Churches of Christ

[Alcott]

Originally posted by mman:
So Jesus didn't really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" when he said, "He that beliveth and is baptized shall be saved."???

Take Mark 16 a little further, bud. That was v. 16 you quoted.

vv. 17-18-- These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Did Jesus "really mean" that?

 

[bmerr]

I'm not twisting or denying Jesus' word; you're the one twisting them into "he who is not baptized in addition to believing is not saved", and that's not what it says. Once a person believed, baptism was not a question back then. So that is not the subject, as if that is what completes salvation.

bmerr here.

I hope I'm not jumping in too late. Nice to see mman still kicking around. Actually, Eric B, mman simply stated what Jesus said in Mark 16:16. He didn't twist it, change it, add to or subtract from it. The reason baptism was not a question back then is that the apostles preached, and everyone understood that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Those who believed the gospel and responded to the gospel by being baptized were saved and added to the church, which is composed of obedient believers of the gospel.

Faithful churches of Christ teach this because that is what the Scriptures teach. It's very plain, and requires no mental gymnastics to come to the understanding that baptism is a prerequisite of salvation. The gymnastics of the mind are for those who wish to deny this plain Bible doctrine.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Baptism by the Holy Ghost is what saves. Even John the Baptist told us that he indeed baptized with water but there cometh one after him that would baptize with the fire and Holy Ghost. (to complete the saving). When the Gentiles came in Jesus had already died for He had to break down the middle wall of partition before we even had a chance, but after His death then we receive the Holy Ghost baptism to save us and then go to the water and be baptized for not putting away the filth of the flesh but to answer a good consquence to God, of which if you still had a bad consequence you certainly couldn't answer a good one. Also all those who were baptized of John had to receive the Holy Ghost after Jesus had died and arose again by the laying on of hands and it was a time of transition for them but for us it was a time of being brought into the fold. Amen,
BBob

Bob,

bmerr here. I've heard others make mention of this "time of transition" before. Would you elaborate on this doctrine?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Take Mark 16 a little further, bud. That was v. 16 you quoted.

vv. 17-18-- These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Did Jesus "really mean" that?

Alcott,

bmerr here. Yes, Jesus really meant that, too. And the Scriptures record several of these events.

Casting out demons: Acts 8:6-7; 16:16-18
Speaking with new tongues: Acts 2:4-11; 19:6
Picking up serpents: Acts 28:3-6 [Note this incident was UNINTENTIONAL]
Laying hands on the sick: Acts 3:6-8; 8:7; 9:17-18; 28:8-9

To my knowledge there is no record of anyone drinking poison and not being hurt by it.

Such miraculous events as these had the effect of confirming the word which was spoken by the apostles and prophets (Mark 16:20). That was the purpose of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. These have long since passed away, as the Word of God has long since been confirmed.

However, baptism (immersion in water) was to last till the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20). This is the "one baptism" of Eph 4:5.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

Faithful churches of Christ teach this because that is what the Scriptures teach. It's very plain, and requires no mental gymnastics to come to the understanding that baptism is a prerequisite of salvation. The gymnastics of the mind are for those who wish to deny this plain Bible doctrine.

No this is the false teaching of the Church of Christ denomination because they don't want to dig into Scripture to find out what is going on. They just want to scratch the surface and let that be enough.

Why so many people want to tie works in with salvation is beyond me when it is quite clear that our eternal salvation has NOTHING to do with anything that we do other than faith in the works of Jesus.

Why is that so difficult to understand.

 

[bmerr]

J Jump,

bmerr here. Let's dig deeper, then. Is confession of Jesus Christ as Lord essential to salvation?

 

[J. Jump]

The plain teaching of Scripture regarding our eternal salvation is Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 16:30-31.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Anything outside of believing in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God is a contradiction to those two Scriptures and must be speaking of something other than eternal salvation.

God requires death and shed blood and that is it. That is the picture that we get in both the OT and the NT.

If baptism is required for salvation we should be able to see that in type, picture or shadow form in the OT. Do you have OT passages that show baptism as a requirement for salvation?

 

[bmerr]

J Jump,

bmerr here. Can't say that I do. I do have OT references that show that obedience is required to receive the promised blessings of God. Many times the command of God seems quite arbitrary in nature, as does baptism in the NT, and yet the promised blessing was never received until God's command was obeyed. By arbitrary, I mean "Just because God said so". I think that's the proper use of the word, but I've been wrong before.

