Baptismal regeneration

[Frank]

Bobby:
ALL spiritual blessings are IN Christ. Eph.1:3. According to the New Testament, How does one get into Christ? In Gal. 3:26-29, Paul said it was through baptism one gets into Christ. Paul's example was per his inspired teaching. Acts 22:16. He had a true understanding of belief. His call was an obedient one. Acts 22:16;2:22, Romans 10:13. Harmony of these passages teach us that our sins are washed away when we call on God through faithful obedience to his commands.
Baptism is a command a part of belief with repentance, confession that puts one in a saved condition with God by the blood of Jesus Christ. Rev. 1:5.
By the way, I am not a Campbellite. Furthermore, you could not prove any such body exists in the way in which you are using it. If you are saying that those who are Christians and a part of the church belonging to Christ, are Campbellites, that is an impossibility. The church of Christ was founded on Penetecost at Jerusalem in A.D. 30-33. Campbell never claimed to establish anything.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
Bobby:

The word eis is not translated because of.

Bobby present plenty of evidence to the contrary. Frank closes his eyes, refuses to look at the evidence, and says it is not. Frank is close minded on this issue refusing to look at any evidence except that which his own pastor and church authorities would have him believe.
DHK

[ January 10, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Frank]

DHK:

What was presented were the theological opinions of men. There opinions do not harmonize with the text of scriptures where the word eis is used. Therefore, they are like you, and A.T. Robertson, forced by your own theological falsehood to force a meaning on a text. The context of the scriptures will not allow for this meaning. The evidence is against such.

Furthermore, the "evidence", the references listed, were from paraphrase versions of the Bible, not true translations. There is a difference in paraphrase and a translation. Anyone can write a paraphrase. However, not everyone may translate the Greek. The list I provided are genuine Greek Scholars who translated the words,not paraphrased them.

Again, a man may state possibility by his own opinion. However, possibility and truth are not the same thing. This is the case with the opinion for the false meaning of Eis as becasue of. The Greek scholarship on this is clear. The word means just what it says in the English Bible. Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. It will read that way on the day of judgment, too. Acts 2:38.

By the way, have you read the latest N.I.V. of the Bible. The genders have been changed to be more politically correct. I guess I should believe God is not really who HE says he is. After all,the evidence proves it!!

DHK, it is less than honest to make the claim that the evidence indicates eis means because of. When, in fact, the opposite is the case. Frankly, I think you were raised better than this.

This was never a controversy until the refomation. Go figure! Calvinism raises it's evil head!

 

[BeeBee]

Frank,
Thanks again for your reply, but I must add this is my last response. I have showed my position and I pray it will open a mind or should I say “heart” (Acts 16:14), and so I will let the reader “test” what was said (1 Jn. 4:1).

In Gal. 3:26-29, Paul said it was through baptism one gets into Christ.

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

This child of God(v.25) is baptized “eis Christ” – that is (as has already been shown) “in reference” to Christ.

Christ is not LITERALLY in the water, so one’s baptism cannot LITERALLY put him “into” Christ in that sense. The believer “puts on” Christ in a metaphorical sense, in the same sense he “puts on” the whole armor of God”(Eph. 6:11). We are elsewhere told to “put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 13:14), which means we are to conform to him.

So we “put on” Christ in baptism by imitating His death, burial, and resurrection, AFTER we have become children of Christ by faith in Him.

Notice the verse right above at Gal. 3:25:
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus…”

Acts 22:16. He had a true understanding of belief. His call was an obedient one

Not even Campbellites believe that baptism REALLY or LITERALLY washes away sins. Christ’s blood is not in the water, so it cannot be REALLY contacted in the water. I saw where a Campbellite evangelist (Garland Elking” believed you “Contact the blood in the water”. Rom. 3:25: THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD.

Alexander Cambell:
“ Now we confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses us from all sins. Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression. The efficacy of his blood springs from his own dignity, and from the appointment of his Father. The blood of Christ, then really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly ‘for the remission of sins!’ The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul’s sins were REALLY PARDONED when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the water of baptism.” (Campbell-McGalla Debate, pg. 116)

So it is Through Faith that one is REALLY pardoned, or has sins “washed away” by Christ’s blood. Baptism is a FORM by which we FORMALLY “wash away” sins.

ILLUSTRATION:
The BREAD and the CUP of the Lord’s Supper are said to be Christ’s FLESH and Christ’s BLOOD. We “eat” of His flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper. But only in a FORMAL or EMBLEMATICAL sense.
Thus the language is Figurative; the real substance is presented by a figure or an emblem. Baptism is a figure of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ--- a “likeness” of that work (Rom. 6:4-6).

