Churches of Christ

[mman]

Just because you say its the context does not make it so.



That is exactly the case. You have been shown time and time again the error of your way. And your favorite comeback to avoid debate is you must perform mental gymnastics of olympic caliber.

You weren't able to refute what was shown to you in the past and you will just insist on continuing in your error now I suppose.

Let's just take one of your favorites: Mark 16:16. Again I will ask you the question are you able to drink posion without it harming you. Are you able to pick up serpents without harm? Are you able to cast out demons? If you lay hands on the sick do they recover?

Becuase that is exactly what was in context for those who believed. Obviously if you want to say that Mark 16:16 continues on to this day then 17 and 18 surely do as well or do you just get to pick and choose?

Let's take your other favorite Acts 2:38. What is the context of Acts chapter 2. Was it eternal salvation? The answer is no.

This is Acts 2:37 - Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"

What is the "this" referring to? When these people heard what? Well when they heard Peter's "sermon." What was in Peter's sermon? Peter tells these people that they were the ones that crucified their own King.

Notice the question that is asked. Brethren what shall we do. First of all why would they call them brethren if they weren't part of the same family. They wouldn't. These were eternally saved individuals. Part of the same family (God's family) hence the term Brethren.

Now notice the rest of the question...what shall we do...in regard to eternal salvation? No...that's not what the context of the passage is about. The context of the passage is in regard to them killing their King. What do we have to do to right this wrong of killing our King.

Again these were saved individuals and we not in need of eternal salvation. Eternal salvation was not the message that was being delivered to them it was the message of the kingdom. Those are not the same messages as most of Christendom likes to make them.

Contextually baptism doesn't have ANYTHING to do with eternal salvation. Now you can continue on with your mental gymnastics nonsense or you can believe the Bible. I choose to believe the Bible.

I don't understand why CoCers (and others) can't just accept Ephesians 2:8-9 without having to add their own works into the mix. God tells us how we are saved. We are saved by grace through faith (that is believing on the works done of Another in my stead - not faith in my own work) and works never enter the picture so that no one is even capable of boasting regardless of whether they do or not.

It really is that simple. Why complicate a simple message?

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

The message in Mark 16:16 was for the entire world (Mark 16:15). Would you agree?

The parallel passage is in Matt 28:18-20. This is a never-ending "do-loop". Teach, baptized and teach them to go teach and baptize and teach them to go teach and baptize.

This command is enduring.

Because you misunderstand about the handling of snakes and drinking poision, casting out demons, etc, you think this message is not for man today.

Those signs did follow those who believe, yet the text clearly shows the purpose of the signs was to confirm the word (Mark 16:20).

However, the word has been confirmed, and once confirmed, does not need re-confirming (Heb 2:3-4, "how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?")

You cannot show where the command to go preach the gospel to all people in every nation was ever rescinded, therefore, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" is still valid.

As for Acts 2:38, that is simple. Peter understood their question. His answer told them what they needed to do in order to receive the "remission of sins". In fact, this is the first time the gospel is preached following Jesus command to go preach the gospel to every nation. This is certainly in compliance with Jesus instructions, to be baptized in order to be saved or have the forgiveness of sins.

As for Eph 2:8-9, I certainly accept it just the way it is. I don't add works, how ignorant do you think I am? Salvation is by faith, no question. That is a cardinal teaching of the New Testament. I do not work for or earn any part of my salvation, that is made perfectly clear. Anyone who claims otherwise would be lying.

What you cannot understand is that in Christ, I am a child of God by faith because I have been baptized into Christ and put on Christ. (Gal 3:26-27).

Salvation is only in Christ (II Tim 2:10) and baptism is the only way into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27).

Confession of my belief, though it requires effort, minimal as it may be, does not earn me anything, yet is done through faith.

Repentance of my actions, though it requires effort, as minimal as it may be, does not earn me anything, yet it is done through faith.

