Baptism:Luther, Knox, Calvin, Augustine...

[Darron Steele]

G. E.: your hobby horse of trying to get people to not baptize is an interesting one -- and highly unsuccessful. I had hoped we had heard the last from you on this.

No one is going to be convinced that water baptism is banned when the Bible tells us to do it and the Bible examples it being done.

Your efforts along this line have been debunked time and again; even when claims you made were shown to be factually incorrect, you stick with your position. You will insist on believing as you wish. Your position is held with such loyalty there is no point in discussing it.

There is no point in you even bothering either. Your efforts along this line have always been unsuccessful here, and would continue to be.

Those who have posted about the topic want to have serious discussions of what the Bible teaches. We do not want to be distracted into discussing speculations that have no basis from Scripture.

If you are bound and determined that you want to air your speculation-based shots at water baptism, please start another thread. Please do not mess this one up.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I'm happy to hear how highly successful my attempts are. It was my purpose. You thought it was the last you would hear from me but it ain't.

You are making of the free Gospel of Jesus Christ a religion of works - legalism - with your, not the Bible's, 'water-baptism'. It is people like you and the very dogma of water-baptism that has caused the Church for 2000 years to splinter and tear up one another.

You have not said a word against what I have written - because you cannot because the Bible doesn't. It is your, false, boast, you have shown claims I have made were factually incorrect. You never availed which you put on auction. Who is going to buy stock not even seen?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

All the saved are saved by Grace - FREE Grace - God's Grace in the sovereign freedom of his Electing and Eternal Will. Which elect will object, God you are too gracious? You are too discriminating? O God, you should put some standard for a person to receive your mercy and forgiveness -- at least You could say: Thou shalt be baptised with water; or even better, o Lord, let me give you sound advice: make it, Thou shalt be baptised _in_ water. It shall be the sign who is worthy of My love.

I rather rejoice with Paul - I have baptised no one of you, unfortunately though with a few exceptions. Seeing he was an apostle, that's OK with me - if I may say so, being no one of account myself (while some claim the apostolic sign!).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Crudence: (what can be easier?)

"baptize":
I (John) baptize you with water; He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire", Mt3:11, Mk1:8, Lk3:16, Jn1:26 : ALL FOUR Gospels!

"He that sent me to baptise", Jn1:33 .... Where did He send you, Darron Steele or anyone after the Apostles? To claim is audacity not even an apostle would dare: Paul: "Christ sent me, NOT to baptise!"1Cor1:17.

"Jesus himself baptised not, though his DISCIPLES baptised" -- those disciples whom Christ made apostles and gave them a signal of: that they may baptise; and even then NOWHERE is there the command from Christ to even the apostles to baptise with water or in water as that sign or not as that sign. Darron Steele, I challenge you, present the Scripture where Christ commanded the apostles to baptise in or with water! Then, the command from Christ, where He commands the Church today to baptise with or in water.

"For John truly baptized with water; but YOU - the Church "after John" and the era of the prophets - shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit NOT MANY DAYS HENCE" Acts 1:5 (11:16). speaking of the Apostolate after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost; and after which 'days' again, the baptism 'not many days hence', would cease as for having been an apostolic sign served out.

How did the apostles 'baptise' on that day of Pentecost fully come: Here are the exact words describing how: "BE BAPTISED EVERY ONE OF YOU!" Acts 2:38. That was and still is, HOW: By the Word of God Spoken; NO other way; not, with water.

So how is the Church today baptised? "We are ALL baptised by one Spirit", 1Cor12:13. "As many of us that were baptised were baptised into Jesus Christ" Ro6:3. "Go, baptizing them IN THE NAME ...." Mt28:19. As much as the "Go!" is commanded "in the Name", is the "baptizing", "in the Name".

"You have been baptised into Christ", Gal3:27, says the apostle who said luckily he baptised no one of you. How is that possible? It is only possible while Paul meant he did not baptise with water; only, in obedience to the apostolic mandate to Go baptizing in the Name. ("Go!", Darron Steele and company, "go", with water, let's see!)

Darron Steel, explain your water baptism in the same manner if you can.

 

[Darron Steele]

Gerhard E.:

I do not know what experience you have had with water baptism that gives you such a hatred for it. With no desire to be mean, but to be honest, I do not care to read it either.

