Churches of Christ

[mman]

I'm reposting MIMA's post to mman:

To mman: if the Church of Christ believes that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins, and the sins of the same one that Jesus shed his blood to offer remission far; it is very obvious that they believe Jesus's shed blood was not sufficient to accomplish that remission!
This would seem to be a belief of ruination to those who would follow it.

I'd like to see a COC response to this - because this hits the nail exactly on the head. You cannot make baptism salvific without reintroducing works righteousness.

This should not be a stumbling block to anyone.

It is very simple. Without the shedding of Christ's blood, there is no remission of sins (Heb 9:22, 10:4).

Only Jesus blood can wash away sins.

The question is how one comes in contact with that blood? I can show throught the scriptures that it is in baptism.

Jesus stated that his blood was shed for many "for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28).

Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit stated, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins - Acts 2:38

At Jesus death, blood and water flowed from Jesus side (Jn 19:34).

This is not a coincidence, but shows that the blood and water are connected.

Jesus blood flowed at his death. We are baptized into His death (Rom 6:3-5).

We come in contact with the blood at baptism. That does not diminish the power of the blood. Jesus is the one who said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. His statement confirms that baptism is necessary for salvation, plain and simple. Believe it or reject it, it your choice.

What cured Naaman from his leprosy, the water or God? Since God used water, does that somehow imply that His power was not sufficient? Using you logic, that would have to be your conclusion. I believe the power was in God even though he used water to accomplish His promise.

What cured the snakebite, the brass snake or God? Since God used a brass snake, does that somehow imply that His power was not sufficient? Using your logic, that would have to be your conclusion. I believe the power was in God even though he used a brass snake to accomplish His promise.

What can forgive sins? Since God uses water, does that somehow imply that His power is not sufficient? Using your logic, that is your conclusion. I believe the power is in God even though he uses water to accomplish His promise.

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

What you cannot show using the scriptures is any other way INTO Christ, other than through baptism.

What you cannot show using the scriptures is any other way INTO Christ's death, other than through baptism.

If you read all that God says about salvation, you will read about baptism. If you read all that God says about "remission of sins", you will read about baptism. If you read all that God says about "calling on the name of the Lord", you will read about baptism. If you read all that God says about getting INTO Christ, you will read about baptism. If you read all that God says about getting into the church, you will read about baptism.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

 

[mman]

I guess Paul didn't preach the Gospel:

1 Cor 1:17
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
(KJV)

Were the Corinthians baptized? Let's read Acts 18:8, "And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized."

Did Paul baptize any of them? Yes, a few.

Is there any indication that any of the believers were NOT baptized? NONE!!!!

They were baptized, but Paul didn't do very much of the baptizing and he was glad. Why? Because Paul and the Corinthians understood the importance of baptism. In order to belong to Christ, He would have to die for you and you would have to be baptized in His name. In order for you to belong to Paul, he would have to be crucified for you and you would have to be baptized in his name.

Let's read it in context.

I Cor 1:12-17 "What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

The word “baptize” here denotes “to administer the rite” of baptism (J.H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 94).

Paul's primary mission was to preach the gospel which he did as seen in Acts 18:8. The people who believed his message were baptized, therefore his gospel message contained instructions for baptism.

We obey the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection according to I Cor 15) in baptism according to Rom 6:3-4, 17.

If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message" why were they baptized at the preaching of it?

If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message", was Jesus confused when He said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."? If baptism wasn't important to the gospel message then neither would "belief" be.

Belief and baptism are always the proper response to the preaching of the gospel (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 18:8, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 8:5,12,35-38, 16:30-34), but not according to you.

 

[J. Jump]

And yet despite clear Biblical evidence that says you are so far from the Truth it's not even funny and you still believe that. And on top of that you unfortunately still insist that others be dragged down with you.

But while I'm typing let me ask you this question. Are you in the CoC camp that believes that only CoC folks are saved? Or do you think there are others that aren't CoC that are saved?

 

[mman]

And yet despite clear Biblical evidence that says you are so far from the Truth it's not even funny and you still believe that. And on top of that you unfortunately still insist that others be dragged down with you.

But while I'm typing let me ask you this question. Are you in the CoC camp that believes that only CoC folks are saved? Or do you think there are others that aren't CoC that are saved?

Speaking of clear biblical evidence, when I show some, the proper response should be accept it or show further biblical evidence to the contrary, not to merely ridicule what you do not accept. Reject it if you want. Nobody, including God is going to force you to believe it. You cannot refute the logic.

