Baptist Commentator

[Frank]

Briguy:
My statement about which method you would employ for your position was not meant as a personal attack. It is simply a logical conclusion that could be made about anyone who espouses a doctrine that does not consider the sufficiency and harmony of the scriptures. I could say the same thing about Billy Graham and his doctrine of universal pluralism. So,please do not view it as a personal or arrogant statement. It is simply a logical conclusion made by the evidence and, in some cases, the lack of it. If I am wrong about my conclusion, I request it be proven by evidence from the scriptures. This is the same standard I used to make the conclusion. This is an honorable thing to do.
However, to make statements that someone knows or should " know me and so and so are correct" based on the word of the respondant without the evidence being presented is an irrational statement and requires one to make and irrational conclusion.
I have presented the scriptural evidence for my faith. A faith based on that which is written and heard, Romans 10:17, Eph. 3:1-6, not personal feelings or experiences. Just give me the evidence. The Bible says this is what faih is built upon. Hebrews 11:1, Romans 10;17. If the evidence indicates I am wrong, I will admit my error and change.
Is that too much to ask?

 

[DHK]

Frank quote:

I have presented the scriptural evidence for my faith. A faith based on that which is written and heard, Romans 10:17, Eph. 3:1-6, not personal feelings or experiences. Just give me the evidence. The Bible says this is what faih is built upon. Hebrews 11:1, Romans 10;17. If the evidence indicates I am wrong, I will admit my error and change. Is that too much to ask?

You have not presented Scriptural evidence at all. You have presented your presuppositions and pre- conceived ideas of what the Scriptures say backed up with verses taken out of context, and twisted to mean something other than what they really mean. You belong to the Church of Christ, do you not, or at least are associated with them? These are the Cambellites a sect started in the 19th Century. So, for 1800 years no one else had the truth of the Word of God. This doctrine you espouse is relatively new, as is Jehovah's witness, Mormon, and so many other cults.

Consider your unorthodox interpretation of John 3:5,6, which certainly talks of the Holy Spirit, as any scholar will tell you. Here is A.T. Robertson, on the matter:

"Of water and the Spirit (ec udatov kai pneumatov). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add ec udatov here? In verse Joh_3:3we have "anwqen" (from above) which is repeated in verse Joh_3:7, while in verse Joh_3:8 we have only ek tou pneumatov (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts."

In the above quote it is clear that the phrase is "of the Spirit," and refers to the Holy Spirt. It refers to being born from , a supernatural birth that has nothing to do with earthly water. We do not believe in witchcraft here. Water has no power to cleanse sin. Go back and read Jer.2:22 and allow its words to penetrate your mind. Water and soap cannot wash away sins. Let's not be silly in our theology. The only thing that washes away sin is the blood of the Lamb. You may have a problem with some verses in the Bible, but that is because you do not take those verses in the context of the totality of Scripture. Over and over again the Bible teaches that we are saved by faith alone. It is a gift of God. Salvation is an act of Christ done out of love, born out of grace. It is all of the grace of God. Baptism is a work. Salvation is not by works. You belittle God's grace, God's gift to man, by saying that baptism is a part of salvation. You infer that Christ could not pay the penalty of sin on his own, but somehow you, have to help him pay that penalty by being baptized. That is blasphemy. Salvation is by the grace of God. It is all by grace. There is no works involved. I accept it as a gift, by faith and by faith alone.

Eph.2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Do you believe these verses? You write as if you do not!

Here is your quote Frank:

Your contention of verse six has ntothing to do with the pastr events of verse 5,6. The text of 3-5 does not employthe definitive articel indicating the HOly Spirit. Furthermore, the reference here is to a past event taking place. Therefore, your contention changes absolutel nothing that is revealed in the event of three and five. Again, simply trying to array scripture against scripture. The cordinating conjunctionand connects two the spirit and water inLikeness or equally. You do not like it so you just try to make it go away. That is your problem. Pneuma may refer to man's spirit,or the members of the Godhead. I Cor.2:11 employs Pneuma for man's spirit. In verse 12 pneuma is used for the spirit of the world. In verse 14 it is used for God's spirit. Finally, the spirt of verse six implies by verse three and five this is a unique spiritual happening. Obviously, it does say born a new or anothen from above. The Birth is, in fact, spiritual requiring equally water and spirit. I affirm both as the text demands. You must refuse the water part as your false doctrine want let you have it any other way.

