Churches of Christ

[mman]

Now you're putting words in the mouth of Jesus.

If He had intended to say "your works demonstrating you faith have saved you" He would have.

He intended to say exactly what He said. Her faith saved her and nothing else.

Heb 11:30, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days."

Was any action required? Did they fall by faith? Did their actions earn them the result? If so, then did God give them the city or did they earn it (Joshua 6:2).

When did the walls fall, before or after they were obedient?

The walls did not fall down by belief only, they fell by faith, there is a difference.

 

[carpro]

Heb 11:30, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days."

Was any action required? Did they fall by faith? Did their actions earn them the result? If so, then did God give them the city or did they earn it (Joshua 6:2).

When did the walls fall, before or after they were obedient?

The walls did not fall down by belief only, they fell by faith, there is a difference.

Smokescreen.

 

[mman]

Smokescreen.

In other words, you cannot reconcile your position with the plain teaching of the New Testament.

God gave it as an example, I didn't make it up. You can read it for yourself in Heb 11 and Josh 6. I gave the references.

 

[carpro]

In other words, you cannot reconcile your position with the plain teaching of the New Testament.

Sorry.

I'm not as willing to add to or take away from the words of Jesus as you are.

 

[ccrobinson]

If you were relying on logic, you would understand that both were required for salvation.

If one does not believe, they are condemned already (Jn 3:18). Not being baptized does not condemn them more. The person who does not believe would not be baptized. Neither would that person repent.

Using your logic, repentance is therefore unnecessary.

One who does not believe, would not confess either, therefore confession is unnecessary, using your logic.

If I made a statement, he that eateth and digesteth shall live, but he that eateth not shall starve, could you understand that?

Using your logic, digestion is unnecessary for life.

If I made a statement, if you have access to a computer and send me an email, I will give you a billion dollars, whoever does not have access to a computer will not receive the money.

Is sending the email a requirement for the money?

Logic dictates that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned".

What does the word believe mean in Mark 16:16? Does it include confession and repentance?

 

[Eric B]

What is the source of all faith? God said so (Rom 10:17).

When we obey God, that is biblical faith. Just because obedience is required, does not mean that obedience is meritorious.

Looking at a brass snake did not earn a cure, but was in response to God's instructions. If it was meritorious, then anyone bitten today could look upon a brass snake and God, being a just God, would owe them a cure.

Dipping 7 times in the Jordan river did not earn Naaman a cure, but was done in response of the instruction given to him. If it was meritorious, then anyone with leprosy could dip 7 times in the Jordan river and God would owe them a cure.

Baptism for the remission of sins does not earn the remission of sins, but it is done in response to the instructions of God (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Acts 8, Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12, 3:1-2, Rom 6, I Pet 3:21). If it were meritorious, then God would owe remission of sins to anyone who was ever dipped in the the water for any reason.

That is a ridiculous logical fallacy. If God commanded one person dipping in the river 7 times, or looking at a brass snake, or circling the wall 7 times then, then they DID earn a cure, and the Bibele doesn;t deny that, as God would have been lying if it hadn't come true, and since God did not command this to anyone else, dipping in water or looking at a brass snake today would not earn anything, because God did not tell anyone today to do it. But it still does not prove that it wasn't "earned" then. Just like we 'earn' rewards by our works today. But not salvation. I have told you before these examples you keep pulling are no good, because salvation is not the issue in them. Those are to an extent shadows of salvation, but then are fleshly cures with fleshly steps to access them, (Once again, God was in essence babying the people in the OT with those kinds of commands, "here a little, there a little", but He deals with us as spiritually mature, now) but the realities they pointed to today are a spiritual cure with a spiritual access, but you are turning us back to the flesh.

And I keep telling you, it is spiritual baptism "into the body" that puts us in Christ, with water baptism as its sign. One baptism, two aspects, physical and spiritual. But you keep posting the same stuff over and over as if it was never answered.