As for your question, why do you want to know, so you can add to your ridicule???

If you would like to do a bible study, I would be happy to show you what the bible says about what I believe. If your only interest is ridicule, then I decline.

 

[J. Jump]

mman so what you are saying is that you have the entire Truth as given in Scripture. How arrogant. Just becuase someone says you are wrong and then shows you how you are wrong doesn't mean they are ridiculing you. It means they are trying to help you see the error of your way.

You and I obviously don't agree, but yet I don't think you are ridiculing me becuase you are trying to show me the error of my way (as you see it). I just see someone trying to do what the Bible calls him to do.

I just happen to think you are wrong. I think the Bible shows you are wrong, which is the most important thing. And I just don't want you to continue in error and more importantly I don't want others to get caught up in your error.

So the question was legitimate. Do you believe that CoCers are the only ones that are saved or do you think that I am saved as well even though I don't belong to a CoC?

 

[bmerr]

JJump,

bmerr here. the difference is that mman and I have used the Scriptures to demonstrate your error, while you simply come back with "Well, you just don't understand the context", or "That's just your interpretation", etc.

You have yet to show how the Scriptures presented to you are misused, and you seem to try and avoid doing so by asking another question to change the subject. You are avoiding rational discussion, and then complain when rational discussion is not pursued with you.

The truth has been presented. Your response is up to you.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

You have yet to show how the Scriptures presented to you are misused

Are you kidding me? Taking a Scripture out of it's original, intended context to make it say something you want it to say is Scriptural misuse.

I can't believe you want people to take you seriously and then say the context doesn't matter. The context is the only thing that matters, because that is what determines the correct interpretation.

the difference is that mman and I have used the Scriptures to demonstrate your error

No what you have done is misued Scripture to prove your point. That is the difference. I can take the Bible and prove a lot of false things if I cherry pick verses, but that doesn't make them true.

Just because the word salvation and baptized or saved and baptized appear together doesn't automatically make it mean what you want it to.

The problem is you all don't compare Scripture with Scripture. You only compare the Scriptures you want to, but totally ignore the ones that directly contradict what you are saying or try to weasle around them.

The easiest way to tell that baptism is not required for eternal salvation is that you ask any CoCer if a person is saved and then lost if they have to be baptized again in order to be eternally saved. And the answer is 100% of the time no they do not have to be baptized again.

That right there totally destroys your argument. You want people to believe that in order for them to be saved eternally that they have to be baptized. Then you want people to believe that they can return to their original unsaved position. Then you want people to believe they can be saved again, but unlike the first time they don't have to be baptized even though they are in their same original unsaved state.

If a person is saved via your definition of salvation then they become unsaved again they have totally negated their salvation and must complete the entire process again.

 

[bmerr]

That's still not seen as a "work", scripturally. You're not getting up and doing some deed. That is the definition of "work".

Eric,

bmerr here. Scripturally, to believe in Christ is a work (John 6:28-29). Who's definition are you using?

"Answer of a good conscience". Especially given the fact that the true "washing" and "death and burial" is spiritual, not physical. (Who said "I think/feel"?)

True, there is a spiritual aspect in baptism, as we are washed in Jesus' blood by the operation of God. The physical side of it is our being immersed in water, understanding that baptism is for the remission of our sins, and neccessary for our salvation.

The "I think/feel" was a general reference, not to you specifically.

So you're denying the Millennial Kingdom, but not the eternal kingdom? When you said "No Kingdom on earth", it looked like you were denying ANY kind of visible Kingdom.

The visible kingdom on earth is the church over which Christ rules through His word. It is the church (the called out by the gospel) of (bought by and belonging to) Christ. It is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one.

The Millennial Kingdom is supposed to be when Christ rules over this present world in its natural state with the saints at His side. Then, the people of the world will see a perfect overnment, and it will be obvious that their way was sin. However, at the end, a bunch will still rebel.

Christ is presently ruling over His kingdom. Christians are a royal priesthood, serving God and man. The organization and doctrines of the worlds' religious organizations are easily seen as sinful and contrary to NT teaching when they are compared to the simplicity of Christs' church.

People have been rebelling against the Lord's church almost since it began in Acts 2.

I am still curious about what happens to the earth (and the rest of the universe) in your system after the resurrection/judgment.

