So how should I make my argument? Presently I plan to address the blood and his false view of Baptism on top of it sending him some gospel tracts, perhaps a tract on the Gospel from 9 Marks which I have 2 packs of.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The blood of Christ
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
So how should I make my argument? Presently I plan to address the blood and his false view of Baptism on top of it sending him some gospel tracts, perhaps a tract on the Gospel from 9 Marks which I have 2 packs of.
Hey Jon C the UCC pastor that I was debating with for a while went dead silent after I used the law on him. I hope this COC pastor does not do the same. I am not 100% certain he is lost.
Well, it depends on how you would answer my question at the end of my last post. My experience is with CoC doctrine. Those I know do believe the gospel message, but they believe baptism was their expression of faith through which grace was received. I cannot view them as not saved because that error does not change the fact that they hold on to the gospel message. What I do is simply discuss the issue as between brothers, but I am also careful not to become guilty of judging the servant of Another.
If, however, the man denies the gospel then that is simply what you present. Either way, act in love and kindness. God may use your interaction, even if you don't know it.
Like James, I do not agree that using the Law is appropriate, so I am not the best to advise you here. If I am not mistaking, Icon uses the Law and he also is active in evangelism. Maybe you could pm him for some suggestions.
My suggestion would be to talk about the gospel.
Well he appears to hold to the essentials except he says that he received forgiveness of sins by Baptism.
Also what of his 5 Pt-Arminian views and the doctrine that salvation can be lost? He holds to this theology but this may be more secondary to me. However there are stronger Calvinist that view arminian as lost.
Good plan. Icon is a stronger Calvinist and may view all Arminian as lost. I do not agree with him here.
I think that insisting a person adhere to or reject a philosophical view of free will in order to be saved is a serious sin. We have to be careful not to create stumbling blocks of our own ideas before other people, and we do not have the liberty to add to the gospel.
I was saved without holding the soteriological views I now hold. I have grown and understand more about my Savior and my salvation. So my understanding about the gospel has changed over time BUT my faith in that same gospel has not.
If indeed baptism is the point of present salvation then we dare not leave it out of our preaching of the gospel (that would be preaching another gospel), nor delay baptism for those who are ready, nor compromise on its necessity.
A statement this teacher has made in one of the documents he sent me. Although he claims to deny the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, this statement would appear he does not. Well he argues that Baptism is a part of initial salvation and a part of the salvation process, but Baptism alone does not save.
A statement this teacher has made in one of the documents he sent me. Although he claims to deny the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, this statement would appear he does not. Well he argues that Baptism is a part of initial salvation and a part of the salvation process, but Baptism alone does not save.
No, I think he clearly know's your intent. He's just being his usual self...a jerk. I have him o ignore, but my curiosity gets the best of me some times and I read one of his postings to get a good laugh.
What you're not seeing is the difference between merit and access.
Merit is found in the cross. Jesus paid it, and he seems to believe that.
He has baptism right where millions have
Confess your sin
Give your life to Christ
Pray this prayer
If you want to condemn the guy for trying to access God's grace through baptism (human component), then you must also condemn those who try to access God's grace through asking forgiveness, which is also a human component.
However, the issue will not be made straight unless you are able to demonstrate to him how he is misunderstanding passages like Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, etc and the Holy Spirit opens his eyes to see something he's never seen before.
Your hitting him with Law is anti-scruptural
Last edited:
No its not James! And no I am not condemning him as I already addressed my letter and did not mail that type of tract.
I hope that your dad gets better and wish to say that I appreciate this conversation. I have included two gospel tracts one on the blood, and one on the gospel because I believe that they will refute the following view, which I believe to be in error.
We believe that the Scriptures teach that we are saved by Jesus through faith and that specifically at baptism through faith one receives forgiveness of sins.
It is true that we are saved by faith alone (Eph 2:8-9), however it is not true that Baptism is where our sins are forgiven. Read the gospel tract on the blood for it lists many verses that proves that we receive forgiveness of sins by the blood that was shed on the cross. Also read the tract on the Gospel and refer to the sections I have highlighted. Notice that Gilbert does not include Baptism as a part of faith, as in fact he does not even mention it! Baptism is something that is done in response to ones salvation. In preparation for this letter I have reviewed several systematic theologies and could not find a single instance of saving faith being connected to Baptism. Where do you get your views? Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of Acts 2:38 & Mark 16:16. In Acts 2:38 Peter did not suggest that Baptism be necessary for the forgiveness of sins, rather he was calling people of that generation to get Baptized because that is how they separated themselves from the world. In Mark 16:16 the passage does not say that one has to be baptized to be saved, as condemnation comes from a refusal to believe the gospel, not a refusal to be baptized.
You state in one of your articles the following.
If indeed baptism is the point of present salvation then we dare not leave it out of our preaching of the gospel (that would be preaching another gospel), nor delay baptism for those who are ready, nor compromise on its necessity.
