Churches of Christ

[El_Guero]

Mac

I really must misunderstand what you meant:

i suppose the way i thought of it was more, there was something Christ needed to do to fulfill His perfection, and so He set the example. He lived as a man with all the hurts and needs and temptations a man has, and He said He needed to be baptized.

I could handle his needing to fulfill what the Father sent him to do. But, I find it difficult to believe that Jesus needed to be perfected or needed baptism to fulfill his mission. I could take His setting the example of baptism for us to follow. But, to think He needed perfection is not the same as my needing His perfection. I just do see how this could follow from what Scripture says.

 

[J. Jump]

Bmerr Paul was eternally saved long before the Damascus Road experience. One of the easiest ways to see this is He addressed Christ as Lord. No man can call Christ Lord unless by the Holy Spirit. And no man has the Holy Spirit unless he is saved.

That's only one way.

But let's just look at the structure of the Scripture passage you quoted.

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"

What was Paul to do? He was told to rise, and be baptised and wash away his sins. There are three commands that are given there. You are trying to say there are two.

What you are trying to do, which can't be done is link baptiszed with wash away they sins, but if those were connected it would read like this:

arise, and be baptized, so your sins will be washed away. But that's not what it says, so your connection of baptism and washing seems to be out of place, becuase they are not linguistically connected.

No I'll have to go back to the Greek text to see if that is the case as well, but it certainly is the case in English. The thing that is tied together is not baptism and washing, but rather washing and calling on the name of the Lord.

But here's just another question for you to ponder regarding baptism.

If baptism is so important and critical to salvation then why is it not mentioned in Acts 3 when Peter again preaches the gospel to the Jews after healing the lame man?

19 "Therefore repent R150 and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times R151 of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

Seems as though this group of Jews didn't need baptism. And in chapter four we are told that: But many of those who had heard the message F86 believed; and the R170 number of the men came to be about five thousand.

And yet still no mention of baptism. Was this a special group of people?

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr,

If you are critiquing sola fide as it is understood by many than I will agree with you in part. The emphasis of sola fide is that salvation is a gift that cannot be earned or merited. The problem with the CoC position (as some hold it) is that the physical act of baptism becomes a one work Torah.

Charles,

bmerr here. I will also agree that salvation is a gift that cannot be earned or merited by man. The Bible states plainly that no man will be justified by the works of the Law (Rom 3:20), or by works of personal righteousness (Titus 3:5). No works of which a man could boast are accepted by God (Eph 2:8-9).

But to be saved apart from obedience is a notion contrary to Scripture (Heb 5:9).

Even if a person were to do all things commanded of him, he would still be an unprofitable servant (Luke 17:10). Obedience does not merit anything. It is simply the perfecting, or completing of one's faith (James 2:22). Without obedience, faith is dead, and profits nothing.

The "pudding proof" can be seen in the anecdote already mentioned. Consider the person who...plans baptism the following Sunday but is killed in a car wreck. Is he saved?

Let's back the scenario up even further. Suppose this same person had a sincere desire to know God, but had not yet heard of Jesus Christ or the cross. He intends to speak with a man who says he is a Christian, hoping to find out how to become one, but he is killed in a car wreck. Is he saved? If not, why not?

The biblical answer is without a doubt "yes". His faith, which carries with it an intent to be baptized, is saving. If you disagree - and this is the key - then you localize salvation in a ritualistic work. And that is antithetical to Jesus' teachings.

As you might have guessed, I disagree. Can one be saved and still be in his sins? Can one be saved, and not be justified? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, please explain.

I did not "localize salvation in a ritualistic work". It was Jesus Who said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...", not bmerr. bmerr just quoted Jesus, Who did, in fact, teach this very thing. Jesus was not antithetical to Jesus' teachings.

There is nothing wrong with baptism - and none of us here would suggest the believer could or should forego it. But you cannot place the locus of salvation in a ritual without abandoning Jesus.

