How important is knowledge in getting saved?

[Tazman]

You are scripturally void of the understanding of these verses, and need to take heed to the admonition of Peter who said:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Okay DHK,

What ever you say.

All I know is you just used Peters statements that specifically concerned certain teaching of Paul, out of context, that does not even apply to the scriptures I shared with you that were by two other authors including Peter himself.

ONLY ONE OUT OF THE FOUR WERE EVER FROM PAUL. and even that scripture is very clear!

But some how I am labled by you as a "Void" user of scripture. I think you need a mirror.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eli,

bmerr here. I guess I missed this one. Sorry.

Baptism is described in the Bible as a burial (Rom 6:3; Col 2:12). When someone is buried, they're supposed to be dead, aren't they? You don't bury live people, do you?

However, baptism is also described in the Bible as being raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). So the old, dead man of sin is buried, and the new man rises up, having put on Christ (Gal 3:27), to walk in his new life in Christ.



If only belief were necessary, the chief rulers in John 12:42 would have been saved. Do you say that they were?

bmerr

I have thought Church of Christ has almost the same doctrines as the PB's. Now I am disappointed with you, because I found the views are so different.

Even though we can hardly conclude further the chief rulers of John 12:42 might have been saved. There are so many people who are tricky even among the saved people.
But we should know the people in John 8:29-30 are not saved even thought it states that many believed on Him.
You have to discern and distinguish them.

One thing you have evaded answering clearly is the question:
Do you baptize unsaved people?
or Do you baptize the saved people?

 

[DHK]

Okay DHK,

What ever you say.

All I know is you just used Peters statements that specifically concerned certain teaching of Paul, out of context, that does not even apply to the scriptures I shared with you that were by two other authors including Peter himself.

ONLY ONE OUT OF THE FOUR WERE EVER FROM PAUL. and even that scripture is very clear!

But some how I am labled by you as a "Void" user of scripture. I think you need a mirror.

Look closely at the Scripture quoted.
Peter refers to those that wrest not only Paul's episltes, ("as they do also the other Scriptures"), but most of the other Scriptures as well. You are doing the same thing. Peter is not just referring to the episltes of Paul. Read it again.

Secondly, I have some serious questions for you.
What does it mean to be born again? If one is not born again he cannot see the kingdom of God; he is not saved. Being born again is of utmost importance. If you don't have a handle on what it means to be born again you may be doomed for all eternity, and I mean that with all sincerity.

One of the Scriptures you quoted was John 3:5 about the new birth, and equated it with baptism. That is heresy. If you believe (as the RCC does) that the new birth is baptism) you are in serious trouble and are probably not saved. The new birth has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism is not even mentioned in John 3. Water is, but baptism isn't. You are imposing your own pre-conceived ideas into that passage. There is no reason to believe that John 3:5 should refer to baptism. Where do you get that from? Who told you? It wasn't the Holy Spirit. No one is born again by baptism, no one!

This is an example of what Peter is talking about--wresting the Scripture to your own destruction. It is a heresy called baptismal regeneration. It is from the pit of hell. Water cannot save.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron, everything that you shared is widely accepted, however, specifically wrong.

Your theology is completely opinionated and is not sustained within Matthew 29, Mark 16, or specifically as Peter taught Acts 2:38

Any of these scripture read an most translations will not give you the understanding that you now have. just the plain scripture!

You folks cannot preach the same message without adding your own exceptions.

Where does the bible say that repentance - baptism is a work? NO WHERE! but you constantly insist that it is. I would be more than willing to believe you, but the bible is not supporting the opinions.

Have you ever deeply examined how the true early church continued with what the Apostles taught?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=965515#post965515

I have already addressed Acts 2:38 in a thread you are very active on. No need to rehash it.

Baptism is a work. Is water baptism something that gets administered by people? Yes it is. Is it subsequent to faith? Yes it is. Ephesians 4:5 specifically separates faith and baptism just as it distinguishes between "faith" and the Person of the Lord. If baptism is not faith, and it is something we DO, then it is a work.

As for me, I do not care one iota about the post-apostolic men who began the post-apostolic corruption that eventually necessitated the Reformation and the Restoration.

 

[Darron Steele]

Baptism is very very important for the life after Salvation. This must have been preached by Philip already.

Why? if after "salvation"

Ephesians 2:8-10 “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may |boast hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).

Salvation first, and then and only then do we do works that God prepared for Christians, such as baptism.

 

[Darron Steele]

Eliyahu,

bmerr here. If baptism is not necessary for salvation, why is it important?

In Christ,

bmerr

I know this was not directed at me, but I want to comment on it.

The Bible commands baptism. Genuine followers of Jesus Christ should not be serving Him in order to get something for themselves; s/he ought to be serving Him out of genuine desire.

Christ died “that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works” (ASV) per Titus 2:14b.

