Baptism--Why?

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:

The Bible seems pretty clear on the idea that an obedient faith is the faith that justifies man before God, for obedience to God is the manifestation of one's faith in God.

What the Bible says:

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Bmerr's version (imaginary)
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by obedient faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

But adding to the Bible makes the Bible of none effect. That is what Jesus taught.
It becomes your COC Tradition, which Jesus condemned.
DHK

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Lloyd, If I dissect a circle with a line, then I end up with two semi-circles, which only make a complete circle if they're brought together. One half does not make a whole.

Sigh. The set (Venn Diagrams) didn't go so well if you can make that statement.

Salvation in truth is both parts. But faith in Christ is the switch that puts/makes/creates both of them at once. For you, as a process of works theologian, salvation is not complete until the sanctification half is good enough to please God. You desperately work to satisfy both halves not willing to fully trust in Christ.

For me, God is pleased with faith in Christ so that final justification is awarded. God seals the believers, translates them to heaven, and personally indwells them. Sanctification is also pleasing in any degree because what we lack, Christ as the faithful covenantal SURETY makes up what is lacking. Faith in Christ generates both halves at the same time - complete, total, sufficient, and permanent.

From God's point of view, we are totally perfect and as righteous as is Christ (2 Cor 5:21). We've been declared righteous (justified), set apart unto God (historic sanctification) through adoption.

From the human point of view, we are still a work in process. Our faithlessness will diminish our rewards; our faithfulness will increase our rewards (1 Cor 3:11-15).

You put humans on par with Christ. I depend wholly upon Christ.

God didn't tell Abraham "...for now I know that thou fearest God..." until He was able to say, "...seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen 22:12).

Yes! But this comes after his justification in Gen 15 by faith. In Romans 4, Paul describes Abraham's faith as sufficient for justification apart from sacrifices or sacraments. For Paul, Abraham was justifed when he believed God without works (Rom 4:5-6). The promise comes by the righteousness of faith (4:13). In Galatians 3:2,5 Paul describes it as "the hearing of faith." This is no action.

Did you not also read my 100% survey of justification? Every verse in the Bible that speaks of justification in the active voice refers to God's activity alone. Every verse in the Bible that speaks of justification with respect to humans is in the PASSIVE voice.

Faith is not associated with obedience with respect to justification. Faith produces the obedience of sanctification. You make faith the measure of salvation. I make faith the instruement of salvation. Big difference.

When you confuse justification with sanctification, you commit a grave error.
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:

What does it take to be saved?

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:

What does it take to be condemned?

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

but he that believeth not is condemned already, John 3:18 </font>[/QUOTE]Is that all God said about this subject? Does this verse negate all others that deal with this subject?

Also, a closer inspection of John 3:36 reveals he used two distinct Greek words, which are both translated as believe in the KJV.

Let's look at some other literal translations;

(NAS) "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

(ESV)Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

(RSV)He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

It is easy to fall into the negative fallacy trap with Mark 16. For instance let's add another something for emphasis. Believe + baptize + brushing teeth to be saved. I guarantee that if everyone believes, gets baptized and brushes their teeth, then they will be saved. Are you getting the picture.

Brushing teeth isn't needed for justification but fits within the general care of the body as part of sanctification. One can get justified even without brushing teeth. The negative fallacy error says that failure to brush ones teeth is the equivalent of not being saved.

The same fallacy holds for Mark 16 with respect to baptism. It is part of sanctification - not justification.

Anything that is associated with sanctification is part of salvation but not justification. If one cannot keep the simple terms straight, then big error happens at once.

Faith (justification) alone saves a person and fixes ones destiny with Jesus in heaven. Obedience (sanctification) adds rewards to the certain destiny. Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Why is this so hard?
Lloyd

Wow, look at the mental gymnastics. It's not hard. Just read and understand it for what it says. You obviously don't like the logical conclusion of Mark 16:16, therefore, you try to change it's meaning.

So, basically you are saying that Jesus didn't really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

He really meant to say, "He that believeth is saved and shall be baptized and brush his teeth."?

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Again, Mark 16 shows the total picture, not just the requirements for justification.

Belief belongs to justification.
baptism belongs to sanctification.

Even the second part of verse 16 shows how you fall into the negative fallacy error.

"he that believeth not shall be damned."