Off the top of my head, we might look at Naaman (2 Kings 5), or Jericho (Joshua 6). Would you rather start elsewhere?

BTW, thanks for the opportunity to discuss this. I hope we can keep it civil.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Eric B]

bmerr here.

I hope I'm not jumping in too late. Nice to see mman still kicking around. Actually, Eric B, mman simply stated what Jesus said in Mark 16:16. He didn't twist it, change it, add to or subtract from it. The reason baptism was not a question back then is that the apostles preached, and everyone understood that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Those who believed the gospel and responded to the gospel by being baptized were saved and added to the church, which is composed of obedient believers of the gospel.

Faithful churches of Christ teach this because that is what the Scriptures teach. It's very plain, and requires no mental gymnastics to come to the understanding that baptism is a prerequisite of salvation. The gymnastics of the mind are for those who wish to deny this plain Bible doctrine.

In Christ,

bmerr

You DID twist it. Note in the passage, belief was the subject, as a prerequisite to salvation, with baptism accompanying it. You have just gone and pulled a switch making it all about baptism, with belief omitted altogether in your statement. It is no longer what Jesus said when you try to rehash it that way. This is the tactic your view uses in its interpretations of these passages.

 

[bmerr]

Eric B,

bmerr here. I didn't say baptism was the prerequisite to salvation, but that baptism is a prerequisite to salvation. Didn't mean to seem like I was trying to leave out belief, for apart from belief, baptism is worthless (baby-sprinklers take note). The text says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...", agreed?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

bmerr what do these two situations, Naaman (2 Kings 5), or Jericho (Joshua 6), have to do with baptism?

You may have been talking about these two situations in reference to obedience. If that is the case I would agree that they speak of obedience, but these are long after the picture of salvation, which occured in Exodus 12.

Actually the picture of baptism is seen in the Red Sea crossing. But salvation had already occured the night of passover. So baptism can not be a precursor for salvation, because it happened after they were saved.

There's just no way you can wiggle baptism into salvation. In the Gospels the Jews had already experienced God's grace through faith and were spiritually alive. The message was not eternal salvation, but the message of the kingdom, and those are not the same thing.

The reference in Acts 2 is the same thing. The message being preached was a kingdom message not an eternal salvation message. The key to that passage is looking at the last verse of the chapter. If those 3,000 folks would have been saved eternally then there would have been 3,000 spirits added to them that day. Is that what the text says? No. It says 3,000 souls were added that day.

Spiritual salvation and soulical salvation come at two different times. That's why baptism and works get messed up, becuase people apply baptism and works to eternal salvation instead of keeping it in the context in which is was given and that's the salvation of the soul.

The salvation of the spirit is eternal, while the salvation of the soul is temporal and deals with the 1,000-year kingdom of Christ that has yet to come.

 

[mman]

The plain teaching of Scripture regarding our eternal salvation is Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 16:30-31.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Anything outside of believing in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God is a contradiction to those two Scriptures and must be speaking of something other than eternal salvation.

God requires death and shed blood and that is it. That is the picture that we get in both the OT and the NT.

If baptism is required for salvation we should be able to see that in type, picture or shadow form in the OT. Do you have OT passages that show baptism as a requirement for salvation?

First, lets look a little deeper. You referenced Acts 16:30-31. Is that the whole story? Let's see all that God has said.

Acts 16:30-34 "Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God."

Notice the sequence of event:

1) Told to believe (believe what? They hadn't spoken the word of the Lord yet)
2) They spoke the word of the Lord
3) Washed their wounds (shows repentance)
4) Baptized at once
5) rejoiced that he had believed in God

When could it be said that he believed in God? Before he even heard the word of the Lord or after he heard it and obeyed it? The scripture says he rejoiced after his baptism.

This concept is not foreign to scripture. In the book of Acts, baptism in water is always the response to the preaching the good news about Jesus.

Read Acts 8, there are two examples in that chapter alone.

As for the OT examples, have you ever studied the tabernacle, sacrifices, and priestly duties? If not, I encourage you to. Hebrews also sheds much light on the subject.

