-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptismal regeneration
- Thread starter Ps104_33
- Start date
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi guys,
I have J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines right in front of me (he's a famous Protestant Historian and Scholar), and I'm reading on p. 428 of what the early Church believed regarding baptism:
"First, the baptized person receives the remission of sins ... He passes from sin to righteousness, from filth to cleanliness; his restoration is total, and can be likened to a cure which causes not only the patient's wounds but the very scars to disappear ... Secondly, baptism conveys the positive blessing of sanctification ... the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the putting on of the new man, spiritual rebirth and salvation, adoption as God's own by grace, union with Christ in his resurrection as in His suffering and death, the right to a heavenly inheritance ... Thirdly ... baptism impresses a seal on the believer's soul. Just as the water cleanses the body, the Holy Spirit seals the soul. This sealing takes place at the very moment of baptism, and as a result of it the baptized person enjoys the presence of the Holy Spirit."
There is much more that Kelly writes, and he gives many citations from Early Christian believers and theologians. Nowhere do we find this solely symbolical interpretation, practice, and belief in the Early Church. It isn't part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith that we've received from the Apostles, and accordingly, I do not buy into it.
in Christ,
Carson
[ January 15, 2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
I have J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines right in front of me (he's a famous Protestant Historian and Scholar), and I'm reading on p. 428 of what the early Church believed regarding baptism:
"First, the baptized person receives the remission of sins ... He passes from sin to righteousness, from filth to cleanliness; his restoration is total, and can be likened to a cure which causes not only the patient's wounds but the very scars to disappear ... Secondly, baptism conveys the positive blessing of sanctification ... the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the putting on of the new man, spiritual rebirth and salvation, adoption as God's own by grace, union with Christ in his resurrection as in His suffering and death, the right to a heavenly inheritance ... Thirdly ... baptism impresses a seal on the believer's soul. Just as the water cleanses the body, the Holy Spirit seals the soul. This sealing takes place at the very moment of baptism, and as a result of it the baptized person enjoys the presence of the Holy Spirit."
There is much more that Kelly writes, and he gives many citations from Early Christian believers and theologians. Nowhere do we find this solely symbolical interpretation, practice, and belief in the Early Church. It isn't part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith that we've received from the Apostles, and accordingly, I do not buy into it.
in Christ,
Carson
[ January 15, 2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Well Frank
Lets deal with yer points
Galatians 3:26,27 - where does it say water
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ?dipped? (bapto) into boiling water and then ?baptised? (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ?He that believes and is baptised shall be saved?. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989).
Let me reinforce something I can dunk anyone - fully intending to convey the grace of God - but water -H2O will not change a thing - it is an act of the Spirit. No earthly thing saves or is good for salvation or for good works. All of creation is corrupt
Mark 16:16 - look at the second half of the verse
wheres the Baptism
But ok lets look at the verse - the possible believer - If he believes - the option of Baptism will then become open to him and he will be saved.
Its not quite when the guy believes and is baptized he will then be saved - the problem with that viewpoint is not are they only ignoring the second half of the verse which helps to tie the verb -tenses- together - the action which is a future event that the saving is looking for is not a dual thing - since I dont see a multiple indicative words
Belief is not a work - repentance and confession are - both are required for salvation - but then you are called to work out your salvation in fear and trembling - you show your faith by your works - you do not gain it by those works
Simplistic chain of salvation - God calls - belief in Gods existence - belief in Gods ability to save - confession of fallen state and actions - repentance of fallen state and actions
WHAM saved
I was also surprised that someone tried to argue the thief had been previously baptized - The thief was in Matthew mocking God - and then I believe the Father revealed unto him, much like Peter, who Jesus was so that he then acted like he did in Luke.
I apologize my keyboard wont do a lot of symbols
And Frank I dont see how context invalidates Matt 3:11 - There is a Baptism of the Spirit and there is a baptism of water - one saves - one doesnt
I say heaven saves - earth corrupts
[ January 15, 2003, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Sularis ]
Lets deal with yer points
Galatians 3:26,27 - where does it say water
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ?dipped? (bapto) into boiling water and then ?baptised? (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ?He that believes and is baptised shall be saved?. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989).
Let me reinforce something I can dunk anyone - fully intending to convey the grace of God - but water -H2O will not change a thing - it is an act of the Spirit. No earthly thing saves or is good for salvation or for good works. All of creation is corrupt
Mark 16:16 - look at the second half of the verse
wheres the Baptism
But ok lets look at the verse - the possible believer - If he believes - the option of Baptism will then become open to him and he will be saved.
