believe, belief, faith, believe "in"

[DHK]

Seocndly, other gods were allowed to be worshiped in the city by the Romans, but they were not allowed to be proclaimed publicly. Paul was in violation of this law. He was publicly proclaiming Christ, and they made this accusation against him in connection with troubling the city.

I'd be interested in your source of this information.

"The Romans would indeed allow foreigners to worship their own gods, but not unless it were done secretly, so that the worship of foreign gods would not interfere with the allowed worship of the Romans, and so that occasion for dissension and controversy might be avoided. Neither was it lawful among the Romans to recommend a new religion to the citizens, contrary to that which was confirmed and established by the public authority, and to call off the people from that. It was on this account that there was such a hatred of the Romans against the Jews." (Kuinel.) Tertullian says, that "there was a decree that no god should be consecrated, unless approved by the senate." (Grotius.) See many other authorities quoted in Bishop Watsoh's "Apology for Christianity." (Albert Barnes)

BARNE'S NOTES

Now with all the preaching that Paul had done, don't you think that the jailor just might have heard the gospel before Paul and Silas were even sentenced there??

He just might have, but as I said earlier, it can't be proven from the text.

True enough. It can't be disproven either. The probability is that he did. After all that is why he was imprisioned--for preaching the gospel.

It is very evident that the jailor heard the gospel both outside and inside the jail before the miracle of the prison doors even opened. He had already heard the gospel being preached. Then in Acts 16:30 he asks again: "What must I do to be saved?"

No, it is not "evident" that PJ had heard the gospel, least of all while he was sleeping. Again, I submit to you that if he had heard the gospel message, he would have known what to do to be saved.

Many people have to hear the story again and again and again. Understanding does not always come on the first time. The Holy Spirit must work in the heart, as I am sure he did when the miracle in the jail took place.

Just as the Samaritans knew what to do when Phillip :...preached Christ unto them..." (Acts 8:5, 12).

Just as the eunuch knew what to do when Phillip "...preached unto him Jesus..." (Acts 8:35-39).

In both of the above cases the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned isn't he?

Your argument is spurious. Your reasoning is unreasonable. Your position is false.
In Christ,
bmerr

You are entitled to you opinion. I stand on the Word of God.
DHK

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
You are entitled to you opinion. I stand on the Word of God.
DHK

Oh really. Acts 16:34, "and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household".

This verse clearly teaches that he rejoiced having believed in God.

What is the significance of this verse? He was instructed in Verse 31 to believe and he would be saved.

This was before they spoke the word of the Lord to him. While it may take many sermons today, the PJ was very receptive to what they had to say because he had just experienced a divine earthquake that set the prisoners free.

You say you stand on the word of God. You cannot have faith in what God did NOT say. God said, they spoke the word of the Lord to him and in verse 34 he rejoiced having believed.

What happened between verse 31 and verse 34? He was baptized. After his baptism is when it is said that he believed. This is consistent with Acts 2:44, "Now all who believed". Who were these people described as "who believed" and what had they done? They were the believers who had repented and been baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38, 41).

When you preach Jesus to alien sinners, do you include instructions for water baptism. If not, then you preach a different Jesus than Paul did and than Philip did (Acts 8).

This fits with Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned."

And by the way, Abraham was not justified by faith alone. I know you are familiar with James 2:21-24, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

When was the Scripture fulfilled that said, "Abraham believed God"? After he obeyed! In fact he uses this very example to show that we are not justified by faith only.

By your definition, confession is a work. It is something man does. Agreed, it doesn't take much work, but nonetheless, it does require effort. Therefore, confession is not necessary for salvation, according to your logic.

Until you really understand the meaning of Eph 2:8-9 and can make it agree with James 2, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Gal 3:26-27, I Pet 3:21, etc., you will always be in conflict with these clear teachings.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:

Until you really understand the meaning of Eph 2:8-9 and can make it agree with James 2, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Gal 3:26-27, I Pet 3:21, etc., you will always be in conflict with these clear teachings.

The real meaning of this statment is:

Unless you can fit your preconceived ideas of the meaning of Eph.2:8,9 and force it to agree with James 2, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Gal 3:26-27, I Pet 3:21, etc., you will always be in conflict with the clear heretical teachings of COC doctrine.

And that I can agee with.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
You are entitled to you opinion. I stand on the Word of God.
DHK

Oh really. Acts 16:34, "and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household".

This verse clearly teaches that he rejoiced having believed in God.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes the emphasis is on the "belief" not the "baptism," as you yourself just pointed out. Your exegesis of this passage would make the COC look very foolish. Consider the text:

Acts 16:33-34 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
--They rejoiced because they believed in God, and that is all. That is they were saved by faith and faith alone, and therein did they rejoice. If you say that they were rejoicing in their baptism as well and use verse 33 as a pretext for so saying then you must also say that the Philippian Jailor was saved by washing away the stripes of the Paul and Silas, for they are included in the same verses in an equal footing with baptism. Is this your belief?

What is the significance of this verse? He was instructed in Verse 31 to believe and he would be saved.

And so he was. He believed and was saved. Very simple isn't it. Salvation is by faith and faith alone.

This was before they spoke the word of the Lord to him. While it may take many sermons today, the PJ was very receptive to what they had to say because he had just experienced a divine earthquake that set the prisoners free.

By your definition only. I speak the Word of God to my congregation three times on each Sunday, and that doesn't include what happens during the week. Just because it uses the phrase "they spake unto him the word of the Lord," in verse 32, doesn't mean that Paul did not speak unto them the Word of the Lord in verse 31. There is an obvious lapse of time between the two verses.

You say you stand on the word of God. You cannot have faith in what God did NOT say. God said, they spoke the word of the Lord to him and in verse 34 he rejoiced having believed.

Ye err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
To believe is to have faith.
He rejoiced because he had faith in Christ. That is what had happened in verse 31.

What happened between verse 31 and verse 34? He was baptized. After his baptism is when it is said that he believed. This is consistent with Acts 2:44, "Now all who believed". Who were these people described as "who believed" and what had they done? They were the believers who had repented and been baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38, 41).

He believed in verse 31, if you want to believe the Bible.
Again if you want to believe the Bible:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
--In verse 41, not 44, they heard the Word, were saved, then baptized, then added to the church. It was that order.