If baptism were required for justification, the only correct understanding of damnation would be the negative of both.

But since Mark only denies the first, the second is not a requirement for justification - just like brushing your teeth.

Really! You need to understand the second half of the verse upon which you build your human-centered system. It is not proper Bible methods to pick and choose just the half of a verse that is conducive to your denominational dogma.

Justification + sanctification is salvation.
Justification is a proper subset of salvation.
Sanctification has no part of justification.
How hard can this be?

Context - again - and again - ever only!
Lloyd

 

[Frank]

Lloyd:
The context of the passages posted is justification and sanctification. The bible says so in the verses posted. The context links these to our baptism into Christ being washed in his blood. Again, the bible says so in the verses posted. Furthermore, ALL men are justified and begin sanctification the same way. The bible says so in Romans 1;16,Gal. 3:26,27. Paul stated that Gentiles were made nigh by the blood of Christ.cf. Eph. 2,3. One must logically conclude ALL men are justifed and begin sanctification by the same method, as the blood of Christ and baptism are linked together in the bible. You would do well to learn and apply the terms remote context, and the law of rationality. This would prevent you from making erroneous conclusions. As Jeremiah would say, your doctrine is a broken cistern that holds no water. No pun intended.

Furthermore, the baptism of Gal. 3 is not Spirit baptism. Spirit baptism happened twice. Acts 2,10. You believe it happens everyday as men are saved. The bible teaches it is the WORD that saves , not the Spirit. James 1;18,21. The Spirit uses the WORD to save. Eph. 6:17, Hebrews 4:10-12. Faith comes from the WORD , not the Spirit. Romans 10:17. There is not one example of conversion where one is saved by spirit baptism.

 

[ascund]

Greetings Frank

You really can't mean this post. Just think of the glaring contradictions you thrust upon yourself.

Originally posted by Frank:
The context of the passages posted is justification and sanctification.

This is what I have been trying to get you to see for quite some time now. Just when it appears that you understand what you say, you say . . .

Originally posted by Frank:
Furthermore, ALL men are justified and begin sanctification the same way.

Yes! This too I've been trying to teach you. Petera appeals to Noah as an example of how water baptism comes AFTER being declared just and perfect. Paul appeals to Abraham as the father of all who believe in Jesus without sacrament or sacrifice. Jesus appeals to the murmuring Israelites are a great example: Look and live!

Originally posted by Frank:
The bible says so in Romans 1;16,Gal. 3:26,27. Paul stated that Gentiles were made nigh by the blood of Christ.cf. Eph. 2,3. One must logically conclude ALL men are justifed and begin sanctification by the same method, as the blood of Christ and baptism are linked together in the bible.

Here, you botch the context. These verses talk about Jesus - alone. There is no human activity in focus here. Jesus is being presented as the WAY of eternal life - alone. Your so-called logical conclusion can only come from these verses by way of denominational rhetoric. We must use the biblical data showing exactly how one is both immersed into Christ and immersed into water. There are relatively few of these examples. but all the examples show the temporal sequence of Spirit baptism leading to justification followed by the optional water baptism of sanctification.

Finally, this guffaw.

Originally posted by Frank:
Spirit baptism happened twice. Acts 2,10.

While you botched the context of Acts 10, this exactly shows that Acts 2 is not a normative principle for the Church today.

Why would you so willingly embrace my theology against yourself so many times in the same post?
No wonder you go in circles!
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by ascund:
Sigh. The set (Venn Diagrams) didn't go so well if you can make that statement.

Lloyd,

bmerr here. You know, I had a feeling that "sigh" might be a part of your reply. Ain't I the hard-headed one! As for the Venn Diagrams, I haven't a clue what they are. Like I said, I have no formal education, either secular, or religious. You might find yourself talking over my head at times.

Salvation in truth is both parts. But faith in Christ is the switch that puts/makes/creates both of them at once.

Okay. I'm going to try this bit by bit. It is my faith in Christ that puts/makes/creates both justification and sanctification at the same time, correct?

If it is my faith that does this, what kind of faith is it that I must have for this to occur? To my knowledge, I can choose between a faith without works of any kind, which the Bible says is dead and cannot save (James 2:14, 17), or I can choose a faith that manifests itself in obedience to God's commands, which is the kind that the Bible says justifies us (james 2:21-24).