Its not quite when the guy believes and is baptized he will then be saved - the problem with that viewpoint is not are they only ignoring the second half of the verse which helps to tie the verb -tenses- together - the action which is a future event that the saving is looking for is not a dual thing - since I dont see a multiple indicative words
Belief is not a work - repentance and confession are - both are required for salvation - but then you are called to work out your salvation in fear and trembling - you show your faith by your works - you do not gain it by those works
Simplistic chain of salvation - God calls - belief in Gods existence - belief in Gods ability to save - confession of fallen state and actions - repentance of fallen state and actions
WHAM saved
I was also surprised that someone tried to argue the thief had been previously baptized - The thief was in Matthew mocking God - and then I believe the Father revealed unto him, much like Peter, who Jesus was so that he then acted like he did in Luke.
I apologize my keyboard wont do a lot of symbols
And Frank I dont see how context invalidates Matt 3:11 - There is a Baptism of the Spirit and there is a baptism of water - one saves - one doesnt
I say heaven saves - earth corrupts
[ January 15, 2003, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Sularis ]
Carson, Is "the Church" maturing with time or deteriorating with time? Is Satan more effective today at causing confusion? or was he more effective in the early church when there were a million less believers to contend with?????
Ponder that for a bit.
Frank writes:
"""""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, Come on now. You are side stepping with this reply. I told you my friend accepted God's gift of salvation by placing his trust in Christ. He even shared with his family in the little time he had left. He was not Baptized!!! He could not be Baptized because he was very ill and he died before he could get to the "water". You have said over and over that salvation does not happen without Baptism. How then can you not just come out and say that my friend is in Hell. If you cannot declare that based on the evidence I have given you then your whole idea of Baptism being needed for salvation is worthless!! If you are saying that my friend "might" be in Heaven then that means there is exceptions to the "baptism" rule. If there are exceptions then Baptism is not really an "absolute", is it.
Looking forward to your reply,
In Christ,
Brian
Ponder that for a bit.
Frank writes:
"""""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, Come on now. You are side stepping with this reply. I told you my friend accepted God's gift of salvation by placing his trust in Christ. He even shared with his family in the little time he had left. He was not Baptized!!! He could not be Baptized because he was very ill and he died before he could get to the "water". You have said over and over that salvation does not happen without Baptism. How then can you not just come out and say that my friend is in Hell. If you cannot declare that based on the evidence I have given you then your whole idea of Baptism being needed for salvation is worthless!! If you are saying that my friend "might" be in Heaven then that means there is exceptions to the "baptism" rule. If there are exceptions then Baptism is not really an "absolute", is it.
Looking forward to your reply,
In Christ,
Brian
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Brian,
You asked, "Carson, Is "the Church" maturing with time or deteriorating with time?"
Since the Church is a living organism with the Holy Spirit as her soul, she has grown from seed form (Jesus and his ministry in Galilee, Samaria, and Judea) into the massive oak tree that we see today throughout the world in the ministry of the Catholic Church, and she will continue to grow.
Is the Holy Spirit guiding and protecting the Church? Or is Satan stronger than the Spirit?
Of course, you assume that Satan thwarted the Church from the get-go (You would get along well with adherents of the LDS), and that you are that remnant who has recovered the pristine understanding of baptism. I don't buy that.
Jesus has given me his promise, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.", and I trust in that promise. I trust in Jesus and his Spirit.
God bless you,
Carson
You asked, "Carson, Is "the Church" maturing with time or deteriorating with time?"
Since the Church is a living organism with the Holy Spirit as her soul, she has grown from seed form (Jesus and his ministry in Galilee, Samaria, and Judea) into the massive oak tree that we see today throughout the world in the ministry of the Catholic Church, and she will continue to grow.
Is the Holy Spirit guiding and protecting the Church? Or is Satan stronger than the Spirit?
Of course, you assume that Satan thwarted the Church from the get-go (You would get along well with adherents of the LDS), and that you are that remnant who has recovered the pristine understanding of baptism. I don't buy that.
Jesus has given me his promise, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.", and I trust in that promise. I trust in Jesus and his Spirit.
God bless you,
Carson
Hey Carson, That was a pretty short ponder my friend. 
If the church is growing, doesn't it then stand to reason that it would grow to further understanding of certain things. This argument works well for you when non-catholics ask about CC teachings that have changed or been refined over the years. If the "church" is all believers as I say it is, wouldn't it then be true that Baptism could have been mis-understood by some "babes" of the early church and is now better understood by us "adults" of the grown up "church" (I say that last line with a smile, but it is a point to be thought about).