When you preach Jesus to alien sinners, do you include instructions for water baptism. If not, then you preach a different Jesus than Paul did and than Philip did (Acts 8).

No, I do not. I myself did not get baptized until two years after I was saved. How doest that fit into your theology? Was I saved or damned during that period? I want an answer from you.
According to Acts 8 you are wrong. The Scriptures clearly says that Philip preached unto him Jesus, not baptism. There is no recorded Scripture where he preached unto him baptism but in your imagination. Did he answer a question of the Ethiopian eunuch regarding baptism? Yes. But he did not preach unto him baptism. You have it wrong.

This fits with Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned."

No it does not. You have a gross misunderstanding of that verse, which has been explained to you umpteen times now. Why do you keep bringing it up?

And by the way, Abraham was not justified by faith alone. I know you are familiar with James 2:21-24, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Again you are foolishly demonstrating you inablility to comprehend the context of the Book of James who wasn't speaking of salvation at all. The entire book was speaking of practical Christian living. That was the theme of the book. He was addressing believers. He was simply saying that the evidence of true salvaation is followed by works. Works is a product of one's salvation, not a part of it. The key verse in that passage is:

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

But this has been explained to you before. "Don't cast your pearls before swine" Jesus said.

When was the Scripture fulfilled that said, "Abraham believed God"? After he obeyed! In fact he uses this very example to show that we are not justified by faith only.

Show me this out of Romans 4, where the theme of the Book of Romans is soteriology, that is salvation, not pracitical Christian living, as is the theme of James. Romans 4 clearly teaches that Abraham is justified by faith alone. It does not contradict Jaems except in your mind because you refuse to accept the context of the book of James. Works always follow salvation. To any objective reader one can see that even reading the book of James.

By your definition, confession is a work. It is something man does. Agreed, it doesn't take much work, but nonetheless, it does require effort. Therefore, confession is not necessary for salvation, according to your logic.

Confession is not a work. Confession is the expression of one's faith. It, like prayer, is how one's faith is expressed. It is almost synonymous with "calling on the name of the Lord." One must have a way to express themselves.

Until you really understand the meaning of Eph 2:8-9 and can make it agree with James 2, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Gal 3:26-27, I Pet 3:21, etc., you will always be in conflict with these clear teachings.

Unless you find out the meaning of Eph.2:8,9, that salvation is by grace through faith and that not of yourselves; not of works (and that includes the work of baptism), then you face a Christless eternity. For salvation is by faith and faith alone. You have taken away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to save. That is a blasphemous heresy.
DHK

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:

No, I do not. I myself did not get baptized until two years after I was saved. How doest that fit into your theology? Was I saved or damned during that period? I want an answer from you.
According to Acts 8 you are wrong. The Scriptures clearly says that Philip preached unto him Jesus, not baptism. There is no recorded Scripture where he preached unto him baptism but in your imagination. Did he answer a question of the Ethiopian eunuch regarding baptism? Yes. But he did not preach unto him baptism. You have it wrong.

You certainly did not follow the New Testament example, did you? Show me one example of where anyone ever waited 2 years, 2 months, or even 2 days after they had received instructions to be baptized. They realized the importance of baptism. You obviously place less emphasis on it than did the early Church and inspired apostles.

God gave me a brain and he gave you a brain. To deny that preaching Jesus excludes water baptism is to deny the obvious. Philip preached Jesus and the first words out of the Eunuch’s mouth are, “see, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized.” You don’t want to accept the obvious conclusion.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This fits with Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned."

No it does not. You have a gross misunderstanding of that verse, which has been explained to you umpteen times now. Why do you keep bringing it up?</font>[/QUOTE]I have a misunderstanding of this verse? I simply quote it. The meaning is so obvious, I don’t have to explain it away or try and help others misunderstand it.

The verse is true and simple. Did Jesus really mean it? Answer that question.

Confession is not a work. Confession is the expression of one's faith. It, like prayer, is how one's faith is expressed. It is almost synonymous with "calling on the name of the Lord." One must have a way to express themselves.

By your definition it is a work. Be consistent. It is something man does, therefore it is a work. Whatever crack you open to slide in confession, baptism comes through that same opening. Both are things that one does. Both are tied to faith (Gal 3:36-27, Col 2:12). By the way, baptism is synonymous with calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

Unless you find out the meaning of Eph.2:8,9, that salvation is by grace through faith and that not of yourselves; not of works (and that includes the work of baptism), then you face a Christless eternity. For salvation is by faith and faith alone. You have taken away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to save. That is a blasphemous heresy.
DHK

You teach a blasphemous heresy that confession earns your salvation. Hey, this is easy to make baseless claims. Confession is a work and therefore, confession is not required for salvation. Confession and repentance are irrelevant, only faith, is that what you teach?

When did those in Acts 2 receive “forgiveness of sins”? When they believed in Acts 2:37? Is that what you teach?

I have faith, whether you want to admit it or not.

Works do not save and cannot save. Baptism is not a work. It is not a work of merit obligating God to save me or anyone else who is submerged. It is an act of faith (Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12).

Use your definition of faith and explain how, “by faith, the walls of Jericho fell down”, Heb 11:30. By belief alone, the walls of Jericho fell down. It that how it really worked?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
You certainly did not follow the New Testament example, did you?

I most certainly did. Show me in the Bible where there is a time specification for baptism. I can show you specifially in the Bible that baptism is aftersalvation, not a part of it. You are the one in error. You did not answer my question did you? You avoided it.

Show me one example of where anyone ever waited 2 years, 2 months, or even 2 days after they had received instructions to be baptized. They realized the importance of baptism. You obviously place less emphasis on it than did the early Church and inspired apostles.

Are you a mind reader now?? How do you know how much importance I put on baptism in comparison to the Apostles? How much emphasis did Paul put on baptism?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:

Paul makes a definite statement clarifying that baptism is not a part of the gospel. It could not be any clearer.
"Christ sent me NOT to baptize."
What did Christ sent Paul to if he wasn't to baptize?
BUT to preach the gospel!! The gospel does not include baptism. This is so clear it cannot be missed. Paul does not put much emphasis on baptism does he?

