Baptism prior to the 1520s

[Eric B]

The one body is what we are baptized "into", not what we're baptized "with".

The apostles were baptized "with" the Holy Ghost "by" Jesus.

Many were baptized "with" water "by" John.

So again, if one interprets 1 Cor 12:13 as though the Holy Spirit is doing the baptizing, then he must identify the medium in which the Spirit baptizes us "into" the one body.

You are getting the means mixed up. John baptized people INTO water, so it was WITH water as opposed to WITH the Spirit. Jesus baptizes you WITH the spirit into the body, so it is WITH the Spirit as opposed to with water. Because of the unity of the Godhead, you can also say that it is BY the Spirit --using simply Himself! (No, water is not what the Spirit baptizes with, but nice try!)

No, immersion in water is a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:17). It IS a real baptism totally separate and apart from the baptism of the Holy Spirit, with a completely different purpose, and thus makes TWO baptisms, when Paul said years after Acts 10 that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5).

Are you saying it is only separate IF my view is true, (and is "one" in your view where the water ceremony marks salvation?) If not; then how do you avoid "two baptisms" if they are separate?
"one baptism" goes with "one Lord" and "one faith", and the "one body" and the "unity of" the "one Spirit" (v.3), under "one God, the father of all" (v.6). So it means there is no valid baptism into any other [spiritual] "body". IT is not differentiating between physical and spiritual MODES of baptism; because both concern Christ, the one Lord, and the one body.

Who would you say inspired Peter and the rest of the apostles to preach and teach immersion in water for the remission of sins then?

It would be the Holy Spirit, all right, but that is NOT the "baptism by the Spirit". Being baptized in water is not "baptism by the Spirit" because it is "according to the teaching of the Spirit"; but because it SYMBOLIZED what was taking place spiritually.

Who would you say inspired Peter and the rest of the apostles to preach and teach immersion in water for the remission of sins then?

The baptism Paul spoke of is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12), and "that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Rom 6:17).

Let's compare. When one supposedly receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is he buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit? Be honest! That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it?

Now, when one is baptized in water, is he buried in the water and then raised up out of the water? Why yes, I'd have to say that's how it happens.

It seems quite logical to me that only water baptism fits the description given by the apostle Paul, and performed in several conversion accounts in Acts.

This was answered, in what you next quoted, where I discuss the "old man" dying and being reborn on conversion (which is when he is baptized spiritually into the body).

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I am espousing salvation by "baptism only". That would be as false as preaching salvation by "faith only".

I've stated several times that faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism. And whether you see baptism as merely a "water ceremony" or not, it's still commanded by God in order to obtain the remission of sins.

And in the same response, I made an allowance that it was not only baptism, but "the water AND something else ("faith", sincerity, genuine conversion of the heart, etc)". Still, as I concluded, "then it is ultimately not the water ceremony that is saving, but rather those spiritual things!" As you have shown, God has allowed for people to be saved without baptism, but He has not allowed for people to be saved without faith. So you cannot make them equal.

QUOTE]You all are getting closer to the truth now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's what we've been saying all along. How is it we're getting closer?

Your examples of how God used physical means to accompany, initiate and/or represent or symbolize spiritual truths is close to the truth. But what you miss, is that that was the OC, hence; what I said about the physical preceding the spiritual (which you turned around:

You make my point for me. The symbolic, or physical (baptism in water) precedes, or comes before the real, or spiritual (washing of sins, salvation). I couldn't have said it better myself.

I was talking about typology, and the transition between covenants. If baptism actually preceded the washing of sins, then you are suggesting it was the cause of it; which you are elsewhere tying to deny. But it was either simultaneous, or the baptism was carried on later (whenever possible).

Didn't you just say their sins were already washed away ("converted on the spot")? Who would even believe if they didn't see their need of having their sins washed away?

The conversion on the spot was marked by the baptism on the spot. The baptism was just an act of obedience that made a testimony of acceptance of Christ. So refusing would amount to a public rejection of Christ. Since no one can see what has gone on in the heart, baptism to the outside world would be the moment of conversion, even though there may have been some time inbetween their actual acceptance and the ceremony. But by today things have changed, and baptism almost never occurs that quickly. But we cannot say their sins are not washed away until they are. (Hence Michael's question, above).