Baptism, though it requires effort, as minimal as it may be, does not earn me anything, yet it is done through faith.

Thank God that I am not required to earn my salvation or any part of it. Praise be to God for His unsearchable riches and for all spiritual blessings that are only found IN Christ.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Do you believe that. I think that teaches "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

What do you think it means? Saved from what?

Also the term "brethren" often times means fellow Jew. They were decendents of Abraham therefore referred to them as brothers. How would baptism provide attonement for their killing their king? If they were "brothers in Christ", why did they need the remission of their sins? Sins are continually washed away if one is in Christ (I Jn 1:7).

 

[carpro]

That message is from God's word.

Unfortunately, that is how many handle God's word....just leave out the parts you don't like.

Or just ignore the verses that don't confirm their belief.

Acts 3:19

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

 

[J. Jump]

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

No unfortunately we are not. You continue to spout off your proof texts depsite being shown that your handling of them in incorrect.

And again the context of Mark 16 is not eternal salvation as much as you want it to be.

You tie in Mark 16 with Hebrews which is funny because Hebrews is not dealing with eternal salvation either.

But you say that the signs in Mark 16 were tied to Heb 2:3-4, "how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?")

You think once again that just because the word salvation appears in a text it automatically means eternal salvation. That just goes to show how much you actually don't understand about Scripture.

Once again you can't assign your own meanings to words. The context of Hebrews is not eternal savlation, because it was a book already written to saved individuals.

But let's just look at the text. It says how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him . . . . what was the salvation message that was being proclaimed to the Jews? Was it eternal salvation? No! It was the message of the kingdom. Repent for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand. Repent for the kingdom of God is drawing near.

The message that was being preached was a message of the kingdom. The kingdom and eternal salvation are not the same message.

Signs ceased because Jews are the only ones that require a sign. Signs were only in place because the offer of the kingdom was open to the nation of Israel as a whole. Once that offer was taken away from the nation of Israel then the signs stopped and will not be seen again until the Lord starts to deal with Israel in relation to the kingdom.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

You are absolutely right in that this message is still valid, it just doesn't hold the meaning that you want it to hold. This message was preached in relation to the kingdom not in relation to eternal salvation, because the Jews were already eternally saved - they had already experienced grace through faith.

And just as this message was preached to saved individuals then in relation to the kingdom this message is to be preached to eternally saved Christians becuase Christians are now in a position to accept that which Israel rejected - the kingdom - not eternal salvation.

His answer told them what they needed to do in order to receive the "remission of sins". In fact, this is the first time the gospel is preached following Jesus command to go preach the gospel to every nation. This is certainly in compliance with Jesus instructions, to be baptized in order to be saved or have the forgiveness of sins.

Once again you are assigning your own meaning to words. You say this is the first time the gospel message was preached. That is true, but you are assigning eternal salvation as the meaning and that's not the meaning. Gospel just means good news. And the good news for these folks was that if they repented (as a nation - the structure of this passage and most if not all passages in the Gospel accounts when speaking of repentence is speaking of a national repentance not an individual repentance) and were baptized they would be saved. But they wouldn't be saved from eternal damnation because that had already occurred for these folks. They would be saved as a nation and the kingdom of Christ would be established. If they would have repented as a nation and been baptized Christ would have returned and established His kingdom. You can see this truth in the message that Stephen delivered before he was stoned.

It had NOTHING to deal with eternal salvation. But Israel didn't repent as a nation and the offer of the kingdom was taken away from them and is now being offered to the one new man in Christ. And as Christians we can accept this offer or decline this offer, but it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with eternal salvation.

As for Eph 2:8-9, I certainly accept it just the way it is. I don't add works, how ignorant do you think I am?

mman as much as you want to deny it baptism is a work. Therefore you saying that you accept Ephesians 2:8-9 just the way it is is just flat out untrue.

