What is a heretick?

Frank, it's funny that you would say I am "as lost on this as a goose in a hurricane."

I am not pitting the Bible against itself. We can see apparent contradictions in the Bible, but since the Bible is the word of God, we know it does not contradict itself. Therefore, we look at all verses in context and compare scripture to scripture. When we do that, it is crystal clear that we are saved by faith alone.

The historic Christian faith has been that baptism by water does not save or help to save. Funny that they missed water baptism as necessary for salvation. My church is very clear on this; I have even heard sermons on it.

I've been down this road before with people attempting to convince me water baptism is necessary for salvation and it did not convince me. So I have examined the issue before and have examined the verses used for water baptism as necessary for salvation.

As far as using the serpent, it was not the serpent on the staff that saved the people, but it was the faith of the people! See my article on serpents in the OT and in Egypt on my site. It's listed under articles (my site comes up if you click on Homepage above my post). That is why Jesus referred to this in John, he was showing that it was faith that saved.

Because God chose to use this cannot be transferred over the NT to say that water is necessary since the NT does not teach this.

 

Marcia:
There is not one scripture that says by faith alone. Moreover, the Bible never says anything alone saves. The Bible does say that faith without works is dead being alone. ( James 2:17). The Bible does say not by faith only. ( James 2:24). Again, there is no scripture for your position.

Marcia you said, "The historic Christian faith has been that baptism by water does not save or help to save." This is an inaccurate statement. The faith only movement began with reformation movement in the 16th century, this was hundreds of years after men were baptized for unto the remission of sins. ( Acts 2:38).

The serpent on the pole was essential to the saving of Israel because God chose to use it as a condition by which he would save them through his grace. If one removes the serpent from the pole, you change the way God chose to do it. One, then has changed the condition of faith prescribed by God. How do you know God would accept the change? By what authority does one change the way God saves?

Yes, God did transfer the figure of baptism to the new testament. Yes, one can and must use figures brought forth from the old to the new to understand it.

The Bible says, in I Cor. 10:¶Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; This is a reference to an event in the Old Testament.

The Bible says in I Pet. 3:21,  ¶The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: This is a reference to an event in the Old Testament.

The baptism of Moses was an overwhelmimg, a covering in the clouds and in the sea. The baptism of today is an overwhelmimg, covering in water. The Bible says in Acts 8:39,  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. ( cf. I Pet. 3:21,Genesis 7:19). The Bible uses the figure of a burial to depict baptism in water today. ( Romans 6:3-5).

For what it is worth, I have heard many sermons on a variety of topics some were truth. Some were filled with error.

 

Originally posted by Frank:

The Bible does not mention the Trinity, either. However, the Bible still teaches it. The principles of the Bible teach that faith alone saves. Eph. 2. 8 and 9 is just one of many examples.

QUOTE]The faith only movement began with reformation movement in the 16th century, this was hundreds of years after men were baptized for unto the remission of sins.(Acts 2:38)[/QUOTE]

The doctrine of salvation by faith begins with the Bible! You refer to Acts 2:38.

Paraphrased and quoted from _When Critics Ask_ by Norman Geisler, pages 428-429:
The word used for "for" in this verse (Eis) can mean "with a view to" or "because of." Water baptism would be because they had been saved, not in order to be saved. Verse 44 speaks of "all who believed" as being the early church, not all who had been baptized.

1 Cor 1:17: "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." The Gospel saves (Rom 1:16).

Jesus refers to baptism as a work of righteousness in Matt. 3:15, and the Bible tells us that we are not saved by works of righteousness but according to God's mercy (Titus 3:5).

Not once in the gospel of John, "written so that people could believe and be saved (Jn 20.31), does it give baptism as part of the condition of salvation." It repeats over and over that people should believe and be saved.

Acts 2:38 can be rendered: "Repent and be baptized with a view to the forgiveness of sins." That is the view "looking backward" to their sins having been forgiven after they were saved. "Believing and being baptized are placed together, since baptism should follow belief. But nowhere does it say, 'He who is not baptized will be condemned'." Jesus said, "he who does not believe is condemned already" in Jn 3.18.====End of parapharasing/quoting of Geisler's book.