Do you know of any other kinds of faith that I might have by which I might be justified? Lloyd, if you can show me what kind of faith one is supposed to have in order to be justified before God, you will have gone a long way to answering the opening question of the "faith only" thread.

For you, as a process of works theologian, salvation is not complete until the sanctification half is good enough to please God. You desperately work to satisfy both halves not willing to fully trust in Christ.

Now this is what I was talking about when I said you ought not be so sure you know what everyone believes. Your understanding of my belief is at least poorly worded, if not completely innaccurate.

I have no illusions about my being able to be "good enough" for God to let me into heaven. That's just not going to happen. Christ has made redemption available to all who will trust Him enough to obey Him (Heb 5:8, 9).

For someone to say they believe in Christ, and understand their need for forgiveness, and then refuse to obey His commands is, well I can't word it any better than Scripture does, "Can faith save him?" The obvious answer is, "NO!"

Even Jesus asked, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?" (Luke 6:46)

This is what I find so confusing about your beliefs. The idea that God will justify you simply because you are convinced of the facts of Jesus. I know you call it "trusting Christ", but how is that "trust" worth anything if nothing changes but your mind?

Well, I've been called away for a while. Talk to you later.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

Again, Mark 16 shows the total picture, not just the requirements for justification.

Belief belongs to justification.
baptism belongs to sanctification.

Even the second part of verse 16 shows how you fall into the negative fallacy error.

"he that believeth not shall be damned."

If baptism were required for justification, the only correct understanding of damnation would be the negative of both.

But since Mark only denies the first, the second is not a requirement for justification - just like brushing your teeth.

Really! You need to understand the second half of the verse upon which you build your human-centered system. It is not proper Bible methods to pick and choose just the half of a verse that is conducive to your denominational dogma.

Justification + sanctification is salvation.
Justification is a proper subset of salvation.
Sanctification has no part of justification.
How hard can this be?

Context - again - and again - ever only!
Lloyd

The second half of the verse does not negate the first half.

I fully understand the second part of the verse, and your futility in trying to explain away the first part of the verse.

This is probably the weakest argument possible to try and explain away the clear teaching of Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Let's say your building is on fire, you are on the second floor, there are no windows to escape from and your only method of escape is the stairs. From a loud speaker you hear, "He that goes down the stairs and leaves the building will be saved, but he that does not go down the stairs will be killed.”

What is necessary to save your life, just going down the stairs, or going down the stairs and going outside. You cannot go outside, if you don't go down the stairs. There is no need to say, "but he that does not go down the stairs and leaves the building will be killed." since you can't go outside if you don't go down the stairs.

What good is baptism without faith. Biblical baptism is an act of faith (Gal 3:26-27). Baptism without faith??? Most people would call that swimming. It is certainly not biblical baptism. The only reason one would be baptized is because God said to, or in other words, by faith. If done for the wrong reason, it is useless and must be done again for the right reasons (Acts 19:1-6).

The word AND ties baptism together with belief. In order for the statement, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” to be fulfilled, baptism must happen. It does not state, “He who believes will be saved.” Nor does it say, “He who is baptized will be saved”. It says, “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.”

Even a third grader can understand this verse, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he who believeth not shall be condemned." - It does take help to misunderstand this verse.

 

[ascund]

Hi

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy where the premise is part of the conclusion. Really, can't you find a better illustration?

Originally posted by mman:
The second half of the verse does not negate the first half.

Let's say your building is on fire, you are on the second floor, there are no windows to escape from and your only method of escape is the stairs. From a loud speaker you hear, "He that goes down the stairs and leaves the building will be saved, but he that does not go down the stairs will be killed.”

Leaving the building is the equivalent of escaping the fire. Wake up!

Then you asked the wrong question and asked it without the appropriate discriminator.

Originally posted by mman:
What good is baptism without faith?

First, which baptism is it that you refer to? If it is the Spirit's baptism, then this never happens without faith. Water baptism is performed lots of times without faith.

The right question is as follows: "What good is water baptism with faith? Water baptism by itself is nothing. But when it follows the faith of justification, it is a pleasing act to God and counts for sanctification and rewards.

Water baptism without faith is blatantly worthless.