You tell me "present the Scripture where Christ commanded the apostles to baptise in or with water" while you can read through this thread and find them as well as examples.

Ignoring passages of Scripture, twisting other verses in ways that do not make any sense when read within their passages, and going on rants at people like me will not validate what you wish to believe. Assertions you have made on other threads have been debunked, and yet your claims persist and your personal rantings continue.

I have time constraints. I do not have time for arguments about speculations about bans that Scripture does not have, or whether or not we should be doing what the Bible tells us to do and examples being done -- especially when the person has decided to believe whatever s/he wants. Right now I am posting to you when I should be doing something else.

Whatever your experience was, may the Lord grant you comfort.

 

[JSM17]

Acts 2:38

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice that "Repent" stands alone and is followed by a comma, Next we have "And," which demontrates that repentance by itself would not be suffecient; baptism is also essential. "In the name of Jesus Christ" and "for the remission of sins" are two prepositional phrases that function as adverbs and modify the verb "be baptized."

Surely no one denies that this refers to water baptism, well maybe a few, but besides those few most would agree this passage refers to water baptism. Does this passage teach the purpose of that water baptism?

41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Does not this passage teach that those who were baptized were added to something? The force of the verse shows me that those who were baptized were added, not before, but only after. Before one is added to God's kingdom his sins are in need of forgiveness, verse 38 reveals how this happens.

If you are looking for a passage that says one who does not get baptized will not receive the forgiveness of sins, this is a strawman. When you look at Mark 16:16 it tells you that faith and baptism save. The next verse tells you if you do not believe that you will be condemned. The following verse does not need to say and is not baptized shall be condemned because we know that we do not or should not baptize unbelievers, even though many do without scriptural right. If one does not believe one will not be baptized or should not be baptized.

With the passages that we have looked at over and over again, you would think that the words "Forgiveness of sins," washing away your sins," and "Does now save you" would have more persuading power, instead we do not see them at face value. To me it is simple and plain.

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

They were saved by, through (dia) water.

Someone if they would please asnwer these simple questions:

Now there is a type that saves us, what saves us in the passage?
Does these passages teach us that because we have a good conscience toward God we are baptized or is baptism an answer to have a good conscience?

 

[Darron Steele]

Acts 2:38

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice that "Repent" stands alone and is followed by a comma, Next we have "And," which demontrates that repentance by itself would not be suffecient; baptism is also essential. "In the name of Jesus Christ" and "for the remission of sins" are two prepositional phrases that function as adverbs and modify the verb "be baptized."

Surely no one denies that this refers to water baptism, well maybe a few, but besides those few most would agree this passage refers to water baptism. Does this passage teach the purpose of that water baptism?

Huh.

You are reading a weird translation. It differs from one I am very familiar with.

“Arrependei-vos, e cada um de vós seja batizado em nome de Jesus Cristo, para remissão de vossos pecados” (VRA).

This teaching of yours that it is baptism that gets us remission of sins, rather than repentance, is just plainly contrary to the text.

The text clearly says that we are to repent, and are obligated by this repentance to be baptized, but we repent in order to receive remission of our sins.

41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Does not this passage teach that those who were baptized were added to something? The force of the verse shows me that those who were baptized were added, not before, but only after. Before one is added to God's kingdom his sins are in need of forgiveness, verse 38 reveals how this happens.

No, actually. 2:41 reveals that: "those who had received his word" were added.

If you are looking for a passage that says one who does not get baptized will not receive the forgiveness of sins, this is a strawman. When you look at Mark 16:16 it tells you that faith and baptism save. The next verse tells you if you do not believe that you will be condemned. The following verse does not need to say and is not baptized shall be condemned because we know that we do not or should not baptize unbelievers, even though many do without scriptural right. If one does not believe one will not be baptized or should not be baptized.

You are depending upon adding to the Word.

You rightly noticed that the text does not have what you want it to: a clear statement that a believer's failure to be baptized will result condemnation.

Therefore, you rationalize and infer and try to justify what is essentially an addition to the text. Sorry, but no can do.

There is no contradiction with Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

They were saved by, through (dia) water.

Someone if they would please asnwer these simple questions:

Now there is a type that saves us, what saves us in the passage?
Does these passages teach us that because we have a good conscience toward God we are baptized or is baptism an answer to have a good conscience?