You say that one MUST enter into a pool of water and be dunked by someone else. That is not only your work you are relying on because the last time I checked it was you that used your two legs to walk down into the water, you are also relying on the work of another who is the one that dunks you in the water.

That is a work plain and simple. You ARE in fact adding to Scripture.

Salvation is by faith, no question.

Then why do you keep adding your works into the mix?

I do not work for or earn any part of my salvation, that is made perfectly clear. Anyone who claims otherwise would be lying.

Again the last time I checked it was your two legs that made you get up from where you were and walk to the pool of water and then walk into the pool of water to be dunked. That is a work plain and simple.

Confession of my belief, though it requires effort, minimal as it may be, does not earn me anything, yet is done through faith.

Repentance of my actions, though it requires effort, as minimal as it may be, does not earn me anything, yet it is done through faith.

Baptism, though it requires effort, as minimal as it may be, does not earn me anything, yet it is done through faith.

Let me highlight your mistakes - THOUGHT IT REQUIRES EFFORT - that means it is a work on your part and has NO PLACE in salvation by grace through faith which is NOT OF WORKS. It really is that plain and simple.

You doing ANYTHING other than believing what was done in your place by Jesus Christ's death and shed blood is a work.

Thank God that I am not required to earn my salvation or any part of it.

Oh that that statement was true, but you continue to show otherwise

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Do you believe that. I think that teaches "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

I certainly do. I just don't agree with your assessment of what one is being saved from. You assign eternal damnation as what one is being saved from and that is not contextually what is in play. I would go into what I believe it means, but you aren't going to change your mind anyway so I'm not going to waste my time. You have been shown uncountable times how you are assigning and incorrect context to the passage to make it fit your man-made doctrine.

Sins are continually washed away if one is in Christ (I Jn 1:7).

Boy you just miss the mark with all kinds of Scriptures don't you . . . I John 1:9 says that IF we confess our sins then He is faithful to forgive our sins. Guess what...if we don't confess our sins then He's not going to forgive our sins. The verbage is in the present tense meaning today if I confess my sins then I will be forgiven and tomorrow if I confess my sins I will be forgiven and the next day and the next day.

But if your sins go unconfessed they also go unforgiven.

So by your accounting if one doesn't confess their sins then they can lose their salvation. Do you believe a saved person can lose their salvation mman?

 

[bmerr]

Let's just take one of your favorites: Mark 16:16. Again I will ask you the question are you able to drink posion without it harming you. Are you able to pick up serpents without harm? Are you able to cast out demons? If you lay hands on the sick do they recover?

Becuase that is exactly what was in context for those who believed. Obviously if you want to say that Mark 16:16 continues on to this day then 17 and 18 surely do as well or do you just get to pick and choose?

JJump,

bmerr here. Has the word of God been confirmed, or not? If it has not, when do you suppose it will be, because Jude was under the impression that the faith had once for all been delivered unto the saints (Jude 3).

If it has been confirmed, then there is no longer any need for the miraculous sign gifts listed in Mark 16:17-18, since it was with those signs that the Lord worked with the apostles and confirmed the word.

No, we don't get to "pick and choose", but we must rightly divide God's word so we may know what applies to us and what does not.

Take your other favorite Acts 2:38. What is the context of Acts chapter 2. Was it eternal salvation? The answer is no.

This is Acts 2:37 - Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"

What is the "this" referring to? When these people heard what? Well when they heard Peter's "sermon." What was in Peter's sermon? Peter tells these people that they were the ones that crucified their own King.

Notice the question that is asked. Brethren what shall we do. First of all why would they call them brethren if they weren't part of the same family. They wouldn't. These were eternally saved individuals. Part of the same family (God's family) hence the term Brethren.

Actually, they would. "Brethren" was just something Jews called each other. Unless, of course, you want to make the case that Stephen was stoned to death by fellow Christians (Acts 7:2), or that it was an angry mob of fellow Christians that wanted to kill Paul (Acts 21:31; 22:1)...