Then you go about missing Jesus' teaching. YOu are only able to parrot your denominational creed. You said:

Originally posted by mman:
The only reason one would be baptized is because God said to, or in other words, by faith.

Well - yes. But it is a half truth. The full truth would be that it announces the beginning of the new life in Christ - just like Jesus' baptism. Not for justification - but for an identification of God's child in a public announcement. Anything else is heresy.

Then you go showing blindness to salvation. You said:

Originally posted by mman:
The word AND ties baptism together with belief.

You miss that justification by faith enables sanctified baptism. While sanctification is important; justification is primal. One is justified by faith. One is never justified by sanctification. That this one verse seems to say so should awaken you to the pitfalls of ignoring key terms and the negative fallacy into which you plunge headfirst.

Originally posted by mman:
Even a third grader can understand this verse, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he who believeth not shall be condemned." - It does take help to misunderstand this verse.

well. at least you got this part right.
Justification (faith) + sanctification (baptism) = salvation. My 9 year old grandson understands this perfectly.

Why would you try to twist this into faith + baptism = justification. Not one verse in scripture says such a thing. Not even Mark 16.

Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hi

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy where the premise is part of the conclusion. Really, can't you find a better illustration?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
The second half of the verse does not negate the first half.

Let's say your building is on fire, you are on the second floor, there are no windows to escape from and your only method of escape is the stairs. From a loud speaker you hear, "He that goes down the stairs and leaves the building will be saved, but he that does not go down the stairs will be killed.”

Leaving the building is the equivalent of escaping the fire. Wake up!

Then you asked the wrong question and asked it without the appropriate discriminator.

Originally posted by mman:
What good is baptism without faith?

First, which baptism is it that you refer to? If it is the Spirit's baptism, then this never happens without faith. Water baptism is performed lots of times without faith.

The right question is as follows: "What good is water baptism with faith? Water baptism by itself is nothing. But when it follows the faith of justification, it is a pleasing act to God and counts for sanctification and rewards.

Water baptism without faith is blatantly worthless.

Then you go about missing Jesus' teaching. YOu are only able to parrot your denominational creed. You said:

Originally posted by mman:
The only reason one would be baptized is because God said to, or in other words, by faith.

Well - yes. But it is a half truth. The full truth would be that it announces the beginning of the new life in Christ - just like Jesus' baptism. Not for justification - but for an identification of God's child in a public announcement. Anything else is heresy.

Then you go showing blindness to salvation. You said:

Originally posted by mman:
The word AND ties baptism together with belief.

You miss that justification by faith enables sanctified baptism. While sanctification is important; justification is primal. One is justified by faith. One is never justified by sanctification. That this one verse seems to say so should awaken you to the pitfalls of ignoring key terms and the negative fallacy into which you plunge headfirst.

Originally posted by mman:
Even a third grader can understand this verse, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he who believeth not shall be condemned." - It does take help to misunderstand this verse.

well. at least you got this part right.
Justification (faith) + sanctification (baptism) = salvation. My 9 year old grandson understands this perfectly.

Why would you try to twist this into faith + baptism = justification. Not one verse in scripture says such a thing. Not even Mark 16.

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Is that it? If you would stop with your rationalization as to why Jesus didn't really mean what he said, and just read the verse, maybe you would understand it.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned -Mark 16:16

What did Jesus say it took to be saved? Believe and be baptized.

What did Jesus say it took to be condemened? Not believing.

Simple, isn't it.

You try to deny the fact that he is talking about water baptism. It is evident in Acts 2, when this commission was beginning to be carried out, while the Apostles experienced HS baptism, yet they commanded water baptism.

In fact, those were told to repent and be baptized... for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Now, if he really meant what he said, and Jesus really meant what he said in Mark 16:16, it is easy to see that these are in complete harmony.

Acts 8:35-36, anyone can see that preaching Jesus included instructions for water baptism. How could preaching Jesus include instructions for water baptism? Because Jesus himself said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Do you preach this same Jesus that Philip preached? If so, does your preaching/teaching include instructions for water baptism? There is just one baptism today (Eph 4:5). You need to accept one and totally reject the other as invalid for today.

You want to misunderstand the term "baptism". You want to take it out of its ordinary meaning and make it an obscure meaning. The burden of proof lie with you to show that the baptism is NOT water baptism.