We know they had a brazen alter, on which the blood sacrifices were made. The tabernacle consisted of a holy place and a most holy place. Dividing the two was a veil. In the Holy place, the priest served, yet in the Most Holy Place, only the High Priest could go, and he had to have blood.

The Holy Place is where the priests served, offering daily incense, keeping the only source of light burning, and then there was the table of showbread, that was eaten weekly by the priests in a Holy Place.

Hopefully, you can understand some of the symbology.

God gave specific instructions to put the laver (of water) between the brazen alter where the sacrifices were made and the door to the holy place (Ex 30:18-20, Ex 40:7, 30). The penalty for trying to enter the Holy Place without washing was death (Ex 30:18-20).

The sacrifice of Christ was made. We must have the blood and the water before we can enter the holy place. Is it any wonder that blood and water flowed from Jesus' side at his death?

Jesus blood was shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28)
We are baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

Therefore, the blood and baptism (water) are "for the remission of sins".

Heb 9:19 "For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Heb 10:19-22 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

The laver was place between the alter and the holy place. Blood and washing in water were required to enter. If the laver had been placed inside the Holy Place, then you might have an argument.

Here's another example.

I Cor 10:1-2 I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

They were surrounded by water and were baptized into the lawgiver and deliverer of that day. We are baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27), the lawgiver and deliverer now.

Ex 14:30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.

They had been in bondage to the Egyptians. We are in bondage to sin. The Egyptians all died in the water (Ex 14:28-30). Our sins are also washed away (Acts 22:16). Death occurs . The old man of sin that we were slaves to, dies, just as their captors died (Rom 6), and we are raised to walk in a new life. God saves us that day (I Pet 3:21).

Another OT example is Noah in the flood. God saved Noah physically, and he and his family were brought safely through the water. I Pet 3:20-21, "eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this (antitype), 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,"

It doesn't wash sins away like it washes away dirt. No the power is in God and the blood of Jesus. God said to do it, so we do. When we obey God, we can have a good conscience.

 

[J. Jump]

mman you are rowing in the same boat as BobRyan in my view. You have shown time and time again that you do not want to look at Scripture you just want to spout "proof" texts and continue in your error. So therefore there is no need to respond to your post becuase just as BobRyan has no desire to change his views neither do you.

You are clearly trying to combine two different subjects that are not related to each and trying to cram them into the same doctrine and basically you are destroying both to keep man's traditions alive.

Obedience has NOTHING to do with eternal salvation, because if it did you would have something to boast about and grace would no longer be grace. It really is that simple.

 

[bmerr]

bmerr what do these two situations, Naaman (2 Kings 5), or Jericho (Joshua 6), have to do with baptism?

You may have been talking about these two situations in reference to obedience. If that is the case I would agree that they speak of obedience, but these are long after the picture of salvation, which occured in Exodus 12.

J. Jump,

bmerr here. Like I was saying, Naaman and Jericho both demonstrate that obedience to God's commands always precedes the receipt of God's promised blessing. Even in Exodus 12, where the "picture of salvation" is, how did the Israelites escape the judgement of God? Was it not by obeying the command to put the blood on the door posts?

Faith is the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). One cannot see that I believe God until I do what He has commanded. Surely God knows the hearts of men, yet He said, "...and when I see the blood, I will pass over you..." (Ex 12:13). God would not see the blood unless and until it had been applied by those whose faith was manifested, or evidenced by obedience to the command to apply the blood to the door posts.

Actually the picture of baptism is seen in the Red Sea crossing. But salvation had already occured the night of passover. So baptism can not be a precursor for salvation, because it happened after they were saved.

The Red Sea crossing is a picture of baptism, but this was a baptism unto Moses (1 Cor 10:1-2). It was also a separation between their life in bondage to Egypt and life under Jehovah's Rule, mediated through Moses.

In the NT, baptism is the dividing line between being a servant of sin, and being a servant of Christ (Rom 6:16-18).

There's just no way you can wiggle baptism into salvation. In the Gospels the Jews had already experienced God's grace through faith and were spiritually alive. The message was not eternal salvation, but the message of the kingdom, and those are not the same thing.

The Jews who condemned Jesus to death at the hands of the Romans were spiritually alive? Are you kidding?