2 Pet 3:7, 10

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

John 6:28-29

Why do you keep ripping that Scripture from it's context. Eternal salvation is not the picture there at all. Again clear misuse of Scripture.

The visible kingdom on earth is the church over which Christ rules through His word. It is the church (the called out by the gospel) of (bought by and belonging to) Christ. It is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one.

Again Scripture totally teaches quite the opposite. Christ is going to one day rule the nations with a rod of iron. In order to do that there must be some physical nations to rule over. And if you are ruling over people that is a kingdom.

Again you are totally misusing Scripture to say that the spiritual kingdom is that of the church. The spiritual aspect of the kingdom is that spirit realm that we are unable to perceive. Paul was allowed a glimpse into the spiritual realm.

Matthew refers to it as the kingdom of the heavens. It is a literal place where Satan and his angels rule from presently. One day it will be taken over by Christ and His bride and co-heirs.

Christ is presently ruling over His kingdom.

Nowhere can you find a Scripture that says Christ is currently crowned with a crown referred to as a diadema (I believe is the correct Greek term). Christ wore a stephanos (crown given to a victor, but not to a current ruler) when He was crowned with thorns.

That is the only crown Christ has worn, and He is no longer wearing it. He does not currently have a crown, but is acting as an Advocate and a High Priest.

If Christ was ruling His kingdom Israel would be at the head of the nations and Christians wouldn't be present. And we certainly wouldn't have the chaos around the world we have now.

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

bmerr here. Scripturally, to believe in Christ is a work (John 6:28-29). Who's definition are you using?

Yeah, and the point was, that it was God's work; not a work that we get up and do. You claim the same for baptism, but it is till something you have to get up and do. God does not get up and go for you.

True, there is a spiritual aspect in baptism, as we are washed in Jesus' blood by the operation of God. The physical side of it is our being immersed in water, understanding that baptism is for the remission of our sins, and neccessary for our salvation.

You have it kind of backwards there; like physical baptism is the reality, with just "a spiritual aspect" to it. Rather, the true spiritual baptism is immersion into the body of Christ, with water baptism as a physical sign of it. mman, above keeps appealing to Naaman, and other OT examples of "God using physical means", and then concludes from that that the physical water is what "puts us into contact with the blood", but then has to keep denying that the "physical means" is what the power is in. The power may have come from God, but He apparently did CONVEY that power INTO those things He used, then, else they could not have been healed from them. But this is not what we follow today. This is the confusion that results from trying to copy the OT, and not realizing that was "of the flesh", and we are in the spirit now. It's amazing how much you insist on "using the NT", but keep turning to the OT at times like this. Yes, those are examples that point forward to today, but it is all about spiritual realities now, and physical means are rare, and those we do have (baptism and communion) are symbols by which we SHOW spiritual realities.

The visible kingdom on earth is the church over which Christ rules through His word. It is the church (the called out by the gospel) of (bought by and belonging to) Christ. It is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one.

Christ is presently ruling over His kingdom. Christians are a royal priesthood, serving God and man. The organization and doctrines of the worlds' religious organizations are easily seen as sinful and contrary to NT teaching when they are compared to the simplicity of Christs' church.

People have been rebelling against the Lord's church almost since it began in Acts 2.

I understand this, but still, Revelation did prohecy that "the Kingdoms of the World ARE BECOME the Kingdoms of christ", so you can't dismiss a physical world under Christ. Also, the saints are supposed to rule OVER something as well.

2 Pet 3:7, 10

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

In Christ,

bmerr

So the universe shall just be destroyed? Then it will be just us in Heaven (and I guess the lost in Hell) and no more physical realm at all?

 

[carpro]

At Jesus death, blood and water flowed from Jesus side (Jn 19:34).

This is not a coincidence, but shows that the blood and water are connected.

Is this where I say, OK...if you say so?

The Bible tells us the significance of the blood that Jesus shed on the cross.

I must have missed where the Bible told us the significance of the water flowing from his side.

 

[mman]

mman so what you are saying is that you have the entire Truth as given in Scripture. How arrogant. Just becuase someone says you are wrong and then shows you how you are wrong doesn't mean they are ridiculing you. It means they are trying to help you see the error of your way.

You and I obviously don't agree, but yet I don't think you are ridiculing me becuase you are trying to show me the error of my way (as you see it). I just see someone trying to do what the Bible calls him to do.

