The blood of Christ

[evangelist6589]

Debating with a teacher who thinks that we receive forgiveness of sins by Baptism. Looking at scripture this is not the case as I have many passages that teach otherwise. However this teacher has a PHD and teaches Bible at a University. But no matter I still say he is wrong. He agreed to read some gospel tracts on the topic I will send him so I will be sending my best tracts on the cross to him and will make an argument for the blood which I believe he denies since he thinks that it's Baptism that forgives sins.

Would he be a false teacher holding to this doctrine? If so perhaps I better also use the law.

 

[JamesL]

Is this thread meant to be a joke?

 

[evangelist6589]

Is this thread meant to be a joke?

This may seem to be a joke to some, but the blood is no joke. This teacher may never admit that he denies the blood, but when he makes statements like this "I do firmly believe that the Bible teaches that at baptism is where God has ordained that one receives forgiveness of sins if he or she has faith in the power of God to cleanse at that point" it sure does look like he denies that the blood forgives sins.

Well he agreed to read some tracts I will send on the blood, and I will also do a study on Baptism using Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology and also the Moody Handbook of Theology.

 

[JamesL]

The part that seems like a joke is where you say you're debating a professor of scripture, and you're gonna send him a tract? And hit him with a good dose of Law?

May I dare say that he's almost a lock to know the "Big 10" already. And I doubt you're gonna pack a punch with any kind of tract.

Here's what I read into your OP:

"I'm in a debate where I am totally unprepared, I totally lack any understanding of his position, I have no idea how to counter his arguments, I don't comprehend any of the scripture he'll quote, but never fear...I've got tracts"

 

[evangelist6589]

The part that seems like a joke is where you say you're debating a professor of scripture, and you're gonna send him a tract? And hit him with a good dose of Law?

May I dare say that he's almost a lock to know the "Big 10" already. And I doubt you're gonna pack a punch with any kind of tract.

Here's what I read into your OP:

"I'm in a debate where I am totally unprepared, I totally lack any understanding of his position, I have no idea how to counter his arguments, I don't comprehend any of the scripture he'll quote, but never fear...I've got tracts"

You read that because you have completely misunderstood my OP.

 

[evangelist6589]

The part that seems like a joke is where you say you're debating a professor of scripture, and you're gonna send him a tract? And hit him with a good dose of Law?

May I dare say that he's almost a lock to know the "Big 10" already. And I doubt you're gonna pack a punch with any kind of tract.

Here's what I read into your OP:

"I'm in a debate where I am totally unprepared, I totally lack any understanding of his position, I have no idea how to counter his arguments, I don't comprehend any of the scripture he'll quote, but never fear...I've got tracts"

Also never underestimate the power of the law. Law to the proud and grace for the humble always....

 

[JamesL]

Also never underestimate the power of the law. Law to the proud and grace for the humble always....

The proud one usually understands the Law quite well, and mistakenly thinks he's able to keep it.

By the way, when is the last time you visited Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost? That's part of the Law, too.

 

[tyndale1946]

The proud one usually understands the Law quite well, and mistakenly thinks he's able to keep it.

By the way, when is the last time you visited Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost? That's part of the Law, too.

I would send him these verses from Peter which states what Baptism really is use more verses if you like... Weather he understands it or not is up to him but being a teacher with a Phd and a teaches at a Bible University sounds to me like he is still in the milk of doctrine and not into meat?... He should have left that along time ago!... I'm only saying... Brother Glen

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Ask him about the Thief on the cross and also ask him about 1 Corinthians 1:17, I would also chain reference 1 Corinthians 1:17 with 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul says we are saved by the Gospel in 1 Cor 15, and then in 1 Cor 1 he says he came not to baptize but to preach the Gospel, there is a distinction made by Paul between the Gospel and Baptism. Also you can compare baptism to Abraham's circumcision in Romans chapter 4.

 

[evangelist6589]

The proud one usually understands the Law quite well, and mistakenly thinks he's able to keep it.

By the way, when is the last time you visited Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost? That's part of the Law, too.

Moral law.

