Water and Blood

[mman]

Originally posted by ituttut:
True. But something happened. Christ warned His people in a parable that something could happen, so it did not come about. The Apostles never got out Jerusalem.

In what part of Jerusalem is Joppa? Peter did (Acts 9) and it is not recorded about the others.

Don’t you feel you perhaps are adding words to scripture? I don’t find a “water” baptism in verse 5. When you make that incorrect assessment you are then forced to reject another baptism that is done without hands.

Baptism or immersion was always in water, unless modifed by something in the text to show otherwise.

If I say it is raining outside, you don't have to ask what kind of rain? Water or pinecones? Rain means water falling from the sky unless modified by the context. I could say it is raining pinecones under that pine tree and you would understand that it is pinecones, not water, falling from the tree.

Baptism means immersion in water. Baptism is a greek word that was not translated but transliterated. Translated means immersion. Immersion in what? The scriptures clearly indicate water as in Acts 8:36, see here is water, what hinders me from being baptized.

You have to show that it is not water, since water is the common everyday meaning. What from the context makes you think it is not water?

Lets test your theory. Spirit baptism. One is buried then raised. How were you buried in the spirit and raised out of the spirit. If you are still buried, you never were raised. His analogy to the death burial and resurrection doesn't make sense. You didn't obey a form of that (Rom 6:17).

With water baptism, the analogy of how our water baptism is how we obey the death, burial, and resurrection makes perfect sense.

No, I don't have to put the water in Rom 6, you have to take it out.

That is the one that saves, not by one baptizing another.

So, you do not have a new life until you are raised out of the spirit in which you were baptized? That makes no sense.

I Pet 3:21 - Baptism saves us. What kind of baptism Peter? Water. How do I know? Read verse 20. Here it is, "eight souls, were saved through water. 21There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

There is just one baptism (Eph 4:5). Peter plainly tells us it is water baptism. What could be more plain. He goes on to say that the power is not in the water, all it can do is remove the filth of the flesh, but in God.

If the Power comes with water baptism, why is everybody hiding that power that came to those in the times of the Apostles. They, on demand and command could heal the sick, eat or drink anything without untoward effects, move mountains, determine those that lied, and kill them on the spot. I would believe what you say if those things would happen today.

What are you talking about? Who ever claimed that? The purpose of miracles was to confirm the word (Mark 16:20). According to the Hebrew writer, the word was confirmed (Heb 2:3-4). Once confirmed, it doesn't need to be re-confirmed.

The power was never in the water but in God. Col 2:12 shows it is God who is working. Water alone can no more wash aways sins than it can cure leprosy. Yet God has used it to do both.

I don’t believe you have yet acceded to one verse that alludes to the One saving Spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit that saves and seals. Perhaps I wrongly accuse. Do you have such a verse in mind that you can show this One baptism? If not, then you must believe “water baptism” saves, or at least is necessary to your belief in the way salvation is obtained today.

I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. I think I may have answered it above???

I never said we were immersed in the Spirit. We were buried with Jesus Christ in His death by the Holy Spirit, thus all sins are forgiven by the Power of the blood, and we are dead to the law and sin, as God already sees us in the Body of Christ. By the Spirit we will raptured, in our new bodies whether dead or alive.

What were we immersed with? Whatever it was, we were raised up from it. So, with what were we immersed? Baptism is a burial (Col 2:12 and Rom 6) and then we are raised. How did you obey a form of that doctrine (death, burial, and resurrection) in Rom 6:17? Again, the context does not allude to anything that would expect the reader to think that baptism meant anything other than it's common usage of being immersed in water. It is easy to understand how one is raised from the water, but to change the meaning of baptism from it's ordinary usage would then make that not make sense.

True. We are to obey the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, for Christ gave to Paul his dispensational gospel, not before know in time past, and that is the Christian gospel of the Gentile that is saved by the Grace of God, through the faith of Jesus Christ. This gospel cannot be found before Damascus Road. From whom do we find the rapture; the Body of Christ, an Apostle to the Gentile. Not until Saul/Paul. God did just opposite with Paul as He did with Abraham. Abram was a Gentile, and God changed his name from Gentile to Hebrew. With Paul God changed the Hebrew name Saul to Paul, a Gentile name. There is a story there.