Your first mistake is that you dissect verse six from verses three to five. Why would you leave verse six out of the conversation, out of the words that Jesus is saying to Nicodemus? That is really butchering up the Scripture for your own means isn't it? Verse six does include the article, does speak about the Holy Spirit, as does verse five. Although pneuma, has other meanings, such as man's spirit, it is evident that this is talking of a Spiritual rebirth, being born from above, being born into God's family, being born by the Holy Spirit, and as we see from other Scripture, being born again by the Word of God. There are no other agencies by which one is born again. Baptism is not mentioned in these verses or even in this chapter. Why are you trying to force its meaning into this context when Jesus is not even talking of baptism. Baptism is entirely out of context. Look at the verse again:

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

The whole passage is speaking of being born again, specifically being born again of the Holy Spirit of God. Can any one deny that verse 8 is speaking of the Holy Spirit? This verse really sets the whole thing in its context doesn't it? The operation of the Holy Spirit is compared to the wind. As with the wind, the effects of the wind are seen, even though we do not see its operation: so it is with the Holy Spirit. We see the effects of the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit Himself.
Thus verse 6 contrasts two types of birth: a fleshly birth and a spiritual birth. We are all born of the flesh. But not are all born of the Holy Spirit of God. Not all are born from above. You must be born again.
Thus in verse 5, when the word "water" is used we compare Scripture with Scripture to find out its true significance and find that the Bible teaches that one is "born again by the Word of God which lives and abides forever" (1Pet.1:23). It is symbolic of the Word of God (see previous post).

Frank you post:

Again, instead of harmonizing the evidence you seek to array scripture against scripture to defend your false doctrine.
1. In Eph 5: 26,27 the Bible says of the church that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of the water by the word. It is obvious that the water here is a refernce to baptism as the totality of the divine evidence requires it. Acts 22:16, And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.
Acts 2:38," repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins."Acts 8: 28-40; 8:12-16. James 1:18, I Pet. 1:23 teaches us that the instrument of regeneration is the word of God which requires one to be baptized. See above.

This response indicates to me that either you failed to comprehend or didn't really read what I had to say on these verses. Scripture indeed does harmonize with each other, just not in the way you think it does. As previously pointed out, there is no reference to baptism in Eph. 5:26,27. You would have to force that in there by your own pre-conceived ideas.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
--This verse has been explained to you before, as has the others. A literal translation of this verse would read: "Having arisen be baptized, and have your sins washed off (by) calling on the name of the Lord." In the Greek we have a finite verb modified by a participle in each half of he verse. The last clause of the verse (so translated) is supported by the totality of Scriptural teaching (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13).

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Ryrie says this:
"This does not mean in order that sins might be remitted, for everywhere in the New Testament sins are forgiven as a result of faith in Christ, not as result of baptism. It means be baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek preposition "eis" or "for" has this meaning "because of" not only here but also in is such a passage as Mat.12:41 where the meaning can only be "they repented because of (not in order to be) the preaching of Jonah." Repentance brought the remission of sins for this Pentecostal crowd, and because of the remission of sins they were asked to be baptized."

Again, the totality of Scripture teaches that salvation is by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and that it is by faith alone. Baptism plays no part at all.
DHK

 

[Frank]

DHK:
Prove it! Refute my position by using the toatality of the harmonious evidence. I challange you to take every example of conversion in the Bible and examine it and prove my position is in error. I challenge you to take the scriptures of the New Testament that pertain to salvation for the sinner and prove I am in error. The list is as follows: Acts 2:38;8:12-16; 8:30- 40; 9;5,6;22:6-16; 10: 33-48; 11:4-18; 16:13-16,30-34; 18:8; 19:1-6. John 3:3-5, Eph. 2:8,9, Gal. 3:26-29, I Pet. 3:21, Mark 16:16, Mat. 28:18,19, Acts 10:48,Hebrews 5: 8,9, John 3:36, II Thes.1:6-9, Col. 2:12, Rev. 1:5, Eph. 5:26,27, I Pet. 1:17,18. You wanted evidence. There you have it. Now, show me how I have taken scripture out of context and that the evidence is not harmonious.
You refuse to do it because you cannot not do that which the scriptures will not allow for the rational mind.

You will use one of two approaches or maybe both. There is no predicting what you will come up with to say. The first and most likely approach is you will refuse to examine the totality of the evidence and harmonize it. Instread you will use number two You will simply array scripture against scripture and thus attempt to make the Bible contradictory which baptist do not believe.

You cite A.T. Robertson who is a baptist theologian as a source of truth, I guess, and yet, he openly admits he prefers his theology over the text of scripture. A. T.Robertson said," that sometimes grammar must give way to theology." This quote is from his book HISTORICAL GRAMMAR. It is in reference to Acts 2:38 and the essentiality of baptism for the remission of sins. It is obvious he must make such false statements as his quote above as the truth destroys his theology. AND, he had rather have his pride and false doctrine over the simpicity of the truth. At least he is an honest false teacher. This type scholarship carries no weight with me. Obviously, you respect honest false teachers.
Furthermore, your assertion that I have twisted and taken scripture out of context is blatantly false. The other excuse false teachers such as yourself use when they are exposed is" that is your interpretation."
The Bible teaches that water baptism is essential for the salvation of the sinner. I have signed an open proposition stating precisely the above. Perhaps, you can get some baptist preacher in LaGrange Ga. to do the honorable thing and sign the denial and afirm faith only. I have tried to get some to do this. However, there seems to be a great reluctance on their part to engage in a debate over this issue. Go figure!