So you want us to believe that we are saved by water? I knew baptism was very important in the Churches of Christ, but to make it savior is quite radical. I will give you credit: you are the first person to candidly admit that you believe in salvation by water. Most Churches of Christ adamantly deny that, claiming such things as "saved through faith at baptism" -- which is salvation by baptism, meaning salvation by water. You admit it.

Still, I really wish you would listen to some things Peter was clear about, rather than listen selectively for things that can be made to appear to validate your position.

Peter could not have been any clearer in the case of the New Covenant: "not the removal of the filth of the flesh" so not the bath. Peter is translated using the term "figure" (BishB). Yet despite Peter's explicit statement that he is speaking in "figure" you want to take him literally, and despite his express statement, you want to claim that he says the water ceremony saves us.

You assert that Peter meant things he expressly denied. That is not the only difficulty your position runs into.

Your position runs into all sorts of difficulties. Some are in the very texts you cite. Some are with a certain passage you are always trying to divert attention from -- Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV), which you assert the negation of. Some of these difficulties were newly brought up a few posts ago.

You nagged and nagged and nagged me to respond to your question about the purpose of baptism, which I did not get to for a day or to. During this relatively brief delay, you gloated in imagined triumph when I waited until I had time for it.

Then I got to that reply. Then the thread went dead; no comment from you.

Oddly enough -- or not so oddly -- you go on as if I never made that reply. Instead, you post rehashed material. Evidently, you want my inconvenient material to be buried.

 

[Darron Steele]

Since you evidently want to get this conversation started back up all of the sudden, I thought I would give a brief reminder of the material you asked for but did not acknowledge. While at it, I made some improvements.

I would submit, however, that based on the testimony of Scriptures, and the universal belief of the early church, that one cannot truly be having faith in Christ if one refuses to be baptized.

If you or anyone else wants to posit that a person who
a) knows rightly of baptism, and
b) refuses to be baptized
is a rebel against Jesus Christ, I will `amen' you `til the cows come home.' I will go further: I am opposed to arguing unwilling people into baptism pools; baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ is a privilege, and befitting only for His followers.

That is great and I agree.

You do not really agree. See below.

But what is the specific purpose of water baptism according to scripture? Verses and application would be nice. Here is one:

Acts 22:16

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV

Saul believed on the road, yet was still in sin because it was not until three days later after prayer and fasting that Ananias tells Saul to be baptized, and wash away his sins. ....

but not necessarily by being baptized:

the 1560 English Geneva Bible in its 1602 revision: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB)

the 1568 English Bishops’ Bible: “aryse, & be baptized, & wasshe away thy sinnes, in calling on the name of the Lorde” (BishB).​

Paul would "wash away" his sins by "calling on the Name of the Lord."

Also: Paul did not believe yet. One thing was missing: he had not yet done "calling on the name of the Lord." THAT is how he would wash his sins away, at least literally. Based upon how Jews viewed conversion baptism among them, I suspect Paul's baptism was to symbolize his washing away of his prior life of sin. Ancient Jews saw conversion baptism as `washing away' prior life** -- see below.

Paul had the Lord part of Jesus; he did not yet have the Savior part. Paul had not yet appealed to Jesus Christ for salvation.

So to say that he believed is not correct. He did not yet fully believe on Jesus Christ.

After he learned the fullness of what needs to be believed about Jesus Christ, then and only then was it appropriate to baptize him.

Jesus did not tell us to baptize non-Christians -- but that is exactly what your position would require. That is why you do not really agree with what you assented to above. If people are not Christians before they arise from baptism, then we baptize non-Christians.

This was not to be, according to Jesus Christ. Jesus said in Matthew 28:19-20

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything that I have taught you” (NASB|NCV).​

Jesus told us to "baptize them" and "them" is the "disciples" that we make. Your idea that no one is a Christian until s/he comes up after baptism is contrary to this verse, because in your position, we baptize non-Christians. If you are right, then there would be no way to do as Jesus said.

In the thought of American culture, baptism means far less than it did in the Bible. In the New Testament-era world, the term "baptism" meant more than a submersion in water. When we see "baptize" or "baptism" in Scripture we need to see those additional meanings with those words too.

In the New Testament-era world, baptism was nothing new. Judaism practiced it. It is not prescribed in Scripture, but they were baptizing converts. This was a practice Christianity picked up and adapted.