When I got baptized, I wanted to be baptized. I wanted to do it because the Bible commanded it, so I knew it would please the Lord, and that was well enough motivation for me.

 

[mima]

This is a very interesting question. I used to work on a Mississippi River towboat and one day while witnessing to a fellow worker I suddenly had the feeling that this man was too dumb to understand what I was trying to tell him. (A little bit of ignorant pride showing I would say) and so I quit witnessing to him altogether. Two days later he came out of his room and announced that he had just accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal savior. Well I was astounded to say the very least, and wondered if he really understood. Soon I will begin to work on another boat. Less than a year later he had become a much better soulwinner than me, and has been responsible for many many people coming to the Lord Jesus Christ. I have talked to him a few time since. He still does not have a very great grasp of knowledge(according to me) but apparently God is very pleased with him for his success ratio is astounding.

 

[Eliyahu]

Ephesians 2:8-10 “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may |boast hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).

Salvation first, and then and only then do we do works that God prepared for Christians, such as baptism.

Correct!
I aleady mentioned why it is so important. Look at above post.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

One of the Scriptures you quoted was John 3:5 about the new birth, and equated it with baptism. That is heresy. If you believe (as the RCC does) that the new birth is baptism) you are in serious trouble and are probably not saved. The new birth has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism is not even mentioned in John 3. Water is, but baptism isn't. You are imposing your own pre-conceived ideas into that passage. There is no reason to believe that John 3:5 should refer to baptism. Where do you get that from? Who told you? It wasn't the Holy Spirit. No one is born again by baptism, no one!

Hmmmm…Shortly after Jesus and Nicodemus’ conversation starting at verse 22 of John 3, Jesus and His disciples went to Judea and remained there and baptized. Verse 23, John was baptizing and there they were baptized, then verse 26, they confess to John that He is baptizing.

Sounds like a whole lot of baptism going on after John 3:5. Looks like someone needs to re-read John 3.

 

[bmerr]

Even though we can hardly conclude further the chief rulers of John 12:42 might have been saved. There are so many people who are tricky even among the saved people.

Eliyahu,

bmerr here. We can certainly conclude that the chief rulers in John 12:42 were not saved. Matt 10:32-33 says that to be confessed before the Father, one must confess Jesus before men, and to deny Jesus before men would result in being denied by Jesus before the Father.

The chief rulers did not confess Jesus, therefore they would not be confessed before the Father by Jesus. Even Rom 10:9-10 states that confession is necessary to salvation.

But we should know the people in John 8:29-30 are not saved even thought it states that many believed on Him.
You have to discern and distinguish them.

I had not considered the people in John 8:29-30 before. As we read on, it seems evident around verse 44 that Jesus' words have them still in condemnation, yet, (near as I can tell), this same group is described back in 8:30 as believing in him.

I think the key is in 8:31, where Jesus tells them, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed."

It's a conditional statement, requiring continuance in, or obedience to the word of the Lord. Interesting. I had not noticed that before. Thank you for pointing it out.

One thing you have evaded answering clearly is the question:
Do you baptize unsaved people?
or Do you baptize the saved people?

I baptize anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, repents of his sin, confesses his belief in Christ, and desires to have his sins remitted, or washed away so that he can enter Christ, where all spiritual blessings are, and be saved.

I baptize unsaved believers who want to be saved.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Hmmmm…Shortly after Jesus and Nicodemus’ conversation starting at verse 22 of John 3, Jesus and His disciples went to Judea and remained there and baptized. Verse 23, John was baptizing and there they were baptized, then verse 26, they confess to John that He is baptizing.

Sounds like a whole lot of baptism going on after John 3:5. Looks like someone needs to re-read John 3.

The original manuscripts had no chapter breaks. In fact they didn't even have verse breaks either. They were inserted later on.
Note:

John 3:21-22 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

If you look in any KJV Bible you will see a symbol right after the 22 that marks it as a different paragraph. It is a complete break in subject, even as if it could be another chapter. From vs.22 onward has nothing to do with 3:1-21. The conversation with Nicodemus took place in Jerusalem.
Then verse 22 says: After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea...

You have a different place; a different time; a different action; a different subject; etc. 3:22-56 has nothing to do with the prior conversation with Nicodemus. Keep things in their context.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The original manuscripts had no chapter breaks. In fact they didn't even have verse breaks either. They were inserted later on.
Note:

John 3:21-22 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

If you look in any KJV Bible you will see a symbol right after the 22 that marks it as a different paragraph. It is a complete break in subject, even as if it could be another chapter. From vs.22 onward has nothing to do with 3:1-21. The conversation with Nicodemus took place in Jerusalem.
Then verse 22 says: After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea...

You have a different place; a different time; a different action; a different subject; etc. 3:22-56 has nothing to do with the prior conversation with Nicodemus. Keep things in their context.