Now notice the rest of the question...what shall we do...in regard to eternal salvation? No...that's not what the context of the passage is about. The context of the passage is in regard to them killing their King. What do we have to do to right this wrong of killing our King.

Yes, JJump, they had killed the King Who was supposed to SAVE THEM. Of course they were asking what to do to be saved!

This is the first time the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached, and you don't think the audience wanted to know what to do to be saved? In 2:21, Peter had told them that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. They had just been informed that God had made this same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ (you know, the Messiah, the One Who was to save them).

They had killed the Lord, on Whom they were to call on to be saved. They didn't know what to do to call on Him to be saved. They asked what to do to be saved. I don't know how you can honestly say that that is not what they were asking.

Again these were saved individuals and were not in need of eternal salvation.

What then, were they in need of, pray-tell, and how had they been saved?

Eternal salvation was not the message that was being delivered to them it was the message of the kingdom. Those are not the same messages as most of Christendom likes to make them.

This is the first time the gospel was preached. The gospel of Jesus Christ is for what purpose, if not to bring about the eternal salvation of men?

Did Peter not preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Is this not the gospel message? Is the gospel not what Peter and the rest of the apostles were commanded by Christ to preach to all the world beginning at Jerusalem, where they were? Was Peter preaching a different message than the one Jesus had commanded him to preach?

If what you say is true, then these questions need answering. Please do.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for what purpose, if not to bring about the eternal salvation of men?

This is the only question that I will address, because by your other responses it is easy to tell that you either didn't read my post or didn't read it very closely, because everything was answered in that post. Actually this question was as well, but it is worth repeating.

The gospel...what does that mean...it means the good news. That's it plain and simple. It means the good news. Now there is a good news (gospel) for those that are dead in trespasses and sins, which is the good news that Jesus died according to the Scriptures (I Corinthians) and that through God's grace by faith we can experience salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9) and if we believe (Acts 16:31) on His substitutionary death and shed blood in our stead then we will be saved. Period. End of discussion.

Now once that person has passed from death to life via the work of the Holy Spirit breathing life into the dead man's spirit they are in a position to receive the good news that is available to spiritually alive people. That good news is that Christ rose again the third day and sits at the right hand of the Father and is our Advocate before the Father acting as our High Priest.

The good news that Christ will be coming back to take over the rule of this earth from Satan and if we will continue to walk in the Spirit, run the race of the faith overcome and all the things a Christian is supposed to do then we will be in a position to rule and reign with Him as co-heirs and as members of the bride of Christ.

So you see these are two distinct messages and must be kept separate, as you say rightly dividing. As I have said before just because the words save, saved, salvation, gospel or any other trigger words are used it doesn't automatically mean that eternal savlation is the context. If we would keep these messages separate as God intended we would have a lot easier time understanding the message.

Now as to your question of what were the supposed to be saved from is a great question. They were to be saved out of the rule of Satan who also rules the nations. They were to be saved from their current sins.

And just because these people killed Christ, wanted to kill the apostles and did kill some of them and wanted to kill Paul after his conversion (notice conversion not salvation) doesn't mean they weren't spiritually alive.

Christ said that He came to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. He came to seek and to save that which is lost. Sheep are never referred to as "unsaved" folks and in order for something to be lost it must first be in the possession of the owner.

So that either means the Jews were once saved and had fallen from grace or that they were saved and just off track. The Bible doesn't teach that you can lose your salvation so the only other acceptable answer is that they were saved individuals that were blinded. The Bible bears out Israel's blindness in both the OT and the NT.

Again the message of the Bible is really simple and easy to understand if we will get out of the way and let the Bible say what the Bible says. There's not twisting, no adding to or taking away from that needs to be done.

Unfortunately man is more interested in keeping his "traditional" teachings that learning what God has to say.