 

[mman]

That is a ridiculous logical fallacy. If God commanded one person dipping in the river 7 times, or looking at a brass snake, or circling the wall 7 times then, then they DID earn a cure, and the Bibele doesn;t deny that, as God would have been lying if it hadn't come true, and since God did not command this to anyone else, dipping in water or looking at a brass snake today would not earn anything, because God did not tell anyone today to do it. But it still does not prove that it wasn't "earned" then. Just like we 'earn' rewards by our works today. But not salvation. I have told you before these examples you keep pulling are no good, because salvation is not the issue in them. Those are to an extent shadows of salvation, but then are fleshly cures with fleshly steps to access them, (Once again, God was in essence babying the people in the OT with those kinds of commands, "here a little, there a little", but He deals with us as spiritually mature, now) but the realities they pointed to today are a spiritual cure with a spiritual access, but you are turning us back to the flesh.

And I keep telling you, it is spiritual baptism "into the body" that puts us in Christ, with water baptism as its sign. One baptism, two aspects, physical and spiritual. But you keep posting the same stuff over and over as if it was never answered.

You see, the bible contradicts your statements. It says, "by faith, the walls of Jericho fell" - Heb 11:30. They did not earn it, it was given to them (Joshua 6:2).

So, was Jericho given to them or did they earn it? I can show where it was given, (Joshua 6:2), yet you cannot show where it was earned. Until you can show where the scriptures say it was earned, I will continue to believe Josh 6:2. Just because that does not fit with your theology is no reason for me to change.

God gave us those examples, in the New Testament. In Heb 11, the chapter dealing with faith, God said that without faith it is impossible to be pleasing to Him (Heb 11:6), then we are given all these examples of pleasing faith, one of which is the walls of Jericho (Heb 11:30).

Do you really expect me to igore these example just because YOU say they are not valid??? Can a person be saved without faith?

OK, lets see if this works with you.

Stop saying they earned their reward. Nowhere in scripture does it indicate that they earned anything.

Stop denying the examples of Heb 11. Action was required and the bible and when someone complies with God's instructions, the bible calls that faith, whether it was for physical or spiritual matters.

Stop saying there are two baptism that really make up the one baptism. Baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism in water were not simutaneous events in the New Testament. One was a promise, the other was a command. One Jesus administers the other one man can administer. Since man can only administer water baptism, that is the baptism in Mark 16:16 and Matt 28:18-20. The one baptism is part of the good news about Jesus, or the Gospel. The preaching of the gospel, just as Jesus said in Mark 16:16, includes instructions for water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). Water baptism is not a sign of the other. In fact, I can show you in more than one place where someone was baptized in water without having been baptized with the Holy Spirit, which it totally contrary to your statements.

You act like I've never answered your points, yet you keep bringing them up.

Here is proof that your statements are false.

Show me even one time in the bible says that even remotely indicates that when one follows the instructions from God, that don't make human sense, they earn the promise.

You see, I can show where this is faith, but you cannot show where it is earned.

 

[mman]

What does the word believe mean in Mark 16:16? Does it include confession and repentance?

That's a good question. Let's go to the scripture for answers.

In Mark 16:15, Jesus told them to preach the gospel, or good news, to all of mankind.

In Mark 16:16, those who believed the message were to be baptized.

The very first time these instructions were carried out is recorded in Acts 2. Peter and the apostles are preaching the good news about Jesus. They preached his death, burial and resurrection. According to I Cor 15:1-4, that is the gospel.

Some of the people who heard the message believed it. How do I know this? They were cut to the heart (Acts 2:37). If they had not believed it, they would have gone on about their business, supposing these men didn't know what they were talking about.

However, they asked what they must do (Acts 2:37). The reply was for them to repent and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

Now notice verse 41, "So those who received his word were baptized...". Since they received or believed his word, they obeyed the instructions. It does not say they repented, but that is what logic demands. Therefore, repentance is summed up in their believing or receiving the word.

In fact, those who had believed, repented and were baptized are simply refered to as "all who believed" (vs 44).