Carson, I have said before that many well intentioned true believers of Jesus were confused by the time Revelations was written. In fact, the church in Corinth was a mess by 50AD. I do not consider any non-biblical source as worth evaluationg because of all of the problems and varried beliefs that occured early on in the individual churches. So, my above argument, though good, is not even important to me. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for reading this post.
Take care.
In Christ,
Brian
If the church is growing, doesn't it then stand to reason that it would grow to further understanding of certain things. This argument works well for you when non-catholics ask about CC teachings that have changed or been refined over the years. If the "church" is all believers as I say it is, wouldn't it then be true that Baptism could have been mis-understood by some "babes" of the early church and is now better understood by us "adults" of the grown up "church" (I say that last line with a smile, but it is a point to be thought about).
Carson, I have said before that many well intentioned true believers of Jesus were confused by the time Revelations was written. In fact, the church in Corinth was a mess by 50AD. I do not consider any non-biblical source as worth evaluationg because of all of the problems and varried beliefs that occured early on in the individual churches. So, my above argument, though good, is not even important to me. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for reading this post.
Take care.
In Christ,
Brian
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Brian,
If the church is growing, doesn't it then stand to reason that it would grow to further understanding of certain things.
Yes, that's called "development of doctrine". St. Vincent of Lerins wrote in 434 his famous Vincentian canon.
He wrote, "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike."
If doctrine is to develop, it must not depart from this faith, received by the Apostles, which is immutable.
If the "church" is all believers as I say it is, wouldn't it then be true that Baptism could have been mis-understood by some "babes" of the early church and is now better understood by us "adults" of the grown up "church"
In other words, you're proposing that the faith held according to the high standards defined by the Vincentian canon was false for 15 centuries. I don't buy that.
Carson, I have said before that many well intentioned true believers of Jesus were confused by the time Revelations was written.
This begs the question: how do you know that Revelation is an apostolic writing? Couldn't the "well intentioned true believers of Jesus" have been just as confused as to whether this document is to be included in the canon of New Testament Scripture?
In fact, the church in Corinth was a mess by 50AD.
You are overgeneralizing the situation in Corinth. Basically, you're saying that because the Church of Corinth experienced immorality among its members, the entire Christian faith held in all places at all times was in complete heresy regarding baptism. That's what we call a "non sequitur".
You should also consider what Paul writes in the letter when he says in 11:2, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."
Apparently, this mass apostasy from the faith that you're falsely imputing upon Corinthians did not actually take place for the Corinthains were successful in maintaining the teachings Paul handed on to them.
I do not consider any non-biblical source as worth evaluationg because of all of the problems and varried beliefs that occured early on in the individual churches.
That begs the question, Brian, how do you know what is Biblical and what is not? I have a book about two inches thick full of New Testament Apocryphal writings! You know because of what the early Church judged to be the canon. At least, that's what the scholars say - and I'm not a scholar of the NT canon, so I must rely on what they write (and so must you).
yours, in Christ,
Carson
If the church is growing, doesn't it then stand to reason that it would grow to further understanding of certain things.
Yes, that's called "development of doctrine". St. Vincent of Lerins wrote in 434 his famous Vincentian canon.
He wrote, "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike."
If doctrine is to develop, it must not depart from this faith, received by the Apostles, which is immutable.
If the "church" is all believers as I say it is, wouldn't it then be true that Baptism could have been mis-understood by some "babes" of the early church and is now better understood by us "adults" of the grown up "church"
In other words, you're proposing that the faith held according to the high standards defined by the Vincentian canon was false for 15 centuries. I don't buy that.
Carson, I have said before that many well intentioned true believers of Jesus were confused by the time Revelations was written.
This begs the question: how do you know that Revelation is an apostolic writing? Couldn't the "well intentioned true believers of Jesus" have been just as confused as to whether this document is to be included in the canon of New Testament Scripture?
In fact, the church in Corinth was a mess by 50AD.
You are overgeneralizing the situation in Corinth. Basically, you're saying that because the Church of Corinth experienced immorality among its members, the entire Christian faith held in all places at all times was in complete heresy regarding baptism. That's what we call a "non sequitur".
You should also consider what Paul writes in the letter when he says in 11:2, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."
Apparently, this mass apostasy from the faith that you're falsely imputing upon Corinthians did not actually take place for the Corinthains were successful in maintaining the teachings Paul handed on to them.