Pauls own testimony as to his conversion forbids the thought that the language here is meant to imply LITERAL washing away of sins. Paul was evidently baptized by Ananias (Acts 9:17,18), but the apostle testifies that he did not receive the “Gospel” from man. In Gal. 1:11-12 .

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

If Paul received the gospel from Christ and not from men, then baptism is NOT part of the “Gospel”, for he did not receive it of men. The Gospel was received by “revelation;” baptism was received at the hand of a mans administration. Acts 26:15 reveals the substance of this “Gospel” which Christ revealed to Paul, and it never ONCE mentions baptism.
Paul DID NOT include baptism in the “Gospel” HE preached. In his letter to the Corinthian church., he reminds them he was the one who was used in there salvation:

15For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Earlier in the same epistle, Paul had spoken on baptism in these words

“I thank God that I baptized none of you”, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I KNOW NOT WHETHER I BAPTIZED ANY OTHER.,. 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.” (1:14-17).

Comparing these two sections it is obvious that Paul made a distinction b/t the “Gospel” he “begot” them with and the administration of baptism. He claimed to be the spiritual “father” of them “ALL”, but could only remember a “Few” he baptized. I could show many other things but one more should suffice:
Paul had “obeyed” the Lord from the earliest point of his faith.

Acts 26:19Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

He had received the vision BEFORE, baptism, hence he had an “obedient” faith BEFORE baptism.
He was even “Called” before baptism. (Acts 25:16-18)

In view of the circumstances involved in Paul’s baptism, it can hardly be admitted that the words, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,” imply anything more than a ceremonial washing.

Furthermore, you could not prove any such body exists in the way in which you are using it. If you are saying that those who are Christians and a part of the church belonging to Christ, are Campbellites, that is an impossibility. The church of Christ was founded on Penetecost at Jerusalem in A.D. 30-33. Campbell never claimed to establish anything.

First and foremost Campbell "claimed" to be the first man in modern times that the doctrine of Baptism "In order to obtain" remission of sins was first introduced. (Campbell-Rice Debate, p. 472)

Secondly:

When Alexander Campbell went overseas in 1847, Henry Clay of Kentucky, who had moderated the Campbell – Rice Debate in 1843, wrote a letter of recommendation for Campbell to use for “introduction” in foreign lands. In the letter, Mr. Clay referred to Campbell as –

“THE HEAD AND FOUNDER of one of the most important and respectable religious communities in the United States.” (Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. 2, p. 548)

Mr. Campbell accepted this letter and used it to the enjoyment of “unusual facilities” on his trip.
I could quote numbers and numbers of Church of Christ ministers,scholars,etc.
A couple should suffice:
Alexander Campbell was one of the “founding fathers” – Garrison and DeGroot (History p. 180).
“Regulated the entire movement” – Richardson (Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. 2, p. 669)
“Restored Church” – Paul McClung (“Restoring the New Testament Church,”p. 7)

The testimony to the people immediately surrounding Campbell admitted that he restored the church:
I could give you place after place where his fellow brethren or “restorers” (Barton Stone, Walter Scott, Robert Richardson, all point to Campbell as the one who “restored” the church.

Now if you want to disagree with Greek scholars on “eis”, so be it.
If you want to disagree with Pauls own testimony, so be it.
If you want to disagree with other Church of Christ brethren of scholars and historians, so be it.
If you want to disagree with Alexander Campbell, his immediate brethren and his followers, so be it.

I just caught your last post, and I will respond briefly:

The word means just what it says in the English Bible. Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. It will read that way on the day of judgment, too. Acts 2:38.

But it still stands:

Repent and be baptized for or “in reference to “ the remission of sins.
Go to the store and get an apple for or “in reference to” me.
You don’t baptize “in order to obtain” remission of sins.
You did not go to the store “in order to obtain” me.

You stated the following:

The following Greek scholars concur with the previous mention of the meaning of eis. Arndt- Gingrich, Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer, J.H. A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, Wallce, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Metger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Then I used 2 if not 3 of your own sources to prove otherwise, and if this wasn't enought you then said:

The list I provided are genuine Greek Scholars who translated the words,not paraphrased them.

I used some of the EXACT SAME SOURCES, and you say they are not genuine?
I refuse to type anymore so Ill just copy and paste.

Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38
By Dr. Robert A. Morey

I. Matt. 3:11 "baptize unto repentance" KJV

A. What does the Greek word ¯eis® translated "unto" in the KJV mean?

1. Were unrepentant people baptized so that they could obtain repent-
ance? This would be against the biblical order of "repent and be
baptized" as found in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere. We do not baptize un-
repentant sinners but those who have repented. Thus baptism cannot
be the basis of repentance.