That's the root of the problem of denominationalism. The introduction of things not authorized by Scripture. There is no "Christendom" in the Bible. Only the church.

and the Church of Christ and all other Campbellistic groups are apart of this "denominationalism", even though they speak against it. Frank says he baptizes on the spot, but I don't think they all do. Especially since they believe they are the only true group, and they differ from orthodoxy in this and other areas. Don't they have to initiate people into their Church before they are baptized? Even for Frank, Michael's question still stands. What if there is no water available for the time being?

 

[Eric B]

As has been covered elsewhere (and maybve on this thread, too), the fact is that Jesus lived and died under the Old Testament. The New Testament is the one in His blood, and is binding until the end of time.

Here's the deal. While Jesus was alive (before the crucifixion, I mean), He was free to distribute His posessions to anyone He chose, under any conditions that He chose.

Take the rich young ruler from Mark 10:17-ff for example. He was told to sell what he had and give to the poor, and to follow Jesus in order to have eternal life.

In contrast, the thief on the cross did nothing more than ask Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom, and he was promised paradise.

Blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52) received his sight at the word of Christ, but the man born blind in John 9:1-ff got clay made of Jesus' spit and dirt put on his eyes, and then had to go wash in the pool of Siloam before he received his sight. Why the difference?

It was His stuff to give as He pleased before His death.

It's the same way with the Holy Spirit. Before His death, Jesus could tell people to pray to the Father to send Him, or suggest to the woman at the well to ask Him for Him.

But after the cross, Jesus last will and Testament went into effect. Now the Spirit is given only according to the New Testament, which requires faith, repentance, and baptism, and supercedes the Old.

That is quite a stretching of the principles. We are not talking about random gifts, but rather salvation. That was always by faith, and physical commandments may have been involved in the OC, still, the NT shows that noone can do works good enough to please God. So while the works may still be expected of us, it is not them that save, but the faith.

Have you ever noticed that Paul, having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, still understood that he needed to do something? How about the fact that even Jesus Christ Himself didn't tell Paul what to do, but sent him to wait for a man to tell him.

That phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord" is an interesting one. Paul was not the only one told to do such a thing.

In the first gospel sermon on Pentecost of Acts 2, Peter told the crowd, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).

Then down in 2:37, those who were pricked in their heart said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" These people had believed Peter's message, and it was this faith in his message of the risen Christ that prompted their question, which was, by implication, "What shall we do to call on the name of the Lord?"

What did Peter tell them? "I just told you back in verse 21, ya morons! Call on the name of the Lord! What is ya, ignint? Start hollerin' Lord, Lord!"

Of course not!

We all know (whether we like it or not) that Peter told them to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In obeying Peter's command, they were calling on the name of the Lord.


So Paul tells us that to call upon the name of the Lord is to obey the gospel. What could that mean?

And that is another great stretch. You cannot just mash together those events. Others have explained it already. We call on the Lord and are saved by faith. Then, we are to obey God's commandments. So they called on the Lord; now they were saved. Now they had to start acting like they were saved, or (the passage always misread by Campbellists) "work OUT your salvation" (Phil.2:2). You already have it, now live up to it. It is not the living that gains it for you; but as Paul says "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know all of you not, that to whom all of you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants all of you are to whom all of you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Rom.6:15)
So you cannot now make the baptism the actual act of "calling on the name of the Lord". Calling is calling; being baptized is being baptized! another nice try, though.

Also, in Rom 10:16, we read, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel..."

This follows hot on the heels of Rom 10:13, "For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Not quite "hot on the heels" enough! Look what is what is inbetween those two verses: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" So he is NOT saying that THE SAME people have "called on the name of the Lord", but "did not obey the gospel", so were therefore not saved. They have to HEAR also, and some have heard but did not call on the Lord or obey. One is the evidence of the other, as I have been saying, but that does not make one EQUAL the other. Yet another nice try, though.

 

[steaver]

Excellent teaching DHK!

Bemerr's exposition of Ephesians 2:8-9 just doesn't coinside with the full counsel of God's Word.

Bemerr. It flat out states "not of works"! But you said above..."That means repentance (and you are refering to requirements for salvation) is a work. Doesn't bother me, though, since it is a work commanded by God (Acts 17:30).

Who am I to believe bemerr? God, through Paul, says salvation is "not of works". You say salvation "is of works". God would not of had Paul make it so clear if He wanted the teaching of works added to salvation.

It is obvious and absolute that salvation is not of works, not of yourselves, and that anything to do with works can only be attributed to sanctification and fruits of the person who has already been saved through faith. Your doctrine of baptism fails to be supported by Scripture. It absolutely cannot coexist with Ephesians 2:8-9 no matter how hard you try to make it work.