I have shown time and time again, it is the same gospel. The people did the same thing to have their sins washed away, the same message was preached. I'm sure you have a good explaination as to why Saul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, but you say he did not preach that same message. You never read about two gospels, only one. I say he preached that exact same message. Acts 19, he asked some followers of Jesus if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. They said, "No", they hadn't heard of the Holy Spirit. Then he asked, Into what were you baptized? They answered into John's baptism. He then baptized them (in Water) in the name of Jesus. (Being baptized for the wrong reason is inadequate). Then he laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Why in the world would Paul baptize them in water? He baptized some of the Corinthians, but his main purpose was to preach and let others do the baptizing. Why were the Corinthians baptized in water at the preaching of Paul?

The same reason the Eunuch was. Preaching JESUS means preaching WATER BAPTISM (Acts 8:35-36).

Paul said there was only one baptism. Again, the common usage must be applied, unless context shows otherwise. It doesn't.

Yes I agree that is the gospel we are to believe, that Jesus was crucified, spilled His blood, buried and resurrected after three full nights and days in the earth. But what has this to do with being saved by “water baptism”? I believe the Word as presented, and when correctly divided.

Simple preaching Jesus means preaching water baptism (Acts 8:35-36)

Do you believe what I wrote above? Or do you believe as the Catholic. You seem to me to be saying you believe “water baptism” saves, and with that would come your belief of what the Catholic believes and just about every church member of all the churches these days. And what is that? That Christ was crucified on a Friday. When we believe that we say Jesus had no idea of what He was talking about. Did He make a mistake and mean 36 hours in the earth? If He did we may as well do away the Bible, for either He didn’t know what He was talking about, or He was a lair.

I believe God uses water to wash away my sins, the same way he used water to cure leprosy. The water, in and of itself, it just water. If water could wash aways sins, then everyone who ever went swimming would have had their sins washed away or every leper who ever dipped in the Jordan river would be cured from their leprosy. Baptism is an act of faith, Gal 3:26-27 and Col 2:12.

I'm not sure what brought this up, but actually, I don't believe Jesus was crucified on Friday. I know I step away from the traditional viewpoint, but the Holy Days were also counted as Sabbath days and there were two Sabbaths that week, one a holy day and one was Saturday. I have alot more on this, but I question the real benefit. I accept that Jesus died, was buried and raised again.

I believe many churches and their member listen to the father of all liars, unknowingly perverting the words Jesus spoke while on this earth. Most all, if not all denominations came out of the “mother” church, and will come to believe what that church deems appropriate for believers to believe.

I'm not sure I disagree very much with that statement at all.

This Eunuch was baptized, but did not receive the Holy Ghost, and he was preached the same message as that of the Samaritans, viz. ”But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” What gospel were they preached? The gospel of the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, and they were baptized, not receiving the Holy Ghost.

Is this the same gospel that Christ revealed to Paul, of believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved? This is salvation into the Body of Christ, we receiving the One spiritual baptism of salvation. Philip preached the Kingdom of God, and not the Kingdom of Christ, of coming through Jesus Christ on the Cross. This is still the kingdom gospel of Pentecost.

Sounds exactly the same as Acts 19. People were baptized and they did not receive the "Holy Spirit" until an apostle laid their hands on them. In Acts 8, Simon tried to buy this ability. Obviously this was miraculous gifts that were being distributed, because Simon could "see" that the Holy Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostle's hands.

Philip preached Jesus which included water baptism (Acts 8:35-36)

 

[Eric B]

Before you ridicule me, maybe you better go back and dig a little deeper.

"He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him Jn. 3:36 - ASV).

The King James translators did not favor us by rendering two different Greek terms by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.

Again in Heb 3:18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient[apeitho]?

This same word is used in I Pet 2:7-8, 3:1,20, 4:17.

What you have here is a case of the KJV rendering it both "believe not", and ""disobedient" elsewhere, and newer versions making it more "consistent" by using "disobedient" everywhere it is used. They went the wrong way! The Greek definition of the word is simply to disbelieve (willfully and perversely). IT is derived from apeithes "unpersuad[e]able (i.e. contumacious). There is nothing there about "obeying" except for how it was translated in some places.
This all the more proves what we are saying, and eliminates many of your own prooftexts! It all the more shows "Obey the Gospel" means "faith"; NOT WORKS!

When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", (Mark 16:16) that is either a true statement or it isn't. Which is it?

Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". Did Peter give them faulty instructions?

So these are all about "believing", and the physical act of baptism is tied to belief, not salvific in itself.

Not true. I'll let the bible speak for itself since these passages clearly teach that we call on the name of the Lord in baptism, the only one working is God, and baptism is an act of faith.

Acts 22:16, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

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

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Calling on the name is something they did while being baptized. You cannot make the synonymous. Tow acts together. Like people today will call on the name when coming down to the altar (which is what has basically replaced baptism today). No one will say walking down to the altar in itself is "calling on the name", or that it saves.