2. Eis when used in connection with baptism must mean that they were
baptized with a view to the fact that they had already repented.
Thus their repentance was the basis of baptism. What evidence is
there for this position?

I. Modern Translations
Many modern translations have interpreted the Greek word ¯eis® as
meaning that repentance was the basis of their baptism.

Amplified: "¯because of® repentance"
Renaissance: "¯because of® repentance"
Phillips: "¯as a sign of® your repentance"
Goodspeed: "¯in token of® your repentance"
Williams: "¯to picture® your repentance"
Twentieth Century: "¯to teach® repentance"
Living Bible: "baptize ¯those who repent of their sins®"

II. Greek Lexicons

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(p. 184) Eis can be used: "of reference or
relation; with regard to, in reference to; as regards"

An Intermediate Greek-English New Testament (Liddell & Scott)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
p. 231 "in regard to"

A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament (Green)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
p. 54 "in accordance with, Matt. 12:41"

A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament (Arndt & Gingrich)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
p. 229 Under the heading of "other uses of eis" we find, "the
casual use BECAUSE OF, Mtt. 12:41; Luke 11:32; cf. Romans 4:20
and perhaps Matt. 3:11

III. Greek Scholars

A Manual Of The Greek New Testament (Dana & Manty)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
According to these Greek scholars, eis can be used in the sense
of: "(7) because of. Rom. 4:20, "but BECAUSE OF the promise of
God he did not waver in unbelief" (cf. Matt. 3:11; Mark 2:18;
Rom. 11:32; Titus 3:14). The sentence in Matt. 12:41 and Luke
12:32 is forceful for the casual use of this preposition.
What led to their repentance? Of course, it was John's preaching.
Matt. 3:11 furnishes further evidence: Did John baptize that
they might repent, or because of repentance? If the former, we
have no further Scriptural confirmation of it. If the later,
his practice was confirmed and followed by the apostles, and
is in full harmony with Christ's demand for inward, genuine
righteousness. In connection with this verse we have the
testimony of a first-century writer to the effect that John
the Baptist baptized people only after they had repented.

The Connection Between Matt. 3:11 and Acts 2:38
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Proposition #1. Since there is an exact parallel between
Matt. 3:11 "baptize eis repentance" and Acts 2:38
"baptize eis the remission of sins"

AND

Proposition #2. Since ¯eis® used in connection with baptism
in Matt. 3:11 means that these people were baptized with a
view to the fact that they had already repented,

THEN

Conclusion: Eis in Acts 2:38 means that these people were
baptized with a view to the fact that their sins had already
been forgiven.

We are to baptize people who have repented of their sins,
believed in Jesus and have had their sins washed away in the
blood of Jesus.

The idea that we should baptize unrepentant, unbelieving,
unforgiven sinners is nowhere found in the New Testament.
Faith and repentance must PRECEDE baptism according to the
New Testament. The order is always "believe and be baptized"
and "repent and be baptized" NEVER the REVERSE.

I. MODERN TRANSLATIONS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wuest: "baptized ¯in relation to the fact that you sins
have been put away®"

Renaissance N.T.: "baptized ¯because of® forgiveness"

Weymouth: "baptized ¯with a view to®"

Word Studies In The N.T. (A.T. Robertson)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"another usage exist which is just as good Greek as the use
of eis for aim and purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in
three examples eis onoma prophetou, dikaiou, mathetou where
it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground,
on the basis of the name of the prophet, righteous man,
disciple, because one is, etc.
It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah.
The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and
the koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592)."
^^^^^^^
"So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them
who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in
the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of
sins which they had already received."

Renaissance New Testament: (Yeager)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Just as eis with the accusative can be telic when the context
demands, it can also be casual, as we have translated in Acts
2:38. The men of Nineveh repented
-"because of the preaching of Jonah" (Matt. 12:41).
Such true believers, made thus by the supernatural ministry of
the Holy Spirit, who have truely repented and who have definitely
made the leap of faith to Christ are immersed ¯because® their
sins are forgiven, not ¯in order that® their sins be forgiven."

Marshall's Greek-English Interlinear of The N.T.:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"baptized ¯with a view to®"

CONCLUSION

Since Scripture should interpret Scripture, Acts 2:38 should
be interpreted in light of Matthew 3:11. Once this is done, it
is clear that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone,
in Christ alone, apart from the works of the law such as baptism.
To God be all the glory!