 

[Frank]

DHK:
I have already stated that the new birth is a spiritual one of water and spirit. I accept both. You deny the first part by your failure to understand simple rules of grammar. And is a coordinating conjunction connecting two in likeness as one.
When You were exposed by the original language that refutes Holy Spirt baptism, You run to the next verse 6. Verse 6 has nothing to do with Holy Spirt baptism either. The Lord affirmed it was WATER,which you deny, but the text says otherwise, and spirit.Verse 6 is a summary of the birth that has previously taken place. Again, a misunderstanding of grammar and context.
Finally, I never made a commment about verse 8. The meaning is simple to me. Men cannot totally comprehend the great influence the spirit has in using the word of God to change the lives of men. Eph. 6:17, Hebrews 4:10. It is like the wind. one may see the change or effect but the source of it's great power is not totally understood. I have always affirmed Holy Spirit operates through the word of God. I do not know what possessed you to get into this, as these passages are simply the affirmation of the second part of John 3:3-5. See I Pet. 1:23,Luke 8:11-15.It is water and spirit. I guess you just did not have anything else to say.
I have posted the conversions and the New Testament scriptures that relate to this topic that futher prove my position. This info may be found in another segment of the board. I believe it is in the James 2:14 section.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:

Prove it! Refute my position
You cite A.T. Robertson who is a baptist theologian as a source of truth, At least he is an honest false teacher. This type scholarship carries no weight with me. Obviously, you respect honest false teachers.
The other excuse false teachers such as yourself use when they are exposed is" that is your interpretation."
The Bible teaches that water baptism is essential for the salvation of the sinner. I have signed an open proposition stating precisely the above. Perhaps, you can get some baptist preacher in LaGrange Ga. to do the honorable thing and sign the denial and afirm faith only. I have tried to get some to do this. However, there seems to be a great reluctance on their part to engage in a debate over this issue. Go figure!

According to you, A.T. Robertson is a false teacher, I am false teacher, and I suppose Ryrie, whom I also cited is a false teacher, and every other person outside the "Church of Christ" that you belong to is a false teacher.

Your position has been well refuted. You refuse to prove your own position, i.e. that baptism is necessary for salvation. Listing a series of references proves nothing. Anyone can do that. You have demonstrated to no one on this board that baptism is necessary to salvation. That particular doctrine is a well-known heresy. Again your doctrine of Cambellism is relatively new. What did the Christians for more than 1800 years before that time believe? I guess they never had the truth, did they? Just a select few, such as yourself have the truth--the rest of us are (in your opinion) false teachers.
DHK

 

[Frank]

DHK:
No. I am not a part of the Campbellites. I am a part of the church of the Lord. Mat. 16:18,Acts 2:38-47.
Moreover, I have not affirmed there is any miraculous power in the water. This is a feeble attempt to distract from the text of John 3:3-5 and your inability to harmonize it with the rest of the Biblical evidence on this subject. It is a typical denominational mode of operation. Baptism is God's operation to save. Col. 2:12.
Furthermore, interpretation of scripture must consider context and harmony of the rest of the scriptures on a subject, not array scripture against scripture. I notice you are silent as an oyster about the totality of the evidence. Go figure!

Your comments about the " best manuscripts in the original language" teach thus and so is simply much like the claims of Robertson. It is an attempt to justify your theology over the simplicity of the truth.

I have the original language of John 3:3-5 ,too, and in the correct tenses and voices. If you are going to use Greek learn the rules as well. In verse 3 it is in the passive voice. Meaning it has alredy been done. In verse 5 it is the active voice. the meaning is there was something Nicodemus must do. Which by the way, harmonizes with the divine questions of Acts 2:37, Acts 9:6, Acts 16:30. Furthermore, the Greek does not employ the definitive article that you infer means the Holy Spirit. I understand your reasoning, because if not, then you cannot have Holy Spirit baptism. It is absent in those verses. Furthermore, to make the statement the King James translators were perfectly accurate in using the capital S is an unsubstantiated opinion as the Greek language does not employ capital letters. Again, you just simply do not know the rules of grammar.

I would like for you to tell me which are the best Greek texts and How you know? Surely, you are not going to assert you are a Greek scholar!! And , are qualified to do so because of your knowledge of the rules of the language. I have presented evidence to the contrary should you consider making this claim. This should be another A. T. Robertson type response.

You have proven one thing by using this approach. You do not know the rules of Greek any better than the ones for English.

 

[DHK]

Frank you say:

I have the original language of John 3:3-5 ,too, and in the correct tenses and voices. If you are going to use Greek learn the rules as well. In verse 3 it is in the passive voice. Meaning it has alredy been done.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
I am not sure which verb you are referring to, Frank, but the sense of the verse is very plain. You must be born again. He was telling Nicodemus, that if he was going to have any chance at all to enter the kingdom of God, he would have to be born again, i.e., born from above. There is nothing difficult here. Neither is there any hint of any water or any baptism.
Verse four illustrates the difficulty that Nicodemus had in understanding spiritual things. He was not born again at this point. It had nothing to do with baptism, although it is possible that Nicodemus may have been baptized by John. We do not know. The Scriptures are silent. But in context Nicodemus is without understanding.