I do not consider any non-biblical source as worth evaluationg because of all of the problems and varried beliefs that occured early on in the individual churches.
That begs the question, Brian, how do you know what is Biblical and what is not? I have a book about two inches thick full of New Testament Apocryphal writings! You know because of what the early Church judged to be the canon. At least, that's what the scholars say - and I'm not a scholar of the NT canon, so I must rely on what they write (and so must you).
yours, in Christ,
Carson
Bobby:
I will take your word that the Amplified Bible contradcits itself on the meanig of eis. It translates it for in Acts 2:38 and becasue of in Mat. 3:11. Thanks, for making my point.
I guess if I read Mat. 26:28 the Amplified Bible will translates the meaning of eis diferently in Mat. as well. This is the reason I do not own this version.
This is why CONTEXT MUST ALWAYS BE THE DECIDING ELEMENT IN WORD MEANINGS. Again, thanks for the help.
I will take your word that the Amplified Bible contradcits itself on the meanig of eis. It translates it for in Acts 2:38 and becasue of in Mat. 3:11. Thanks, for making my point.
I guess if I read Mat. 26:28 the Amplified Bible will translates the meaning of eis diferently in Mat. as well. This is the reason I do not own this version.
This is why CONTEXT MUST ALWAYS BE THE DECIDING ELEMENT IN WORD MEANINGS. Again, thanks for the help.
Bible-belted
New Member
The Vincentian Canon??
The RCC gave up on his concept of unanimous consent of the fathers! That's why they embrace Newman instead of Vincent! Newman himself said that the Vincentian rule of unanimous consent had to be abandoned! He affirmed it in the abstract of course, but Newman said that an application of that principle was impossible since it created as man problems for the RCC as it solved.
It is simply a misrepresentation of history to quote Vincent as a supporter of doctrinal development as it is currently understood and used.
Now that isn't to say that Vincent didn't advocate development. He did. But the modern (Newmanesque) understanding of development abandons Vincent's 3 pillars for establishing the legitmacy of any development(universality, antiquity and consent).
The RCC gave up on his concept of unanimous consent of the fathers! That's why they embrace Newman instead of Vincent! Newman himself said that the Vincentian rule of unanimous consent had to be abandoned! He affirmed it in the abstract of course, but Newman said that an application of that principle was impossible since it created as man problems for the RCC as it solved.
It is simply a misrepresentation of history to quote Vincent as a supporter of doctrinal development as it is currently understood and used.
Now that isn't to say that Vincent didn't advocate development. He did. But the modern (Newmanesque) understanding of development abandons Vincent's 3 pillars for establishing the legitmacy of any development(universality, antiquity and consent).
Sularis:
Read the conversions of the Bible. There are nine in Acts. They are found in 2:38,8:13;30-40;10:47,48,16:12-16;30-33;18:8;22:16;19:1-5.
Here are some questions that you should ponder from Acts 8:30-40. Question: Who baptized whom?
Question: What element was the element of baptism?
Question: For what purpose was he baptized?
Question: When was the one baptized joyous? before he was baptized or after?
The answers are found in Acts 8:38. Philip baptized the Eunoch in water. The eunoch was baptized in Water. Vs 38. He was joyous after he was baptized. vs 39. Paul in Acts 22:16,was told to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.
1. Washing of water by the word. Eph. 5:26.
2. Washed inthe blood. Rev.1:5.
3. Washed in baptism for the remission of sins. Acts 22:16.
Why is it water Baptism?
1. Only Jesus could baptize with the Holy Spirit. SEE Mat. 3:11.
2. The Baptism commanded by Christ has human administrators and is to be commanded and practiced until the end of time. See Mat. 28:18-20.
3. Holy Spirit Baptism was a promise to be received,not a command to be obeyed. John 14:26;15:26;16:13, Luke 24:44-51. Promised to apostles.
4. Received by apostles. Acts 2:1-4.
5. Promised as a fulfillemnt of prophesy to Gentiles. Joel 2:27,28, Acts 2:17;Acts 10:47;11:1-18.
6.Simon was baptized but did not have the Holy Spirit. see Acts 8:13;16,17.
7. The miraculous gifts associated with the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit were imparted by the laying on of the apostles hands. SEE Acts 8:17,18.
8.The baptism of the Holy Spirit and it's miraculous gifts were to cease. I Cor. 13:8-10.