(C) Copyright 1990 R. A. MOREY
Copyright & Reproduction Limitations
This text file may be distributed freely. It may not be altered or edited
in any fashion. Any reproduction must contain this copyright and repro-
duction limitation notice. Please write to Jim Toungate with any questions
concerning this text file at: The Research & Education Foundation
Attn: Jim Toungate
P.O. Box 141455
Austin, Tx 78714

He that believeth on him is not condemned…..

I have nothing else to add…..

In Christ,
Bobby C.

[ January 11, 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
DHK:

What was presented were the theological opinions of men. There opinions do not harmonize with the text of scriptures where the word eis is used. Therefore, they are like you, and A.T. Robertson, forced by your own theological falsehood to force a meaning on a text. The context of the scriptures will not allow for this meaning. The evidence is against such.

Furthermore, the "evidence", the references listed, were from paraphrase versions of the Bible, not true translations. There is a difference in paraphrase and a translation. Anyone can write a paraphrase. However, not everyone may translate the Greek. The list I provided are genuine Greek Scholars who translated the words,not paraphrased them.

Posted by Bobby:

Eis is translated 1773 times in the new testament. It is never translated because of.

NEVER?

Math. 3:11
Amplified Bible - “because of”
renaissance new testament- “because of”
Phillips- “As a sign of”
Williams- “In token of”
Good Speed- “To Picture”
20th Century- “to teach”
Thayers Greek Lexicon which you mention- Pg. 184 “d.of reference or relation; with respect tom in reference to; as regards.
Arndt- Gingrich since you mention him he goes on to say on pg. 239 that “Eis” can mean “because of”.
Greek-English New Testament says that the word can mean “In accordance with” pg. 54.

The opinions posted are more those than Bobby's. He presented a list, very few are paraphrases. In fact two of them are Greek lexicons. Some are good translations.

Again, a man may state possibility by his own opinion. However, possibility and truth are not the same thing.

Quite correct. Your opinion is not possible to reconcile with the rest of the truth of Scripture.

This is the case with the opinion for the false meaning of Eis as becasue of. The Greek scholarship on this is clear. The word means just what it says in the English Bible. Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

I agree. Just like it is in Mat.3:11
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
Why did John baptize? Because of their repentance? or looking unto their repentance? Did he baptize unsaved individuals? Was baptism a part of salvation or a fruit of salvation with those who came to John? The word is the same in both Acts 2:38 and Mat.3:11.

This was never a controversy until the refomation. Go figure! Calvinism raises it's evil head!

First, I have mentioned to you many times that I am not a Calvinist.
Second, I don't know what the issue of Calvinism has to do with this in the first place.
Third, Calvinism is really Augustinianism anyway, and thus is much older than Calvin.
DHK

 

[Frank]

Bobby:
1. The Bible teaches that baptism puts one in contact with the blood of Christ. Rev. 1:5, Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16, Roms. 6:3-5.
2. Scripture must harmonize with the totality of the evidence. Your argument about eis from Mat. 3:11 is not even in the context of an individuals salavation. The nation of Israel is in view. see Mat. 3:9,10. Furthermore, verse 11, and 12 are in reference to the Holy Spirit and final judgment. The Bible teaches man is not saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit but by the word of truth. James 1:18,21,Hebrews 4:12, Romans 1:16. It was a promise to the apostles. John 14:26;15:26;16:13,Luke 24:44-50; Acts 2:1-4.The prophesy of Joel 2:28 was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit fell on the gentiles of Acts 10.
Therefore, your contention is without serious merit as it fails to be valid in context both immediate and remote. Words must always be interpreted by CONTEXT.

Furthermore, Believe is an action verb. This is the problem. You do not attach the true meaning and application to the word belief and,therefore, have assumed a false position.

It is true a man who has true biblical belief will not be condemned. Jesus said so in Mark 16:16, Jesus ssaid, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned."

My english grammar tells me that and is a coordinating conjunction that links two in likeness. First clause. But, makes things dissimilar. Second clause. Therefore, according to the english language the first part is different than the second. If one does not believe and is baptized he will not be saved. But, If one does not believe he is lost. But, if one is not baptized he is lost. Both statements are in contrast or are dissimilar to the first clause.

If Jesus had said what some think he should have said, he would have been guilty of what grammarians call redundancy. That would be like one saying, he that eats his food and digests it will be healthy but he that does not eat and does not digest his food will not be healthy. This is absurd reasoning and violates the rules of language. It is obvious one cannot digest what he does not eat and, therefore, can not be healthy.

You keep quoting Campbell as if you think anyone in this discussion cares what he has said. If he speaks the truth I will agree with him. However, he is not my source of authority. The New Testament is the authoratative guide. In fact, an honest man knows What he must do to be saved, if he has the ability to read the Bible in his own mother tongue. He does not have to know language of the Greeks or any theologian. If man reads Acts 2, he will do just exactly what was done on Pentecost, no more no less. Men will accept the teaching or reject it. John 12:48. I accept it!