Next, let's go to Acts 8. Here Philip preaches the good news about Jesus (Acts 8:5, 12). Part of the good news about Jesus was instructions for water baptism (Acts 8:12). Those who believed were baptized. No mention here of confession or repentance, yet we know that repentance was part of the preaching as was water baptism.

Philip is then called away by the Holy Spirit and goes and talks with the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip preaches Jesus to him (Acts 8:35). The eunuch then asks if there is anything preventing him from water baptism (Acts 8:36). Philip then says if he believes he can be baptized, and the eunuch makes his confession of his belief (Acts 8:37).

Therefore, when one hears the good news about Jesus, in response to their belief, they repent, they confess, and they are baptized. Then they are refered to as believers.

Maybe the best example of this is given in Acts 16. You are probably familiar with the philippian jailer. He asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). The reply back was ""Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

By this, what did Paul and Silas mean? If that was the end of the story, we might conclude that they meant that belief only would save him. However, the text reveals more. They had not even preached the word of the Lord to him at this point. He had nothing to believe, as of yet (Acts 16:32). What was the response to his having heard the word of the Lord? He obviously believed it based on his actions. He washed their stripes, demonstrating his repentance or change in attitude (Acts 16:33). He was also baptized at once (Acts 16:33). Therefore the preaching of the word of the Lord included instructions for him to repent and be baptized, just as we saw in Acts 2:38.

Now notice verse 34, " ...And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God."

He went from receiving instructions to believe to rejoicing, having believed. What happened in between these two statements? They spoke the word of the Lord to him, he believed it, he repented and was baptized, and the he rejoiced, having believed. The "believed" is a summary of his believing, repenting, and baptism.

From these examples, I think we can see that when one hears the good news, they obey the instructions contained in that good news, if they want to be saved. Why would anyone repent? They believe the good news. Why would anyone confess? They believe the good news. Why would anyone submit to baptism? They believe the good news.

 

[ccrobinson]

Frankly, I've always thought this particular debate was similar to splitting of a hair. I know of nobody who truly gets saved that doesn't get baptized.

But, if somebody gets saved (believes, confesses, repents) on a Monday and plans on getting baptized the following Sunday, you would have me believe that if they are in a car wreck and die on Wednesday, they would go to Hell. I cannot and will not believe that God is so capricious as to send that person to Hell merely because they didn't get baptized.

 

[J. Jump]

I know of nobody who truly gets saved that doesn't get baptized.

I think that is true of those that are able. There are a number of folks that are saved by grace through faith on their death beds, but have no chance of baptism, so that goes along with your analogy of the dying on Wed. before baptism on Sun.

My wife's grandfather was saved just prior to passing away and they had a baptism ceremony, but he was just sprinkled because he was physically unable to be emersed.

My wife was saved several years before she was baptized.

 

[Eric B]

You see, the bible contradicts your statements. It says, "by faith, the walls of Jericho fell" - Heb 11:30. They did not earn it, it was given to them (Joshua 6:2).

So, was Jericho given to them or did they earn it? I can show where it was given, (Joshua 6:2), yet you cannot show where it was earned. Until you can show where the scriptures say it was earned, I will continue to believe Josh 6:2. Just because that does not fit with your theology is no reason for me to change.

God says that In Joshua BEFORE the walls fell; when He was first instructing them what to do. In other words, God provided them the opportunity, now they had to work for the results, and that would be called "earning". You can't take this and apply it to [spiritual] salvation today. It's like if I fix you up with a certain job, and now it's up to you to go and earn your pay. I privided, but you still have to earn. That's the way God deals with men in areas like rewards and temporal physical accomplishments like Jericho, but not salvation, because there is nothing we can do to meet God's demands for salvation.
You love to pick these verses, but they don't even match what we're talking about.

God gave us those examples, in the New Testament. In Heb 11, the chapter dealing with faith, God said that without faith it is impossible to be pleasing to Him (Heb 11:6), then we are given all these examples of pleasing faith, one of which is the walls of Jericho (Heb 11:30).

Do you really expect me to igore these example just because YOU say they are not valid??? Can a person be saved without faith?