 

[evangelist6589]

Ask him about the Thief on the cross and also ask him about 1 Corinthians 1:17, I would also chain reference 1 Corinthians 1:17 with 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul says we are saved by the Gospel in 1 Cor 15, and then in 1 Cor 1 he says he came not to baptize but to preach the Gospel, there is a distinction made by Paul between the Gospel and Baptism. Also you can compare baptism to Abraham's circumcision in Romans chapter 4.

I will add that to my letter. The gospel tract on the blood has a ton of verses in its defense.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Well Evan, you can present the Gospel, but the problem is that they believe Baptism is what applies the blood of Christ to their hearts. So if you send them verses that just show that Christ's blood takes away sin they will probably just agree with you. I know because my sister believes this false doctrine.

You have to refute the false belief.

 

[JamesL]

....So if you send them verses that just show that Christ's blood takes away sin they will probably just agree with you.....

You have to refute the false belief.

I agree.

It's not baptism vs. blood, it's baptism vs. faith.

It's not an issue of merit, which he will undoubtedly agree is the grace of God manifest in Christ's work on the cross.

It's a matter of access, which is through faith. Grace us not accessed through baptism, or a heinous sinner's prayer, or the man-centered "turn from sin", or obeying laws, or anything of the sort. Those are all satanic attempts to reduce righteousness to something we can attain.

It's a matter of enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, who brings HOPE in Christ alone.

 

[JamesL]

Moral law.

I've never seen that distinction taught in scripture. Can you tell me where in the bible I can find it?

 

[evangelist6589]

Well Evan, you can present the Gospel, but the problem is that they believe Baptism is what applies the blood of Christ to their hearts. So if you send them verses that just show that Christ's blood takes away sin they will probably just agree with you. I know because my sister believes this false doctrine.

You have to refute the false belief.

Do you think they are false converts?

 

[evangelist6589]

I've never seen that distinction taught in scripture. Can you tell me where in the bible I can find it?

Oh dear wrong debate. Do not have time to debate this one for the 500th time.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Do you think they are false converts?

I wouldn't say false converts, I would simply say just plain lost in false religion.

 

[evangelist6589]

I agree.

It's not baptism vs. blood, it's baptism vs. faith.

It's not an issue of merit, which he will undoubtedly agree is the grace of God manifest in Christ's work on the cross.

It's a matter of access, which is through faith. Grace us not accessed through baptism, or a heinous sinner's prayer, or the man-centered "turn from sin", or obeying laws, or anything of the sort. Those are all satanic attempts to reduce righteousness to something we can attain.

It's a matter of enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, who brings HOPE in Christ alone.

I plan to make an argument in a letter and also send tracts.

My argument will address the blood and Baptism. So you are saying I need to deal with Baptism vs Faith? Think I should send them a tract for false converts/apostates?

 

[evangelist6589]

Well Evan, you can present the Gospel, but the problem is that they believe Baptism is what applies the blood of Christ to their hearts. So if you send them verses that just show that Christ's blood takes away sin they will probably just agree with you. I know because my sister believes this false doctrine.

You have to refute the false belief.

There is a helpful section on Baptism and false views of it in the Moody Handbook of Theology that I will use.

 

[JonC]

I agree.

It's not baptism vs. blood, it's baptism vs. faith.

It's not an issue of merit, which he will undoubtedly agree is the grace of God manifest in Christ's work on the cross.

It's a matter of access, which is through faith. Grace us not accessed through baptism, or a heinous sinner's prayer, or the man-centered "turn from sin", or obeying laws, or anything of the sort. Those are all satanic attempts to reduce righteousness to something we can attain.

It's a matter of enlightenment by the Holy Spirit, who brings HOPE in Christ alone.

That is the difference, I believe. Most I have spoken with firmly believe that salvation is of grace and not works. The misunderstanding often presented in opposition to baptismal regeneration is that somehow the view equates to salvation by works. This simply is not so, but they do hold baptism as a mode through which both faith is expressed and grace (forgiveness) received. I do not know that I can fully agree that such is an attempt to reduce righteousness to something we can attain simply because baptismal regeneration does not exclude divine grace (indeed, it depends on it). But it is an error which adds sacrament to the gospel itself.

That said, if a man repents and believes, does holding a false understanding that his faith expressed through baptism is the means through which He was forgiven (in the case of the CoC, even this on the ground of the Cross) nullify his "salvation"?