If Peter and the other apostles were not preaching eternal salvation, then what were the hearers to "save yourselves" (Acts 2:40) from? The kingdom is the church. It's been here for nearly 2000 years. Paul was in it (Col 1:13). What "kingdom" are you waiting for?

The reference in Acts 2 is the same thing. The message being preached was a kingdom message not an eternal salvation message. The key to that passage is looking at the last verse of the chapter. If those 3,000 folks would have been saved eternally then there would have been 3,000 spirits added to them that day. Is that what the text says? No. It says 3,000 souls were added that day.

Spiritual salvation and soulical salvation come at two different times. That's why baptism and works get messed up, becuase people apply baptism and works to eternal salvation instead of keeping it in the context in which is was given and that's the salvation of the soul.

The salvation of the spirit is eternal, while the salvation of the soul is temporal and deals with the 1,000-year kingdom of Christ that has yet to come.

Where are you getting this stuff from? I'm going to guess you're talking about pre-millenialism, and I'll start a thread so this one can stay somewhat on track.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[mman]

mman you are rowing in the same boat as BobRyan in my view. You have shown time and time again that you do not want to look at Scripture you just want to spout "proof" texts and continue in your error. So therefore there is no need to respond to your post becuase just as BobRyan has no desire to change his views neither do you.

You are clearly trying to combine two different subjects that are not related to each and trying to cram them into the same doctrine and basically you are destroying both to keep man's traditions alive.

Obedience has NOTHING to do with eternal salvation, because if it did you would have something to boast about and grace would no longer be grace. It really is that simple.

If you can show me where I'm wrong, I'll change. Will you be as honest?

What about the Old Testament examples? Are you wanting to drag the laver into the Holy Place?

What about the plain statements in scripture dealing with baptism. Do other verses negate them?

You said, "Obedience has NOTHING to do with eternal salvation".

God said, "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" - Heb 5:9

Should I believe God or you?

What is the obvious conclusion of this verse? That 1) obedience is required or 2)that it has nothing to do with eternal salvation?

Just because a person obeys does not mean they earn anything. I agree that man does nothing to earn salvation. If he did, then he could boast. Salvation is a gift. A gift is not earned but given.

There is no intrinsic merit in baptism. It does not earn anything. I do not merit any portion of my salvation, however that does not absolve me from obedience.

A person is justified by the blood of Jesus, therefore, I am not justifed by good works but because God declares me just. The source of faith is God's word. Without his word, I could not be pleasing to Him, because I wouldn't know what to do or believe. When I obey the instructions found in His word, I know that God is faithful and will do what he says.

Heb 11:30 states that the walls of Jericho fell by faith. Use your definition of faith and tell how this happened.

Jericho had already been given to them (Josh 6:2), therefore it was a gift. They did not earn it. There is no intrinsic merit in marching around walls. They could have marched around it a million times and it would not have earned them anything because marching around walls is worthless. Nobody is paid to march around walls. Of what value is that?

By God's grace, they had been given a city. By faith, the walls fell down. To state that obedience is not required because then they could boast about how they made the walls fall down and therefore grace would not be grace, is ridiculous. Obedience was required even though they didn't earn the city of Jericho, it was a gift, and the walls fell by faith.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved
Eph 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith
Gal 3:26-27, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

These three verses are in perfect harmony with each other and
Heb 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,"

 

[ccrobinson]

Late to the party, but how does the CoC reconcile what happened with Cornelius' household with the idea that baptism is required for salvation?

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Here's what I don't understand. Does the Holy Ghost (or Spirit if you prefer) fall on the unsaved? Do the unsaved receive the gift of tongues by the Spirit? Or, did the gift of tongues fall only on those who are saved? If baptism is required for salvation, then the Spirit gave the gift of tongues to the unsaved.


The other question I have is about Mark 16:16.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The 1st half of the verse certainly suggests that belief + baptism = salvation. But the 2nd half says nothing about baptism. What does the CoC do with that? I would question the sincerity of a Christian who refuses baptism, but the scenario certainly exists where a person believes but dies before baptism.

Thank you for your patience with my questions.

 

[J. Jump]

mman you continue to contradict yourself.

Just because a person obeys does not mean they earn anything. I agree that man does nothing to earn salvation. If he did, then he could boast. Salvation is a gift. A gift is not earned but given.