You claim he that believes is saved. Yet, you never define what you mean.

You force a meaning on a word, Eis, which cannot be possible in view of immediate and remote context. Mat. 3:9-12. Epi is translated because of, not eis. II Cor. 9:15. I guess the inspired Peter forgot to use the right word!!

By implication, you accept a man is clean before he is washed. This is foolishness. Rev. 1:5, Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16.

You accuse those who believe the truth to be something they are not." Campbellites." The church that belongs to Christ was in America before Campbell ever set foot on her shores. Rock Springs church of Christ in Celina Ten. began meeting in 1805. The Rocky Springs church of Christ in Northport, Al. was meeting in 1807. Campbell did not arrive in America unitl 1809. It is impossible to establish that which is already estblished or founded. You do not know your history any better than you know the answer to the divine question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved." Acts 16:30;2:37;9:5."

 

[BeeBee]

Frank,
I have nothing else to state. I have given you plenty of evidence for my stance, and showed the fallacy of your position.Although I pray that this will have an effect on you.Some of your own sources,brethren,history, and not to mention the bible prove otherwise.I can't open your eyes,I am here simply to "reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine".

As far as your churches go I have no further arguments. You offer no evidence that these churches believed and practiced what "Church
of Christ" congregations believe and practice since Alexander Campbell.
Evidently , Campbell didn't know about these churches, as he claimed to have
"restored the church" and "restored the gospel."

Good Bye,
In Christ,
Bobby C.

[ January 12, 2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[Frank]

DHK:
I did not say you were a calvinist. I said the subject did not become controversial until he espoused it in a revolt against Roman Catholicism. You are simply a false teacher!

 

[Frank]

Bobby:
Quoting Campbell and Garland Elkins are not authoratative. Quoting biased theologians are not authoratative. Determining word meanings outside their context is impossible. The congregations posted are verifiable from the records of their respective county seats. A number of people did not know they existed. This proves IGNORANCE nothing more. The evidence indicates my statements are true. Your logic is illogical!

Furthermore, Gal. 3:26-29 teaches exactly what it is says. Baptism puts one in Christ. It is symbolic but is and essential symbolic act. Eating the Lord's supper is a symboloic act, but is an essential one. Again, your reasoning fails you once again. I Cor. 11:22-27, Acts 20:7.

The Bible teaches that one is washed in the blood of Christ through water baptism. This is an ESSENTIAL SYMBOL. It is foolish to reason one must wash in the literal blood of Christ. This is impossible. However, It is essential and possible that one be washed in his blood through baptism. Romans 6:3-5.
Personal faith that saves is placed in Christ's redemptive work. Eph. 3:12. How does one place his trust in Christ's work. BIBLE BELIEF IS NOT MENTAL ASCENT ONLY!! IT IS A WORK OF GOD WE MUST DO!!!. The apostles of Christ asked the question, " WHAT MUST WE DO TO WORK THE WORKS OF GOD? Jesus said, " THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD THAT YOU BELIEVCE ON HIM WHOM HE HATH SENT!!" John 6:26-29. However, the impication of what you espouse is NOTHING!
One must an obedient faith which accesses the grace that saves. The Bible says so. Romans 5:1,2, Hebs. 11:6. An obedient faith placed in the grace of God grace found in his blood. Eph.1:7. A grace that conditions forgiveness on being washed in his blood. Rev. 1:5. A condition that requires man to respond to Christ work by being baptized for unto the remission of sins. Acts 2:38. Jesus commanded baptism for the redemption of sins.Acts 2:38. I obeyed his command. Mark 16:16.

Your posts are replete with inuendo and falsehoods about what I believe. You build strawman arguments are simply foolishness. I have never said I speak for the Lord's Church as a whole. I never claimned any connection to Campbell. I simply would agree with him as he agrees with the New Testament of Jesus Christ. I would say that about any of my brethren!

As for the question of John's baptism, it was for the remission of sins for Israel. It was a valid baptism for them. Mark 1:4, Luke 7:26-29.
It was to prepare a people for the Lord. Luke 1:17,76,77. The baptism of John was superceded by the baptism of Mat. 28:18-20 which was to last until the end of time. Acts 19:1-6.

The Baptism commanded by Christ is Water Baptism. Acts 10:48, Acts 8:3-40, John 3:3-5, Eph. 5:26. This baptism has human administrators. SEE CONTEXT of Mat. 28:18-20. Notice personal pronouns. This eliminates the idea of Holy Spirit Baptism as ONLY CHRIST could administer it. SEE Mat. 3:11, Acts 2:1-4, Luke 24:44-50.