God gave me a brain and he gave you a brain. To deny that preaching Jesus excludes water baptism is to deny the obvious.

Have you told that to the Apostle Paul yet? Try explaining it to him. Apparently he doesn't understand your theology.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:

Philip preached Jesus and the first words out of the Eunuch’s mouth are, “see, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized.” You don’t want to accept the obvious conclusion.

Yes, and it was sometime after his salvation wasn't it. It was not a part of his salvation. Whether it was two minutes or two years after is totally irrelevant.

I have a misunderstanding of this verse? I simply quote it. The meaning is so obvious, I don’t have to explain it away or try and help others misunderstand it.

The verse is true and simple. Did Jesus really mean it? Answer that question.

Jesus always means what he says, and he never contradicts Scripture as you would have him to do. The way that you have interpreted Christ's words, you have made him a liar. For Christ also said "You must be born again," not baptized. Was he lying then? Christ said that he was the way the truth, and the life; All must come through him. He was the only way to Heaven--not baptism. Was he lying? Your theology and misunderstanding of Mark 16 calls Jesus a liar. Why do you stoop so low?

Why does the verse go on to say:
"but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Why doesn't it say: by he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned? In fact why is there not one single statement in the entire Bible to that effect? The reason is obvious--baptism doesn't save. But I forgot didn't I? You haven't consulted the Apostle Paul yet.

Confession is not a work. Confession is the expression of one's faith. It, like prayer, is how one's faith is expressed. It is almost synonymous with "calling on the name of the Lord." One must have a way to express themselves.

By your definition it is a work. Be consistent. It is something man does, therefore it is a work. Whatever crack you open to slide in confession, baptism comes through that same opening. Both are things that one does. Both are tied to faith (Gal 3:36-27, Col 2:12). By the way, baptism is synonymous with calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

No it is not a work, and I prefer you not to try and put words in my mouth, for I never even inferred that they were works. I am consistent, and so are you in your confusion and blindness. I have told you already that confession, like calling, is simply an expression (whether outward or inward) of one's faith. (Comprenez-vous?)
Baptism is a work--done by man, for man, which man is the recipient of. The object of faith is God. When one expresses that faith through prayer (confession) it is directed upward to God, not to man. It is the heart crying out to God in faith. This is not a work. Works don't save. Baptism doesn't save. And baptism has nothing to do with faith. You need a dictionary.

Unless you find out the meaning of Eph.2:8,9, that salvation is by grace through faith and that not of yourselves; not of works (and that includes the work of baptism), then you face a Christless eternity. For salvation is by faith and faith alone. You have taken away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to save. That is a blasphemous heresy.
DHK

You teach a blasphemous heresy that confession earns your salvation. Hey, this is easy to make baseless claims. Confession is a work and therefore, confession is not required for salvation. Confession and repentance are irrelevant, only faith, is that what you teach?

What do I teach? I teach never to get involved with COC doctrine. It's damnable heresies lead a person to hell. Yes, that is strong language but true. Baptism doesn't save. Works do not save.
Confession of one's repentant faith is not a work. But you wouldn't know that, because you refuse to believe it. You would believe that the moon is made out of green cheese if the COC taught you that, because you are mandated to believe COC doctrine and nothing else.
Repentance is a change of mind. Tell me how a change of mind can be a work. Explain that to me. It is not a work.
Confession is an expression of faith. Faith is not a work according to Eph.2:8,9. How can confession be a work if it is only an expression of faith which the Bible explicitly says is not a work??

When did those in Acts 2 receive “forgiveness of sins”? When they believed in Acts 2:37? Is that what you teach?

Yes, when they believed. A man is saved by faith and faith alone. Acts 2:41.

I have faith, whether you want to admit it or not.

I don't doubt that you have faith at all. Every one has faith. Faith has an object. What is the object of your faith? Your brother or sister? Your car? the taxi driver? the airlines? the President? the U.N.? the state police? your local politician? Who or what do you have faith in? I am sure that you exercise faith in many people and in many things every single day without even realizing it.

Works do not save and cannot save. Baptism is not a work. It is not a work of merit obligating God to save me or anyone else who is submerged. It is an act of faith (Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12).

Stop repeating this lying mantra of yours. Baptism is a work whether or not you deny this fact. It is a work. No matter how many times you deny it won't change the fact. You can jump up and down and scream at the top of your lungs but it won't change the fact that baptism is a work.
To say otherwise you would have to do at least two things:
1. Prove it from the Scriptures that it isn't.
2. Prove it from a dictionary.

If you can't do that, then stop trying to affirm a lie.

Use your definition of faith and explain how, “by faith, the walls of Jericho fell down”, Heb 11:30. By belief alone, the walls of Jericho fell down. It that how it really worked?

1. The COC are hung up on these OT examples which have nothing to do with NT salvation. So the comparisons are apples and oranges.

2. Even so, it would do well to keep in mind to differentiate between faith and obedience. They are not the same. Both are different. One can obey without faith. One can disobey without faith. It does NOT take faith to obey.

3. Marching around Jerich was not a result of faith. It was a result of obedience. They obeyed God. God commanded it; they did it. Faith really did not play a part here. In fact in all probability there may have been a certain percentage of those Israelites that did not have faith that those walls would fall. I highly doubt that all the Israelites had faith that the walls would fall. They did not have faith that walls would fall. The walls falling was not the object of their faith.

4. The object of their faith was Jehovah God. As they blew their trumpets, praised the Lord, and shouted, it was all to the Lord. It was directed to God. Their faith was to God; not to the walls falling. The walls falling down was only a result of their faith in God, not a result of their obedience. Do you see the difference? They obeyed because of their faith in God. Their faith was directed to God, not to walking around Jericho. Faith is always directed to God. Everything else was a result of faith directed to God. The walking around Jericho, the blowing of the trumpets, the walls falling down, all of that was a result of faith alone in God.
DHK

 

[mman]

DHK ,

There are so many things wrong with what you said, I don’t quite know where to start.

First, you do not place the same emphasis on baptism that the Apostles did. How can I say that? Simple, your actions speak. You seem to glory in the fact that you were not baptized for 2 years. Why did you wait? Your actions are inconsistent with every example from the inspired scriptures. I wonder why?