 

[bmerr]

JJump,

bmerr here. Man, you're really out there.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Eric B]

First, why would that be a problem? It's God's plan, not mine. He has it all figured out. I don't have to figure it out, I obey though faith, because His word gives me that instruction. God is powerful. If he can raise Jesus from the dead, he can raise me from the dead also (Col 2:12).

Sorry, that won't cut it. I said "you have the blood we are 'washed' with as spiritual, while the 'water' that actually 'washes' is literal". Your side earlier denied that you were physically "washed" by the water, and you do again below. Spiritual is spiritual, and physical is physical. You cannot appeal to "faith" when you are mixing up concepts in the Bible.

Second, Eph 5:25 clearly mentions water. How could anyone ever know they needed to be baptized? By figuring it out on paper or by using logic? Certainly not! Only by the word of God do we know that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Yes, baptism is a washing of water by the word. That is what makes baptism different that being submerged in water. Unless it is done by the word, you are just getting wet.

That passage doesn not mention baptism. That is giving us the spiritual meaning of "washing". Physical water does not SPIRITUALLY "wash". The washing is BY the Word, not BY water. He is speaking of the Church as a whole; as the "Bride", not the literal baptism of each member. "Water" is there only used figurative, since "washing" is being discussed. The Word is acting like water. Hence, the literal immersion for each member is only a symbol of this spiritual "washing" they are entering the partaking of.

Try as you might, the water and blood still agree, just as John said. He also mentioned the Spirit. We know God's word was given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That word tells us that baptism is for the remission of sins and Jesus blood was shed for the remission of sins. The Spirit, water and blood do all agree as one. Blood and water flowed from Jesus' side, a fact that is seemingly of no consequence to you.

TBaptism is not mentioned anywhere, and it is the same mistake made in John 3, "born of water and the spirit", as meaning baptism+new birth (as if they are totally distinct, which would actually go against your doctrine). "of water" in both cases refers to natural birth. Christ was born physically, "of water" and shed His blood, as well as water. We were born of water as well, and have to be reborn of the spirit, through Christ's blood. Hence, "the water, blood and spirit agree". Nothing there about a literal baptism.

 

[J. Jump]

I guess that's your way of not dealing with Scripture eh? Like mman just says you have to do some amazing mental gymnastics of olympic calibur when he can't refute what is being said? You say Man, you're really out there. That's what they told Jesus as well!

If we would just let the Bible say what the Bible says instead of trying to force it to say what we want it to say or what we've always been taught it says it would make things a WHOLE lot easier. And that goes for myself as much as it does for anyone else, because I still have a lot to learn!

 

[mman]

Sorry, that won't cut it. I said "you have the blood we are 'washed' with as spiritual, while the 'water' that actually 'washes' is literal". Your side earlier denied that you were physically "washed" by the water, and you do again below. Spiritual is spiritual, and physical is physical. You cannot appeal to "faith" when you are mixing up concepts in the Bible.


That passage doesn not mention baptism. That is giving us the spiritual meaning of "washing". Physical water does not SPIRITUALLY "wash". The washing is BY the Word, not BY water. He is speaking of the Church as a whole; as the "Bride", not the literal baptism of each member. "Water" is there only used figurative, since "washing" is being discussed. The Word is acting like water. Hence, the literal immersion for each member is only a symbol of this spiritual "washing" they are entering the partaking of.
TBaptism is not mentioned anywhere, and it is the same mistake made in John 3, "born of water and the spirit", as meaning baptism+new birth (as if they are totally distinct, which would actually go against your doctrine). "of water" in both cases refers to natural birth. Christ was born physically, "of water" and shed His blood, as well as water. We were born of water as well, and have to be reborn of the spirit, through Christ's blood. Hence, "the water, blood and spirit agree". Nothing there about a literal baptism.