Ancient Jews saw convert baptism as showing entrance to a new life* and `washing away’ of prior life to match earlier conversion.** The people who were baptized were already considered converts. The Talmud at Yebamoth 47a-b says male converts were circumcised then baptized; passages such as Galatians 2:9 indicate that one was a Jew at circumcision. A baptized convert to Judaism was a Jew when he was baptized.

The first Christians were Jews and stayed Jews. Baptism retained those meanings. A new Christian is a Christian when s/he is baptized. That is precisely the primary meaning of baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ: we show that we have left our old lives behind and have converted to Jesus Christ.

You can see it in Romans 6:3-5

“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized | in | Christ Jesus have been baptized | in-the | His death? |Of result that| we have been buried with Him through baptism | in-the | death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united | in-the| likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be | in-the| likeness of His resurrection”^*​

After baptism, we are expected to "walk in newness of life" -- having left our pre-conversion lives behind.

We identify with Jesus Christ in baptism. Notice that baptism is "in-the similarity of the" His death and His resurrection. We follow His death and resurrection in the water.

The meaning of baptism is what it was in the New Testament era, and that is its purpose. The purpose: to show ourselves converts to following Jesus Christ, to show that we have left our pre-conversion lives behind, and to identify ourselves as followers Jesus Christ.


_____
* E. J. Bicknell article in Gore, et al, A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, New Testament page 335.
** So That’s Why! Bible, page 1287.
^*NASB with |”in” = ARA “em” translated, “in-the” = ARA “na” translated, “Of result that” = AEC “De sorte que” translated|.

 

[Briguy]

Acts 2:38 is only for the house of Isreal. Peter's answer was a direct answer to a direct question. The "Men of Isreal" had just realized that they had crucified the very Savior they had waited for. They were very upset (cut to the heart) and cried out - "what should we do?" Peter told THEM to Repent and the sign of that repentance was Baptism, like in John the baptist's baptism. This baptism was to restore the House of Isreal back into good standing with God, from enemy of God to friend of God again. Once they repented, in baptism, they were positionsally able to receive salvation by belief in Christ. The verses to follow speak of salvation but don't mentiion baptism, because baptism and the salvation of a believer are not directly related in the way some are trying to make them to be (for the simple fact that salvation would then be conditional and it just can't be as that would contradict the very Character of God's true love) Believer Baptism, as we know it today was not even a thought to the people in Acts 2:38. The church had just begun that day!!!!
Hope that clears up at least the Acts 2:38 debate. If this was mentioned already I apologize, there was too many pages to read through.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[JSM17]

Without rehashing things as you have pointed out, let me clarify briefly what i see scripture teaching and what you have sid about my thoughts.

Acts 2:38 does not teach that forgiveness of sins is soley on baptism, I deny that it is repentance and baptism that follows belief, conviction (pricked to the heart).

As for what "Briguy" stated about Acts 2:38 being only for the house of Israel is extreme dispenstionalism which you also saw in Olivincia. Is there a gospel for the Jews and then a different one for the Gentiles?

As for the Great Commission, there are more than one account (Gospel) of this commission. I include Mark 16:16 and Luke 24. Is Matthew 28 your proof that you (Darron Steele) baptize saved Christians and not unsaved penitent sinners?

Only one question I would like to hear you answer:

What saves in this passage?

As for not acknowledging certain statement that you have made and how think that I have been victorious is just a poke at my supposed motives, which you obviously misunderstand.

My issues are not with you are anyone else on this forum, my issues are to study and to debate as to learn more about scripture and to share my beliefs with others.

According to the OP you do not agree with those who motivated the reformation movement. I would stand firmly on the fact that if anyone teaches anything contrary to scripture on baptism that they teach false doctrine, I would think that those who disagree with me would feel the same. If I teach what others believe to be false doctrine then I should be accursed and they should not be afraid to declare such. I have read just recently of a group who denies that I am even a Christian, I commend him for at least being consistent.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
As for the Great Commission, there are more than one account (Gospel) of this commission. I include Mark 16:16 and Luke 24. Is Matthew 28 your proof that you (Darron Steele) baptize saved Christians and not unsaved penitent sinners?

Only one question I would like to hear you answer:

What saves in this passage?