I just happen to think you are wrong. I think the Bible shows you are wrong, which is the most important thing. And I just don't want you to continue in error and more importantly I don't want others to get caught up in your error.

So the question was legitimate. Do you believe that CoCers are the only ones that are saved or do you think that I am saved as well even though I don't belong to a CoC?

Do you really think we can't know the truth? How foolish. Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" - Jn 8:32

Do you think God gave us instrucitons that we can't understand? I can write better than that.

Concerning matters of salvation, yes, I know I have the truth. Obviously, you are not fully convinced that you have the truth.

When Paul wrote, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." - I Cor 1:10, is that impossible?

How is that possible? Is Paul arrogant for expecting them to be united in the truth? The truth is the only thing that can unite people today. The truth is "knowable".

Do I know all truth and have all knowledge? Certainly NOT! The bible is from the infinite mind of God. You cannot "mine" it dry even if you studied it 1000 years.

Can I understand what is required to become a child of God? Absolutely.

Here is a verse for you, "And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation," Heb 5:9 NASB

Is this talking eternal salvation? The verse says it is, do you believe that?

Is obedience required? The verse says it is, do you believe that? Don't you teach that obedience is not required for eternal salvation?

Here is another passage for you, "and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might - II Thess 1:7-9

Ok, if one has not obeyed the gospel, they will face eternal destruction.

Just how does one "obey the gospel".

First, what is the gospel? The good news about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, according to I Cor 15:1-4.

So, how does one obey the death, burial, and resurrection? According to Rom 6:3-8, one does that in baptism.

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him."

Do we physically died, and are buried, and raised again? No, we obey a form of that in baptism.

Just a few verses later, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. " (vs 17)

They had obeyed a form of the death, burial and resurrection in baptism. That is how one obeys the gospel to walk in a new life.

Ok, you made the claim that you can "cherry pick" verses to prove just about any false teaching. It should be easy then to "cherry pick" verses that teach the truth. Go ahead and "cherry pick" your verses and show how one obeys the death, burial, and resurrection or in other words, how one obeys "the gospel" and show that baptism is excluded from this process.

 

[Eric B]

You must have missed it from a few pages ago, but you like to toss around this term "obey the Gospel"/"obedience", to try to prove that "faith" really is in practice works, but it is translated from any of three different words, which basically are closer in meaning to "be convinced", "agree", "hearken", "compliance" and even "believe", and are even translated as such in other places!

5218. hupakoe; from 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by impl.) compliance or submission:- obedience, (make) obedient, obey (ing).
5219. hupakouo; from 5259 and 191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority:-hearken, be obedient to, obey.
3982. peitho; a prim. berb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by anal. to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflex. or pass. to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):-agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) confident, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
544. apeitheo; from 545; to disbelieve (willfully and perversely):-not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.

Notice that those definitions do not necessarily convey physical works. It is allowed in those definitions, but the overall context is that "obedience to the Gospel" in the sense of basic salvation demands the "believing" definition; else you redefine "faith" as works, and make the contrast given between "faith" and "works" meaningless. To just believe in Christ, which means confessing yourself as a sinner, with no righteousness in yourself, is in fact "compliance", "submission" and "conforming."

 

[mman]

Is this where I say, OK...if you say so?

The Bible tells us the significance of the blood that Jesus shed on the cross.

I must have missed where the Bible told us the significance of the water flowing from his side.

So, you admit, there is significance in water flowing from His side?

I encourage you to study this for yourself.

I Jn 5:8, "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

These three do agree and all work together, yet so many want to eliminate the water.

Before they could enter the holy place of the tabernacle, blood and water were required. The laver was placed directly between the alter and the door. Coincidence? Can you not see the connection?

The penalty for trying to enter the holy place without washing in the water was death. There was no water in the holy place. The only way to the Most Holy Place as through the holy place.

Yet how many people today are trying to enter the holy place without washing? Then they try to wash after they think they are in the holy place. The water is between the blood and the church, just as the laver (water) was between the alter (blood) and the tabernacle (church/heaven). There was no door directly into the Most Holy Place so one could only get there through the Holy Place. The way to heaven is only through the one church.

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized (water) for the remission of sins (blood)

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized(water); and that day about three thousand souls were added (to the church purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28))

Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Here we have people being washed with water and blood entering into the holy place or church.