OK, let's go with your plan. When we stand before Jesus, let's present our case. Jesus, I know you said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but you didn't really mean it, did you? Paul later says we are saved by grace through faith, so that can't include baptism can it? Baptism is a work, something physical, so it can't play any part in salvation, can it? You really meant to say, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized, right? Jesus, I just couldn't figure out how you could use something physical to accomplish something spiritual, so I rejected that I had to be baptized to be saved, was I right? I know that seems to be in direct conflict with your statement, but I had it all worked out in my mind. I know that every single example of conversion contained in scriptures has the person being baptized immediatley upon receiving the instructions for water baptism, but it can't be that important can it?

I know all these verses are in the bible, but they can't mean what they say, can they?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16)
baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27)
Baptism now saves us (I Pet 3:21)
One baptism (Eph 4:5)

What reaction would you expect from Jesus? You know, my statement "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved " could be rather confusing. Someone might get the order wrong and think I said, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized" or they might not can figure out how baptism plays a role in salvation. You know what, I like your way better, come on in.............

Has God ever been ok with any man who refused to obey or with anyone who changed God's instructions because they could not figure out why God said what He did?

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned".

Either you accept this by faith, or you find a "reason" to reject it. It doesn't need to be explained since even a third grader can understand it.

I accept it.

I don't need rationale why not to believe it.

 

[mman]

I guess that's your way of not dealing with Scripture eh? Like mman just says you have to do some amazing mental gymnastics of olympic calibur when he can't refute what is being said? You say Man, you're really out there. That's what they told Jesus as well!

If we would just let the Bible say what the Bible says instead of trying to force it to say what we want it to say or what we've always been taught it says it would make things a WHOLE lot easier. And that goes for myself as much as it does for anyone else, because I still have a lot to learn!

When I quote Mark 16:16, you claim I'm taking it out of context. Obviously, since all I do is quote it, the obvious conclusion you draw is at odds with your other beliefs. When I say it means exactly what it says, you say I am "forcing" it. When I show that this message is for all nations and every creature, you ignore it.

You claim when Jesus says "saved" he doesn't really mean eternal salvation, even though that same word is used in other places to mean eternal salvation.

When Peter tells them what to do to receive the "remission of sins", he is not talking about eteranal salvation.

Unless you address my prior post, we cannot have a meaningful discussion. Just putting out a subsequent post basically saying "you're wrong", is of no value. Show me how and where I'm wrong.

 

[J. Jump]

I don't need rationale why not to believe it.

Since I started reading and responding to this thread there has been no one that has said we are not to believe your pet verse of Mark 16:16 or any other of your "proof" texts.

The only thing that has been shown to you over and over is that your man-made interpretation of these verses are incorrect.

I believe everyone of those verses just as they are written. I just don't accept mman's definitions and context of the passage because they are unBiblical.

Ephesians 2, Acts 16 and Romans 5 clearly give us the context of eternal salvation. It is by grace through faith and our works NEVER enter the picture.

So when we come to a passage where a work (baptism just for one example) is seen then we can automatically know that eternal salvation is not the context of the passage or it violates three other passages of Scripture.

It really is that plain and simple.

I'll ask you like I have asked others if obedience in works is required for salvation then when someone approaches you about salvation or you witness to someone to you spend hours upon hours instructing them as to what the commandments of God are so they know exactly what they are supposed to be obedient to in order to be saved?

If one had to be aware of EVERYTHING they needed to be obedient to in order to be saved that would take hours to explain a salvation message that should only take a few minutes at the most.

 

[J. Jump]

Show me how and where I'm wrong.

My above post shows you again (I can't remember how many times you have been showed your error) how you are in error.

 

[mman]

So by your accounting if one doesn't confess their sins then they can lose their salvation. Do you believe a saved person can lose their salvation mman?

That is what the scripture says, but that's another thread.

 

[mman]

My above post shows you again (I can't remember how many times you have been showed your error) how you are in error.

OK, here's where the breakdown occurs.

I want you to show me in the scriptures where I'm wrong not just use your own words and never quote a scripture.