Here are the New Testament examples/instructions:

Acts 2:41 -Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Just how long did they wait verses how long you waited? You did not follow this example. Certainly they understood that baptism was for the remission of sins, not because of.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

Again, they were baptized when they believed. They followed what Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

Acts 8:36-38 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

Here is another case of one being baptized immediately upon receiving instructions. What was the prerequisite Philip put on the Eunuch being baptized? Belief. (See Mark 16:16). Why would a condition or prequisite ever be placed on an optional action?

Acts 9:18 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. – Yet another case of being baptized without waiting.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days – Here’s another. Still searching for someone who waited.

Acts 16:15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us. – Baptized on the same day she met Paul.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. – Wow, they didn’t even wait until morning. You certainly did not follow this example.

Acts 18:8 -Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. – No indication of waiting. More on the Corinthians later.

Acts 19:5, When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. – Yet another example of baptism without waiting.

Acts 22:16 - And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ – Here is a retelling of what occurred in Acts 9. He was told to go wait in the city and it would be told to him what he must do. The first thing he is told to do is stop waiting and be baptized. Why were you waiting?

These are the examples of those who were baptized. NEVER ONCE, were any of them instructed to wait. If baptism is only symbolic and has nothing to do with salvation, then why were all these baptized immediately? Maybe they understood “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Maybe they didn’t have help to misunderstand that statement.

For you to say that those people in Acts 2:37 were saved, is to make repentance unnecessary for salvation. Is that really what you believe and teach? You don’ t believe God when he says, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent. So, you also don’t believe the plain teaching of Mark 16:16 either, do you? – He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

IF CONFESSION IS NOT A WORK, THEN NEITHER IS BAPTISM. What part of Gal 3:36-27 do you not understand. What part of Col 2:12 do you not understand. Any definition of work that would include baptism also includes confession, pure and simple.

As long as you say baptism is a work, you are being inconsistent when you deny confession is a work. Confession, by your own definition, is a work because it takes effort, it is something you do.

I say that neither is a work of merit, however, both take effort. Both are done because God said (faith).

In John 3, Jesus did say we must be born again, born of water and the Spirit. You are the one to deny the water part. Jesus was not inconsistent, but totally consistent. He later said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

You say, Jesus meant what he said. Yet you don’t believe that you have to be baptized to be saved. You don’t believe Jesus. You don’t believe that you must be born of the water and the spirit, you want to exclude being born of water.

For you to take I Cor 1 so out of context, is not really surprising to me. First, did Paul baptize any of them? YES. Why was he thankful he did not baptize more? Because there were divisions and they were becoming followers of the one who baptized them. Paul makes it clear that they would only belong to him if he had been crucified for them and they were baptized in his name.

He is showing that we belong to Christ since he was crucified for us and we were baptized in His name.

You say baptism is not part of the Gospel, then why did Paul baptize any of them? Paul did the preaching others did the baptizing. In fact, according to Acts 18:8 -Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

This verse tells us that those who believed were baptized. Why were they baptized if baptism is not part of the gospel? Baptism is part of the gospel.

I Cor 15:1-4, the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection. We obey that in baptism (Rom 6:3-4). You cannot show how to obey the gospel without including baptism.


The walls of Jericho fell by faith. Did you read what you were writing? Surely you are not saying that obedience had nothing to do with the walls falling? You think they did not have to be obedient for the walls to fall?

Even the verse in Heb 11:30 tells us that they fell after they were encircled for seven days

By faith, the walls fell. Was obedience required in this process? If not, why didn’t they fall on the first day rather than “after they were encircled for seven days”?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
DHK ,

There are so many things wrong with what you said, I don’t quite know where to start.

First, you do not place the same emphasis on baptism that the Apostles did. How can I say that? Simple, your actions speak. You seem to glory in the fact that you were not baptized for 2 years. Why did you wait? Your actions are inconsistent with every example from the inspired scriptures. I wonder why?

You avoid my questions. I wonder why? Here is the third time I am asking you:
I myself did not get baptized until two years after I was saved. How doest that fit into your theology? Was I saved or damned during that period? I want an answer from you.

Are you afraid to answer me? Why do you keep avoid answering this simple question? It requires just a simple one word answer. Are you unable to answer with a one word multiple choice question, when there are only two choices to choose from? Pitiful isn't it?

Here are the New Testament examples/instructions:

Acts 2:41 -Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

Just how long did they wait verses how long you waited? You did not follow this example. Certainly they understood that baptism was for the remission of sins, not because of.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

I see that you throw your own spin on that verse right away. No person was baptized in order that they may receive remission of sins. That is balderdash. It is heresy. It is not taught in the Bible. They were baptized because they had repented of their sins and for no other reason. The same held true for those who came to John.

Do you presume to know every case of every person that was saved in the NT. There were people being saved every day in Jerusalem. Paul had great success on his three missionary journeys and many came to the Lord. The evidence is that he didn't baptize them. But you know when they were baptized by your omniscient knowledge. You know the exact time frame of all those that were saved in the NT between their salvation and their baptism?? Incredible! I didn't know you had the same knowledge as God.

Again, they were baptized when they believed. They followed what Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

They were baptized after they believed.
Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
The Scriptures do not contradict themselves.

Here is another case of one being baptized immediately upon receiving instructions. What was the prerequisite Philip put on the Eunuch being baptized? Belief. (See Mark 16:16). Why would a condition or prequisite ever be placed on an optional action?

The condition, as you put it, was belief. Correct. The reason: We are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves; It is not of works which includes baptism. A person may never be baptized and still go to heaven. You may ask the thief on the cross that, but I truly fear that you may never have the chance to because you put your faith in baptism and not in Christ.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. – Wow, they didn’t even wait until morning. You certainly did not follow this example.

As I have pointed out to you before, you have a problem using the Book of Acts as your book of theology. It is a book of history. Without the book of Acts you are lost. It gives you examples in history, not teaching in theology as the epistles do. The Bible gives no commndment as to a time period between salvation and baptism. If it does give me chapter and verse. Otherwise, all your examples are baseless.

Acts 22:16 - And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ – Here is a retelling of what occurred in Acts 9. He was told to go wait in the city and it would be told to him what he must do. The first thing he is told to do is stop waiting and be baptized. Why were you waiting?