In Matthew 28, Jesus Christ simply said

Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything that I have taught you,| and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NASB|NCV).​

We "baptize them" and "them" = "disciples." Anyone who baptizes does whether they know it or not.

As for what saves in the other passages. Mark 16:16, if we treat it as authentic, says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be |condemned" (KJV|NKJV). It is not stated what happens to those who believe but are not baptized. Acts 10:43 and other passages clarify the matter; Acts 10:43 says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Luke 24:47 says that Jesus Christ ordained that “repentance for |remission of sins should be preached in his name” (NASB|KJV). As one cannot really believe on Jesus Christ without repentance, I would say that the sum total teaches that the person's faith on Jesus Christ saves them -- as you already know.

...According to the OP you do not agree with those who motivated the reformation movement. I would stand firmly on the fact that if anyone teaches anything contrary to scripture on baptism that they teach false doctrine, I would think that those who disagree with me would feel the same. If I teach what others believe to be false doctrine then I should be accursed and they should not be afraid to declare such. I have read just recently of a group who denies that I am even a Christian, I commend him for at least being consistent.

Well, if you want "doctrine" to mean a bunch of religious precepts that have no relevance to overall life or proper esteem of Jesus Christ, I guess so. That is not how the Bible means "doctrine."

In Scripture, “sound doctrine” and “good doctrine” and “doctrine” dangerous to reject were related to either
a) overall living, or
b) proper value of Jesus Christ and His work.
Check it for yourself.

If you are not teaching things that would cause people to live in ways they should not, or teaching things that downplay the importance of Jesus Christ and His work, then you are not a teacher of false doctrine.

I am not Jesus Christ. You do not have to agree with me to be a Christian. The root of “Christian” is “Christ.” Scripture uses “believers” (NASB) for servants of Christ in such places as Acts 2:47+5:14, Acts 10:45, 1 Thessalonians 1:7, and 1 Timothy 6:2; likewise, Scripture uses “disciples” (ESV) for servants of Christ in such places as Galatians 1:13+Acts 9:1, Acts 14:20-2, and Acts 11:26. Acts 11:26 has “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (NASB); Greek translated “disciples” is plural for “one who follows one’s teachings.”* A Christian is simply someone who believes on Jesus Christ so as to be a follower of His teachings.

I will not dare replace the Bible meaning of the Bible term "Christian" and replace it with `Someone who agrees with my must-have precepts.' If you meet the Bible meaning of the Bible term "Christian" then you are a Christian -- period.

_______
* Vine, et al, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, page 171 NT.

 

[JSM17]

Acts 10:43 says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

It is obvious that the word "Believe" in this passage incorporates more than just mental acknowledgment. If remission of sins is recieved upon this belief then it has to be different then the belief that we read about in John John 8:31-37

31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.

32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

33 They answered Him,"We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, 'You will be made free'?"

34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.

36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
NKJV

How is it that Jesus spoke to those who believed in him, but then were called children of the devil? Before you say they did not really believe, notice the scripture said the did believe Him (Jesus).

What this tells me is that faith all by itself cannot save and does not mean that you are saved just because you believe.

You have said that this belief in Acts 10:43 must encompass repentance and I would agree, so believe does not mean faith only, but can and does include the things that Jesus commands us to obey in order to receive the forgiveness of sins.

Gal 3:26-27

26 Sons and Heirs For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
NKJV

We become sons through the faith which is contrasted with the law, this faith includes baptism, which is when we put on Christ. Further down in 4:6 we learn that those who become sons recieve the promise of the Holy Spirit just as you have in Acts 2:38.

Acts 10:34 does not teach that a man is saved at the point of faith only.

 

[Briguy]

Hi JSM17, this has been an interesting debate. I noticed you did not actual refute what I said so I will move on to a new point

The word that is translated Baptism, often has nothing to do with water baptism. The word can mean, to name a few off the top of my head: Dip, immerse, place, etc... you get the point. We need to be careful not to automatically assume that every time we see baptism or baptized that the Bible is talking about water Baptism. Obviously, Baptism and Baptized do mean water baptism some of the time. To always assign it though is wrong and distorts the meaning of verses. For example; when we are told we are Baptized by the Holy Spirit, it has nothing to do with water. When I read the Great Commission I think it reads better and makes more sense for the word Baptize to have been translated immerse. The verse would read: "Go and make disciples of all nations and immerse them in the teaching of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
Now that was just an example of a possibility and would not be a translation many would agree to. Enough said on that.