You are talking about a one-time circumstance that never happened again. God chose that as a way to test their faith and give them a chance to be physically saved from the snake bites. There is no indication in the NT that water baptism is used this way.

Yes, but that does not mean we need water baptism to be saved. There are lots of references to the OT in the NT. Those people who went through the Red Sea were not all spiritually saved -- they were physically saved. This passage does not teach we need water baptism to be saved. The passage even says that God was not pleased with most of these people (v. 5). The context of the whole passage here is a reprimand to resist temptation.

The Bible says in I Pet. 3:21, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: This is a reference to an event in the Old Testament.


This verse proves my point -- it is excluding the idea that water baptism saves and is saying that the saving of Noah symbolized God's power to save.

It's not just the sermon though, but the Biblical arguments used in the sermon that show that water baptism is not necessary for salvation. I was just pointing to that as one the manyways I've heard this issue argued and refuted.

Below are comments from the link below:

Above is from Source

I also have a booklet I recommend: "Eternal Life and Water Baptism" by Phil Owen and Paul Reid, New York International Bible Society, 1978; revised, 1989. You can get it from Waltham Evangelical Free Church, 21 Bruce Road, Waltham, Mass 02154

I am posting that for anyone interested in a great resource on this topic.

 

Frank,

You sound much like a Catholic person.

You said, 'The Bible does say not by faith only.'

Try Romans 5:1 we are justified only one time in our life and it comes about because of our faith in Jesus. Martin Luther found this truth; you seem to be 'that goose lost in the hurricane.'

You said, '( James 2:24). . . '

Ray is saying James believed in justification by faith also, but he tells us that you will see Christian 'good works' that will follow in the life of the saved person. James taught 'imputation of Christ's righteousness in his message to the 'twelve tribes what were scattered abroad.' [vs.1 of the first chapter] Paul, in Romans 4:3 & 5 also believe in being saved by our faith in Christ. It all dovetails. 'Abraham's faith was counted for {his} righteousness.' [Romans 4:5c]

 

Ray:
You seem to have a penchant for ignoring context. The Bible says, in Romans 5::2, By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. We have access to his grace, HOW? By our faith. faith that receives the grace that saves is active according to Romans 5:1,2 and every passage in the Bible that connects faith with salvation... every one. You sound like your typical denominationalist which you are. I am neither protestant,catholic, or Jew. I am a Christian. ( I Pet. 4:16, Acts 11:26).

Furthermore, Abraham's faith was active also. Saving faith is an active faith, always has been always will be. I believe James had it right once again. The Bible says, in James 2:21,  Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22  Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
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.
24  Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
The Bible says this. This is what Frank is saying.

 

Unless I'm not following this, I don't think the issue is active faith or inactive faith. The issue, which you raised, Frank, is whether salvation is by faith alone because you said one has to be baptized with water to be saved. Are you trying to show by quoting this passage that salvation also involves works? Well, it does not teach salvation by works. As v. 23 shows, Abraham had righteousness imputed to him when he believed God. This is how Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we believe in Christ. That is salvation.

The word translated as "justification" in the Bible does not always mean justification in the sense of salvation. In the context of that section of James, it is teaching that Abraham's faith was justified by his works, that is, his works showed his faith since without works we have a dead faith. Works follow from faith.

This is a passage used by Mormons to try to teach that faith needs works added for salvation. When I explain this to them, they always quickly go to something else as they have no way to counter it.

As I said earlier, the Bible does not contradict itself (I feel like a broken record) so all Scripture must be read in light of other scripture. If v. 24 means that works are needed for salvation, then it would contradict v. 23 and other verse that clearly show that works and faith are separate for salvation.