Why are you waiting to answer my question?

 

[DHK]

These are the examples of those who were baptized. NEVER ONCE, were any of them instructed to wait. If baptism is only symbolic and has nothing to do with salvation, then why were all these baptized immediately? Maybe they understood “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Maybe they didn’t have help to misunderstand that statement.

There is not one individual that was saved by baptism in the Bible. That is some pagan superstition that you believe in. Where did you get it from? The Hindus? That is what they believe. It certainly doesn't come from the Bible. Baptism doesn't save. Only Christ does.

For you to say that those people in Acts 2:37 were saved, is to make repentance unnecessary for salvation.

That is not what I said is it? Why do you misrepresent me? I said the people in Acts 2:41 were saved.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
1. They heard the Word of God, received it and were saved.
2. Upon believing the gospel message, and being saved, then they were baptized.
3. After being baptized they were added to the church.

Is that really what you believe and teach? You don’ t believe God when he says, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.

More misrepresentation. Shall I just get used to this? I tell you what. You go look up what it means to repent, and then get back to me.

So, you also don’t believe the plain teaching of Mark 16:16 either, do you? – He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Instead of mindlessly quoting this verse, go find out what it means. It does not contradict the rest of Scripture, it harmonizes with it. You make it contradict the rest of Scripture. Why?

IF CONFESSION IS NOT A WORK, THEN NEITHER IS BAPTISM. What part of Gal 3:36-27 do you not understand. What part of Col 2:12 do you not understand. Any definition of work that would include baptism also includes confession, pure and simple.

The issue is, that you do not understand Gal.3:26,27, neither the concept of confession. That is why people on this board have to explain it over and over and over again to you. And yet you continue to reject truth. Why?

Galatians 3:26-27 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
--By faith in Christ (by faith alone--not baptism, but faith in Christ Jesus. This verse is so plain how do you miss it? Salvation is by faith in Christ. Baptism isn't even mentioned here. Salvation is by faith and faith alone in Christ. Glad you pointed this out. It is a very clear reference to the absence of baptism in salvation.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
--We are all immersed in Christ. When? At the point of salvation when the Holy Spirit enters the heart of the believer, when the person trusts him as his Saviour. It has nothing to do with water baptism.

As long as you say baptism is a work, you are being inconsistent when you deny confession is a work. Confession, by your own definition, is a work because it takes effort, it is something you do.

Why do you lie, and misrepresent me. I already went over this with you. Confession is an expression of one's faith. Didn't you read my post at all. It is not a work by my definition at all. Please take an adult literacy class.

I say that neither is a work of merit, however, both take effort. Both are done because God said (faith).

It takes no faith to be baptized simply mindless obedience. A four year old child can take the steps of baptism without having a clue about what it means to be saved. Baptism is obedience to the directions of God and man. It has nothing to do with faith. And if faith in Christ (salvation), doesn't precede baptism, baptism is meaningless. It is therefore not a part of salvation and has nothing to do with salvation. An unsaved person can be baptized. It is simple obedience, a work of man.

In John 3, Jesus did say we must be born again, born of water and the Spirit. You are the one to deny the water part. Jesus was not inconsistent, but totally consistent. He later said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

Jesus said "You must be born again."
He did not say you must be baptized. That is your warped interpretation which is not scriptural.

You say, Jesus meant what he said. Yet you don’t believe that you have to be baptized to be saved. You don’t believe Jesus. You don’t believe that you must be born of the water and the spirit, you want to exclude being born of water.

You are afraid to find out what Jesus really meant by those words. Jesus never said that water or baptism was necessary for salvation. Never is such a concept taught in the Bible. It is a superstition.

For you to take I Cor 1 so out of context, is not really surprising to me. First, did Paul baptize any of them? YES.

Let's not be foolish here. The church was probably over a thousand by the time that Paul wrote to it. It was a large church. And Paul said that he baptized two or three families. 2 or 3 out of maybe a thousand?? So what if Paul baptized 2 or 3. Read the Scripture plainly. He did not continue because that was not his mission. He was sent not to baptize. The only reason he did baptize a couple of people is that the church had to start somewhere with some people.

Why was he thankful he did not baptize more? Because there were divisions and they were becoming followers of the one who baptized them. Paul makes it clear that they would only belong to him if he had been crucified for them and they were baptized in his name.

That was an after the fact observation. It was hindsight. Read the Scripture, don't avoid it. Paul's avowed commission was not to baptize but to preach the gospel. That is why he did not baptize. This he did every where he went. The divisions came afterward. Else you are suggesting that because Paul did not baptize divisions started? Ludicrous!! He started the church. He led them to the Lord. But he didn't baptize them. Hmmmm. I guess there was a time lapse between their salvation and their baptism then, wasn't there?

He is showing that we belong to Christ since he was crucified for us and we were baptized in His name.

Strictly your opinion and nothing more. Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. What is the matter here. Do you refuse to believe the Scripture?

You say baptism is not part of the Gospel, then why did Paul baptize any of them?

I didn't say it; Paul did. Take your argument up with him. Paul baptized the first few believers because the church had to start somewhere. But 2 or 3 believers out of a thousand hardly makes your point does it.
You make your point just like the Charismatics make theirs. Paul says "I would rather speak five words with understanding then ten thousand words in tongues (or without understanding)" And the Charismatics will still use that verse as a justification for speaking in tongues! Isn't that just incredible? You are doing the same thing. Paul is saying he baptized maybe 2 or 3 people out of a thousand, therefore that makes baptism part of the gospel when he clearly says it isn't. How you have contradicted yourself.

Paul did the preaching others did the baptizing. In fact, according to Acts 18:8 -Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

This verse tells us that those who believed were baptized. Why were they baptized if baptism is not part of the gospel? Baptism is part of the gospel.

I never said baptism wasn't important. I said it isn't part of the gospel, just like Paul said. Sure they were baptized, but not by Paul. Paul's commission did not include baptism. He was sent not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

I Cor 15:1-4, the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection. We obey that in baptism (Rom 6:3-4). You cannot show how to obey the gospel without including baptism.

Quote to me 1Cor.15:1-4, where the gospel that saves is clearly set before us, and show me one place where it mentions baptism. It does not!