For example,

Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned".

This message that was for the whole world and EVERY person in EVERY nation. Who is excluded?

Show me scriptural evidence that this does not mean what it says, especially in light of the fact where there are other passages that tie baptism to "forgiveness of sins", the "washing away of sins", or again to "saves us" and that this damnation is not really damnation.

 

[mman]

Since I started reading and responding to this thread there has been no one that has said we are not to believe your pet verse of Mark 16:16 or any other of your "proof" texts.

The only thing that has been shown to you over and over is that your man-made interpretation of these verses are incorrect.

I believe everyone of those verses just as they are written. I just don't accept mman's definitions and context of the passage because they are unBiblical.

Ephesians 2, Acts 16 and Romans 5 clearly give us the context of eternal salvation. It is by grace through faith and our works NEVER enter the picture.

So when we come to a passage where a work (baptism just for one example) is seen then we can automatically know that eternal salvation is not the context of the passage or it violates three other passages of Scripture.

It really is that plain and simple.

I'll ask you like I have asked others if obedience in works is required for salvation then when someone approaches you about salvation or you witness to someone to you spend hours upon hours instructing them as to what the commandments of God are so they know exactly what they are supposed to be obedient to in order to be saved?

If one had to be aware of EVERYTHING they needed to be obedient to in order to be saved that would take hours to explain a salvation message that should only take a few minutes at the most.

Ephesians was written to Christians. It was not a "how-to" for non-christians.

Acts 16, if you care to read the WHOLE account, will show you exactly what it means to believe (He rejoiced having believed, i.e., he had heard the good news, repented and was baptized, only then did he rejoice (Acts 16:34).

Following Rom 5, you have Rom 6. Rom 6 clearly shows that baptism in water is how one obeys the gospel (or the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, according to I Cor 15:1-4).

Baptism is how one gets INTO Christ. You cannot find a single scripture to show any other way. Salvation is only in Christ (II Tim 2:10), but I guess I need to consult with you to see what type of salvation he is really talking about.

 

[mman]

Since I started reading and responding to this thread there has been no one that has said we are not to believe your pet verse of Mark 16:16 or any other of your "proof" texts.

The only thing that has been shown to you over and over is that your man-made interpretation of these verses are incorrect.

I believe everyone of those verses just as they are written. I just don't accept mman's definitions and context of the passage because they are unBiblical.

Ephesians 2, Acts 16 and Romans 5 clearly give us the context of eternal salvation. It is by grace through faith and our works NEVER enter the picture.

So when we come to a passage where a work (baptism just for one example) is seen then we can automatically know that eternal salvation is not the context of the passage or it violates three other passages of Scripture.

It really is that plain and simple.

I'll ask you like I have asked others if obedience in works is required for salvation then when someone approaches you about salvation or you witness to someone to you spend hours upon hours instructing them as to what the commandments of God are so they know exactly what they are supposed to be obedient to in order to be saved?

If one had to be aware of EVERYTHING they needed to be obedient to in order to be saved that would take hours to explain a salvation message that should only take a few minutes at the most.

Ephesians was written to Christians. It was not a "how-to" for non-christians.

Acts 16, if you care to read the WHOLE account, will show you exactly what it means to believe (He rejoiced having believed, i.e., he had heard the good news, repented and was baptized, only then did he rejoice (Acts 16:34).

Following Rom 5, you have Rom 6. Rom 6 clearly shows that baptism in water is how one obeys the gospel (or the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, according to I Cor 15:1-4).

Baptism is how one gets INTO Christ. You cannot find a single scripture to show any other way. Salvation is only in Christ (II Tim 2:10), but I guess I need to consult with you to see what type of salvation he is really talking about.

 

[J. Jump]

That is what the scripture says, but that's another thread.

FALSE...but you would have to hold to that view in order to make your theology work. Sad. Just sad.