You say your not above learning. Well friend, even the simplist of minds can read Ephesians 2:8-9 and conclude that " by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast "...I just couldn't say it any clearer and niether could Paul.

Bemerr, isn't your preaching of being baptized in water for salvation a "boast"? Shouldn't you humbly tell others that you have done nothing of any merit to receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ alone? If you tell them you were saved because of anything you did, that is a boast and is why God was determined to make salvation all Jesus Christ and nothing from man. The bible teaches works AFTER grace and not as any means to obtain grace.

Directly after Paul's clear message of grace alone he states... " For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works "(10)

Grace, then works, after the rebirth. It is plain and to the point!

God Bless!

 

[Eric B]

Baptism is not a work. Baptism is always presented in the passive voice, "be baptized".

Believe is something one must do.

Repent is something one must do.

Confess is something one must do.

Baptism is something one must have done to them.

Faith purifies the heart. Repentance purifies the life. Baptism purifies the soul.

Sorry, that doesn't fly either. Circumcision was something you had done to you, but that would certainly be considered a "work of the Law". YOU still had to get up and GO to have it done. That is the "work" aspect of it.
And your very own prime proof text defines baptism as "the answer of a good conscience toward God". No "cleansing of the soul" there; that was already accomplished (by the faith, and the initial mental act of repentance), and the baptism is the public answer of it, just like we are saying!

 

[steaver]

Good stuff as well Eric B!

God Bless!

 

[Frank]

Eric:

I have never had the problem of not having water in which to baptize someone. The Eunoch found water in the desert. Acts 8. People who do not confess, repent, or believe have the same problem with those who are not baptized. Jesus required them all. John 8:24, Luke 13;3. Mat. 10:32, Mark 16:16. What happens to those who have never heard the gospel because of the primitive and remote land in which they live? Do they get a free pass from the commands of God? Are they saved? If so, how do you know?

We do not initiate anyone. We teach the gospel of Christ. It is the one and only standard used in getting into the family of God. Romans 1:16,Gal. 3:26-29.

We do not use instrumental music. Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19, Hebs. 2:12, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Acts 16: 25,26, Mat. 26:30. The new testament of Christ does not authorize it. Again, the standard is the new testament of Christ, not the synods, conventions, or magisteriums of man. Instrumental music in worship was an invention of the RCC in approximately 605 A.D.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:

We do not use instrumental music. Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19, Hebs. 2:12, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Acts 16: 25,26, Mat. 26:30. The new testament of Christ does not authorize it.

The New Testament doesn't authorize using a car either. In fact it doesn't authorize the use of an internet which you are presently using. Shame!
DHK

 

[Frank]

Dhk:
The internet and cars have nothing to do with new testament worship. There is a difference! Nice joke!!

 

[mman]

I've followed this topic with some interest, enough so, to register so I could post.

With that said, salvation is not earned, it is a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9). I sure would hate to know that I had to earn my eternal salvation. I could not possibly do enough good works to earn salvation, even for a single moment in Heaven. Water does not wash away my sins, only the blood of Christ can do that (Matt 26:28, Eph 1:7, Heb 9:22). In fact, water can no more wash away my sins than can it cure leprosy. If the water that Naaman dipped in could cure leprosy, then every lepor in the land would have dipped in it.

I am a child of God by faith (Gal 3:26). There is no question about that. Where does faith come from? The word of God (Rom 10:17).

How can it be said that Noah prepared an ark by faith for the saving of his household (Heb 11:7)? First, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:8). What did that grace do? Provided him instructions (Gen 6:13-21). What does God's grace do today? Provides instructions (Titus 2:11-12). God did not owe us anything, but because of His grace, he has provided instructions for ALL men. If Noah had built the ark of oak, it would not have been by faith, because faith comes from God and God said to build it out of gopherwood (Gen 6:14). God didn't say not to build it out of oak and gopherwood or that he couldn't use cedar, or ash. If Noah had strayed from God's commands, he wouldn't have built the ark by faith.

Gen 6:22 tells us that Noah did all that God commanded him. What does the bible call that? In Heb 11:7, it calls it faith. Biblical faith is doing what God has said, not just believing God. Noah did not sit on a rock and wait for God to build the ark. No, he did ALL that God commanded him and that, is biblical faith.

So, Noah recieved instructions by the grace of God and by faith prepared an ark for the saving of his household. Do you see how by grace he was saved though faith?

Yet 1 Pet 3:20 says that Noah was saved by water. How can this be? Is there a confict? Certainly not. God used water in the saving of Noah and his household. Did Noah earn this saving? No, of course not.