You say Gal 3:26-27 doesn't mention water therefore it can't be water. Well, it doesn't mention the Spirit either. One fundamental principle in understanding scripture is to take the simple most obvious meaning, unless there is evidence to the contrary as to why you shouldn't.

You say there is no water in Rom 6. Explain to me how "spirit" baptism resembles a death, burial, and resurrection. It is easy to show with a baptism in water and does not take any mental gymnastics. Rom 6:17 says they had "obeyed form the heart that form of doctrine". Is HS baptism something you obey or something that just happens to you.

HS baptism was a promise from Jesus, never a command to obey.

Water baptism is something we can obey.

For someone who claims others take things out of context, you are the king of taking things out of context.

Lastly, you know that I do not follow any creed, yet you claim I do. Why? To attempt to bring me to your level? To show that I am no different than you? To somehow belittle my beliefs? Why do you continue to make false statements? The bible is all sufficient, I don't need a creed.

 

[ascund]

Hey mman

Only one verse (mark 16) appears to link baptism to salvation. This against the great weight of scripture that declares justification by faith. This ought to be a clue that you cannot misread your creeds into the verse. Only the Reformation harmony can properly integrate this verse with the great weight of scripture. Believes = justification; baptism = sanctification.

Just a simple read is all it takes. You don't describe the overall life of a person by just the moment of birth. You describe it using the significant acts of life. Baptism is a significant act - not of birth, but of spiritual growth.

acts 2:38 is Peter's message to national Israel urging them to avoid the coming judgment on that "untoward nation" (2:40). Context. Another misapplication of context.

Not only is there one baptism, there is one faith. This is the same faith illustrated by all the OT saints, Zacheus, the weeping woman, the parlytic, even Cornelius. Justification by faith alone; (optional) water baptism comes AFTER.

My view harmonizes scripture. Your view pits one set of Bible verses against another set. Which method sounds like God? Which method sounds like humans?

When you elevate the human urge to do something above God's plan solely and only in Christ, grave heresy results.
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey mman

Only one verse (mark 16) appears to link baptism to salvation. This against the great weight of scripture that declares justification by faith. This ought to be a clue that you cannot misread your creeds into the verse. Only the Reformation harmony can properly integrate this verse with the great weight of scripture. Believes = justification; baptism = sanctification.

Just a simple read is all it takes. You don't describe the overall life of a person by just the moment of birth. You describe it using the significant acts of life. Baptism is a significant act - not of birth, but of spiritual growth.

acts 2:38 is Peter's message to national Israel urging them to avoid the coming judgment on that "untoward nation" (2:40). Context. Another misapplication of context.

Not only is there one baptism, there is one faith. This is the same faith illustrated by all the OT saints, Zacheus, the weeping woman, the parlytic, even Cornelius. Justification by faith alone; (optional) water baptism comes AFTER.

My view harmonizes scripture. Your view pits one set of Bible verses against another set. Which method sounds like God? Which method sounds like humans?

When you elevate the human urge to do something above God's plan solely and only in Christ, grave heresy results.
Lloyd

How many times does God have to say something for you to believe it?

Obviously more than once.

You say, "Believes = justification; baptism =sanctification"

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.

Hence, sanctification = faith

Since baptism = sanctification, all are equal to each other, baptism=sanctification=justification=faith.

Also, baptism = faith. That is just what Paul said in Col 2:12, and Gal 3:26-27.

This is like the unified field theory and you only have the equation for gravity.

Acts 2 was the first time the Gospel was preached. The same gospel was preached to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 1:16), but you must not accept this.

Jesus told them to go into all the world and preach to the whole creation. Why do you think something different was preached to part of creation? (Mark 16:15-16) Context rules!

This parallel passage is in Matt 28. Here Jesus said to teach all nations. Teach them what? To baptize and them them to go teach others this same message.

What part of "all nations" limits this to the Jews only? Context rules.

If you really understood my views, you would see the real harmony of the scriptures. You are the one who cannot accept Mark 16:16 because it clashes with your other views, therefore it must be explained away. You cannot accept the obvious conclusion of Acts 2:38, so you try to limit "all creation, all nations" to the Jews only.

I have no contradictions in my beleifs.

By the way, what creed are you talking about, the bible? That is my only creed.