Read Heb 10:19-22 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God (or church, see I Tim 3:15), let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled (blood) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Blood purchased church (Acts 20:28)
Baptized (water) into church (I Cor 12:13)

Blood for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28)
Baptism (water) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

In Christ we have redemption through His blood (Eph 1:7)
We are baptized (water) INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)

It's no wonder that one is baptized into one body(church), baptized into Christ, and baptized for the remission of sins. The blood and the water in full agreement, that flowed from His side at His death.

Even Jesus simple statement shows the connection, "He that believeth and is baptized (water) shall be saved (blood) - Mark 16:16

or

Arise and be baptized (water) and wash away your sins (blood) - Acts 22:16

 

[Charles Meadows]

Mman,

The Bible is clear that salvation is by faith and not of works.

None of us would disagree that believers should submit to baptism.

But what about the individual who is saved and arranges to be baptized the next week but is killed in an auto accident.

If you assert that this individual was not saved yet because he had not yet been baptized then you ascribe salvation to a work. That is not consistent with either Jesus or Paul. Your interpretation of Acts 2 cannot contravene the clear message of the entire NT on salvation.

 

[J. Jump]

Do you really think we can't know the truth?

Just like you rip Scripture out of context you have taken my statement out of context. I was speaking of 100% truth. You have the entire Bible figured out and know 100% of the truth?

I think that would be arrogance on your part to suggest that you do. There are men that have been studying the Bible for years, upon years, upon years, upon years and they would tell you that they still have stuff to learn.

Do you think God gave us instrucitons that we can't understand?

Wow we actually agree on something. I think God gave us everything that He wants us to understand if "we" will get out of the way and let Him teach us.

That's the key is "us" getting out of the way.

Concerning matters of salvation, yes, I know I have the truth.

And there are a great number of people that would totally disagree with you on that statement, including myself. I think you are so far away from the truth that you may not find it, becuase you are so unwilling to let go of what you have been taught and seek God. And until you are willing to look at Scripture with an open mind instead of your CoC tainted glasses then you will not see Truth.

When Paul wrote, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." - I Cor 1:10, is that impossible?

Yes it is an impossibility. You yourself disprove that statement. Not all Christians are going to get "themselves" out of the picture, and they like you will continue to teach their man-made traditions.

That's why Paul appealed to them instead of telling them hey look this is what's going to happen.

Is Paul arrogant for expecting them to be united in the truth?

No he wasn't arrogant in expecting or wanting it. I expect it and want it to, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen anymore than his expectation and desire.

The truth is "knowable".

That is absolutely true to the extent that man will remove himself from the interpretation of the Bible and allow the Bible to say what the Bible says.

Do I know all truth and have all knowledge? Certainly NOT! The bible is from the infinite mind of God. You cannot "mine" it dry even if you studied it 1000 years.

Okay that answers my above question and at least we can agree on that.

Can I understand what is required to become a child of God? Absolutely.

And we can agree on that.

Here is a verse for you, "And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation," Heb 5:9 NASB

Is this talking eternal salvation? The verse says it is, do you believe that?

See here's where we start running into problems. That's what the English version of the Bible says, but go back to the original langauge and do a study on the Greek word aionios.

I'll save you a little time. The Hebrew and Greek language did not have a word for eternity or eternal. (I think that is purposeful, but that's a different subject). The Greek adjective aionios is taken from the Greek root word aion, which means age. The adjective is describing it's root word and should be rendered age-lasting.

So the context of the Scripture that you have just given is obedience leads to age-lasting life. And we see that is exactly what the rest of the Bible teaches as well. You can save your life now (in this age) and you can lose it in the world (aion - age) to come or you can lose your life now (in this age) and find it in the world (aion - age) to come.

So the question is what is the age to come? Most Christians believe eternity is the age to come, but aion is something that has a specific beginning and a specific ending.

So if we dig deeper than the surface we will discover the truth instead of the man-made theology of the translators.

Is obedience required? The verse says it is, do you believe that? Don't you teach that obedience is not required for eternal salvation?

Is obedience required? Yes for age-lasting life, but not for eternal salvation unless you are speaking of the command to believe in Christ's finish works on the cross.

Here is another passage for you, "and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might - II Thess 1:7-9

Again you are assigning your meaning to words. Gospel simply means the good news. It doesn't automatically mean the good news of eternal salvation as you want to read into it.

Again eternal is the word (aionios), so refer back to my previous text. It's age-lasting destruction (loss of the soul).

Ok, if one has not obeyed the gospel, they will face eternal destruction.