I Pet 3:21 says something saves us. Regardless of what that is, it says something saves us. What is it? You see how the saving of Noah is similar to our salvation? God has provided instructions by His grace and we do all that God has commanded us (Faith).

That is how Paul can say what he did in Gal 3:26-27 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

You cannot show from the scriptures how to get INTO Christ, where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3), without baptism.

Do you preach or tell others about Jesus? Then you preach or tell them about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). If that is not included, then you are preaching or teaching something different than Phillip.

Truth always lies in parallel, never contradicting itself. Jesus said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Words so simple a third grader can understand them. So easy, a person would have to have help to misunderstand that passage. That is in complete harmony with Acts 2:38, Eph 2:8-9 that states that we are saved by grace through faith, Gal 3:26-27 that says we are childern by faith because we have been baptized, I Pet 3:21, Rom 6, Rom 10:10 and with every other scripture. To learn about baptism, study the verses that deal with baptism, not the passages that do not explicitly state baptism. Wow, the mental gymnastics required to explain away Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:35-39, Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 4:5, Col 2:12 and I Pet 3:21 is of olympic caliber.

I do not expect everyone to believe this. I would not be surprised at some derrogitory comments, that's fine. Go back and re-read and study what I've said. Are you seeking truth or trying to win an argument? I humbly am seeking truth.

 

[DHK]

I will reiterate what I have said before. Paul clearly defines what the gospel is:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

In verse one Paul says this is the gospel which I declare unto you.
In verse two Paul says, it is by this gospel that you are saved.
In verses three and four he defines what the gospel is--the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures. Nowhere does this gospel include baptism.
In fact Paul clearly states that baptism is not important. In his missionary journeys Paul did not baptize, or did it very little, as is indicated by the first chapter of this epistle:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

It is evident from this verse that baptism has nothing to do with the gospel that saves. Paul did not baptize, but rather preached the gospel--the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is that message that saves, and that message alone. Then he emphasized that any other "gospel" or message that was preached was a false gospel, and the consequences of preaching such were severe.

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul was serious. If your gospel contains works; if it contains baptism; then you are accursed of God. This is not my message. I am but the messenger of God. This is what God's Word says.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
Dhk:
The internet and cars have nothing to do with new testament worship. There is a difference! Nice joke!!

Contrary Frank. Your argument is one from silence, and therefore cannot be made. The New Testament is silent about instruments just as it is about cars and the internet. The Catholics argue from silence that there were infants in the household of the Philippian jailor, and thus justify infant baptism. Your argument falls into the same category. You cannot justify a doctrine from an argument of silence.
DHK

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frank:
Dhk:
The internet and cars have nothing to do with new testament worship. There is a difference! Nice joke!!

Contrary Frank. Your argument is one from silence, and therefore cannot be made. The New Testament is silent about instruments just as it is about cars and the internet. The Catholics argue from silence that there were infants in the household of the Philippian jailor, and thus justify infant baptism. Your argument falls into the same category. You cannot justify a doctrine from an argument of silence.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You cannot use instrumental music in faith because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). God did not tell Noah NOT to use oak or hickory, but told him what to use. God has not told us not to use instruments, but he has told us what type of music to use, and that is singing. For us to add musical instruments would be as presumptous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.

I wonder what Nadab and Abihu would say on using something God had not commanded? Do you think they would say it is important? (Lev 10:1-2).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
You cannot use instrumental music in faith because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). God did not tell Noah NOT to use oak or hickory, but told him what to use. God has not told us not to use instruments, but he has told us what type of music to use, and that is singing. For us to add musical instruments would be as presumptous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.

I wonder what Nadab and Abihu would say on using something God had not commanded? Do you think they would say it is important? (Lev 10:1-2).

You are as legalistic as a Pharisee. Early believers did not meet in church buildings until 250 A.D. God has not told us to meet in church buildings. To meet in church buildings would be as presumptuous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.
Your argument is ridiculous and illogical.
What kind of church building do you meet in?
DHK

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB] I will reiterate what I have said before. Paul clearly defines what the gospel is:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

--------------------------------------------
II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.

Can you explain another way to obey the gospel?

The Corinthian church was divided. That's why Paul was glad that he had not baptized more than he did, because it is wrong to follow after men. It's wrong to have division (denominations teaching different things). Paul did in fact baptize some of the Corinthians. If the gospel did not contain baptism, why then did he baptize some of them(I Cor 1:14)?