In verse 5 it is the active voice. the meaning is there was something Nicodemus must do. Which by the way, harmonizes with the divine questions of Acts 2:37, Acts 9:6, Acts 16:30. Furthermore, the Greek does not employ the definitive article that you infer means the Holy Spirit. I understand your reasoning, because if not, then you cannot have Holy Spirit baptism. It is absent in those verses. Furthermore, to make the statement the King James translators were perfectly accurate in using the capital S is an unsubstantiated opinion as the Greek language does not employ capital letters. Again, you just simply do not know the rules of grammar.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(John 3:3) He cannot see the kingdom of God (ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou). To participate in it as in Luk_9:27. For this use of idein (second aorist active infinitive of oraw) see Joh_8:51; Rev_18:7.

(John 3:5) Here Jesus uses eiselqein (enter) instead of idein (see) of verse Joh_3:3, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom). (A.T. Robertson)

Both verbs, "see" and "enter" are in the same tenses, and give the same essential idea. They do not give different ideas, and from it you cannot infer that it is not speaking of the Holy Spirit. What you have proposed is simple nonsense.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"This does not mean in order that sins might be remitted, for everywhere in the New Testament sins are forgiven as a result of faith in Christ, not as result of baptism. It means be baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek preposition "eis" or "for" has this meaning "because of" not only here but also in is such a passage as Mat.12:41 where the meaning can only be "they repented because of (not in order to be) the preaching of Jonah." Repentance brought the remission of sins for this Pentecostal crowd, and because of the remission of sins they were asked to be baptized." (Ryrie)
This explanation was already offered above.

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
--And your problem/point with this verse is...

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
--Good verses! Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Notice that there is no mention of baptism here. Believe and be saved. That is all there is to it. Glad you mentioned that one.

Baptism is God's operation to save. Col. 2:12.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
In verse 11 Paul had speaking about circumcision. Paul draws a parallel in that circumcision speaks of death to the flesh, baptism speaks of burial of the old man. Thus we read, "buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Paul is teaching that we have not only died with Christ, but that we have been buried with him. This was pictured for us in our baptism. The baptism itself does not save. It simply is a picture. Circumcision itself did not save the Jew. It simply was a sign of the covenant. Whether it be the Old or the New Testament Age, salvation is the same. It is by faith. That which is pictured in baptism takes place at salvation. Baptism is simply a picture and nothing more. Circumcision did not save the Jew. Baptism does not save the believer. Both were acts of obedience. We are saved by faith. If the blood of Christ is not sufficient enough to save you from your sins, then what is? If you need baptism also, then you make Christ a liar when He said "It is finished" (John 19:30). Christ finished the work of salvation for us. Baptism does nothing.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

DHK, Thank you so much for standing up for the truth. I was going to tackle the issue this weekend but now don't have to as you have done a far better job already then I could have done. How is it that you use scripture after scripture, quote well respected teachers of the Word and then Frank comes back with "where's your proof?" or something to that effect. I was floored by that response after you had offered such conclusive proof. Can you imagine a God that would separate the wheat from the weeds on the basis of something to do with physical water? I sure can't.

Frank, What is the name on the building you preach at. If the name is not on the building what is the name on your churches "statement of beliefs"?. If you meet in a house, independent of any other branch of local churches then indicate that. Thank you for answering.

Carol, I would like to know your comments to my last post above.

In Christ,
Brian

[ October 24, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

[Frank]

DHK:
Again, your scholarship of Saul's conversion is in error. In the text Jesus is telling Saul What he must do and where to go to find out what he must do. You then, quote Acts 16: 31 to attempt to prove belief only. You have made at least two gross errors.
1. Acts 9:6 is directed to Saul, not the jailerof Acts 16.
For the truh as to what he must do. You must use the text where Saul was given the answer or use all the evidence available not just the parts you prefer. IT IS NOT IN THE TEXT YOU POSTED. The truth is found in Acts 22:16. The preacher Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.
2. In the case of the Jailer, you left the jailhouse to soon in your post. READ THE ENTIRE CONTEXT. Verse 33 says he was baptized. If I search the totality of the scriptures on this topic I find Acts 2:38 wash away they sins How? Baptism. In Acts 22:16, How? I find wash away thy sins. God uses baptism to wash us from our sins in his own blood. HOW? Rev. 1:5, Romans 6:3-5, I Pet. 3:21, I Pet. 1: 17,18, Col. 2:12.
Yes, you are a false teacher. You got that part correct. This post illustrates just one of the many times, to borrow your phraseology, your twisting and wrestling scriptures out of their context or just ignoring the evidence. Hum? Sounds like a repeat phrase about your eisegesis.
Of course, Peter was right when he said some will do this to their own destruction. II Peter 3:16.
You should give up Calvinistic doctrine and obey the truth.