That is incorrect.

First, what is the gospel? The good news about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, according to I Cor 15:1-4.

That is one aspect of the gospel.

So, how does one obey the death, burial, and resurrection? According to Rom 6:3-8, one does that in baptism.

That all happens after eternal salvation is already received just like in Exodus death came on the night of passover. Those people were dead then. That's whey they experienced death. The night of salvation.

The dead man must be buried and that happened in the Red Sea, but they were able to come up out of death and burial on the side of resurrection because they were called to a higher calling.

The Egyptians could not come out on the side of resurrection, because they had not experienced death yet, so they could not be raised up. That all happens after salvation.

And just like that happend for the nation of Israel so it happens the same for Christians. Christians are seen as dead the moment they believe in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. At that very moment they are passed over from death to life.

They had obeyed a form of the death, burial and resurrection in baptism. That is how one obeys the gospel to walk in a new life.

Amen! To walk in a new life...not to be eternally saved. Two different things. Eternal salvation is not walking in a new life. Eternal salvation is being justified in the eyes of God.

one obeys the death, burial, and resurrection or in other words, how one obeys "the gospel" and show that baptism is excluded from this process.

There is no need to. You did a great job of explaining things, and if you would keep "the gospel" in context you would be dead on. Unfortunately you insert a false context of eternal salvation in there that messes up an otherwise great explanation.

By the way do you see me as a saved individual, or am I a lost person?

 

[mman]

You must have missed it from a few pages ago, but you like to toss around this term "obey the Gospel"/"obedience", to try to prove that "faith" really is in practice works, but it is translated from any of three different words, which basically are closer in meaning to "be convinced", "agree", "hearken", "compliance" and even "believe", and are even translated as such in other places!

5218. hupakoe; from 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by impl.) compliance or submission:- obedience, (make) obedient, obey (ing).
5219. hupakouo; from 5259 and 191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority:-hearken, be obedient to, obey.
3982. peitho; a prim. berb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by anal. to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflex. or pass. to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):-agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) confident, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
544. apeitheo; from 545; to disbelieve (willfully and perversely):-not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.

Notice that those definitions do not necessarily convey physical works. It is allowed in those definitions, but the overall context is that "obedience to the Gospel" in the sense of basic salvation demands the "believing" definition; else you redefine "faith" as works, and make the contrast given between "faith" and "works" meaningless. To just believe in Christ, which means confessing yourself as a sinner, with no righteousness in yourself, is in fact "compliance", "submission" and "conforming."

To bad that there is not one single group of translators that agree with your demands. Let's see how it has been translated in reputable and even in some non reputable translations:

Heb 5:9

obey - ESV
obey - NIV
obey - KJV
obey - NKJV
obey - ASV
obey - NASB
obeying - YLT
obey - Darby translation
give heed and obey - Amplified Bible
believingly obey - The Message
obey - Contemporary English Version
obey - 21st Century King James Version
obey - New Life Version
obey - Holman Christian Standard Bible
obey - New International Reader's Version
obey - Wycliffe New Testament
obeyed - Worldwide English (New Testament)
obey - New International Version - UK

The same is true in II Thess 1:8, where it talks about "obeying the gospel", every one of the above translates it obey (one used a form of obey).

I am not a Greek scholar and never claimed to be. However, when I look at several translations and they are unanamous in how that translate a word, I think that the best english word was used to convey the intended idea. I know you do not want it to mean obey and are motivated to prove otherwise, however, academia is in total agreement against you.

 

[Eric B]

So, you admit, there is significance in water flowing from His side?

I encourage you to study this for yourself.

I Jn 5:8, "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

These three do agree and all work together, yet so many want to eliminate the water.

Before they could enter the holy place of the tabernacle, blood and water were required. The laver was placed directly between the alter and the door. Coincidence? Can you not see the connection?

The penalty for trying to enter the holy place without washing in the water was death. There was no water in the holy place. The only way to the Most Holy Place as through the holy place.

Yet how many people today are trying to enter the holy place without washing? Then they try to wash after they think they are in the holy place. The water is between the blood and the church, just as the laver (water) was between the alter (blood) and the tabernacle (church/heaven). There was no door directly into the Most Holy Place so one could only get there through the Holy Place. The way to heaven is only through the one church.

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized (water) for the remission of sins (blood)

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized(water); and that day about three thousand souls were added (to the church purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28))

Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Here we have people being washed with water and blood entering into the holy place or church.