In closing, the doctrine of believe only is one Jeremiah 2:13 would describe as a cistern and broken cistern that holds no water, no pun intended.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
DHK:
I did not say you were a calvinist. I said the subject did not become controversial until he espoused it in a revolt against Roman Catholicism. You are simply a false teacher!

You are so complimentary Frank. Let me remind you that you are the one that is a guest a Baptist Board, that it is our beliefs that can be traced back to the times of the Apostles, whereas yours are associated with the cult of Cambellism as Bobby and others have amply shown. Here is a recent quote from Bobby:

Alexander Campbell was right? Well let me ask you a question, when did Alexander Campbell ever follow the truth and become saved? The only baptism he ever had was by a Baptist preacher (1812)(And this was without the belief that it was "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, he "discovered" that in 1823, and claimed to be the first man in modern times to believe this. Whats funny is he never sought to be re-baptized, so according to your teaching he is probably in hell right now.

You follow the teachings of Alexander Cambell and the resulting Churches of Christ and their heretical teachings, and yet you call me a false teacher. You don't even know what the right standard is, since your standard is one of law, and not of grace. Have you ever given consideration to the thought why you are the one that is not allowed to post in all of the other forums??
DHK

 

[BeeBee]

Quoting Campbell and Garland Elkins are not authoratative. Quoting biased theologians are not authoratative. Determining word meanings outside their context is impossible. The congregations posted are verifiable from the records of their respective county seats. A number of people did not know they existed. This proves IGNORANCE nothing more. The evidence indicates my statements are true. Your logic is illogical!

NOTHING is logical to you, not even your own sources, b/c I give the EXACT SAME SOURCES you used to prove otherwise and then you said they were not “GENUINE” enough (according to you). You jumped in saying the Greek word "eis" was "Never" translated "because of", and after I showed you it WAS, I believe you said something to the effect that "its out of context" and that word is not in certain texts. So I will not waste my time with any more meaningless (as far as your concerned) argumentation. You still have offered no evidence that these believe what the “Churches of Christ” after Campbell “discovered” the Gospel.

It is foolish to reason one must wash in the literal blood of Christ. This is impossible. However, It is essential and possible that one be washed in his blood through baptism. Romans 6:3-5

.

All I’m gonna do is agree with you from here on out. So we agree, so how is one washed in his blood through baptism then? LITERALLY or SYMBOLICALLY?

BIBLE BELIEF IS NOT MENTAL ASCENT ONLY!! IT IS A WORK OF GOD WE MUST DO!!!

This right here is why I refuse to answer you anymore because anybody who has read these threads can go back and see I have ALREADY asserted this.
I answered this as many of the same arguments you just posed on Pg. 4 and I refuse to give any more argumentation. (I posted that faith is a work:

(1.Faith is a WORK in OBEDIENCE to a COMMAND. Pg. 3 )

You are refusing to look at the evidence and I will not keep letting you scratch and claw considering I’ve already give my position on the rest, but you keep scratching and clawing refusing to deal with the truth, and I will leave it to the reader to “ Test ” what was said (1 John 4:1).

No hard feelings,
God Bless you,
Bobby C.

[ January 13, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: BeeBee ]

 

[Sularis]

Sola - yer back I see - back to spread yer "beliefs" about water baptism

Does baptism save? yes

Does water baptism save? no

If water Baptism does not save then what does?
Baptism of the Spirit

One God, One faith, one baptism

Nothing on earth/flesh or of earth/flesh has any efficacy in saving or in salvation. Not water baptism - not goat slitting - not dove burning - nothing - not bronze snakes

EVERYTHING is heavenly - the tabernacle and the temple were but mere pale shadows of the perfect and efficacious heavenly things

We are first saved and THEN called to obey the command of God and get baptized

 

[BeeBee]

Sularis,

Just for reference you might want to go back and look at the last couple of pages of threads, and you might find it pointless to even carry this conversation any longer.(You'll see what I mean).

In Christ,
Bobby C.

 

[Frank]

Bobby:
Your reasoning escapes me. I will reply with a scriptural answer. Many times God used SYMBOLS AS INSTRUMENTS TO SAVE. Yet, it was God who saved. The symbols represented God's instruments for forgiveness of Man's transgressions. In Numbers 21:8,9, God used the brazen serpent to save the Israelites from death by serpents. The condition was they must look at the brazen serpent on the pole. The pole and serpent symbolized God's way of salvation. It was God who used the pole and the serpent to save, if, and only if, they looked upon it. Are you saying they believed in Snake religion? or did they trust in God by looking and being saved? The New Testament paralel would be found in John 12:32-34;3:14. John said as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so shall the son of man be lifted up.John 3:14. Jesus said, and I if I be lifted up will draw all men unto myself. Verse 33. this he said signifying what death he should die. The people answered him, We have hard out of the law that Christ abideth forever : how sayest thou, the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is the Son of Man?