 

[Frank]

Lloyd:

Noah was saved by water in the ark. He was overwhelmed by water. He had water above and all around him. The children of Israel were saved by baptism. Yet, the bible teaches they walked through on dry ground. I Cor.10:2. They were overwhelmed by the clouds( water vapor) and the sea. The Eunoch went down into the water and came up out of the water. He was overwhelmed. Acts 8:36-39. You seem to imply some believe that there is power in the act of baptism itself. This is a false notion. A burial or baptism is an overwhelming .It is simply an instrument(s) God uses to save. The blood of Christ is an instrument that saves. However, not one person has ever been literally washed in his blood. Rev. 1:5.
God used many things as instruments to save. He used the blood of a lamb on the lintel to passover Israel. Exodus 12:5-7. He used the brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. Jesus uses the same illustration to show how he saves. John 3:14. How does he save. When we accept him by faith. A biblical faith. In the wilderness, they had to look at the serpent upon the pole. We mustlook to Christ and put Jesus on in baptism. Gal. 3: 26,27, Mark 16:16.

Just because an instrument is used to save does not make it non- essential. ie. blood, baptism, serpent, the ark. Regardless of the instrument used it is still the power of God to save. Romans 1:16.

No one has argued salvation by meritorious works. You build a straw man and beat it to a pulp. Applause!!! The bible is a system of justification by faith. However, it is not a system of a dead faith. You cannot find this any where in the bible in any dispensation of time.

Your Greek argument of passive voice does not preclude man from accepting the conditions of justification God has provided. Gal. 3:26-29.
Dr. Hugo McCord, who has translated the new testament from the original greek, would concur with me. I doubt you have translated the new testament from the original language. I could be wrong. However, I doubt it. By the way, brother Hugo received his doctorate from the Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Ky. Imagine that. It just goes to show your blindness about "our church theologians". You should always check out your sources before making statements that will embarass you.

The bible does not teach what you claim it does. In every dispensation of time, man was and is always blessed spiritually when he received God's graciousness toward him by his faith in him who loves him. Men must do right to receive the grace of God. No exceptions. Noah was a RIGHTEOUS MAN and found grace in the eyes of God. Gen. 6:7. By your teaching he earned his salvation by building the ark. This is foolishness of the highest order. Who believes this. However, he did do ALL that God commanded and he was saved by the instrument's GOD PROVIDED. The Bible says so. Gen. 6;22. Peter agrees with this assessment. I Pet. 3:19-21.
Man is blessed spiritually when he acts upon the commands of God. There is no merit in submitting to the proper authority. This is a duty of all servants of any persuasion. The bible says, in Luke 17:10, So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. cf. Col. 3:22.

Your concept of justification by faith would best be illustrated by the following:
Hebrews 11:30, By faith the walls of Jericho fell after they were compassed about seven days. Excuse me, according to your system it should read they fell BEFORE. In short, you would have Joshua still sitting on his hands and saying God you have already made the walls fall, I can do nothing. Those walls would still be standng had he not compassed them, and did all God asked.

Noah would not have worried about rain or building the ark. After all, God does it all. Yeah, and Noah would have went oops, it is raining, help, and blub, blub! I believe you educated folk call this reducing the argument to ad absurdeum!!

There has been a lot of talk about Abraham. Let's get the rest of the story from the beginning. Abram departed his home by faith. Gen. 12:1-4. He acted. This is the only type faith that God justifies. No exceptions.

By the way, I have been educating children for 26 years. I can say without equivocation most of them have a better understanding of the grammar of Mark 16:16 than you. By the way, my students are eighth graders.

 

[bmerr]

Originally by ascund:

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy where the premise is part of the conclusion. Really, can't you find a better illustration?

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Maybe we could illustrate this way: What if Mark 16:16 said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall receive a new Cadillac, but he that believeth not shall not receive a Cadillac"?

What would one have to do to get the Cadillac?

What would one have to do to not get one?

Exegesis is drawing out the meaning of a Scripture, isn't it? It seems many try to remove the meaning from Scripture.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[eschatologist]

Mark 16:16 says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Believing and baptism is here directly linked to salvation! Trying to separate them is changing the Word of God. The idea that because Mark omitted baptism in the second part of the verse signifies that baptism was not important is totally incorrect, and saying one part is "justification" and one part is "sanctification" is using the same strategy of severing one meaning into two different conclusions! A really good analogy for the reason the second part of Mark 16:16 omits baptism would be to word it like this:

"Whoever eats and digests will live, but whoever does not eat will die."