Would someone use the scriptures to show me how to obey the gospel, other than what I have described?

Would someone use the scriptures and show me how to get INTO Christ in any method other than baptism? Surely nobody here believes that you can be saved OUTSIDE of Christ???

The simple fact is that Philip preached Jesus and the next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth was a question about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). The gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philips' preaching of the gospel included water baptism and the Eunuch obeyed the gospel (as described in Rom 6:3-4) and we are not to preach any other gospel (Gal 1:8). So, if you are preaching another gospel that does not include baptism, you are preaching a different gospel than Philip.

 

[mman]

[/QB][/QUOTE]You are as legalistic as a Pharisee. Early believers did not meet in church buildings until 250 A.D. God has not told us to meet in church buildings. To meet in church buildings would be as presumptuous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.
Your argument is ridiculous and illogical.
What kind of church building do you meet in?
DHK [/qb][/QUOTE]
-------------------------------------
If following God's word makes me legalistic as a Pharisee, so be it.

The command is to meet (Heb 10:25). How we fulfil that command is at our discretion, since God did not specify. It is never persumptous to obey a command, only to change or add to a command.

The authorized music is singing. How we accomplish that is left to our discretion (song books, song leader, etc.) as long as we don't add to or change the authorized music (singing).

 

[DHK]

II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.

Can you explain another way to obey the gospel?

Yes, I have explained it before. If you have been reading this thread, you would have read the words of Jesus himself:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

1 John 5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

None of these Scriptures speak about baptism. They all speak of faith or belief. Your cultish heretical belief is what the Bible defines as damnable heresy.

The Bible says to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It does not say to be baptize and thou shalt be saved. You preach a heretical "message" for which Paul said one will be accursed.
DHK

 

[DHK]

If following God's word makes me legalistic as a Pharisee, so be it.

The command is to meet (Heb 10:25). How we fulfil that command is at our discretion, since God did not specify. It is never persumptous to obey a command, only to change or add to a command.

The authorized music is singing. How we accomplish that is left to our discretion (song books, song leader, etc.) as long as we don't add to or change the authorized music (singing).

You are being hypocritical.
There is no authorization in the New Testamennt to use hymn books, as there is no authorization in the New Testament (according to you) for instruments. You allow the one, and not the other. That is pure hypocrisy.

This is what Jesus said about such things.
Matthew 23:24-25 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
DHK

 

[Eric B]

You cannot use instrumental music in faith because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). God did not tell Noah NOT to use oak or hickory, but told him what to use. God has not told us not to use instruments, but he has told us what type of music to use, and that is singing. For us to add musical instruments would be as presumptous as it would have been for Noah to use gopherwood and pine.

I wonder what Nadab and Abihu would say on using something God had not commanded? Do you think they would say it is important? (Lev 10:1-2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those examples do not match. Here's why:
Singing, while a specific act, is not contrary to instruments, any more than it is contrary to reciting the words from a hymnal, projection, or anything else.
The so-called "strange fire" was connected with the incense, commanded in Exodus 30. God had commanded that the censer was to be filled with "sweet" incense (v.7), so any other type of incense would have been the "Strange incense" (v.9) that would have made up "strange fire". So there is your "explicit command" in that instance.
You have to check the contexts of passages like these, not run off with speculation about some unwritten detail that was not mentioned, but still enforced and try to build some universal "principle" on it from a "silence" that is not even real!
So it's not even really "silence"! God gave an explicit command, and an incense that is not sweet, or touching something, for instance, is not some possible alternative that God is simply "silent" on. He explicitly commanded the opposite! Nowhere is anyone punished like that for doing something that does not contradict God's explicit specification. Also, God's specifying of one wood to Noah excluded all others, such as oak or hickory. Likewise, in other examples "restrictive principle" advocates frequently use; Uzzah was struck for touching the holy object (Num.4:15), rather than how they carried or even steadied it! No "silence" there. With Moses and the rock, speaking is contrary to hitting.
They were not punished for carrying the ark over one path instead of another, or using one type of incense that is sweet over another that is sweet, or which words to speak to the rock.