Quit trying to explain it away DHK. You specifically said that there’s no mention of Baptism in John 3, and there is…Even your own trusty KJV disagrees with you…case closed…

-

 

[DHK]

Quit trying to explain it away DHK. You specifically said that there’s no mention of Baptism in John 3, and there is…Even your own trusty KJV disagrees with you…case closed…
-

I am not explaining anythng away. The baptism in 3:22 has nothing to do with the H2O mentioned in John 3:5 regardless of what I said. Perhaps I should have said more accurately that baptism is not mentioned in this entire discourse with Nicodemus. It is not mentioned anywhere. It is not in the context. It is not spoken of at all. Face the facts.

 

[Darron Steele]

John 3:22 is opened with "After these things" (ASV). This is a change of subject. All discussions of baptisms in John 3 and 4:1-2 are after this. Before this, Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus.

At John 3:3-6 behold the sequence:

John 3:3b "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:5b “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (NASB).​

Jesus taught a necessity of two births at John 3:5. The Hebrews used such words as "water" and "drop" to describe natural birth.* Jesus and Nicodemus were Hebrews. Jesus meant 'unless one is born naturally and then spiritually, s/he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'


___________
*In Hayford, Spirit-Filled Life Bible, page 1577.

 

[Tazman]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=965515#post965515

I have already addressed Acts 2:38 in a thread you are very active on. No need to rehash it.

Baptism is a work. Is water baptism something that gets administered by people? Yes it is. Is it subsequent to faith? Yes it is. Ephesians 4:5 specifically separates faith and baptism just as it distinguishes between "faith" and the Person of the Lord. If baptism is not faith, and it is something we DO, then it is a work.

As for me, I do not care one iota about the post-apostolic men who began the post-apostolic corruption that eventually necessitated the Reformation and the Restoration.

Been busy the last few days and I am going out of town soon, so my post will be quick:

"Post-Apostolic" Fathers? Who would you consider "Post-Apostolic" ? some names please.

If you are interested in direct disciples of the Apostles and their disciples, I will provide you their continued teachings of the Apostles as well. People who are known as the Early Church Bishops and Ante-Nicene Church Bishops.

These people in particular should be more important to you than any of your restoration or reformation "Early Church" pioneers. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Tazman]

I am not explaining anythng away. The baptism in 3:22 has nothing to do with the H2O mentioned in John 3:5 regardless of what I said. Perhaps I should have said more accurately that baptism is not mentioned in this entire discourse with Nicodemus. It is not mentioned anywhere. It is not in the context. It is not spoken of at all. Face the facts.

DHK,

Agnus beat me to it, but the fact is obvious: YOU ARE EXPLAINING AWAY your statement.

Just admit that your statement was off

 

[bmerr]

Jesus meant 'unless one is born naturally and then spiritually, s/he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'

Darron,

bmerr here. What of those not born naturally? I'm not trying to be silly, but can you see the redundancy involved if Jesus were actually telling Nicodemus, a grown man, that he needed to be born physically? It just doesn't fit Jesus' "style", if you know what I mean.

In Christ,

bmerr



___________

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Darron,

bmerr here. What of those not born naturally? I'm not trying to be silly, but can you see the redundancy involved if Jesus were actually telling Nicodemus, a grown man, that he needed to be born physically? It just doesn't fit Jesus' "style", if you know what I mean.

In Christ,

bmerr

Exactly, why would Jesus tell a grown man that he needed to be physically born. Obviously Nicodemus already past that test...

Furthermore, Darron's study bible authors should keep in mind that Jesus was a first century Jew speaking to first century Jews and therefore, we need to interpret these passages in a first century Jewish context. With that said, Jesus and the Jews didn't call 'amniotic fluid' "water", the Jews had no colloquial expression for amniotic fluid, that we have calling it "water". Be careful not to read some kind of Americanism into a first century context!


-

 

[bmerr]

However you have a problem. In answering in that way how do you account for:
1. The drastic change in my life during those two years before my baptism.

DHK,

bmerr here. I apologize for the late response. I got inivolved with Mike and Darron, and I let this one slip by.

A drastic change in one's life is common among those who convert to Bhuddism, Hare Krishna, Islam, and yes, Christianity. It is smply the result of the training of the conscience as to what is right and what is wrong. It is not the result of the Holy Spirit mysteriously changing a person apart from their own will or effort.

If it were, then every person who obeyed the gospel would unfailingly go on to spiritual maturity, and we all know that just isn't the case.

2. The Holy Spirit bearing witness to my spirit that I was a child of God.

Rom 8:18 says, "The Spirit itself bearing witness with [not "to"] our spirit, that we are the children of God".

The Holy Spirit no longer speaks to people. Revelation is complete. Inspiration is done.