Why was digest left out of the second part? well it is obvious, if you don't eat there will be nothing to digest and you will starve and die!

The smae thing is inferred in Mark 16:16. If you don't believe there is nothing to be baptized for! Sure believing is a must and precedes baptism for the reasons stated above. Also believing precedes confessing, because who will confess their sins to Christ who does not believe in Him? It starts with belief but does not end there. It is mention beief saves. It is mentioned confessing unto salvation. It mentions repentance and salvation together. It mentions baptism saves. So how can you apply the one while denying the others?

I believe it is about faith. Belief, repentance, confession, and baptism are ALL a part of FAITH! You must apply them together. It is like cutting a pie into four equal sections, then designating each section as belief, repentance, confession and baptism. Together they all translate to forgiveness of sins -- salvation. Together they are a whole, remove one piece and there is no longer a whole.

In light of what the bible says regarding each one of these sections for salvation, do you feel good to remove one and defy the Word of God?

 

[bmerr]

eschatologist,

bmerr here. Well said, sir. Welcome to the discussion.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings

you might like to follow my debate with Mr. Ethan Longhenry (CoC preacher) at the Religious Debates Yahoo group. The web address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Religiousdebates/

We have already gone through round 1: he affirming water baptism salvation; me denying it.

We are allowed a full week per response and six posts for each person in total.

Lloyd

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by eschatologist:
It is like cutting a pie into four equal sections, then designating each section as belief, repentance, confession and baptism. Together they all translate to forgiveness of sins -- salvation. Together they are a whole, remove one piece and there is no longer a whole.

In light of what the bible says regarding each one of these sections for salvation, do you feel good to remove one and defy the Word of God?

In the light of the above statements the Word of God is defied. Salvation is cut up like a pie into several "works," and has therefore become a works based salvation. There are, as you say, many "works" that the COCer must "do" before he becomes saved. But that is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that one needs to do nothing, for salvation is a gift to be received by faith. When receiving a gift you don't earn it, work for it, do anything for it--you simply receive it by faith. That in and of itself excludes the action of baptism--a work of man!

Ephesians 2:8-9 For 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.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by eschatologist:
Mark 16:16 says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Believing and baptism is here directly linked to salvation! Trying to separate them is changing the Word of God. ...

"Whoever eats and digests will live, but whoever does not eat will die."

Why was digest left out of the second part? well it is obvious, if you don't eat there will be nothing to digest and you will starve and die!

Your redo of Mark 16 is wrong for both eating and digesting are required for life. In this manner you make baptism a requirement for eternal life ignoring the millions of OT saints who were never baptised.

Your view is also discredited by the apostle John. He wrote his Gospel for the express purpose that sinners might believe in Jesus and have eternal life through His name (John 20:31). Yet, incredulously, there is not one reference to either water baptism or repentance. Not one!

This is not an argument from silence. If someone writes a book on the top 10 golfers of all time and leave out John Daly, then he will purposefully omit John Daly in that list. He only talks about the 10 that fulfill his purpose.

Mark 16 is abused by the negative fallacy error. A better way to understand this is as follows. Whoever wins the Super Bowl and celebrates shall be champions; but whoever doesn’t win they shall not be champions. No celebration does not imply no victory! One can be champion without celebration.

In the same fashion, neither baptism nor repentance is required for eternal life. John only talks about the things that are important - like faith/belief in Jesus.

While baptism seems to be linked with faith for salvation, the denial of faith by itself (Mark 16:16b) is enough to condemn a person to an eternity in hell. John 3:18 also severs the link between faith and water baptism.

While believing (justification) and baptism (sanctification) certainly lead to salvation, only believing is required for sanctification depends on justification. The negative fallacy error amplifies your confusion of justification and sanctification with respect to salvation.

This isn't carving up God's Word. It is understanding it to avoid the error of a progressive salvation that points to Jesus in word but denies Him in reality. There will many at the final judgment crying "Lord, Lord" but who are turned away for their human-centered self-righteous theology of baptism.

Lloyd