9. The purpose for the miraculus gifts has been fulfilled. The word has been confirmed. John 20:30,31, Mark 16:17-20.
10. The inspired word des not command Holy Spirit baptism but does require water baptism. see Acts 10:47,48.
11. No one has ever been saved by Holy Spirit baptism as it is the word that saves. James 1:18,21.
12. If one is saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. he is saved without faith. Romans 10:17, Hebrews 4: 12. This is an impossibility.
13, John was to prepare a people for the Lord. He prepared them by baptizing them inwater for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4, John 7:26-29, Luke 1:17;76,77.
14. Jesus said he that believethand is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16.
What does the verse say? Consider the following:
He that BELEIVETH AND is BAPTIZED shall be saved. JESUS MARK 16: 16.
Religionists: He that BELIEVETH IS SAVED AND IS THEN BAPTIZED.
BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE DAMNED. JESUS MARK 16:16.
Jesus: BELIEF, BAPTISM, SAVED.
Religionist: BELIEF, SAVED, BAPTISM.
Which one shall be accepted Jesus or the Religionist?
The harmony of the scriptures demand water baptism. SEE ABOVE.
Peter had it correct in all three cases in which he was involved. Acts 2:38, I Pet. 3:21, Acts 10:47,48. The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us. Paul understood Peter's first sermon. Acts 22:16. Jesus agrees with Paul and Peter. SEE ABOVE Mark 16:16.
Read the conversions of the Bible. There are nine in Acts. They are found in 2:38,8:13;30-40;10:47,48,16:12-16;30-33;18:8;22:16;19:1-5.
Here are some questions that you should ponder from Acts 8:30-40. Question: Who baptized whom?
Question: What element was the element of baptism?
Question: For what purpose was he baptized?
Question: When was the one baptized joyous? before he was baptized or after?
The answers are found in Acts 8:38. Philip baptized the Eunoch in water. The eunoch was baptized in Water. Vs 38. He was joyous after he was baptized. vs 39. Paul in Acts 22:16,was told to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.
1. Washing of water by the word. Eph. 5:26.
2. Washed inthe blood. Rev.1:5.
3. Washed in baptism for the remission of sins. Acts 22:16.
Why is it water Baptism?
1. Only Jesus could baptize with the Holy Spirit. SEE Mat. 3:11.
2. The Baptism commanded by Christ has human administrators and is to be commanded and practiced until the end of time. See Mat. 28:18-20.
3. Holy Spirit Baptism was a promise to be received,not a command to be obeyed. John 14:26;15:26;16:13, Luke 24:44-51. Promised to apostles.
4. Received by apostles. Acts 2:1-4.
5. Promised as a fulfillemnt of prophesy to Gentiles. Joel 2:27,28, Acts 2:17;Acts 10:47;11:1-18.
6.Simon was baptized but did not have the Holy Spirit. see Acts 8:13;16,17.
7. The miraculous gifts associated with the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit were imparted by the laying on of the apostles hands. SEE Acts 8:17,18.
8.The baptism of the Holy Spirit and it's miraculous gifts were to cease. I Cor. 13:8-10.
9. The purpose for the miraculus gifts has been fulfilled. The word has been confirmed. John 20:30,31, Mark 16:17-20.
10. The inspired word des not command Holy Spirit baptism but does require water baptism. see Acts 10:47,48.
11. No one has ever been saved by Holy Spirit baptism as it is the word that saves. James 1:18,21.
12. If one is saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. he is saved without faith. Romans 10:17, Hebrews 4: 12. This is an impossibility.
13, John was to prepare a people for the Lord. He prepared them by baptizing them inwater for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4, John 7:26-29, Luke 1:17;76,77.
14. Jesus said he that believethand is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16.
What does the verse say? Consider the following:
He that BELEIVETH AND is BAPTIZED shall be saved. JESUS MARK 16: 16.
Religionists: He that BELIEVETH IS SAVED AND IS THEN BAPTIZED.
BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE DAMNED. JESUS MARK 16:16.
Jesus: BELIEF, BAPTISM, SAVED.
Religionist: BELIEF, SAVED, BAPTISM.
Which one shall be accepted Jesus or the Religionist?
The harmony of the scriptures demand water baptism. SEE ABOVE.
Peter had it correct in all three cases in which he was involved. Acts 2:38, I Pet. 3:21, Acts 10:47,48. The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us. Paul understood Peter's first sermon. Acts 22:16. Jesus agrees with Paul and Peter. SEE ABOVE Mark 16:16.
Brian:
I gave a scriptual answer. I posted what one must do to be saved. The answer is there. You fail to understand that Jesus will pronounce condemnation or eternal salvation, he is the judge. I Cor. 5:10.