 

Marcia:
The Greek langauge does not allow for the interpretaion of Acts 2:38 as you have presupposed. The word Eis means for unto the remission of sins. Geisler is wrong about his contention. Robertson, a baptist Greek scholar admits eis is for unto the remission of sins, although his theology will not let him accept it. Robertson, A,T., Historical Grammar. ( London, Hodder and Stoughton).
F.W. Gingrich co author of Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, was asked, is it grammatically possible that the phrase for the remission of sins, in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs repent ye and be baptized each one of you, though these verbs differ in both person and number? He replied in February 21, 1968 from Albright College and I quote, " YES. The difference between metanoesate and baptistheo is simply that in the first, the people are viewed together in thr plural, while in the second the emphasis is on each individual." J.H Thayer, Greek lexicographer renders Eis as to obtain the remission of sins. These men are the most highly respected greek scholars of all time. Daniel B.Wallace in his book Greek Grammar beyond the basics affirms the position of Gingrich, Thayer, and Robertson. Mr. Walliace is the head of the Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas. Ray Summers head of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary concurs with the others mentioned. By the way, Robertson, Wiiliams and Summers are Baptist. I mean no disrespect to Norman Geisler but he is not credible in the light of the best scholarship. He is not a Greek scholar like these men.

Furthermore, If I follow your line of reasoning, which is deadly, I could say the cross represents a physical symbol of salvation. I could say the blood of Christ only saves us physically. The Bible says the life of all flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). Therefore, the blood of Christ can only save in a fleshly sense. This is inane reasoning of the highest order.

God saves people through his instruments. The serpent bites were inflicted because of sin. The conditions for the saving from physical death and the punishment of sin because of their murmuring and unbelief would be hell. However, if in faith they looked upon the serpent on the pole, they would be saved physically and subsequently spiritiually. This was a condition to manifest their faith in God to deliver. It works both ways, unless you are going to say they could have died in unbelief and been saved spiritually. Is that what you are contending?

The same could have been said for the bondage in Egypt. Have you forgotten why they were in bondage? I believe it was a big word called sin. The death angel passed over those who exercised their faith by putting blood on the lintel. Would they have just died physically if they had not done so? Your reasoning that these examples have nothing to do with the spiritual salvation of man is absurd. All sinners who reject God die physically and spiritually.

It is true the blood of Christ had to be shed for all sin. ( Romans 5:11, Hebrews 9:15-28). However, all men, of all time, have had to obey the conditions of God's grace to be saved. No salvation is given to any one who does not obey the conditions as God has set forth. ( Hebrews 5:8,9).

There is no such thing as an outward sign of an inward grace. Please read Acts 8:38,39. The Bible says in Acts 8:38, " And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Note: The Eunoch was not joyous after his belief or confession ( vs. 37). He was joyous after he had his sins remitted in water. ( vs. 39). The Bible does not affrim any such thing as an outward sign of an inward grace.

One is saved IN Christ.( II Tim. 2:10). He becomes a child of God. ( Identified with the family of God) when he is baptized INTO Christ, not before. ( Gal. 3:26-29).

By the way, If you are going to quote me, get it right,please. QUOTE]The faith only movement began with reformation movement in the 16th century, this was hundreds of years after men were baptized for unto the remission of sins.(Acts 2:38)[/QUOTE]

The doctrine of salvation by faith begins with the Bible! You refer to Acts 2:38.


Faith ONLY and Biblical faith are not the same thing. You quote me as if I am implying they are the same. This is totally false. The doctrine of FAITH ONLY BEGAN WITH THE REFORMATION. This is exactly what I said and meant.

It is obvious you do not understand types, antitypes and shadows. Did you actually read the text of I Pet. 3:21? You state it is a reference to the old Testament. It is using an old testament event as a FIGURE OF SOMETHING ELSE. The something else is baptism in the new testament. The Bible says, ¶The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Note: Who is the US in the passage? What is the like figure that saves?

The serpent on the pole was a pre-figure or a shadow of the thing to come. Please read the words of Christ in John 3:14. In other words, instruments that save are not the exact thing but similar to the pre- figure. Just as the lamb slain for sins ( Lev. 16) is a pre- figure of the sacrifice of Jesus the Lamb of God. ( John 1:29). Again, understanding figures and shadows is important to recognize and understand the symbolism.

