Spirit. If we sin after finding Christ as Savior, we 'grieve' or 'quench' the Holy Spirit. [Ephesians 4:30]

 

Frank, since there are so many verses that tell us that we are saved by faith, it is clear that it is not water baptism that saves. The Bible does not contradict itself, so any verses that seem to say water baptism provides salvation (like Mk 16.16) must be read in the light of other scriptures that clearly indicate we are saved by faith. What you get from that is that we are saved by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ. For example, Eph. 2: 8, 9 but there are many others.

Acts 10:48 is preceded by the account of people who believed and received the HS (verse 44). They were saved at that point. The baptism followed as a sign of regeneration by the HS. I know when I was saved, the exact moment, and I was not baptized for another year and 2 mos. after that. Water baptism is an outward sign of inner regeneration by the HS.

 

Marcia:
Read chapter 11. The account is given in order. You will find the message being preached was interrupted at the beginning. ( Arco). Are you saying one can be saved without hearing the word? ( Romans 10:17). If so, then Cornelius was a man saved without faith as the gospel was interrupted at the commencement of it's proclamation by the Holy Spirit falling. The word ARCO meaning at the begining or commencement of an event is used to define the event. This makes it impossible for Cornelius to be saved by the falling of the Holy Spirit as he would also be a man saved without hearing and thus without faith ( Romans 10:17, Hebrews 11:6).

Furthermore, The account of Acts 8:12-16 destroys your argument. Consider the following:

Acts 8:12  But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13  Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14  ¶Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15  Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16  (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

1. Philip baptized men and women. (vs.12).
2. Simon was baptized. ( Vs. 13).
3. Peter and John go to those of verse 12 and 13. ( vs. 14).
4. They prayed for the Holy Spirit. ( Vs. 15). WHY? I thought they were baptized in the Holy Spirit?
5. Answer to Why? FOR AS YET HE WAS FALLEN UPON NONE OF THEM. ( VS. 16).
Those baptized in Acts 8:12-16 wre baptized in water to put them in the kingdom of God. However, this baptism was not Holy Spirit baptism as in verse 16 he had NOT FALLEN ON ANY OF THEM.
In fact, Simon, a convert in verse 13, attempted to buy the gift. ( vs. 18). Why buy what you should already possesss?

It is obvious that the baptism of men and women and Simon was water baptism as verse 16 states they did not have the Holy Spirit until Peter and John came to Samaria to impart him. (vs. 17,18).

 

Ray:
There is no baptism or mention of faith in Mat. 10:32. On what grounds do you exclude them?

There is no mention of repentance in Acts 2:21. On what grounds do you exclude it?

There is no mention of faith in Acts 2:21? On what grounds do you exclude it?

There is no mention of the blood of Christ in Acts 2;21. On what grounds, do you exclude it?

Ray, never take a scripture out of it's context and force or imply a meaning unintended. Consider the rest of the story.

Acts 16:30,  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32  And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33  And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Note: they believed and were baptized just as Christ commanded in Mark 16:16. This is also in harmony with Acts 18:8; 8:30-40, Gal. 3:26-29, I Cor. 12:13, Romans 6:3-6.
Furthermore, The text of Romans implies water baptism. Otherwise, one is raised out of that which he is immersed. If the Holy Spirit is in view, and it is not, that makes a Christian NONE OF HIS ( Romans 8:9).
I Corinthians 12:13 states, for by one spirit we are all baptized into one body. The mode of baptism is not specified but implied by the inspired word of God provided by the one spirit ( Eph. 4:4), that teaches us to be baptized in water for unto the remission of sins ( Acts 2:38). The context cannot be ignored in the meaning.
The same Bible that teaches we must have belief, repentance, confession, also teaches water baptism. ( I Pet. 3:21, Acts 8:39, John 3:3-5, Eph. 5:26).

 

Frank, Peter preaches to Cornelius in Acts 10 before the HS indewells Cornelius (v. 34-43).

Acts is not the normative way things work for Christians today. We look to the whole of scripture, including the letters to the churches which clearly teach we are saved by faith. There are many explanations of the Acts 8 passage, one being that dramatic signs were taking place to show who the believers were. Another being that the apostles were needed. If we were to believe we only have the HS after water baptism, we would have to throw away most of the rest of the NT.

Several commentaries agreed with this view:
"They had been born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5), but had not received that baptism of the Spirit which conferred miraculous powers. This was bestowed by apostolic prayer and the laying on of hands. I suppose, not on all, but on those selected for teachers and preachers among the Samaritans. "The prayer clearly pointed to such a power of the Holy Spirit as had been bestowed on Pentecost."--Plumptree. "Luke speaks not of the common grace of the Holy Spirit, but of those singular gifts with which God would have certain endowed at the beginning of the gospel."--Calvin. ===End of quote

Saved by faith:
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."
Rom. 3:24, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"
Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,"
Rom. 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
Rom. 9:33, "just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you."
Gal. 3:14, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."
Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."
Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
Eph. 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."
Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Frank, are you in the Church of Christ, or the Int'l Church of Christ?

 

Marcia, we will keep it simple for brother Frank.

Galatians 3:26 says, 'For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.' Not even one drop of baptismal water was sprinkled on these people and yet they were saved. Being saved is dependent on what Jesus did at the Cross for sinners. To receive Jesus is to enjoy this supreme Divine benefit in our lives. The water of the Jordan River had any salvific benefit, though the apostles baptized new saints in obedience to the holy Gospel.

Adult baptism does not save merely by using water; only the blood of Christ cleanses from our sins. [I John 1:7]

Through the centuries I am sure there are millions of people/sinners who passed through the water of Jordan, and yet this did not bring about their ultimate salvation.

 

Ray:
God many times used INSTRUMENTS to save.
1. God used a serpent on a pole to save those who looked upon him. (Numbers 21:8,9).

2. God used the baptism of the Red Sea to save those fleeing Pharoah's army. ( I Cor. 10:1-4).

3. God used blood placed on the lintel to save the faithful from destruction in Egypt. ( Exodus 12,13).

While there is no power in any of these instruments in and of themselves to save, God chose to use his power through the exercise of faith in his ability through these instruments to save. The same can be said for water baptism. It is God that uses the exercise of faith in his power through the instrument that saves. The same could be said for the cross of Christ and his blood. However, God's saving power in any instrument is effective If and only if one exercises his faith in God and complies with his conditions to save. ( Hebrews 5:8,9, Romans 5:1,2).
The premise that baptism unattended by faith saves is a false one. I do not know any faithful gospel preacher that avows such a thing. It is God who has set forth the conditions by which we must be saved. It is our duty to obey his request. ( Mat. 7:21-24).

Furthermore, God has not required you to pass through Jordan. Therefore, your point is moot.

No one is affirming one is saved without the blood.( Rev. 1:7, Eph.5:26). see above.

Galatians 3:26-29 implies water baptism as it is consistent with the revealed examples in Acts. Prove your contention.
This is as simple as it gets.

 

Marcia:
I can use the same Bible to produce scripture that only mentions repentance for salvation. I can do so for confession, blood, and baptism. Your problem is you cannot harmonize your position because it will place the Bible against itself.

Moreover, you cannot harmonmize Acts 10 and 11 in view of the inspired language. Your post pits the account in 10 against the the sequential one of 11. You are as lost on this as a goose in a hurricane.