Brian, I said it was as easy as IN or Out. The Bible teaches that salvation is IN CHRIST. II Tim. 2:10. The Bible teaches one must be BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST TO BE SAVED BY FAITH. The Bible teaches that ALL Spiritual blessings are IN CHRIST Eph. 1:3. The Bible teaches redemptoion of sisns is IN Christ. Therefore, the Bible teaches that the saved from sins when they are BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST for where all spiritual blessings, and subsequently by living faithfully, salvation in heaven. II Tim. 2:10, Rev. 2:10. The Bible does not teach ONE IS SAVED OUTSIDE CHRIST. Therefore, one not baptized INTO Christ is OUTSIDE Christ and is lost. This is what the Bible teaches. Brian, according to the inspired text, HOW DOES ONE GET INTO CHRIST? Brian, according to the inpired text,WHEN is one SAVED BY FAITH?
Finally,I have a friend who was sick and died before he had faith, Is he saved? I have a friend who was sick and died without repenting of his sins, Is he saved? I have a friend who was sick and died without confessing Christ, Is he saved?
I have a firend who was sick and died before he was baptized,Is he saved?
I would appreciate a SCRIPTURAL answer,not personal experiences, feelings or opinions. The word of God is good enough for me.
I gave a scriptual answer. I posted what one must do to be saved. The answer is there. You fail to understand that Jesus will pronounce condemnation or eternal salvation, he is the judge. I Cor. 5:10.
Brian, I said it was as easy as IN or Out. The Bible teaches that salvation is IN CHRIST. II Tim. 2:10. The Bible teaches one must be BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST TO BE SAVED BY FAITH. The Bible teaches that ALL Spiritual blessings are IN CHRIST Eph. 1:3. The Bible teaches redemptoion of sisns is IN Christ. Therefore, the Bible teaches that the saved from sins when they are BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST for where all spiritual blessings, and subsequently by living faithfully, salvation in heaven. II Tim. 2:10, Rev. 2:10. The Bible does not teach ONE IS SAVED OUTSIDE CHRIST. Therefore, one not baptized INTO Christ is OUTSIDE Christ and is lost. This is what the Bible teaches. Brian, according to the inspired text, HOW DOES ONE GET INTO CHRIST? Brian, according to the inpired text,WHEN is one SAVED BY FAITH?
Finally,I have a friend who was sick and died before he had faith, Is he saved? I have a friend who was sick and died without repenting of his sins, Is he saved? I have a friend who was sick and died without confessing Christ, Is he saved?
I have a firend who was sick and died before he was baptized,Is he saved?
I would appreciate a SCRIPTURAL answer,not personal experiences, feelings or opinions. The word of God is good enough for me.
Hi Carson, Hope you are well this fine day
You wrote:""That begs the question, Brian, how do you know what is Biblical and what is not?""
I believe that the Bible is a miracle. God used men to make his Word go from a universal truth to a written universal truth. The wirters of the Bible were used the way Balaams donkey was used. God used and continues to use the vessels of His choosing all the time. The early councils may have even thought they picked the books that were in the Bible, I believe God did the picking. You see Carson, God is the master of the universe and has a say in all things. We don't get to pick our spiritual gifts they are bestowed on us by God's choosing, much the way God bestowed on us His written Word, The Bible.
Frank, The Bible is clear that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works that any man should boast. I know I may be biting on your bait here but the first three friends you mention sound as if they had no faith. If they proclaimed that they didn't have trust in Christ to forgive their sins or Sin, to be technical, then I declare that they are not in Heaven. This of course is what I can declare based on what you said. The fourth friend you mentioned I do not have evidence to make such a statement. Had he placed his faith in Christ and trusted the blood of Jesus to cleanse him from his Sin?
Frank, one more time straight out based on the evidence I give you now again. My friend repented of his Sin, he placed his trust by faith in the work Jesus did on the cross, proved by the resurrection, to forgive His sin and put him in right standing with God. He even had works in his limited time before His death. (However, he was never Baptized, never assembled with others, never shared the "Lord's supper" with others)Based on that, do you BELIEVE he is in Heaven or Hell? Please, no more Bill Clinton answers If you can't declare it I will not accept that you believe what you preach.
DHK, good question for Frank, and well timed I may add
In Love and Truth,
Brian
[ January 16, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]
You wrote:""That begs the question, Brian, how do you know what is Biblical and what is not?""