You contradict yourself outright by claiming Ephesians 2:8,9 teaches faith only. The Bible says, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9  Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Let me see, by grace, one, through faith ,two, and you believe in the blood of christ, three and repentance, four. Each of these words is different in meaning and application.

By the way, Baptism is God's way to save. The Bible says in Colossians 2:12,  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Baptism is God's operation, not man's.


I suggest the New Testament as a great source for this subject. It is never wrong.

 

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) 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:

John baptized unto repentance, in the same way that Peter did. The same Greek word is used (eis). So what did John do? Did he grant repentance to the Pharisees and others that came to him upon their baptism? That is not what the Scripture teaches.
In fact John specifically said to the Pharisees:

Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

First they had to repent, and not just repent, but bring the evidence that they had repented. Then they were qualified candidates for baptism. Thus John said, "I baptize unto repentance." In other words, I baptize you because of your repentance, or on the basis of your repentance.
Peter did the same thing.
DHK

 

The thief on the Cross had faith in Jesus but did not even for three seconds miraclously slip away unnoticed to be cleansed in the Jordan River.

May you can come up with some doctrine like the Roman Catholic magisterium has; it is something to the effect that he had a special dispensation because it was his intention to be dipped 'in your alleged saving and miraculous waters.

 

Frank, if I misquoted you, I am sorry. That was not my intention.

I read your post twice, carefully. The bottom line of what you are saying, I believe, is that we are saved not just by faith but some works must be involved. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Eph. 2. 8,9 does not talk about 3 things to save us. By grace we are able to be saved through belief in Christ. We do not intitate God's grace. All we can do is believe.

Your reference to Heb 5.8, 9 does not make sense. It is talking about Christ. He did not have to do anything to be saved. Do you think he did?

Your statement about the serpent on the pole and the statements about anti-types, etc. do not make sense to me in regards to baptism. The serpent on the pole foreshadowed Christ being crucified and that all who had faith in him (as the snake bitten people had faith God would heal them when they looked at the serpent on the pole) would be saved.

You also have the curious statement, that all men "have had to obey the conditions of God's grace to be saved." But grace does not have conditions -- that's what makes it grace!! If we had to obey anything to be saved, we could not do it and all of us would be lost with no hope of redemption. Or are you saying that baptism by water is the only "condition" we must obey to be saved? Are there others?

 

What about repentance? It is not mentioned in this passage. Is repentance not necessary for salvation?

 

Doubting Thomas,

For the answer about repentance, one should look at the whole NT message on how we are saved. Many believe that repentance and being saved come at the same time. God does not give us a cut-and-dried analysis of what happens when we are saved because it is a supernatural act.

I know many, including myself, who did not repent before being saved or at least, repented as they were being saved. Repent means turning away from sin, but if someone does not even see their sin or believe in sin, it's hard to turn away. The HS has to convict us of sin and sometimes that happens at different times for people.

I was not aware of my sins before I saw who Christ really was though God had been drawing me to Christ for several months. I did not believe in sin. At that moment when I realized who Christ really was (this happened as I read a passage in Matthew), I realized my separation from God and that I had been on a wrong spiritual path my whole life. I realized I was destined for eternal separation from God. I turned my life over to Christ. This all seemed to happen at about the same time or at least with only mini-seconds in between. After I was saved, it took me a long time to realize and see the evil I had been involved in though I was aware I was a sinful person at that point and had been forgiven. I was unable to take it all in at once and God very gently revealed it to me over time.

I think that under God's grace, he saves people in all kinds of states. Some realize their sin before being saved, some realize it as they are being saved, some after, or there is a combination. But in any case, to repent is not a work.

 

I agree, and the same can be said about baptism. Just because baptism is not mentioned in a given passage doesn't mean it is not a normative requirement for salvation. Other NT passages suggest baptism does play a "role" in salvation. And just as there is no dichotomy between faith and repentance, neither is there contradiction in teaching one is saved by grace through faith and that one is (usually) regenerated by God in the waters of baptism.