 

[Frank]

DHK:
You said,"You have not presented Scriptural evidence at all. You have presented your presuppositions and pre- conceived ideas of what the Scriptures say backed up with verses taken out of context, and twisted to mean something other than what they really mean. You belong to the Church of Christ, do you not, or at least are associated with them? These are the Cambellites a sect started in the 19th Century."
Actually, I have presented just exactly what I said in making my position. You just ignore it. I believe this is one of the approaches I said you would use. You just ignore the totality of evidence and disregard the harmony of the scriptures. However, here it is again for those who are willing to open their Bible and read it.
I said, I challange you to take every example of conversion in the Bible and examine it and prove my position is in error. I challenge you to take the scriptures of the New Testament that pertain to salvation for the sinner and prove I am in error. The list is as follows: Acts 2:38;8:12-16; 8:30- 40; 9;5,6;22:6-16; 10: 33-48; 11:4-18; 16:13-16,30-34; 18:8; 19:1-6. John 3:3-5, Eph. 2:8,9, Gal. 3:26-29, I Pet. 3:21, Mark 16:16, Mat. 28:18,19, Acts 10:48,Hebrews 5: 8,9, John 3:36, II Thes.1:6-9, Col. 2:12, Rev. 1:5, Eph. 5:26,27, I Pet. 1:17,18.You Wanted Evidence. I have accomodated the request. Now, show me how I have taken scripture out of context and that the evidence is not harmonious.
You refuse to do it because you cannot not do that which the scriptures will not allow for the rational mind.
No. I am not a Campbellite. I do like Campbell's tomato soup. I am a part of the saved of Christ. The church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38-47, Col. 1:12,13, Mat. 19:22,23, Eph. 1:22,23, Acts 20:28, Romans 16:16.
I am a Christian as per Isaiah 62:2 and Acts 11:26.

 

[Frank]

DHK:
You said,"According to you, A.T. Robertson is a false teacher, I am false teacher, and I suppose Ryrie, whom I also cited is a false teacher, and every other person outside the "Church of Christ" that you belong to is a false teacher.

Your position has been well refuted. You refuse to prove your own position, i.e. that baptism is necessary for salvation. Listing a series of references proves nothing. Anyone can do that. You have demonstrated to no one on this board that baptism is necessary to salvation. That particular doctrine is a well-known heresy. Again your doctrine of Cambellism is relatively new. What did the Christians for more than 1800 years before that time believe? I guess they never had the truth, did they? Just a select few, such as yourself have the truth--the rest of us are (in your opinion) false teachers.
DHK "

DHK, actually the Bible teaches me by evidence that A.T. Robertson is a false teacher as he readily admits in the direct quotation I cited about baptism in Acts 2:38. If anyone can post a list of scriptures, produce a list that teaches that Baptism is not essential for the salvation of the sinner.If anyone can do this, it should be easy for you to produce a list of scriptures that harmonizes with your positon using the totality of the evidence and, thus refuting mine.
You will not produce a list of harmonious evidence from the New Testament that refutes what I have posted because it does not exist.

No, any one who does not teach the truth is a false teacher. It matters not what he calls himself religiously. This includes all men who do not contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Jude 3.

You said,"You may have a problem with some verses in the Bible, but that is because you do not take those verses in the context of the totality of Scripture. Over and over again the Bible teaches that we are saved by faith alone. It is a gift of God. Salvation is an act of Christ done out of love, born out of grace. It is all of the grace of God. Baptism is a work. Salvation is not by works. You belittle God's grace, God's gift to man, by saying that baptism is a part of salvation. You infer that Christ could not pay the penalty of sin on his own, but somehow you, have to help him pay that penalty by being baptized. That is blasphemy. Salvation is by the grace of God. It is all by grace. There is no works involved. I accept it as a gift, by faith and by faith alone.

Eph.2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Do you believe these verses? You write as if you do not!"
1. Where in the New Testament does the Bible teach faith alone. This is unsubstantiated assertion.
2. It is all the grace of God. The very scripture you post Eph. 2:8,9 says by grace through faith. Which is it Grace alone or over and over again faith alone, When I have been with grace and faith I was not alone.

3.Baptism is a work. No scriptural proof provided.
The fact is belief itself is a work. A work of GOD THAT WE MUST DO. This is what Jesus said in John 6:27-29. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
4. Salvation is not by works. See the words of Christ above. The fact is it is not by meritorious works. Eph. 2:8,9. Howver, we must have an obedient active faith to be saved. Hebrews 11:6 and the entire chapter demonstrate this eternal principle. You fail to understand there are more than works of merit in the Bible. Titus 3:5- works of righteousness.
Gal. 3: 11 - works of the law.
John 8:39 - the works of Abraham.
GAL. 5:19 - works of the flesh.
5 I do not belittle God's work in salvation. I proclaim it. Once again, unsubstantiated opinion. The truth of God saves I proclaim it! I Pet. 1:23, James 1:18. I proclaim the WHOLE council of God. Acts 20:27. See above for evidence.
6. You said," You infer that Christ could not pay the penalty of sin on his own, but somehow you, have to help him pay that penalty by being baptized." No, I did not say that or infer it. The Bible says in Col. 2:12"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Baptism is God's operation to save,not man's. Jesus agrees with God. See Mk. 16:16;28:18-20. Again, just blatant disregard for scripture and the misrepresentation of the position posted.
7. You said, "Salvation is by the grace of God. It is all by grace. There is no works involved. I accept it as a gift, by faith and by faith alone.
This statement contradicts the direct words of Christ in John 6: 27-29. This statement contradicts the following:
Eph. 2:8,9, Gal 3:26-29, I Pet. 3:21, John 8:24, Luke 13:3, Mat. 10:32, Mark 16;16,Acts 2:38;8:12-16; 8: 27-40; 16: 30-33; 16:13-15, Romans 10:10, Acts 11:18,II Tim. 4:6-8, Rev 2:10, Acts 18:8, I Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 1:16, Acts 20:24.