Really when is the last time someone gave you a gift and then said if you don't obey then I'm going to take it away? That's not a gift that is a reward for something done. Why is that so hard for you to see.

It doesn't matter what you say or how you package it, that is works based salvation, which is in direct violation of Scripture. Should I believe God or should I believe you?

As I have said many times before context is king and you are taking things out of their context. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 16:30-31 clearly show us the context of salvation by grace through faith. That context includes NO WORKS - ZERO - NOTHING - NBEDIENCE - NOTHING BUT FAITH.

So if obedience, works or anything other than faith is involved context tells us that it's not talking about eternal salvation.

If you can show me where I'm wrong, I'll change.

No you won't. You have been shown by numerous people that you are in error and teaching a false doctrine, but you continue to teach it and believe it. You have no desire to change. You just want to get into an endless debate for some reason.

Sorry, but I don't have time to play the kindergarten games that you and BobRyan and others want to play.

 

[J. Jump]

Even in Exodus 12, where the "picture of salvation" is, how did the Israelites escape the judgement of God? Was it not by obeying the command to put the blood on the door posts?

It was their faith that saved them. We know that because of Ephesians 2:8-9. Now they had to apply the blood because it was a physical lamb that was slain.

We still have to appropriate the blood of the Lamb that was slain on our behalf, but it is done through believing on the Lamb that has already been slain.

[Hebrews 11:1]

The context of Hebrews is the salvation of the soul. Again context tells us that if anything having to do with works is involved, or obedience or anything like that the context is not eternal salvation, but something else. We must let the Bible say what the Bible says, but instead we try to make it say what we want it to say.

The Red Sea crossing is a picture of baptism, but this was a baptism unto Moses (1 Cor 10:1-2). It was also a separation between their life in bondage to Egypt and life under Jehovah's Rule, mediated through Moses.

In the NT, baptism is the dividing line between being a servant of sin, and being a servant of Christ (Rom 6:16-18).

Exactly. It's the same picture. We are delivered from the bondage of sin, dying to self to live in Christ.

But again that was after salvation.

The Jews who condemned Jesus to death at the hands of the Romans were spiritually alive? Are you kidding?

Not kidding at all. Once again we have to let the Bible say what it says instead of plugging our own thoughts into it. It doesn't sound logical that these people would be saved people because they killed Christ, but we can't let our tainted views tell us what truth is.

The OT says that Christ's brother was going to slay Him. A brother is part of the family. If you are in the family you are saved.

Again they experienced grace through faith, because God said He accepted the death and shed blood of the passover animals. God looked at them through the blood.

If Peter and the other apostles were not preaching eternal salvation, then what were the hearers to "save yourselves" (Acts 2:40) from?

The text tells us they were to save themselves from the evil and perverse generation.

And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Context again tells us this is not eternal salvation, because we can not save ourselves.

The kingdom is the church. It's been here for nearly 2000 years. Paul was in it (Col 1:13).

There is numerous reasons why this is not the case. If the church was the kingdom then Jesus would already be married to the bride, but that hasn't happened yet. He would be King and reigning, but He is not reigning He is acting as High Priest.

These are just a couple of reasons.

What "kingdom" are you waiting for?

I am waiting for the kingdom of the heavens where Christ will rule this earth in the stead of Satan and his angels. And I pray that I will be a part of that kingdom, because it is not a guarantee. That is what all the warnings and the falling away are in reference to. It's not eternal salvation, but the saving of the soul which is in reference to the coming kingdom.

Where are you getting this stuff from?

Straight from Scripture.

 

[bmerr]

Late to the party, but how does the CoC reconcile what happened with Cornelius' household with the idea that baptism is required for salvation?

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Here's what I don't understand. Does the Holy Ghost (or Spirit if you prefer) fall on the unsaved? Do the unsaved receive the gift of tongues by the Spirit? Or, did the gift of tongues fall only on those who are saved? If baptism is required for salvation, then the Spirit gave the gift of tongues to the unsaved.

ccrobinson,

bmerr here. It would be my priviledge to speak with you about Cornelius and Co. There can be no doubt but that his was an exeptional case. There are also many similarities with the other accounts of conversion given us in Acts. Let's start with the similarities.

Cornelius had a desire to please God, as did the eunuch in Acts 8, and Saul in Acts 9. However, he needed guidance, or instruction, as did the eunuch and Saul. In each case, there is Divine intervention involved in getting a preacher to the lost, sincere man.