On Baptism in general it is very much a question of dispensationalism, as you pointed out in regards to my last post. We know that the early church and the modern church are different. God gave Gifts that were miracles with to authenticate the Gospel but they were temporary (healing, miracles, Tongues, Interpretation of Tongues). It would not be surprising that Baptism is different as well. We can quickly see 3 water Baptism's in scripture without a deep study. John's baptism, Isreal's Baptism (Acts 2:38) and Believer's Baptism. To think it could not be different now requires a closed mind on the subject. The point I am making is that Baptism had a different purpose in the early church. Baptism then would be like church membership now. In the early church (after Acts 2:38) when Gentiles were saved and Baptized also, Baptism meant that the person joined "the way". When a person joined this "the way" group they were open to persecution. You had to be serious about your faith in Christ to be baptized because of what it could mean to you (like death). Anyway, now the important thing is attaching ourselves to a body of believers. Baptism is a fine expression that a person has changed but unlike the early church, it does not mean certain persecution. I'll stop and let you respond. Sorry this got so long.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Darron Steele]

Acts 10:43 says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

It is obvious that the word "Believe" in this passage incorporates more than just mental acknowledgment.

Amen.

I am not aware that we disagree over this -- or do we?

Based on this and other threads, it looks like it depends on which position you wish to take at a given moment.

You have said that this belief in Acts 10:43 must encompass repentance and I would agree, so believe does not mean faith only,...

Look, I get tired of this, so before I spend a whole lot of time addressing your other points, I want you to take a position and stick with it.

First, you want to allege that "believe" "must encompass repentance" and then you want to allege that "faith only" excludes repentance.

You cannot have it both ways. Either faith on Jesus Christ includes repentance or it does not.

You may not realize it, but on your threads you are `talking out of two sides of your mouth' and shifting sides as convenient for your argument. I am tired of this. I want you to pick one side of your mouth on this and resolve to stick with it.

Either faith on Jesus Christ includes repentance or it does not. If you are not sure which, please take some time to think it over.

 

[JSM17]

Look, I get tired of this, so before I spend a whole lot of time addressing your other points, I want you to take a position and stick with it.

First, you want to allege that "believe" "must encompass repentance" and then you want to allege that "faith only" excludes repentance.

You cannot have it both ways. Either faith on Jesus Christ includes repentance or it does not.

You may not realize it, but on your threads you are `talking out of two sides of your mouth' and shifting sides as convenient for your argument. I am tired of this. I want you to pick one side of your mouth on this and resolve to stick with it.

Either faith on Jesus Christ includes repentance or it does not. If you are not sure which, please take some time to think it over.

I am sure it is just how we define things in any particular part of our debate. I will clarify so I am not irritating you any further.

I do not believe in faith alone salvation, repentance is always done in faith. If I say I believe and that faith saves me it includes obedience, which involves repentance. Defining repentance as just a change of mind alone does not suffice as the eaxample of the "Two Sons" shows a change in action as well, some call it fruit.

When I look at the story of the Phillipian jailor and his conversion I see all the obedience encompassed in the ending statement:

Acts 16:34

34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
NKJV

which to me includes all the things spoken about in coming to being saved. Not just faith alone, but repentance and baptism.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am sure it is just how we define things in any particular part of our debate.

Not in honest debate.

Dishonest people interested in appearing to `win' at any cost shift positions according to expedience.

Honest people interested in truthful debate do not shift their positions according to convenience.

Further, I can assure you that for me, the meaning of faith in Jesus Christ does not shift according to momentary convenience or expediency in debates.

I will clarify so I am not irritating you any further.

I do not believe in faith alone salvation, repentance is always done in faith. If I say I believe and that faith saves me it includes obedience, which involves repentance. Defining repentance as just a change of mind alone does not suffice as the eaxample of the "Two Sons" shows a change in action as well, some call it fruit.

When I look at the story of the Phillipian jailor and his conversion I see all the obedience encompassed in the ending statement:

Acts 16:34

34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
NKJV

which to me includes all the things spoken about in coming to being saved. Not just faith alone, but repentance and baptism.