The walls of Jericho fell by faith. Did you read what you were writing? Surely you are not saying that obedience had nothing to do with the walls falling? You think they did not have to be obedient for the walls to fall?

Did the obedience of the Israelites save them. Of course not. They were already saved when they entered into the promised land. You compare apples and oranges. That is why your OT examples are of no value. You are speaking of a saved group of individuals that have nothing to do with salvation. They were obeying the Lord, just like every Christian ought to obey the Lord. It has nothing to do with salvation.

Even the verse in Heb 11:30 tells us that they fell after they were encircled for seven days

So what, Your point is moot.

By faith, the walls fell. Was obedience required in this process? If not, why didn’t they fall on the first day rather than “after they were encircled for seven days”?

And by faith in God were they saved--long before they even entered into the promised land. It is a moot point. It has nothing to do with salvation. It is apples and oranges.
DHK

 

[Nevertheless]

Paul baptized the first few believers because the church had to start somewhere.

So Paul had to baptized some in order to get the church started? And if he had not baptized them, then what? No church? What is the church but the body of the Lord - those who belong to Him.

You're arguing against yourself here.

The reason we cannot find anything saying "if you don't get baptized you're not saved" is that it is taken for granted that all believers will be baptized. Mman doesn't have to prove that all the believers in the first century were baptized. You should be able to show us one example of a believer that is not. Just one is all it takes.

Let me help you out a little. Paul met a whole group of people in Ephesus who hadn't been baptized in Jesus' name. I know you don't like the book of Acts, but make an exception and go read chapter 19. Find out what problem they had and what Paul does about it.

You avoid my questions. I wonder why? Here is the third time I am asking you:
I myself did not get baptized until two years after I was saved. How doest that fit into your theology? Was I saved or damned during that period? I want an answer from you.

Perhaps mman has not answered because this is an improper question for you to ask. There is no one who can save or damn but God himself. Why should mman have the audacity to step into God's place?

There is not one individual that was saved by baptism in the Bible.

I guess you should take that up with Peter.
1 Peter 3:21 ~ Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Nevertheless:
I guess you should take that up with Peter.
1 Peter 3:21 ~ Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

I guess you should take that matter with God.
Baptism doesn't save; it only gets you wet.
The context shows that it was the ark that saved Noah; the water destroyed the world and all that was therein. Get the picture: Christ saves; water destroys. Water doesn't save. Baptism doesn't save. The picture couldn't be any clearer. What was Peter saying? You have to understand the English language here, but we have already been through this:

1 Peter 3:21 The 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:

First Peter is talking of an illustration, a symbol, a figure of speech. That much couldn't be any clearer: "The like figure." He even says he is. Just accept it as fact.

Second there is this matter of English grammar, again. "Baptism doth also now save us not...
Oh, that nasty word NOT. It means that baptism doesn't save you. There is a negative right there in the sentence! Did you foget to look at it. It is quite clear isn't it?
Baptism saves--NOT! It's just like that. We use such expressions today. Those negatives are really nasty things aren't they? They just destroy your whole argument.

So what saves? Read on. "BUT the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.."
Well, what do you know, It is the gospel that saves! It is not baptism at all. It is answering to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (that is the gospel message) that brings salvation. Did you know that every recorded sermon in the Book of Acts centered around the resurrection? It is central to salvation. Without the resurrection there would be no salvation. Baptism of course, has nothing to do with salvation. Peter says that right here. Baptism saves--NOT! No, it is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that saves, and the answering of one's conscience to it. That is faith and faith alone in the gospel message that saves. Baptism may be a symbol in some way of that message, but it never saves and never will. If you beleive that it does you not only believe a false gospel, you believe in a pagan superstition. The Hindus practice it; why do you?
DHK

 

[Nevertheless]

Oh DHK, you are so funny! You accuse me of not understanding grammar with an illustration of your ignorance! Here's a clue: There is a comma (a separation)between "baptism saves you" and "not". (And the sentence doesn't end there.)

The fact is that Peter wrote "baptism saves you". That is a fact. Now that fact alone doesn't tell us how, just what. It saves us because it is an appeal to God through Jesus.


Your post above is a good example of why I jumped into this baptism discussion. If you will recall, I started out by asking you a simple question, but getting a simple answer was not easy! The tone of your posts indicates that you despise a practice that Jesus commanded. I have attempted to make you see this and to persuade you to moderate your tone, but your latest post tells me that all is in vain. You lecture someone on grammar when you do not understand it yourself (apparently) and you end your post declaring baptism to be a pagan superstition that Hindus practice.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. In answer to your question,

"I myself did not get baptized until two years after I was saved. How doest that fit into your theology? Was I saved or damned during that period? I want an answer from you."

It really doesn't matter if your story fits into anyone's theology. The question is, "Does it fit with the Bible?" Does your "conversion" look like what we can read in the book of conversions, the book of Acts?

Comparing the two, I'd have to say that you both were, and remain, a lost person. I get no joy from telling you, either.

There is no doubt of your sincerity, your zeal, or your firm conviction that you are saved. One could not justify as much time on this discussion forum if he did not really believe that he was speaking the truth.

However, your misuse of the Scriptures, such as you have done with 1 Pet 3:21 (baptism--NOT), by ripping words completely out of their context to try and present error as truth betrays a lack of respect for the word of God, and a conscience that has been seared with a hot iron (1 Tim 4:2). It is reprehensible that one should treat the Bible in this way.

Even more horrifying is the fact that you preach such drivel to people week after week. Those poor, deluded souls.

mman may not have wanted to tell you, or maybe he didn't want to seem like the bad guy, but you're lost, sir.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:

mman may not have wanted to tell you, or maybe he didn't want to seem like the bad guy, but you're lost, sir.

In Christ,

bmerr

Your last post is reprehensible and against BB rules. Baptismal regeneration is a damnable heresy according to the Bible, and will damn people to hell. Notice I direct my comments to the theology, not the person. You are out of order. I asked you a question concerning one part of my personal life that happened thirty years ago, not a judgement on my life now. It is not your place to play the part of God.
To get you that stirred up about the doctrines of baptism vs. the grace of God in salvation must have struck a nerve. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is working here after all. But if you don't believe my interpretation, here is the well known scholar and Bible teacher, John MacArthur's exposition:

"[God was patient in the days of Noah] during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

A. The Ark (v. 20b)

"[God was patient in the days of Noah] during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water."