Ephesians was written to Christians. It was not a "how-to" for non-christians.

The first part of that is true, not exactly true on the second part.

Paul tells those Christians that they were saved in the past by grace through faith which is not of themselves, but a gift of God lest any man should boast.

That was a reminder for them, but a teacher for anyone in the future. They were saved the same way we are saved. And for that matter anyone past, present or future that is saved eternally that will be how they are saved.

Acts 16, if you care to read the WHOLE account, will show you exactly what it means to believe (He rejoiced having believed, i.e., he had heard the good news, repented and was baptized, only then did he rejoice (Acts 16:34).

FALSE again. You don't get to make up your own definitions of what believe means. The direct question was asked what must I do to be saved? And the direct answer was given immediately and I'm sorry for you and others like you, but believe was the only answer. I know that totally destroys your teachings, but let's just let the Bible say what the Bible says and we'll all be in much better shape.

Following Rom 5, you have Rom 6. Rom 6 clearly shows that baptism in water is how one obeys the gospel (or the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, according to I Cor 15:1-4).

And the key word in your writing is obey. If you have to obey anything other than having faith in Christ's works done on your behalf then you are violating clear teaching of Scripture, but that has been shown to you time and time and time and time again.

If you DO anything and tie it to Scripture that makes it wages not grace. Why does that not register?

but I guess I need to consult with you to see what type of salvation he is really talking about.

Nope because what I say is of no value. Just believe the simple teaching of Scripture and you'll be fine. NO WORKS means exactly what it says NO WORKS. If by grace then by grace, but if by wages then it is no longer grace. It really is that plain and that simple. Context is king.

Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned".

This message that was for the whole world and EVERY person in EVERY nation. Who is excluded?

Show me scriptural evidence that this does not mean what it says, especially in light of the fact where there are other passages that tie baptism to "forgiveness of sins", the "washing away of sins", or again to "saves us" and that this damnation is not really damnation.

mman why do I have to repeat myself? I have told you several times that it means exactly what it says. It means He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned.

You just assign an improper context saying that the passage is speaking of eternal salvation when it is not speaking of eternal salvation.

I have shown you time and time again why your context is incorrect, but let me do it again. Read Ephesians 2:8-9. Read Acts 16:30-31 and read Romans 5.

When you see that NO WORKS other than Christ's works can enter into the picture of eternal salvation then you will know that Mark 16:16 is CLEARLY not speaking of eternal salvation.

Once again it really is that plain and it really is that simple. You just need to quit trying to make a simple message complicated.

 

[J. Jump]

mman and bmerr let me ask you this question. I've asked it before, but neither of you have answsered it. Seeings that you both believe a person has to be baptized in order to be eternally saved. And you also hold to the teaching that a person can lose/forfeit their eternal salvation my question then is when someone decides they make a mistake and want to be saved after losing their salvation do they have to be baptized again?

 

[carpro]

mman and bmerr let me ask you this question. I've asked it before, but neither of you have answsered it. Seeings that you both believe a person has to be baptized in order to be eternally saved. And you also hold to the teaching that a person can lose/forfeit their eternal salvation my question then is when someone decides they make a mistake and want to be saved after losing their salvation do they have to be baptized again?

Baptized after each fall from grace (sin)?

No remission without baptism! Right?

Egads!!

 

[mman]

mman and bmerr let me ask you this question. I've asked it before, but neither of you have answsered it. Seeings that you both believe a person has to be baptized in order to be eternally saved. And you also hold to the teaching that a person can lose/forfeit their eternal salvation my question then is when someone decides they make a mistake and want to be saved after losing their salvation do they have to be baptized again?

No, that is not required.

We have an example and instructions in scripture that indicate this is not required.

1) Simon (Acts 8). He believed and was baptized.

He was then described as in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity

His remedy was to: Repent and pray

Sorry, but that is the short answer. I've gotta run. Maybe more later, if you want???