I believe that the Bible is a miracle. God used men to make his Word go from a universal truth to a written universal truth. The wirters of the Bible were used the way Balaams donkey was used. God used and continues to use the vessels of His choosing all the time. The early councils may have even thought they picked the books that were in the Bible, I believe God did the picking. You see Carson, God is the master of the universe and has a say in all things. We don't get to pick our spiritual gifts they are bestowed on us by God's choosing, much the way God bestowed on us His written Word, The Bible.
Frank, The Bible is clear that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works that any man should boast. I know I may be biting on your bait here but the first three friends you mention sound as if they had no faith. If they proclaimed that they didn't have trust in Christ to forgive their sins or Sin, to be technical, then I declare that they are not in Heaven. This of course is what I can declare based on what you said. The fourth friend you mentioned I do not have evidence to make such a statement. Had he placed his faith in Christ and trusted the blood of Jesus to cleanse him from his Sin?
Frank, one more time straight out based on the evidence I give you now again. My friend repented of his Sin, he placed his trust by faith in the work Jesus did on the cross, proved by the resurrection, to forgive His sin and put him in right standing with God. He even had works in his limited time before His death. (However, he was never Baptized, never assembled with others, never shared the "Lord's supper" with others)Based on that, do you BELIEVE he is in Heaven or Hell? Please, no more Bill Clinton answers
If you can't declare it I will not accept that you believe what you preach.DHK, good question for Frank, and well timed I may add
In Love and Truth,
Brian
[ January 16, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]
thessalonian
New Member
I am new here and just jumping in to the conversation. But let me give you an answer. You may consider it clintonesque but then so I do consider listening to Protestant radio in the afternoon clintonesque when the guy coming on at 2 pm says only 10% of the "Christians" are actually saved while the very next guy says that once you have declared JC your PLS, your in like flint. I wonder how these guys get along at work when discussing theology.Originally posted by Briguy:
Frank, one more time straight out based on the evidence I give you now again. My friend repented of his Sin, he placed his trust by faith in the work Jesus did on the cross, proved by the resurrection, to forgive His sin and put him in right standing with God. He even had works in his limited time before His death. (Howevr, he was never Baptized, never assembled with others, never shared the "Lord's supper" with others)Based on that do you BELIEVE he is in Heaven or Hell. Please, no more Bill Clinton answers
Brian
You want a simple answer to your question. The simple one is "I am not God and cannot be the final judge". If his missing out on Baptism was a conscious "this isn't neccessary no matter what the Bible says" then I would have to question his sincerety in his committement to Christ. If it was out of ignorance about baptism, was it out of neglect on his part or not? Was he taught about the Lord's supper? Christianity is about growth. Hebrews 12 talks about those on milk and those on meat. Those on milk are judged accordingly by God. Those on meat have much more that they are responsible for. YOur friend will be judged justly and mercifully by God. If he is not there when you get there, you will understand God's justice and mercy toward him. That is the reality of what you want simple answers for. I cannot judge the heart of a man.
Couple other comments. Yes, the Bible is a miracel. No question about that. I would agree with you with regard God being the chooser of the books of the Bible. That is how the Holy Spirit works. He works in and through men. The dichotomy that you try to create by raising the question was it the men or God is a false one. I am quite sure the early councils KNEW that God did the picking of the books in the Bible when all was said and done.
We also both agree that the Bible is God's written word. Where we don't agree is that the Word of God is also transmitted orally. "Hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have recieved, whether by WORD of MOUTH or in writing from us.". Apparently at least at one point there was oral transmission of God's word. I have not yet seen it proven that this oral transmission went away.
Blessings.
Hi Thess, welcome to BB. The friend of mine in question never got out of the hospital after his conversion (for lack of better words), he died of Luekemia. He was too sick to be baptized. In fact, I don't think he ever left the hospital room after his being saved(i.e. placing his trust in Christ). The CC, of which you are a part, at least has an "intention" clause in its theology. Frank is making Baptism a 100% must, reguardless of intention, water availabiltiy, another person being present to do the Baptism, etc... I am just looking for Frank to be, well, frank , with me on the question. He has had two chances so far and has eluded a direct answer.
Again, welcome to the Board, glad to have you, even if you are Catholic
In Christ
Brian
, with me on the question. He has had two chances so far and has eluded a direct answer.Again, welcome to the Board, glad to have you, even if you are Catholic
In Christ
Brian
Brian:
I preach exactly as I posted. It is all Biblical. I believe every scripture in the Bilbe that teaches we are saved by grace, faith, belief, repentance, confession, blood, baptism, faithfulness to Christ. I have posted and quoted all of these elements. I accept all of them. Unfortunately, you chose to accept only parts of the word of God.