Peter used the historical account of Noah and his family as an analogy for the triumphant salvation provided through Christ. Genesis 6:9[en]-8:22 tells how Noah and his family were delivered through the Flood. They were the only people who believed God's warning of the coming worldwide catastrophe. As a result all mankind was drowned in judgment, except them.

It's remarkable that so few believed God's warning--Noah, "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet. 2:5) preached the righteousness of God for the hundred and twenty years it took to build the ark. It was a massive structure about the size of a modern ocean liner (Gen. 6:15), and was sure to attract attention. Yet that tremendous effort was spent on building a vessel he would spend only a year using. Imagine what it would be like to build that ark and preach its meaning for over a century, yet have only your immediate family believe. It must have been discouraging. Yet those were the people who were safe from God's judgment when it did come. The ark carried them from a world of wickedness and iniquity (Gen. 6:5) into a new world and life. The ark served as their shelter from the encompassing judgment of God. For Peter the experience of Noah and his family was a graphic illustration of salvation.

B. The Antetype (v. 21)

"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

"And corresponding to that" translates a Greek phrase containing the word antitupon, which means "antetype" or "copy." In the New Testament it describes of an earthly expression of a heavenly reality--a symbol, copy, or analogy of a spiritual truth. Peter understood the preservation of the believers in the ark to be symbolic of salvation in Christ.

1. What it is

Some believe that the antetype Peter speaks of is the water of the Flood because the Greek words for "antetype" (v. 21) and "water" (v. 20) are both neuter gender words in Greek. But it seems better to understand the antetype to be the whole experience of Noah and his family: the preservation of believers in an ark while the earth was immersed in the judgment of God. That would make Noah and his family a true antetype of salvation in Christ, which is a preservation through judgment.

2. What it is not

The baptism Peter speaks of in verse 21 is not water baptism. The Greek word translated "baptism" (baptiz[ma]o) is more specifically translated "immerse." Noah didn't experience Christian baptism, but was immersed in judgment though protected by the ark. Noah and his family didn't miss the judgment--they were there--but were preserved through it. That's what happens to believers in Christ.

Peter made it especially clear he wasn't talking about Christian baptism when he said, "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh." He wasn't speaking of an earthly ordinance but a spiritual reality: "an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (v. 21).

3. What it describes

a)Believers are safe in Christ

"Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience" qualifies the statement, "Baptism now saves you." Read without that qualifying phrase verse 21 reads, "Baptism now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The only baptism that saves a person is one into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Peter's point is that just as the Flood immersed in the judgment of God everyone yet some passed through safely, so the final judgment will fall on all, but those who are in Jesus Christ will pass through judgment safely. Being in Christ is like being in the ark: we ride safely through the storms of judgment. Believers go through the death and burial of Christ because of their union with Him, and come out again into the new world of His resurrection.

b)Believers are entombed in Christ

The ark of Noah was a kind of tomb--those in it died to their world when they entered it. When they left it atop Mount Ararat, they experienced a resurrection of sorts by entering a new world. That, Peter tells us, is analogous to the experience of every Christian: spiritually we enter Christ and die to the world we come from, and one day we will be resurrected for a new world and life. That's similar to what Paul said in Romans 6:3-4: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."

John MacArthur
DHK

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by bmerr:
mman may not have wanted to tell you, or maybe he didn't want to seem like the bad guy, but you're lost, sir.

In Christ,
bmerr

bmerr, STERN WARNING from an administrator here: If this type remark continues, I will seek a suspension for breaking our rules or banning for heresy. You've been given more than the other cheek repeatedly by DHK and others. If you cannot abide by our rules on this BAPTIST board, I'm sure there's a Church of Christ board you can join.

Diane

 

[bmerr]

To the offended,

bmerr here. I apologize for my directness of speech. I simply said outright to DHK what has been said to mman, Frank, and myself numerous times by implication.

"Why I've NEVER...!"

Sure you have. To say that we teach and believe a "damnable heresy", is to say that we teach and believe a lie, which means we're lost.

The only difference is that I didn't try to hide behind some transparent technicality like,

Notice I direct my comments to the theology, not the person

as DHK did.

The utter hypocrisy of condemning someone for doing what you do yourself! You call me a heretic who believes a pagan superstition, flying in the face of the very words of God, and then get all bent out of shape because I say directly what you all say by implication.

And all this while you take your stand on a doctrine that the Bible flatly denies (justification by faith alone).

You call me on a violation of posting rules, and if I'm guilty, so be it. I don't think my words were any more harsh than those of DHK himself. Here's just a sample:

What do I teach? I teach never to get involved with COC doctrine. It's damnable heresies lead a person to hell. Yes, that is strong language but true. Baptism doesn't save. Works do not save.
Confession of one's repentant faith is not a work. But you wouldn't know that, because you refuse to believe it.

Unless you find out the meaning of Eph.2:8,9, that salvation is by grace through faith and that not of yourselves; not of works (and that includes the work of baptism), then you face a Christless eternity. For salvation is by faith and faith alone. You have taken away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to save. That is a blasphemous heresy.
DHK

Baptism may be a symbol in some way of that message, but it never saves and never will. If you beleive that it does you not only believe a false gospel, you believe in a pagan superstition. The Hindus practice it; why do you?
DHK

But I suppose this is acceptable, since he never came right out and said, "you're lost", right?

Does it not matter what one believes?

Is trying to discern the truth not one of the main purposes of this board?

Is the title of "heretic" reserved for anyone who dares to say another is in error?

Is the "Other Christian Denominations" section of this site not set aside for those who are not Baptists, and who do not subscribe to Baptist doctrine?

Is it any wonder that you might find something you disagree with in this section?

How can people honestly discuss anything if nobody's wrong?

The choice to ban me or allow me to continue on this board is yours. I'll try to veil my words in implication from now on, if it makes everyone more comfortable.

Oh, one more thing. Did DHK not ask the question in the first place, and then ask again when mman didn't answer him?

Was I saved or damned during that period? I want an answer from you.

You did not answer my question did you? You avoided it.