Finally, as a Christian, not as a baptist, I say what the Bible says,"26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal. 3:26-29.
"21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: I Pet. 3:21.
It will read that way on the day of Judgment, too!

 

[DHK]

Posted by Frank:

Again, your scholarship of Saul's conversion is in error. In the text Jesus is telling Saul What he must do and where to go to find out what he must do. You then, quote Acts 16: 31 to attempt to prove belief only. You have made at least two gross errors.
1. Acts 9:6 is directed to Saul, not the jailerof Acts 16.
For the truh as to what he must do. You must use the text where Saul was given the answer or use all the evidence available not just the parts you prefer. IT IS NOT IN THE TEXT YOU POSTED. The truth is found in Acts 22:16. The preacher Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.

You need to read not only my posts more carefully, but your own posts, Frank!!
Let me demonstrate to you one of your biggest problems.

prove I am in error. The list is as follows: Acts 2:38;8:12-16; 8:30- 40; 9;5,6;22:6-16; 10: 33-48; 11:4-18; 16:13-16,30-34; 18:8; 19:1-6. John 3:3-5, Eph. 2:8,9, Gal. 3:26-29, I Pet. 3:21, Mark 16:16, Mat. 28:18,19, Acts 10:48,Hebrews 5: 8,9, John 3:36, II Thes.1:6-9, Col. 2:12, Rev. 1:5, Eph. 5:26,27, I Pet. 1:17,18.You Wanted Evidence. I have accomodated the request.

Your problem is your continual listing of references. I take your references and show you with the references that you provide that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. You don't even blink. You ignore the evidence. What you provide is simply a list. This gives no evidence of your position, no proof whatsoever. I can take all of these references and show you that they teach the very opposite of what you claim they teach. You simply provide a list with no explanation whatsoever. Then when I do provide an explanation--from your list--you falsely accuse me of linking two unrelated verses together, when that is the order that you provided them in. What foolishness is this? I quoted Acts 9:16 because you provided the reference. Then I wondered why that verse, and that one alone, had anything to do with baptismal regeneration--the heresy which you believe. I did not connect it to Acts 16:30,31; you did. Look at your own post. In reality you have connected all of the above verses together because you have not provided one word of explanation about any of them.

You say: "The truth is found in Acts 22:16...Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord." I provided an explanation for this verse. Did you read it?
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
There are four items in a row on the same level. The NKJV follows closer in this case to the Greek, pairing the first two item, and the second two items. There is a finite verb modified by a participle in each half of the verse. A literal rendering of the verse would be: "Having arisen be baptized, and have your sins washed off (by) calling on the name of the Lord." This last clause is supported by general Biblical teaching (cf. Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13) --Believer's Bible Commentary, William MacDonald

2. In the case of the Jailer, you left the jailhouse to soon in your post. READ THE ENTIRE CONTEXT. Verse 33 says he was baptized. If I search the totality of the scriptures on this topic I find Acts 2:38 wash away they sins How? Baptism. In Acts 22:16, How? I find wash away thy sins. God uses baptism to wash us from our sins in his own blood. HOW? Rev. 1:5, Romans 6:3-5, I Pet. 3:21, I Pet. 1: 17,18, Col. 2:12.

There's that list again--without explanation.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" Acts 16:31. This is what the jailor did. He believed and he was saved. The only requirement for salvation was belief. If not, you deny the very words of Scripture here. After he was saved, then he was baptized. The passage is very clear on that. Verse 33 indeed says he was baptized, not that he was saved, but that he was baptized. He had already been saved. Now he was obeying the Lord in baptism. This was after the fact of salvation.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
--I find no hint of salvation in this verse at all. The only washing here is the washing of the stripes inflicted by the Romans. Their salvation took place in verse 31, some time before.

Yes, you are a false teacher. You got that part correct. This post illustrates just one of the many times, to borrow your phraseology, your twisting and wrestling scriptures out of their context or just ignoring the evidence. Hum? Sounds like a repeat phrase about your eisegesis.
Of course, Peter was right when he said some will do this to their own destruction. II Peter 3:16.
You should give up Calvinistic doctrine and obey the truth.