 

I know I was regenerated before baptism. The moment I trusted Christ, I knew I would be in heaven with him, I knew I was a new person, and my life changed dramatically from that moment on. I was a new creature in Christ. I was not baptized for another year and 2 months.

The overwhelming evidence of the NT is that we do not need baptism to be saved; it is simply overwhelming. I have seen no posts here that convince me otherwise. Frank, who has asked a lot of questions, never answered my question as to whether he is in the Church of Christ or not. That is my guess.

My suggestion to you both is to get the booklet I recommended on a previous post.

 

No one would come to Christ without an inner need of forgiveness. Turning to Christ is to move toward Him and away from evil and the 'father of all lies.' That's why God speaking through Paul to keeper of the prison, said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.' The prison guard had awakened in him already his need for the faith that Paul and Silas clearly enjoyed via their singing and praising God in the midst of bad circumstances. [Acts 1619-33] Repentance is implied and baptism was ministered after the salvation experience had taken place in the heart/life of the prison guard.

This is in answer to the comment about, 'Is repentance not necessary for salvation?'

 

The overwhelming testimony of the early Christians was that regeneration does in fact take place in the baptismal waters. They had no problem interpreting the Bible (passages such as John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-5, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:21) as teaching that one is born again and initially forgiven in the waters of baptism. None saw this as being in opposition to faith and repentance. In fact, there is no historical record of anyone teaching non-regenerative baptism until within the last 500 years.

As a lifelong Baptist, reading Church history and reading the passages in question at face value have been tough pills to swallow. However, I'm glad that God has given me the grace to re-examine longheld but unquestioned beliefs.

 

Marcia:
Jesus said that belief is a work.(John 7:28-30). Faith that pleases God works or is active. This is what I said, and this is what Christ told the apostles who asked the question, " What must we do to WORK THE WORKS of GOD, Jesus said, this is the work of God that ye BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent." This is about as simple as Jesus could make it. Even mental ascent to the truth, by definition, requires work. The problem is you only know one kind of works and those works are ones of merit. There are more than works of merit in the Bible. ( Gal. 2:11, Titus 3:5).

The Bible does not teach meritorious works for saslvation. ( Eph. 2:8,9). This is what the passage teaches. This passage teaches one must exercise his faith in the grace of God to be saved. ( Romans 5:1,2). When one receives and inheritance, he often times must meet certain conditions for the inheritance. The failure to meet the conditions results in him losing or not receiving the inheritance. Salvation is an inheritance.( I Pet. 1:3-5). Our salvation is kept by the power of God through faith.
It is stange to me you will use all the Bible to support repentance, faith, grace, blood etc., but you fail to use the same principles to support baptism.

 

Ray:

Consider the following:
1.The thief on the cross lived under the old testament. Therefore, he could be forgiven any way God chose. ( Mark 2:8-11).

2, The thief, if he were a Jew, would have been baptized with John's baptism. (Mark 1:4), Luke 7:26-29)


3. The text does not reveal if this man was a Jew, Gentile or if he had or had not previously been baptized by John.

I know the thief did not sneek away from the cross to be baptized in Jordan. By the way, Jews did not have to be baptized in Jordan to be saved. The place is an incidental. I also know what he must have done in the three points pertaining to his salvation.

 

Ray:
The text of Acts 16 does not say,imply or teach a salvation experience took place at the prison. The jailer would have been foolish to ask in verse 30, " Sirs what must I do to be saved?" The question came after the prison bars opened. The message was preached at his house according to the text. This would also be in harmony with the conversion of Lydia.

 

If one needs to be baptized, then Mk 16.16 should say, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned." Instead it says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

I don't have time to go through each of these, but there is a clear response to the argument that these teach that salvation requires water baptism. Not all of them even mention water baptism. Titus 3.5 is about the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit."

For Gal 3.27, see http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Gal_3_27.htm
Gal 3:27

Even if you think some of these verses teach water baptism is necessary, then they contradict other passages in the Bible, but there are no actual contradicitions in the Bible.

For responses to some of the other verses see links under "Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?"
Christian Doctrine