Secondly, The Israelites were saved by baptism in the Red Sea. I Cor. 10:2. The evil Egyptians being destroyed by the waters of the Red Sea. Exodus 14:13-28. The Red Sea had no power except God parted it and then used it to destroy the Egyptians. However, had Moses not used his rod to part it and the children of Israel not passed through the divide they would have been lost. The baptism of Moses symbolized God's salvation.

Third, The Israelites were saved by the blood applied to their door lintel while being in salvery to Egypt. Exodus 12:7-14. The death angel passed over the households where the blood had been applied. This blood had no inherent power to save. However, it saved by the power of God who used it as an instrument.

God in like manner has chosen water baptism as an essential element instrumental in the salvation of man by the blood of Christ. John 1:29, Rev. 1:5, Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, I Pet. 1:18,19, Acts 22:16. Just because a thing symbolizes something else does not diminish it's importance or necessity of instrumentality in salvation.

In each of the examples the brazen serpent on the pole, the blood on the lintel, the baptism of the Red Sea, in each case, had faith in God and his intructions in regards to the things,elements or symbols whatever word you want to use to describe them, not been followed ALL WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST! The context of each example provide the evidence for this.

This is the how baptism doth also now save us. I Pet. 3:21. It is God's operation to save by the death burial and resurrection of Christ and his shed blood.I Pet. 3:21, Col. 2:12,Romans 6:3-5.

 

[Frank]

Bobby:
On a personal note, I have no ill will toward you personally. However, to name call, make inuendo, and assumptions about what one espouses are inappropriate and offensive. This is the reason some will not engage in genuine debate.

Men use these tactics to hide their false positions and to attempt to justify their pride in their theology before men.

You remind me a lot of Gene Cook Jr, and Bob Ross. They cannot defend their belief only doctrine any better than you.

 

[Frank]

DHK:
Let me remind you that a false teacher is a false teacher. Romans 16:17, I John 4:1, II Pet.2:1,2.

 

[Briguy]

Frank, just an observation. You seldom refute what others say you just offer your own theories. There is no debate if you don't directly respond to the other persons argument. Bobby and DHK have provided plenty of Biblical proof for there positions.

I have on occasion given you extreme examples to show you how God would not require water Baptism for people to be saved. I wll give you a brief "real" example that happened to me a few months ago.

My friend had Luekemia and was in the hospital. I and his brother had spoken to him about salvation and Jesus Christ for a year while he battled the disease. As it become apparent he was losing the fight, his brother spent many hours with him discussing God. I increased my visits as well. He had been reading the Bible often for that year but hadn't yet placed his trust in Christ. One night with his brother, he tearfully gave his life to Christ and trusted for the first time in the death and ressurection of Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. He was changed after that. The next time I went to see him he told me he was saved, and I rejoiced. He then asked many questions and had a hunger for God's word. Before he came to Christ he thought he had to reach a certain "goodness" before he could be saved. He finally understood that Jesus meets us where we are. Anyway, Gary never made it out of the hospital. He died about two weeks or so after he was saved. He never made it to be Baptized. God was clearly working in him though. He was worried about the members of his immediate family that were not saved. One night when things were looking very bad he pulled his strength together and called his family into his hospital room. He told them he wanted to sing a song. His saved brother asked him which song and Gary said he only new one song. Gary then sang the first verse of Amazing Grace to his family. He died just a few hours after that. God gave him the strength to give that one last gift(testimony) to his family. The point is by your way of thinking, God turned Gary away from Heaven and he is now in Hell. Not because Gary didn't have faith, not because Gary rejected Christ, but because he was too ill to get Baptized, with water by another person. Frank, just so you know, I believe by the teachings of the Bible, that Gary IS in Heaven now, and I am confident I will see him again some day. My God is a God of mercy who saves by grace. Oh how I wish you could know my God, Frank. My heart truely breaks for those who legalistically follow teachings like yours. Sola, this post was for you too.