mman, your definition of a "gift" of God by "grace" is basically instructions on works to do to save (justify) one's self. Problem is; Israel already had the whole set of God's Laws. Why didn't it save them, then? Was it simply because God gave them the wrong laws? You Campbellists take the same works-righteousness, and simply change the sabbath to Sunday, and abolish instruments (along with other things associated with the Temple). But otherwise, you are only continuing the mindset of OT Israel.
Or, is it that man could not keep God's laws well enough ever to be able to please God? That is what the entire message of the NT is. Else, where do you draw the line? OK, you are baptized, but what about the millions of other things you do wrong? One must bring God's standards down, and say He overlooks those things, or perhaps particular commands like baptism and "the true Church" makes up for those sins. That is exactly the way Israel thought.
God still has commandments he wants us to keep, but the focus has now shifted from laws to faith, and we cannot trust in ANY of those works to be what actually saves us, though we are to strive to keep them. So yes, people should be baptized in obedience to the NT. But we cannot say one is not saved until it actually occurs.
Now to Frank:

I have never had the problem of not having water in which to baptize someone. The Eunoch found water in the desert.

Still, Michael's question stands. Is he lost if he dies before he gets there, and if not, why?

People who do not confess, repent, or believe have the same problem with those who are not baptized. Jesus required them all. John 8:24, Luke 13;3. Mat. 10:32, Mark 16:16.

That is because baptism was the public sign of testimony to acceptance of Christ. Still, would people be lost if they couldn't get baptized for some reason?

What happens to those who have never heard the gospel because of the primitive and remote land in which they live? Do they get a free pass from the commands of God? Are they saved? If so, how do you know?

Most of us would say those people would still be held accountable for their sins, which human conscience is aware of even without the Gospel. But what does this have to do with it? We are talking about people who have heard and responded to the gospel, but simply did not yet go through a physical rite.

We do not initiate anyone. We teach the gospel of Christ. It is the one and only standard used in getting into the family of God. Romans 1:16,Gal. 3:26-29.

We do not use instrumental music. Col. 3;16, Eph. 5:19, Hebs. 2:12, I Cor. 14:15, Romans 15:9, Acts 16: 25,26, Mat. 26:30.

So you meet with someone, share Christ with him, he accepts, but then you have to teach him the rest of your church's doctrines (instruments, the true NT Church from the 1st century, and how all the denominations are false, etc) which to you are "the gospel of Christ"? You convince him of all that stuff that same day, and then find somewhere to get him baptized?

The new testament of Christ does not authorize it. Again, the standard is the new testament of Christ, not the synods, conventions, or magisteriums of man. Instrumental music in worship was an invention of the RCC in approximately 605 A.D.

I don't even see what this has to do with it. Unless that is what you are going around and preaching to people first, as if it were the "gospel" all by itself.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />II Thes 1:8 states that God will take vengence on those that do not "obey the gospel". How does one OBEY the gospel? How does one obey the death, burial and resurrection (Gospel)? Paul answers that clearly in Rom 6:3-4.

Can you explain another way to obey the gospel?

Yes, I have explained it before. If you have been reading this thread, you would have read the words of Jesus himself:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

1 John 5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

None of these Scriptures speak about baptism. They all speak of faith or belief. Your cultish heretical belief is what the Bible defines as damnable heresy.

The Bible says to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It does not say to be baptize and thou shalt be saved. You preach a heretical "message" for which Paul said one will be accursed.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]It's obvious to me that you do not think confession is required. It's obvious you do not think repentance is required either since these verses do not mention them either.

You did not show how one "obeys the gospel". You did not show how one obeys the death, burial and resurrection.

It is true the verse you quoted do not include the word baptism. I believe and accept every one of them. They are all in perfect harmony with Mark 16:16 which does say that he that believeth and is baptized will be saved. I Pet 3:21 tells us baptism saves us. These verses still are in the bible whether or not you like it or believe them.

I have shown a logical explaination of how one obeys the gospel, yet you cannot do that because it will include baptism.

If you think unsupported disparring remarks strengthens your position, it doesn't.

Show me through the scriptures how one obeys the gospel.

Show me through the scriptures how one gets INTO Christ.

Thank you.

 

[mman]

Wow, sterotypes abound on this board. At the top of this web page it has a quotation of scripture, "The Truth shall set you Free". We all know God's word is truth.

One cannot have faith or truth based upon what God did not say.

God's word says for us to sing (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16). That excludes all other music. If song books are used, there is still just one type of music. If a piano is used, there are two types of music, one authorized the other of human introduction. Is that enough to lose you soul over? I'm not going to take that chance. God said the type of music is singing, so that is all I can do in faith.

God's word says he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned (Mk 16:16). It tells us what to do to be saved and what to do to be condemned.

Put what ever label you desire on me, if it makes you feel better or if you think that somehow strengthens your position or gives you more credibility. Are you seeking truth? If so, you will find it. If not, you never will.