Baptismal regeneration was one of the early false doctrines of Christendom. You believe in it. I would check your name-calling at the door. BTW, I am not a Calvinist. Nor am I an Arminian. Nor am I a member of a cult. Nor do I believe in baptismal regeneration. I am a Baptist by conviction. More importantly I am Bible-believing Christian, who takes the Word of God as its final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Posted by Frank:

You said,"You have not presented Scriptural evidence at all. You have presented your presuppositions and pre- conceived ideas of what the Scriptures say backed up with verses taken out of context, and twisted to mean something other than what they really mean. You belong to the Church of Christ, do you not, or at least are associated with them? These are the Cambellites a sect started in the 19th Century."
Actually, I have presented just exactly what I said in making my position. You just ignore it. I believe this is one of the approaches I said you would use. You just ignore the totality of evidence and disregard the harmony of the scriptures. However, here it is again for those who are willing to open their Bible and read it.
I said, I challange you to take every example of conversion in the Bible and examine it and prove my position is in error. I challenge you to take the scriptures of the New Testament that pertain to salvation for the sinner and prove I am in error. The list is as follows: Acts 2:38;8:12-16; 8:30- 40; 9;5,6;22:6-16; 10: 33-48; 11:4-18; 16:13-16,30-34; 18:8; 19:1-6. John 3:3-5, Eph. 2:8,9, Gal. 3:26-29, I Pet. 3:21, Mark 16:16, Mat. 28:18,19, Acts 10:48,Hebrews 5: 8,9, John 3:36, II Thes.1:6-9, Col. 2:12, Rev. 1:5, Eph. 5:26,27, I Pet. 1:17,18.You Wanted Evidence. I have accomodated the request. Now, show me how I have taken scripture out of context and that the evidence is not harmonious.
You refuse to do it because you cannot not do that which the scriptures will not allow for the rational mind.
No. I am not a Campbellite. I do like Campbell's tomato soup. I am a part of the saved of Christ. The church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38-47, Col. 1:12,13, Mat. 19:22,23, Eph. 1:22,23, Acts 20:28, Romans 16:16.
I am a Christian as per Isaiah 62:2 and Acts 11:26.

Read my above post Frank. You don't prove anything by providing lists of verses. There is no proof here at all.

"I am a Christian as per Isaiah 62:2 and Acts 11:26."

Isaiah 62:1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
3 Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.
4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.
---Are you also a Jew? These verses are specifically directed toward the nation of Israel.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Posted by Frank:

DHK, actually the Bible teaches me by evidence that A.T. Robertson is a false teacher as he readily admits in the direct quotation I cited about baptism in Acts 2:38. If anyone can post a list of scriptures, produce a list that teaches that Baptism is not essential for the salvation of the sinner.If anyone can do this, it should be easy for you to produce a list of scriptures that harmonizes with your positon using the totality of the evidence and, thus refuting mine.
You will not produce a list of harmonious evidence from the New Testament that refutes what I have posted because it does not exist.

I have refrained from posting lists of Scripture references for reasons given in previous posts. But if it is Scripture that you want, I will oblige you:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Rom.10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom.10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom.10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Eph.2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph.2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
1John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Is this sufficient? Or do you still want more? The totality of Scripture, Frank, teaches that faith alone is required for salvation--"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." I am glad, for one, that Jesus made salvation so simple.

1. Where in the New Testament does the Bible teach faith alone. This is unsubstantiated assertion.
2. It is all the grace of God. The very scripture you post Eph. 2:8,9 says by grace through faith. Which is it Grace alone or over and over again faith alone, When I have been with grace and faith I was not alone.

This verse is so clear and plain and yet you fail to see its simple teaching. Salvation was provided to mankind by the grace of God. We are worthy of Hell. We have done nothing worthy of being in the presence of God, including being baptized. Salvation is provided to us by the grace of God. It is all of grace; there is nothing man can do. Jesus said: "It is finished" (John 19:30). The work of salvation was finished on the cross by Him, not by you in baptism.
Thus the Scripture says "By grace are ye saved." Salvation is all of God's grace. There is nothing I can do to merit Heaven.
Then it says, "through faith." I accept this wonderful gift of salvation, provided for me by Christ, through faith. It is a gift (Rom.6:23). I accept it through faith. As you pointed out already faith is the only work one can do. It is in fact a play on words, because there is no work that a man can do, but accept through faith God's gift of salvation. He goes on to say. "It is not of yourselves. It is not of works." Baptism is a work. It is not something that God does; it is something that you do. One does not need Scriptural proof for this but common sense. I have never seen God come down in the flesh and physically baptize anyone. God does not baptize. And if you claim that He baptized you I would question your sanity. Christ gave the ordinance of baptism to men. It is men that baptize. It is a work of men done in obedience to Christ after one is saved. It is not a work of God. God doesn't do it.
DHK

 

[Frank]

Dhk:
You simply arrayed scripture against scripture as I knew you would. You make unsubstantiated claims about the jailer. Where does it say in the text belief only saved him. The same place the Bible teaches it is by grace only and over and over it is by faith only. NO WHERE. Furthermore, James said in 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by faith only.
You still refuse to examine the examples of conversion posted, And I posted all of them, to refute the divine proclamation to repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Paul obeyed. Acts 22:16. The three thousand on pentecost obeyed. Acts 2:40,41. The Eunoch obeyed. Acts 8: 39. Simon obeyed. Acts 8: 12. Cornelius obeyed. Acts 10:48. Lydia obeyed. Acts 16:15. The Jailer obeyed. Acts 16: 33. Crispus obeyed. Acts 18:8. The household of Stephanas obeyed. I Cor. 1:16. Crispus and Gaius obeyed. I Cor. 1:14. Those in Acts 19 obeyed. They obeyed because One cannnot be saved without obeying Jesus. Hebrews 5:8,9. One cannot be saved without being baptized. In every example of conversion, all were baptized. Why? The Bible says for unto the remission of sins. Again, harmonious with the rest of the texts posted. The same CANNOT BE SAID FOR YOUR FALSE ASSERTIONS. They are filled with conclusions based on partial evidence.