I answered the question about salvation using the New Testament. Is not the Bible a good enough answer for you?
Now, answer my questions as I did yours, from the Bible.
Question: According to the New Testament of Jesus Christ, How does on get INTO Christ?
Question: According to the New Testament Can a man be saved outside Christ?
A simple posting of the scripture would suffice for an answer. I will look them up, and post them as the answewr to the question.
My feelings,thoughts,emotions are irrelevant to this issue. I answered the way God demands. I Pet. 3:15, II Tim. 3:16,17.
I preach exactly as I posted. It is all Biblical. I believe every scripture in the Bilbe that teaches we are saved by grace, faith, belief, repentance, confession, blood, baptism, faithfulness to Christ. I have posted and quoted all of these elements. I accept all of them. Unfortunately, you chose to accept only parts of the word of God.
I answered the question about salvation using the New Testament. Is not the Bible a good enough answer for you?
Now, answer my questions as I did yours, from the Bible.
Question: According to the New Testament of Jesus Christ, How does on get INTO Christ?
Question: According to the New Testament Can a man be saved outside Christ?
A simple posting of the scripture would suffice for an answer. I will look them up, and post them as the answewr to the question.
My feelings,thoughts,emotions are irrelevant to this issue. I answered the way God demands. I Pet. 3:15, II Tim. 3:16,17.
DHK:
Assumption one: You know me.
Assumptiont two: You know I do not keep all the commandments.
The Bible teaches that in all matters of faith complete obedience is essential. Hebrews 5:8,9, Mat. 7:21-24, Luke 6:46. Which command may yo udisobey and be saved. How do you know? And, which command? The Bible does not require perfection. It does require faithfulness. II Tim. 4:6-8.
The Bible says that Zechariah and Elizabeth walked In all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:6. Your argument is with God, not me.
Assumption one: You know me.
Assumptiont two: You know I do not keep all the commandments.
The Bible teaches that in all matters of faith complete obedience is essential. Hebrews 5:8,9, Mat. 7:21-24, Luke 6:46. Which command may yo udisobey and be saved. How do you know? And, which command? The Bible does not require perfection. It does require faithfulness. II Tim. 4:6-8.
The Bible says that Zechariah and Elizabeth walked In all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:6. Your argument is with God, not me.
thessalonian
New Member
Hi Briguy,
Sorry to here about your friend. Too bad you don't like pouring or a hospital room wouldn't have been an impediment toward this wonderful sacrement of God's grace and mercy. But as I said God is a just judge. May well be a theif on the cross case. Who knows. I send up a few smoke signals that it was. I don't know Frank. Is he Catholic? If so he needs to do a little more study. If not, anything goes out there these days.
Blessings and thanks for the welcom.
Sorry to here about your friend. Too bad you don't like pouring or a hospital room wouldn't have been an impediment toward this wonderful sacrement of God's grace and mercy. But as I said God is a just judge. May well be a theif on the cross case. Who knows. I send up a few smoke signals that it was. I don't know Frank. Is he Catholic? If so he needs to do a little more study. If not, anything goes out there these days.
Blessings and thanks for the welcom.
Realize this Frank. I don't assume too much. I observe human nature. I know enough about you from what you have written on this board to make some fairly accurate assessments. One of those assessments is that you do not keep all the commandments. The very implication that you did showed that you didn't for it was a blatant lie. "Thou shalt not lie." It also demonstrated the sins of arrogance and pride, just in that one post. You have slandered, called people names, made false accusations, tried to bolster your position by twisting the Scriptures deliberately. You have not kept all the commandments of Christ. The very fact that you say or imply that you do makes you a liar for the Bible says twice:
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
--In saying what you did, you have: deceived yourself, the truth is not in you, you have made Christ a liar, and the Word is not in you. That is what God says about you.
You have not kept all the commandments of Christ. Baptism you may have kept, but what about all the others. If you must keep baptism, you must keep them all. If you fail in one it is the same as failing in all. James 2:10 teaches that. According to your own theology you have doomed yourself to Hell, for your religion is a religion of works which you cannot keep..
DHK
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Brian,
The early councils may have even thought they picked the books that were in the Bible, I believe God did the picking.
I agree. The councils are the instrumentality of God's action. The only difference between you and I is that I don't pick and choose my councils.
God bless,
Carson
The early councils may have even thought they picked the books that were in the Bible, I believe God did the picking.
I agree. The councils are the instrumentality of God's action. The only difference between you and I is that I don't pick and choose my councils.
God bless,
Carson