This is no clarification. This is a long-winded piece of prose which does not answer my question. Repeated with emphasis:

First, you want to allege that "believe" "must encompass repentance" and then you want to allege that "faith only" excludes repentance.

You cannot have it both ways. Either faith on Jesus Christ includes repentance or it does not.

Once and for all -- which is it?

Avoiding this question any further will result in me assuming that you are a dishonest person. I have tried to be patient with you, but if you dodge this any further, this will reappear in your future on this board.

It ought not be that hard to simply answer "which is it?" If you cannot do so at this time, please do not be hasty. I would not want you to make a rush decision if you need time. If you need to think about it, I will be happy to give you that time.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darron Steele:
"We "baptize them" and "them" = "disciples." Anyone who baptizes does whether they know it or not."

GE:
See the audacity of baptism-legalism expressed openly!

As little as any man (except the originally mandated) can or may, 'make disciples', that is, make true and eternally saved followers and pupils of Christ, as little can any non-mandated person after the apostles, 'make disciples'. It is the work of God by the Holy Spirit; no one else's -- least of all the work or resposibility of an organisational body, more often than not, the holiness of which is questionable - to 'make disciples', because only God is able to discern who His Own and Elect, are.

Or one must believe 'ana-baptism', that is, that man should improve God's own work of finished salvation.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Whoever:
"The faith on Jesus Christ"

GE:
The Faith OF Jesus Christ is it that saves, and therefore - because it saves - also "includes repentance". There is no such thing as a Faith of Jesus Christ that does not bring a man to repentance for his own sinfulness for the rest of his life. The repentance of the Faith of Jesus Christ does never stop; neither before, or after, regeneration. On the contrary, no person who has not received free and saving grace knows what true repentance is, or what the increase in repentance is, the stronger the new man in Christ grows with and in, the growth: of GOD. For only the man who knows the new man created within himself, knows the increase of his own old old man in wickedness and the power of sin within and identical with: HIMSELF!

 

[Darron Steele]

Hi G. E.: I am going to repeat this with a minor edit.

`Gerhard E.:

I do not know what experience you have had with water baptism that gives you such a hatred for it. With no desire to be mean, but to be honest, I do not care to read it either.

You tell me "present the Scripture where Christ commanded the apostles to baptise in or with water" while you can read through this thread and find them as well as examples.

Ignoring passages of Scripture, twisting other verses in ways that do not make any sense when read within their passages, and going on rants at people like me will not validate what you wish to believe. Factually deficient assertions you have made on other threads have been debunked, and yet your claims persist and your personal rantings continue.

I have time constraints. I do not have time for arguments about speculations about bans that Scripture does not have, or whether or not we should be doing what the Bible tells us to do and examples being done -- especially when the person has decided to believe whatever s/he wants. Right now I am posting to you when I should be doing something else.

Whatever your experience was, may the Lord grant you comfort.'​

 

[JSM17]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darron Steele
First, you want to allege that "believe" "must encompass repentance" and then you want to allege that "faith only" excludes repentance.

You cannot have it both ways. Either faith on Jesus Christ includes repentance or it does not.

Once and for all -- which is it?

Avoiding this question any further will result in me assuming that you are a dishonest person. I have tried to be patient with you, but if you dodge this any further, this will reappear in your future on this board.

It ought not be that hard to simply answer "which is it?" If you cannot do so at this time, please do not be hasty. I would not want you to make a rush decision if you need time. If you need to think about it, I will be happy to give you that time.

No time, my position on faith has always been the same. As I said before what I may or may not have said in the pass I can assure you was the same.
Faith that saves is a faith that leads one to repent.

The question does faith include repentance: yes
As well as other acts of obedience God calls us to obey in faith in order to be saved.

When I say we are not saved by faith alone I think you agree when some declare that faith is the same thing as repentance. For me faith alone means faith all by itself apart from repentance and any other act of obedience towards God.

This is why some have taken the position of repentance before faith or repentance at the exact time of faith. The two sides of one coin idea. Except two sides of one coin is still one coin with two different sides.

Some will hear the word and come to a faith, yet not understand repentance until he develops godly sorrow which is not repentance, but leads to repentance.

Some hear about Jesus and there is no sorrow for the things they have done, this is a type of faith, but unless that faith leads to repentance it will not save.