On the other hand, in your posts, you simply made an attempt to array scripture agaisnt scripture. I said at the beginning, this is one of two methods you would use to teach your false doctrine. The other one has just been addressed. You simply ignore the totality of evidence because you cannot harmonize it with your Calvinistic teaching on salvation.
I affirmed faith was a part of the essentiality of salvation for the sinner. Hebrews 11:6. Read the entire chapter of Hebrews 11. Your problem is you refuse the same INSPIRED WRITINGS THAT ALSO TEACH BAPTISM FOR UNTO THE REMISION OF SINS. I believe all the scriptures. Obviously, you choose only to use those which refer to faith. This is easy to see by anyone who actually reads all the scriptures posted.
Furthermore, I can post scriptures that teach confession saves. Mat. 10;32, Romans 10:10, I John 4:2. Do I exclude faith because these three do not mention it?
2. I can post scripture that requires repentance saves. Luke 13:3,5, Acts 11:18, Acts 17:30,31, II Tim. 2: 24,25. Do I exclude belief because it is not mentioned?
3. I can post scriptures that require baptism. I Pet. 3:21, Acts 8: 12,39; 16;33. Do I exclude belief because baptism only is mentioned?

If I did exclude any of these parts, I WOULD BE GUILTY OF THE SAME ERROR AS YOU TEACH IN INSISTING ONE IS SAVED BY GRACE ONLY AND FAITH ONLY OVER AND OVER.

You simply do not understand the passages about salvation any more than you know how to use hermeneutics to make rational interpretation of scripture. The same could be said for your failure to acknowledge the rules of grammar in the Greek as well as in some cases the very basics to the English language as well.
You have trouble with AND and But and present and passive voices.

By the way, when you find that baptist preacher in LaGrange who will sign the negative for The Bible teaches that Water Baptism is essential to the Salvation of the Sinner. Please, let me know!

 

[Lorelei]

Frank,

To continously rank DHK among a sect that he denies affiliation with shows that you aren't even paying attention to what he is saying. You might try actually reading what he has to say before responding to it.

After accusing DHK of having Calvinistic beliefs he responded:

Originally posted by DHK:
BTW, I am not a Calvinist

To which you responded:

Originally posted by Frank:
You simply ignore the totality of evidence because you cannot harmonize it with your Calvinistic teaching on salvation.

I can see who is paying attention here...

I agree with DHK, your list means nothing without explanation. I too could use many of those verses to prove what you believe is false. Some of them have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Why not try responding to the specifics that DHK is showing you?

I am still waiting for a scripture to prove that one can have the Spirit of God within them and not be saved.

Eph 1:13-14
3 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory.
NIV

~Lorelei

 

[Frank]

Lorelei:
Just because one clains sonething does not make it true. His positon on salvation is in fact, Calvinistic. I wish he would deny it and obey the gospel. I suggest you read his scriptures posted for salvation. They are incomplete and not in harmony with the rest of the New Testament. I do not need himn to explain it." The Bible is it's own best interpreter.
Faith only and grace only are calvinistic teachings. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It is a duck! Have a good day.

 

[Lorelei]

Frank,

There is more to Calvinism than their belief on salvation, and sharing one similar belief with an entire sect, does not make you a part of them. The Catholic church believes in the Trinity, that doesn't make me Catholic, now does it? You might look more closely at the Calvinistic doctrine before you label someone among them.

By forcing a title upon DHK that he does not profess you are engaging in "name calling". We try so hard to label man according to this title or that, and in the process the Word of God is thrown out the window. If you want to challenge his ideas, then do so respectfully, without forcing him into your defintion of a man made doctrine.

~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Wow, who would have thought it possible!!!

DHK and Frank are in disagreement over the interpretation of "self interpreting" Scripture.

Neither of them are "interpreting" but merely "preaching the Word" while holding opposite beliefs.

Sola Scriptura...

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Frank:
I wish he would deny it and obey the gospel. I suggest you read his scriptures posted for salvation. They are incomplete and not in harmony with the rest of the New Testament. I do not need himn to explain it." The Bible is it's own best interpreter.

I have not only read the scriptures you both have posted, but I have read the entire New Testament in context. You are right about one thing, I don't need you to explain it to me, the Bible is it's own best interpreter. The Bible clearly teaches that baptism is not a part of salvation, and no one can have the Spirit unless he is saved.

This is the gospel that Paul said saved.

1 Cor 15:1-5
15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
NIV

Paul clearly said he was not called to baptize but to preach the gospel, that he said is what saves.

1 Cor 1:17
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
NIV

If the gospel is what saves then baptism is not part of that gospel according to Paul.

You are the one who is quoting scriptures that are incomplete and not in harmony with the rest of the New Testament. Maybe you should read the scriptures that he has posted for salvation, for they are accurate and in complete harmony with the rest of the New Testament.

~Lorelei