3. A love for the Word of God; whereas before that time I was a devout Catholic and had only read from a "Missal" and had never owned a Bible.

I had a love for the word of God too, when I was a Baptist. That's how I learned that I had not yet obeyed the gospel and was still lost in my sins. That's how the Spirit works: through the word of God, the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).

5. My thirst and hunger for the Word of God just kept growing, as did a desire to share my faith with others

Certainly zeal can be good if one is zealous in a good thing (Gal 4:18). Insurance salesmen are zealous too, and they talk to everyone they meet about insurance, but not all of them are saved.

7. Was there any good reason if I had not been saved yet, that "God" would clean up my "foul language" and other bad habits.

You had come to desire to please God. You already knew that several things in your life were not pleasing to God, but you had come to the point that it mattered to you. You took appropriate action. Very much like saving faith, I'll admit.

Secondly, how does baptism bring about such changes in a person life? To my knowledge, all that baptism ever did for a person is get them wet. The molecular make up of H2O cannot change anyone spiritually.

Well, baptism does not bring these changes about. Repentance does. Repentance is simply a change of mind that results in a change of actions. That is what you have described. But repentance does not wash away sins. You were in a state similar to Saul's before Ananias came to him (Acts 9, 22). Saul believed. Saul had repented. Saul had spent three days fasting and praying. Yet Saul had not yet had his sins washed away. Saul was still lost.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Exactly, why would Jesus tell a grown man that he needed to be physically born. Obviously Nicodemus already past that test...

Furthermore, Darron's study bible authors should keep in mind that Jesus was a first century Jew speaking to first century Jews and therefore, we need to interpret these passages in a first century Jewish context. With that said, Jesus and the Jews didn't call 'amniotic fluid' "water", the Jews had no colloquial expression for amniotic fluid, that we have calling it "water". Be careful not to read some kind of Americanism into a first century context!

Darron said that the fluid or water referred to amniotic water; I did not. That is a popular view; possible view, but not my view. The view that we know that is definitely wrong is that baptism refers to water. It doesn't. Nicodemus, a Jew, wouldn't even be thinking about baptism. Baptism was not in the discussion. It does not fit into the context, the discussion, or anywhere.
Water is symbolic, but of what? To answer that question we must use Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture.

However, first the context.
Nicodemus came to Jesus wanting to know about spiritual things.
Jesus answered him, "Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Thus it is important to be born again. Jesus repeats this statement twiice more, making a total of three times stating that "you must be born again." It is important that you understand this fact.

Nicodemus didn't. He was confused. He said: "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born"
This sounds like reincarnation. Perhaps that is what he was thinking about.

But this time Jesus answered: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Note that there are only two agents by which a man is born again: water and the Holy Spirit. We will see through Scripture what the water represents. It must represent something. The Scripture tells us what it means. Keep in mind there are only two agents by which a man can be born again: "water" and the Holy Spirit.

Now Jesus gives a key verse:
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
--You see he does refer to a physical birth--"born of the flesh." Every one of us are born of the flesh. That is how we got into this world. But not every one is born of the Spirit. Thus the necessity of the new birth or of being born again. Jesus reiterates this a third time in verse 7:

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
--It can't be any plainer: You must be born again. So we go back to verse five. We must find out what the "water" means. It does not mean baptism. That doesn't not fit the context or the conversation. So what does it mean.

First what is the purpose of water? What is it used for? One of the most common uses of water is "cleansing." We wash with it.
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--It appears that John is saying that "water" refers to the "Word," after all one cannot be saved without the Word of God, without the Gospel. One must have the gospel in order to be saved. We are cleansed by the Word. Is there other evidence for this?

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
--Notice the words here: It was His will (God's will) that we were born again (begat) with the word of truth (the Word of God). Again the "water" seems to represent the Word of God. We are born again through the Word of God. There are only two agents by which a person is born again. One is the Holy Spirit. The other is the Word of God. Water represents the Word of God. Is there other evidence?

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--Clear irrefutable proof that we are born again by the Word of God. It is through the Word of God and by the Spirit of God that one is born of God. There are only two agents involved in the new birth: the Word of God and the Spirit of God. Thus "water" must refer to the Word of God. The teaching is very plain here. Is there yet more evidence?

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--Verse 12 tells us that we are saved by receiving Christ. That is how we become the children of God. Verse 13 goes on to clarify it even further. It is not by blood (a so-called Christian family or geneology), or the will of the flesh (reformation), or of the will of man (other men's doing such as baptism), but rather is being born of God. It is the new birth.
The new birth consists of being born again through the Word of God and the Spirit of God. There are no other possibilities. The Word is absolutely necessary and so is the Holy Spirit. There are only two agents involved: water and the Spirit. Thus "water" must of a necessity refer to the Word of God. The Bible interprets itself. There is no other logical conclusion to arrive at.