OK, lets see if this works with you.

Stop saying they earned their reward. Nowhere in scripture does it indicate that they earned anything.

Stop denying the examples of Heb 11. Action was required and the bible and when someone complies with God's instructions, the bible calls that faith, whether it was for physical or spiritual matters.

Yes, good works are to be done in faith, but that does not give you the right to try to transfer (generalize) this over to salvation in oder to justify baptismal regeneration. You completely forget all about Romans 4:4 which mentions Abraham and says that "to him that WORKS, is the reward NOT reckoned according to GRACE, but of DEBT". Abraham in his faith may have done works in obedience to God, but clearly, what got him credited with righteousness was the faith, contrasted with the works. You have turned this all upside down, and made faith EQUAL (synonymous) to works, and using the other examples where works unlock a particular promise, extended that to salvation today.

You define faith as works, and grace as "instructions", then Eph.2:8 reads "by instructions are you saved by obeying them, and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast" totally turning the verse into nonsense. (It doesn't sound so good when you put it this way, doesn't it? Wel thatt's what you're reading into the scriptures!)

Stop saying there are two baptism that really make up the one baptism. Baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism in water were not simutaneous events in the New Testament. One was a promise, the other was a command. One Jesus administers the other one man can administer. Since man can only administer water baptism, that is the baptism in Mark 16:16 and Matt 28:18-20. The one baptism is part of the good news about Jesus, or the Gospel. The preaching of the gospel, just as Jesus said in Mark 16:16, includes instructions for water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). Water baptism is not a sign of the other. In fact, I can show you in more than one place where someone was baptized in water without having been baptized with the Holy Spirit, which it totally contrary to your statements.

I never said there were to baptisms at all. You're the one who is making two separate baptisms with this distinction of "command" and "promise" and "administered by God" and "administered by man". And you contradict yourself, because at other times you try to say that water baptism is NOT a work of man, to avoid the obvious charge that it would be salvation by a works. Make up your mind, because you can't have it both ways.
And someone being baptized in water without being baptized by the spirit is a big proof against your view, not mine. You're the one who makes water baptism the end-all of conversion. If your view were true, there should have never been any such occurrence, as the Spirit would fall on them when they are baptized. But it is apparently not about baptism, so baptism was a sign that accompanied conversion, and it was viewd as one act. (1 Pet.3:21) All of this is simple, and it's only because of works-righteousness that one has to make it into such a dispute.

You act like I've never answered your points, yet you keep bringing them up.

No, you just keep repeating the same assertions. That's not answering.

Here is proof that your statements are false.

Show me even one time in the bible says that even remotely indicates that when one follows the instructions from God, that don't make human sense, they earn the promise.

You see, I can show where this is faith, but you cannot show where it is earned.

OK, tell me what is "earning", then? Do this, and you get that? If that isn't "earning a promise", then what is? It's earning only if the same act brings the same result today and for all time in the future, as in your earlier answer? That doesn't make sense. I could promise you something today, if you do something for me, and if you do the same thing ten years from now, it won;t have the same promise. But you still "earned" it when you did it when I saked. You make up your own definitions now, and you redefined faith and grace, so you also have to redefine works and earning, to avoid the obvious conflict, since what you describe as faith and grace is in normal language identical to works and earning. Once again; Rom.4:4 "to him that WORKS, is the reward NOT reckoned according to GRACE, but of DEBT".

What doesn't make human sense today is that works are not what saves. Sure enough, many people in these discussion are stumbling on it. So man would rather have the little deeds that don't make sense (which he could then use to prevent others from challenging them), which were characteristic of the Old Testament. That way, he could give himself a temporal assurance, and also compare himself with others. The examples and principles we see in the OT carry over in spiritual form; you can't just copy them wholesale like that.

 

[carpro]

But, if somebody gets saved (believes, confesses, repents) on a Monday and plans on getting baptized the following Sunday, you would have me believe that if they are in a car wreck and die on Wednesday, they would go to Hell. I cannot and will not believe that God is so capricious as to send that person to Hell merely because they didn't get baptized.