This statement would be condemning my gospel presentation and all the gospel tracts that I use for none state that Baptism is a requirement for salvation. Baptism as I said earlier is what is done in response to one’s salvation but it is not required for salvation. The Moody Handbook of Theology says the following about Baptism. “New Testament baptism had its origin in the command of Christ to make disciples and baptize them (Matt 28:19). In the origination of the ordinance there is a particular order established. The first act was to make disciples, then those disciples were to be baptized. This is the pattern that is carried out in the book of Acts (Enns, 374). Later Enns says that “Baptism means identification and in New Testament baptism involves identification with Christ in his death and resurrection.” So you see in the New Testament the pattern is to come to faith first and then to get Baptized, but it is not Baptism that saves us, nor at Baptism do we receive the forgiveness of sins.
Hope this letter has been of help.
John
We believe that the Scriptures teach that we are saved by Jesus through faith and that specifically at baptism through faith one receives forgiveness of sins.
It is true that we are saved by faith alone (Eph 2:8-9), however it is not true that Baptism is where our sins are forgiven. Read the gospel tract on the blood for it lists many verses that proves that we receive forgiveness of sins by the blood that was shed on the cross. Also read the tract on the Gospel and refer to the sections I have highlighted. Notice that Gilbert does not include Baptism as a part of faith, as in fact he does not even mention it! Baptism is something that is done in response to ones salvation. In preparation for this letter I have reviewed several systematic theologies and could not find a single instance of saving faith being connected to Baptism. Where do you get your views? Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of Acts 2:38 & Mark 16:16. In Acts 2:38 Peter did not suggest that Baptism be necessary for the forgiveness of sins, rather he was calling people of that generation to get Baptized because that is how they separated themselves from the world. In Mark 16:16 the passage does not say that one has to be baptized to be saved, as condemnation comes from a refusal to believe the gospel, not a refusal to be baptized.
You state in one of your articles the following.
If indeed baptism is the point of present salvation then we dare not leave it out of our preaching of the gospel (that would be preaching another gospel), nor delay baptism for those who are ready, nor compromise on its necessity.
This statement would be condemning my gospel presentation and all the gospel tracts that I use for none state that Baptism is a requirement for salvation. Baptism as I said earlier is what is done in response to one’s salvation but it is not required for salvation. The Moody Handbook of Theology says the following about Baptism. “New Testament baptism had its origin in the command of Christ to make disciples and baptize them (Matt 28:19). In the origination of the ordinance there is a particular order established. The first act was to make disciples, then those disciples were to be baptized. This is the pattern that is carried out in the book of Acts (Enns, 374). Later Enns says that “Baptism means identification and in New Testament baptism involves identification with Christ in his death and resurrection.” So you see in the New Testament the pattern is to come to faith first and then to get Baptized, but it is not Baptism that saves us, nor at Baptism do we receive the forgiveness of sins.
Hope this letter has been of help.
John
You have me on ignore because I told you I have not the ability to open your eyes. That's when you called me "bucko"
I live right in the middle of two CoC churches, who are the old school ones. If you're not in the CoC, you're lost. No amount of debating will change their minds. I can be at one church in about 5 mins if I travel one direction and be at the other one in about two minutes if I travel another direction.
Yes he is a false teacher. Anyone who teaches that the blood is not necessary in the redemptive plan of God is preaching heresy. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission.[Hebrews 9:22]
Two observations, brother.
First, "if indeed [water] baptism is the point of present salvation" and we leave it out then it would be preaching another gospel. What he has said there is correct, so the issue is whether or not water baptism is the point of present salvation (and it is not). So to us he adds baptism, as a sacrament, to the gospel message. But to him, we teach another gospel (we leave something essential out).
Secondly, when we speak of baptism regeneration it does often seem that we present them as adding baptism as a work to accomplish salvation. If this is the doctrine of baptism regeneration (that water baptism itself is what regenerates) then he probably does not believe that doctrine. But if by baptismal regeneration we are referring to water baptism as the mode through which God dispenses grace (a sacrament) then that is exactly what he seems to hold.
Do CoC where you live reject forgiveness on the basis of the Cross?
Those around here do not (most of them), but many of the older ones do teach that they are the only ones going to heaven (many of these in my area also hold to Landmarkism, so they have a skewed [almost RCC] understanding of the local church to begin with). But a denial of the gospel is certainly....well....a denial of the gospel. And the Cross is at it's center.
What's not ??
And if you aren't condemning him, why are you sending him tracts? If you think he's a believer, why are you trying to evangelize him?
Depends on the tract. In this case the tract on the blood will help to correct his theology that its "baptism that forgives sins" and the tract on the gospel will correct his view that Baptism should be part of a gospel presentation, as 9 Marks Author Greg Gilbert makes clear in his gospel tract it is not.
This fellow I suspect he is saved, but just has some false views. If I thought he was a false convert or apostate I would have sent a tract on the 10 commandments, and or a tract for false converts/apostates.
http://www.pro-gospel.org/site/blogview2.asp?sec_id=180014816&topic_id=180011348&forum_id=180003854
This blog in in tract form which I regularly mail out to apostates.
Would this view be heretical?
^^^^^ This, Evan. James hit the nail right on the head.
The difference is not one of denying the Cross, or of finding forgiveness in water baptism itself. It is holding baptism as the mode through which God forgives. It is really not different from repenting and believing the gospel message and then praying to invite Jesus into one's heart if it is with the belief that the moment of the prayer is the moment you are saved. Both are misconceptions of the same kind.