You avoid my questions. I wonder why? Here is the third time I am asking you:
I myself did not get baptized until two years after I was saved. How doest that fit into your theology? Was I saved or damned during that period? I want an answer from you.

Are you afraid to answer me? Why do you keep avoid answering this simple question? It requires just a simple one word answer. Are you unable to answer with a one word multiple choice question, when there are only two choices to choose from? Pitiful isn't it?

Why are you waiting to answer my question?

If he didn't want an answer, why'd he ask the question?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:
Why are you waiting to answer my question?

If he didn't want an answer, why'd he ask the question?

In Christ,

bmerr [/QUOTE]
Please, don't be so naive.
I asked an opinion. The question was: In the time between I trusted Christ as my Saviour (i.e., was saved), and the time that I was baptized (two years later), in your eyes was I lost or saved; would I have gone to heaven or hell? I was looking for your opinion. Not only did you give that opinion, you gave me a pronouncement and judgement upon my life that only God can do. The Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, which I am, and you come out and pronounce me as Lost!? That is very presumptuous on your part, and definitely outside the parameters of the question which I was asking. So I say again. Don't be so naive; you knew the question I was asking. Why didn't you just answer it?

In answering the question as you did, you gave us this information:
1. If a person trusts Christ, believes in the atoning work of Christ, is born again, and yet is not baptized he will still go to hell.
2. The thief on the cross must have ended up in hell contrary to the words of Christ.
3. Many parapelegics who don't get baptized because of their physical condition will go to hell.
4. Many bed-ridden people who have trusted Christ, and yet because of one physical condition or another are confined to their beds will go to hell.
5. All people who make a profession of faith in the last few minutes of their life will go to hell anyway, even though they turned to Christ at the end of their life.

You religion is a cruel religion, and you believe in a merciless cruel God, not the God of the Bible. Your salvation is not the salvation of the Bible (thankfully), for it is not a salvation of grace through faith. It is a salvation built upon works and not on grace.
Here is what Paul says about that:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Salvation is either of grace or by works; it cannot be both. Defined by the COC, salvation is by works. Defined by the Apostle Paul, salvation is by grace, and any other gospel is a false gospel. Yours is a false gospel.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. And yet again, you condemn me as a false teacher. As far as parapelegics and the infirm are concerned, they'd probably make a special effort to be baptized if they were taught what the Bible says about it, instead of what some men have reduced it to.

I do believe in salvation by grace through faith. Eph 2:8, 9 affirms it for me. I do not believe in salvation by "grace alone through faith alone", since that is not what the Bible says. Man has come along and inserted "alone" into many passages, perhaps not to the actual text, but to his understanding of it. To do so is to depart from the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11).

As far as my answer to your question, what answer did you think would be given? Really, I'd like to know. What did you think the response would be to your question. If one were to simply allow the pattern of conversion in the NT be his guide, the answer would be just as I gave it.

The longest delay between one's belief and one's baptism is recorded for us in Acts 9. There we find that Paul waited three days, (which were spent in prayer and fasting), to be told what the Lord said he "must do" (9:6). We find later that he was told he must "Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

For those three days between his belief and his baptism, Paul was still in his sins, and therefore, still lost. It was in baptism that Paul called upon the name of the Lord and his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ.

Now I'm sure you still don't agree with any of this, but one thing is certain: Paul was told that he must be baptized, and he was told what baptism was for. His three day separation between faith and baptism is the longest recorded lapse in the Bible. Everyone else was baptized immediately. The importance of baptism was taught by the early church, including Paul.

Baptism is not a work of merit, any more than Abraham offering Isaac was. It's just something God commands us to do in order to receive the forgiveness of sins.

Submitting to baptism is how one obeys the gospel (2 Thes 1:8). It has a purpose, and a method. It is in the authority of Christ. It is commanded under the New Testament. It is a commandment of God. If we love Him, it will not be burdensome (1 John 5:3).

Obedience to God requires that we do what He says, in the way that He says, for the reason He says. Anything short of that is just doing what we want to do.

Look, we both understand that it's easy to get riled up when discussing these matters. Contrary to what you thought, I was not angry when I wrote the offensive post. I got no pleasure from it at all. I am simply concerned for you. You have a great zeal and passion for Christ, and a strong sense of duty toward those of like faith. None of this can be denied by anyone who skims over these boards. You are to be commended for these attributes.

I just think you've got some things wrong, that's all. I too, have a duty to help others see the truth as best I can. I'm sorry my attention to this duty seemed like a personal attack. It wouldn't be the first time I sounded more harsh than I intended.

I'm sure we'll speak again. I'll try not to get personal. Sorry about that.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[billwald]

Do people go to hell for heresy? For incorrect data anlysis?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by billwald:
Do people go to hell for heresy? For incorrect data anlysis?

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

heresy in its broadest sense simply means divsion or schism, as Paul used it hear.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Verse 10. A man that is an heretic. The word heretic is now commonly applied to one who holds some fundamental error of doctrine, "a person who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy." Webster. The Greek word here used (airetikoV-- haireticos) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The corresponding noun (airesiV-- hairesis) occurs in the following places: Ac 5:17; 15:5; 24:5; 26:5; 28:22, where it is rendered sect; and Ac 24:14; 1Co 11:19; Ga 5:20; 2Pe 2:1, where it is rendered heresy, and heresies. Cmt. on Ac 24:14. The true notion of the word is that of one who is a promoter of a sect or party. The man who makes divisions in a church, instead of aiming to promote unity, is the one who is intended. Such a man may form sects and parties on some points of doctrine on which he differs from others, or on some custom, religious rite, or peculiar practice; he may make some unimportant matter a ground of distinction from his brethren, and may refuse to have fellowship with them, and endeavour to get up a new organization. Such a man, according to the Scripture usage, is a heretic, and not merely one who holds a different doctrine from that which is regarded as orthodoxy. The spirit of the doctrine here is the same as in Ro 16:17, and the same class of persons is referred to. "Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have received; and avoid them." Cmt. on Ro 16:17. The word here used is defined by Robinson, (Lex.,) "one who creates dissensions, introduces errors--a factious person." It is not found in classic Greek, but often in ecclesiastical writers. See Suicer's Thesau. (Albert Barnes)

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
--There are damnable heresies which can cause the eternal damnation of one's soul in Hell.
DHK