I would say that one cannot teach salvation apart from baptism without departing from the NT pattern.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

You said:

The Bible states plainly that no man will be justified by the works of the Law (Rom 3:20), or by works of personal righteousness (Titus 3:5).

But yet you also asserted that the one who believes in Christ, even having scheduled a public baptism in order to be obedient is unsaved until he is dunked physically.

So sincere faith in Christ is not enough? What does Romans 10:9 say? If you assert that faith is not enough then how do you read Romans 10:9?

You also assert that he will be saved when he gets baptized?

So the faith by itself was not sufficient. It was not until he performed a ritual. What did you just say about Romans 3:20?

This is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum. No believer is going to refuse baptism. But it exposes a severe error in CoC doctrine. The CoC rejects salvation by faith - insisting that ritual works are necessary and that pure faith is insufficient.

Let's look at Mark 16:15-16. Jesus instructed the apsotles that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Then He said that who ever believes not will be damned. It sounds as if Jesus considers belief to be the determining factor.

So I ask you - how to you take Romans 10:9?

 

[Hope of Glory]

I would say that one cannot teach salvation apart from baptism without departing from the NT pattern.

Did Jesus need to be saved, then?

 

[mactx]

Mac

I really must misunderstand what you meant:



I could handle his needing to fulfill what the Father sent him to do. But, I find it difficult to believe that Jesus needed to be perfected or needed baptism to fulfill his mission. I could take His setting the example of baptism for us to follow. But, to think He needed perfection is not the same as my needing His perfection. I just do see how this could follow from what Scripture says.

howdy EL what i mean to say is, He declared it needful to do this thing. Now being a man with out sin, we would not think He NEEDED to do anything however, obviously we would be wrong since He Himself declares it otherwise.
Make better sense?

This is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum. No believer is going to refuse baptism. But it exposes a severe error in CoC doctrine. The CoC rejects salvation by faith - insisting that ritual works are necessary and that pure faith is insufficient.

Hmm on this I would respectfully submit that if one has true Faith, they will be baptized.

As for Romans 9, no where does it say baptism is not needed, anymore than i would tell the boys doing dishes requires water. The step by step was given more than once, just because they discussed salvation with out the specific steps each time doesn't mean the steps changed.
That is why it is needful to study all the NT and not "cherry pick" verses to say this or that.
I sutdy it as a whole, the whole is much easier to understand than trying to take 1 verse to make a doctrine from.
bmerr, thank you for your compliment. i am still studying your post.

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr,

...I ask you - how to you take Romans 10:9?

Charles,

bmerr here. I take Romans 10:9-10 in harmony with Mark 16:16 and the rest of Scripture. No one verse "overrules", or nullifies another. Since the Bible says that faith and confession are required for salvation (Rom 10:9-10), and it also says that belief and baptism are required for salvation (Mark 16:16), and it also says that repentance and baptism are required for salvation (Acts 2:38), then I must conclude that faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are required for salvation.

I've got to take the whole council of God, if I am to know what God requires.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

Which one gospel writer tells us about Peter cutting off the right ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest, and of Jesus healing Malchus' severed ear?

Can you find all of this information in one gospel account?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr Paul was eternally saved long before the Damascus Road experience. One of the easiest ways to see this is He addressed Christ as Lord. No man can call Christ Lord unless by the Holy Spirit. And no man has the Holy Spirit unless he is saved.

JJump,

bmerr here. So it was an eternally saved, blood bought Saul of Tarsus who was the enemy of the Lord's church, "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1), who had "...beyond measure...persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" (Gal 1:13), who "persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women" (Acts 22:4), who gave his voice against many of the saints which he had put into prison to put them to death (Acts 26:10), and "...punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, ...persecuted them even unto strange cities" (Acts 26:11)? Is that what you mean?

ARE YOU INSANE?

In Acts 9:5, what is the question Saul asks? Is it not, "Who art thou, Lord?" Saul doesn't even know Who he's talking to, let alone believe in the risen Christ!

But let's just look at the structure of the Scripture passage you quoted.