You would have to believe that to be a member of the CoC.

Depressing thought, huh?:tear:

 

[bmerr]

carpro,

bmerr here. It would be more accurate to say that one would have to believe that if they believed what the Bible says about baptism.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Eric B]

Can you find one place in the Bible where someone is said to go to Hell because they weren't able to be baptized in time even after they believed?

 

[carpro]

carpro,

bmerr here. It would be more accurate to say that one would have to believe that if they believed what the Bible says about baptism.

In Christ,

bmerr

I don't agree.

It appears we have gone full circle.

At any rate. I am a baptized believer as I'm sure you are.

Our salvation is assured, even by your erroneous standards.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[bmerr]

Wow!
Quote:
instead baptizing with the Holy Spirit

"This was promised, never commanded. And it was promised to the apostles (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-8, 13-15), not to believers of all time. The Scriptures only record it one time, and imply it one other time. It is recorded in Acts 2:2-4, and implied in the case of Paul. "


It sounds as if you don't believe Christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit and you apparently are disregarding the words of John the Baptist.

Is that true?

carpro,

bmerr here. Did you look up the verses I referred to? For the sake of being sure, I'll take the time to type them out for you.

John 14:16-17 - And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye shall know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:25-26 - These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:6-7 - But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 16:13-15 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

Now, no man living today could be told the things that the apostles were told in the above Scriptures, can they? No, they can't. This is Jesus promising to the apostles the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Turn to Acts 1:4-5, where we read,

"And, being assembled together with them..."

"Them" who? "Them" apostles, as we see back in Acts 1:2. continuing on,

"...commanded them [them apostles] that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye [ye apostles] have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye [ye apostles] shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Do I need to go on? If the Holy Spirit were guiding you into all truth, you wouldn't say half the things you say.

No, I don't believe Christians are baptized with the Holy Ghost. In fact, I know they aren't for a fact. The Scriptures above show this to be the case.

The baptism of the Holy Ghost being first announced by John the baptist, and yet only given to the apostles is simply a narrowing down of God's promise. Similarly, God's promise to bless all nations through Abraham's seed was narrowed down to Christ (Gal 3:16).

John the baptist preached only to Jews, thus his announcement of the baptism of the Holy Ghost pertained only to Jews, which was then limited to the apostles, who just happened to be all Jews.

There is one baptism, per Eph 4:4. This is the baptism of the Great Commission, which was to be administered by men, and was to last until the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20).

This is the baptism that is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), to wash away sins (Acts 22:16), puts one into Christ (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27), is where one puts on Christ (Gal 3:27), is a burial and raising with Christ (Col 2:12), in the likeness of His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:3-5), and which doth also now save us (1 Pet 3:21). I could go on...

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[carpro]

No, I don't believe Christians are baptized with the Holy Ghost. In fact, I know they aren't for a fact. The Scriptures above show this to be the case.

The baptism of the Holy Ghost being first announced by John the baptist, and yet only given to the apostles is simply a narrowing down of God's promise.

In Christ,

bmerr

You are mistaken.

Peter and the other disciples believed the same thing until...


ACTS 10

44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And 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.


Not only were all the Jews present baptized by the Holy Spirit, but all the Gentiles as well.

 

[ccrobinson]

But, if somebody gets saved (believes, confesses, repents) on a Monday and plans on getting baptized the following Sunday, you would have me believe that if they are in a car wreck and die on Wednesday, they would go to Hell.

You would have to believe that to be a member of the CoC.

It would be more accurate to say that one would have to believe that if they believed what the Bible says about baptism.

Makes God out to be pretty cruel, doesn't it?

 

[carpro]

Makes God out to be pretty cruel, doesn't it?

It doesn't make sense that salvation by faith through grace would be a gift, but at the same time have a price...baptism.

 

[BD17]

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

Actually there is quite a bit of scriptural evidence for us "baby sprinklers", if you like we could discuss it.