Each one heard the word of God, believed it, repented of sins, and was baptized. Now for some of the differences.

Cornelius saw a vision of an angel who told him to send for Peter. Peter saw a corresponding vision, and was told by the Spirit to go with the men who had come for him, "nothing doubting" (Acts 10:20), which just means, "don't be prejudiced". They were Gentiles, after all...

Peter goes to the house of Cornelius accompanied by 6 brethren (11:12). It's important to remember that up to this point, the church was composed solely of former Jews and proselytes. There were a lot of hangups left over about Gentiles that would plague the early church for a long time. These were often addressed in Paul's epistles.

These six brethren had not received the vision that Peter had, and would need to be convinced that these Gentiles were candidates for the gospel. They had to understand that Gentiles could be saved solely on gospel terms, and did not need to become Jews first.

The Spirit falling on these unconverted Gentiles accomplished this purpose. Something helpful to notice is the words "in order" in Acts 11:4. Acts 10 tells what happened in the conversion of Cornelius. Acts 11 tells us the order in which the events occurred.

When the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his household, I do not believe they were yet saved. I don't believe they could have been saved because they had not yet heard the words whereby they would be saved (11:14). It's true that 10:44 says that the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, but in 11:15, we read that it was "...as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

If we go back to 10:34, we can see what Peter said as he began to speak.

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons". Now why would he say that? Could it be that the Holy Spirit had fallen upon Cornelius and his household, just as He had on them at the beginning?

Notice the reaction of the six brethren in 10:45: "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Peter then asks the six, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..."

To be baptized in the name of the Lord is to be baptized by His authority, which is to be baptized for the remission of sins.

Bottom line: Cornelius is an exeptional case in that he is the first Gentile conversion. It's not suprising that things went a little differently than they had to that point.

The other question I have is about Mark 16:16.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The 1st half of the verse certainly suggests that belief + baptism = salvation. But the 2nd half says nothing about baptism. What does the CoC do with that? I would question the sincerity of a Christian who refuses baptism, but the scenario certainly exists where a person believes but dies before baptism.

Thank you for your patience with my questions.

So, why does the 2nd half of the verse not say "he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned"? Is that a fair restatement of your question?

If so, John 3:18 gives us the answer. It reads, "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."

One would be no less damned for not being baptized than he would for not believing. Only a believer would want to be baptized, provided they were taught its' meaning and purpose.

As far as the "dry locked believer" scenario, I don't know what to tell you. All I know is what the Bible says. I suppose if God wanted to grant an exeption to one who desired baptism but absolutely had no way to be baptized, that would be for Him to decide. The fact is, however, on a planet that is 75% covered with water, the excuse would have to be a pretty good one for God to go against the Covenant in His Son's blood.

The much surer ground is to simply obey the gospel. Why bank eternity on being the exeption to the rule when the rule is so easy to abide by? KnowwhatImean?

Any other questions are certainly welcome. I am at your service.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

Why bank eternity on being the exeption to the rule when the rule is so easy to abide by?

bmerr that's the whole point there are no exceptions. Everyone is either saved by grace through faith or they remain dead in trespasses and sins.

That's what the CoC does to ignore clear passages of Scripture. Then they accuse others of doing that exact same thing when we don't accept baptism as a means of salvation.

There are no exceptions. The thief on the cross was not baptised. Why is that? Because it is not necessary.

The many times that I have had a conversation with CoC members they can never be consistent with their own beliefs. They say that baptism is always necessary for salvation, but yet they can't answer the question of the thief.

And then I always ask a question okay if I say you are right and I am wrong and I want to be saved(because a lot of CoC people think they are the only ones saved - don't know if you are in that radical group or not) according to your teachings, what happens if we die on our way to the church to get baptized.

They always without fail say well that's up to God. That is blatant inconsistency. Either baptism is a requirement for eternal salvation or it is not. The Bible clearly teaches that it is not. Neither baptism or any other work that a man can engage in.

Eternal salvation is based ONLY on the finished works of Jesus Christ. And all anyone (whosoever will) has to do is have faith that His death and shed blood was in their place. That's it. It really is that simple.

Everything else that comes after that is in regard to something else.