In Love and Truth,
Brian

[ January 14, 2003, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

[Sularis]

Ok folks lets define water baptism as some poor sod going under the level of water and coming back out of it wet with water

Noah was not saved by the water - He was saved by the hand of God ON the water well ok more specifically the ark

Israelites walked upon dry land - water never touched them

The problem is you misread that verse - Ill take more time to re-explain it in this thread

 

[Frank]

Brian:

I have responded to both Bobby and Dhk. In fact, I went back and looked up some of the material listed for the defense of the meaning of eis. I looked up the verse in Acts 2:38 in the Amplified Bible, one that was puported to contain the meaning because of. This is not the case in the amplified Bible that I read today. The Amplified Bible is published by Zondervan, if you wish to read it for yourself. The same can be said for the Believer's Bible though it contradicts itself by commenting contraty to what the text says. How reliable is that? The text is correct in that it is for or unto the remission of sins. Then, the commentator denies it means what it says. This sounds all to familiar to me. Which one should I believe the inspired text or the commentator? I answered their arguments by simply showing how the word epi is the word that means BECAUSE OF,NOT EIS. SEE II Cor. 9:5. This word is translated because of. Strong's, Vines, Thayer. Do you expect me to believe Peter forgot to use the correct word?!! That is absurd.

I dismissed the Mat. 3:11 argument as the context invalidated the point of contention. See Mat. 3:9-12.

Moreover, Jesus did not shed his blood and die BECAUSE SINS HAD ALREADY BEEN REMITTED. See Mat. 26:28. If one claims eis means because of he must also accept the implication that Christ's death was, in view of salvation, worthless because sins have already been remitted according to the false meaning of eis in Acts 2:38. This is inane.

Furthermore, The argument of belief only is simply not found in the Bible. Belief that saves is in the Bible, but not just any belief. It is an obedient belief. You can search the scriptures today, tomorrow and for a thousand years and never find belief only saves. I affirmed the Bible teaches belief is essential but not unbiblical inactive belief.

Belief implies obedient action. This is the case when Jesus said to repent or perish, confess or be denied, be baptized or damned. It cannot be any simpler than the words of Christ and the examples in the New Testament. Acts 2:38;8:12-16;30-40;10:47,48;16:12-15;30-33;18:8'22:16;19:1-6.

It is as simple as IN or OUT. All spiritual blessings are IN Christ. Eph. 1:3. Salvation is IN Christ. II Tim. 2:10. Faith is IN Christ. Gal. 3:26. Redemption is IN Christ. Col. 1:14, Eph. 1;7. How does one get in Christ? Gal. 3:26,27. For ye are all the children of God by Faith IN Christ Jesus for as many of us as have been baptized INTO Christ have put on Christ.

The parties you are defending did not address the following:
1. Gal. 3:26,27 and it's implications.
2. The word used for because of EPI.
3. Refused to address Mark 16:16 and the logical gramatical implications of this verse, especially where the copulative conjunction and is used.
4. Infer belief is a work but do not clearly state what is meant by it. Is it repentance, confession, mental ascent? Just how does one know he is working the works of God?
5. Never harmonized scripture with the totality of the evidence of salvation in the New Testament.
You must be reading a different thread than me.

My last comment is in reference to your emotional experience and the salvation of men. Emotions, opinions, feelings do not save. God saves us by his will through obedience to the gospel of Christ. Romans 1:16. It is the obedience to that form of doctrine delivered that saves. Romans 6;17,18. He is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. Hebrews 5:8,9. Paul proved emotions and our conscience are not guides to salvation. Acts 9:1,2 23:1.
The Bible teaches one must believe, repent, confess, and be baptized to have his sins remitted. John 8:24, Luke 13:3, Mat. 10:32, Mark 16:16. God only promises the now for salvation. II Cor. 6:2. Some men wait to late. James 4:14, Luke 16:19-31. Lazarus waited to late.

I refuse to pass judgment on the eternal destination of those who die. It would be presumptious and foolish to try to discern the absolute faithfulness of anyone and subsequently preach them into heaven." Christ will be the judge and pronounce our eternal destination. II Cor. 5:10. The Bible does identify those who need remission of sins and how it is granted. I will leave it to the merciful and just Christ to address eternity.

 

[Frank]

Sularis:
Baptize means to overwhelm, dip, plunge, submerge. It requires, by definiton, a covering. The children of Israel were baptized in the clouds and in the sea.( Water on all sides and clouds or water vapor covering them.) The inspired Paul said it was baptism. I Cor. 10:1.
Noah was baptized by the water on either side and the rain from above. The sin of the world was washed away by the overwhelming of water upon the earth covering sinful man. It is a like figure that doth also now save us. I Pet. 3:21. Acts 8:38 Philip went down into the water with the eunch and he baptized him. Acts 8:38.
When one is baptized, he enters the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Romans 6:3-5. It all harmonizes. Like figures and shadows are not the very image of those things. see Hebrews 10:1.