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"

What was Paul to do? He was told to rise, and be baptised and wash away his sins. There are three commands that are given there. You are trying to say there are two.

What you are trying to do, which can't be done is link baptiszed with wash away they sins, but if those were connected it would read like this:

arise, and be baptized, so your sins will be washed away. But that's not what it says, so your connection of baptism and washing seems to be out of place, becuase they are not linguistically connected.

No I'll have to go back to the Greek text to see if that is the case as well, but it certainly is the case in English. The thing that is tied together is not baptism and washing, but rather washing and calling on the name of the Lord.

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anyone work so hard to complicate something so simple. Let me show you how calling on the name of the Lord is tied to baptism, which will tie it to washing away sins.

In Acts 2:21, Peter tells his audience, "...whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

On toward the end of Peter's sermon, the audience, oddly enough, does not start calling out "Lord, Lord" to be saved, but asks a question. What was the question they asked?

"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37)

What are they asking? They have been told they could be saved by calling on the name of the Lord, and now they're asking, "What shall we do?" Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that they are asking how to call on the name of the Lord and be saved?

No, I'd say that's probably what they were asking.

Okay, if that's what they were asking, what were they told to do?

"...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).

So baptism is "tied" to calling on the name of the Lord, which fits in quite nicely with Acts 22:16, "Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins (same as "for the remission"), calling on the name of the Lord."

[NOTE: Saul had already repented, so he didn't need to be told to repent.]

So, Saul's response was the same as those on Pentecost. He heard the word, repented of sins, and was baptized for the remission (or washing away) of sins. Same gospel, same response. How odd, huh?

But here's just another question for you to ponder regarding baptism.

If baptism is so important and critical to salvation then why is it not mentioned in Acts 3 when Peter again preaches the gospel to the Jews after healing the lame man?

19 "Therefore repent R150 and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times R151 of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

Seems as though this group of Jews didn't need baptism. And in chapter four we are told that: But many of those who had heard the message F86 believed; and the R170 number of the men came to be about five thousand.

And yet still no mention of baptism. Was this a special group of people?

Regarding Acts 3:19, have you ever said the same thing using different words? That's all Peter did there. Unless, of course, you'd like to explain why this Holy Spirit inspired apostle was preaching another gospel...

As for those in Acts 4:4, I'd like to use an example I got from someone else on the board, if you're told to "go wash the dishes", do you need to be told to use hot water, add some dish detergent, scrub the dirty dishes with a wet sponge, or rag until the dish is clean, rinse the suds off the dish, and set is aside to dry?

Maybe the first time, but every time after that? Please!

When we read that they "believed", and we already have the full response shown us in Acts 2, is it neccessary to repeatedly show each and every step of their response? It's not for the honest reader.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Did Jesus need to be saved, then?

Hope,

bmerr here. No, Jesus did not need to be saved. Jesus did not live under the New Testament, either.

We do, however, and baptism is commanded us if we would be saved by Jesus.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Charles,

bmerr here. I was hoping for a response to a couple of questions I asked earlier. You may have missed them, so here they are again.

Can one be saved without being justified?

Can one be saved and still be in his sins?

I figure you either didn't see them, or that you would answer "no" to each of them. Is my figuring correct? I thought if your answer was "no", then you might say so, but you didn't.

I'd welcome responses from others, as well.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

bmerr here. I was hoping for a response to a couple of questions I asked earlier. You may have missed them, so here they are again.

Can one be saved without being justified?

Absolutely not.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--As the verse implies a man is justified by faith and by faith alone.

Can one be saved and still be in his sins?

Did the thief on the cross die and have any chance to do good works? Would his good works (if possible) compensate for the bad done in his life? Does a man still sin after he is saved? Are you, bmerr, perfect and sinless? Have you attained sinless perfection? If not, then what is the purpose of your question?

I figure you either didn't see them, or that you would answer "no" to each of them. Is my figuring correct? I thought if your answer was "no", then you might say so, but you didn't.

You have my answer.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Please feel free to start another thread on the same topic. This thread is already reached 32 pages and needs to close.
DHK