Read Heb 10:19-22 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God (or church, see I Tim 3:15), let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled (blood) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Blood purchased church (Acts 20:28)
Baptized (water) into church (I Cor 12:13)

Blood for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28)
Baptism (water) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

In Christ we have redemption through His blood (Eph 1:7)
We are baptized (water) INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)

It's no wonder that one is baptized into one body(church), baptized into Christ, and baptized for the remission of sins. The blood and the water in full agreement, that flowed from His side at His death.

Even Jesus simple statement shows the connection, "He that believeth and is baptized (water) shall be saved (blood) - Mark 16:16

or

Arise and be baptized (water) and wash away your sins (blood) - Acts 22:16

The scriptures do not tie the water that came out of His side with the waters of baptism, and neither does 1 John 5:8 mention baptism. "Water" as in "born of water" in John 3 is natural birth. You are born naturally the first time, but then must be born AGAIN by the Spirit, THROUGH the blood. (and this is also symbolically called "water" in both Heb.10 and Eph.5) Hence "the spirit, blood and water agree". That is the context, else you have Christ "coming by baptism" in v.6

You have tied all this stuff together, and in doing so, have left the Spirit out of all of those examples you just gave. You make sure to hunt down and include the water but leave out the Spirit. Especially when you repeat here again that the "washing" that was to be done was a physical "washing". The washing BY the bood is SPIRITUAL, and baptism is at most a SIGN to accompany it. (and the physical "washing" in the OT you refer to was by sprinkling. Now you don't believe in that, do you?) We are cleansed with "washing OF water BY the Word" (Eph.5:26). NOT "washing of the word by water".

 

[Eric B]

To bad that there is not one single group of translators that agree with your demands. Let's see how it has been translated in reputable and even in some non reputable translations:

Heb 5:9

obey - ESV
obey - NIV
obey - KJV
obey - NKJV
obey - ASV
obey - NASB
obeying - YLT
obey - Darby translation
give heed and obey - Amplified Bible
believingly obey - The Message
obey - Contemporary English Version
obey - 21st Century King James Version
obey - New Life Version
obey - Holman Christian Standard Bible
obey - New International Reader's Version
obey - Wycliffe New Testament
obeyed - Worldwide English (New Testament)
obey - New International Version - UK

The same is true in II Thess 1:8, where it talks about "obeying the gospel", every one of the above translates it obey (one used a form of obey).

I am not a Greek scholar and never claimed to be. However, when I look at several translations and they are unanamous in how that translate a word, I think that the best english word was used to convey the intended idea. I know you do not want it to mean obey and are motivated to prove otherwise, however, academia is in total agreement against you.

Just because the English translators use the Englush word "they" doesn't change the Greek meaning of the words. Even the English word "obey" is compatible with that, as the words "comply", "submit" and "conform." are right in the definitions of the English word "obey". once again, to just believe in Christ, which means confessing yourself as a sinner, with no righteousness in yourself, is in fact "compliance", "submission" and "conforming."

 

[mman]

Mman,

The Bible is clear that salvation is by faith and not of works.

I agree

None of us would disagree that believers should submit to baptism.

Good

But what about the individual who is saved and arranges to be baptized the next week but is killed in an auto accident.

What about the individual who dies before they believe?

Did Jesus get confused? Did he mean, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized" when he actually said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"? - Mark 16:16

Were Saul's sins already washed away when he was told to "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins"? - Mark 16:16

Did Peter speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit tell them wrong in Acts 2:38?

Who am I to change what God has said. Can I change "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" to "He that believeth and is saved should be baptized"? By what authority can anyone make that change?

If you assert that this individual was not saved yet because he had not yet been baptized then you ascribe salvation to a work. That is not consistent with either Jesus or Paul. Your interpretation of Acts 2 cannot contravene the clear message of the entire NT on salvation.

No, just because you can't figure it out, you think that is what I ascribe to. Salvation is by faith. I cannot and do not work for or earn any part of my salvation. Baptism is by faith. By faith I am a child of God because I have been baptized into Christ (Gal 3:36-27).

The walls of Jericho fell by faith (Heb 11:30). Was obedience required? Jericho was a gift given to them (Josh 6:2). They didn't earn it. They didn't work for it. There was nothing meritorious in their actions. They received the promise upon completion of the instructions. Now did the walls fall by faith or not???