Surely you understand the difference in carrying out instructions and adding to instructions.

If you give your child $10 and send them to the store for milk and bread and they come home with milk and bread and candy, did they carry out your instructions even though you did not expressly forbid them to buy candy?

If they were allowed to buy something for themseves. Usually, my parents would specify "bring back all the change" when they needed all the money for themselves.

How did they get to the store? You didn't specify. It is up to their discrection. They could have walked, ridden a bike, driven a car or any other way as long as you had not given other instructions prohibiting a form of transportation. It didn't matter how they got to the store as long as it didn't conflict with prior guidance and that the came home with the milk and bread.

That's not completely true either. They could expect you to get there and back the fastest way possible (like "go straight to the store").
It depends on other factors such as the overall relationship (whether certain disctretions in different areas are usually allowed). Likewise, we can look elsewhere to see if God allowed instruments, and we see He did. You have never been able to prove that this was rescinded because of the change of the covenants (i.e. that instruments were somehow like sacrifices, and superseded by singing only, like some [platonism-influenced] Church leaders claimed).

How we carry out a command is left the the discretion of man if it is not expressly covered.

We have no authority to add to or change any command. I guess it boils down to our attitude toward scripture.

Every arguement in favor of instruments centers around man wanting to please HIMSELF, not God.

And man pleases himself by making issues wth which to exalt himself over others by claiming they are pleasing God, while others are only pleasing themselves. Most of us grew up in churches with instruments, and never even though of this issue until coming in contact with Campbellists. So we did not just fashion this according to what we want. No one ever saw any principle banning instruments in the New Testament. So once again, it was certain men who rose up making an issue of it, (always connected with some previous bias against others who they saw as sliding into worldliness) with the CofC being the latest group. This is more carnal than anything you accuse us of!

Are you reading what you are writing? It is EXACTLY the same thing! It is an accompaniment not a supplementary act??? I'm sorry, my mental gymnastics are not that great.

Singing - Music authorized by God
Instrumental Music - Additional music ADDED to the singing.

When you are finished you have 2 types of music, one authorized and one added by man.

"supplement" means "replacement", not "addition". IT is not really two types of music, because the iinstruments carry the same melody the singers are singing. (in fact, it helps them keep in tune and in step; which is probably why they were added in the first place).

If you added leavened bread to the unleavened bread.

Unleavened Bread - Bread authorized by God
Leavened Bread - Additional bread added to the unleavened bread.

When you are finished you have two types of bread, one authorized and one added by man.

"Leavened" and "unleavened" are diametric opposites. To specify one excludes the other completely. The whole concept of "leaven" originally, in the Law was that it was to be put away during the Passover, so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven. These are two totally different analogies.

No, Simon was NOT dunked, he was baptized. There is a difference. The inspired word plainly says in Acts 8:13, "Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip,"

The inspired scriptures say he believed and was baptized, not dunked.

I was using "dunked" for "baptized". It obviously didn;t save him, so all he did was get wet.

Did he really believe? If you believe the scriptures, you have to say yes. Was he really baptized? If you believe the scriptures, you have to say yes.

Yet, just a few verses later, Peter told him he was going to perish, his heart was not right in the sight of God, and that he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. How could this believer find himself in this situation?

His attitude and his actions had put him in that situation. Had he suddenly stopped believing in Jesus? No, he thought he could purchase the ability to pass on the Holy Spirit, just like the Apostles.

So his motives were never right to begin with. "Believe" was sometimes used to mean "profess", even though they do not completely understand it, and are operating on a false presumption on what it is. We see this with the Jews in John 8, who Jesus goes on to call "children of their father, the Devil". This does not mean they were briefly saved and then lost it because of works. They believed "in vain", with the wrong motives.

What was the remedy for this baptized believer? Repent and pray (Acts 8:22). This is proof positive that belief alone cannot save. It also shows that after a person has received forgiveness of sin, they can still perish.

No, that was the ultimate proof that BAPTISM was *NOT* what saved, and REPENTANCE was an entirely separate (mental) act that had the final effectiveness in salvation.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:

What you have here is a case of the KJV rendering it both "believe not", and ""disobedient" elsewhere, and newer versions making it more "consistent" by using "disobedient" everywhere it is used.

So now you are in opposition to the translators also. I agree that translators don't always pick the right word or sometimes words change through the years, but when several sets of consistently translate [apeitho] as obey not, I trust their knowledge and not yours.

Look at Heb 3:18-19.

NIV -Heb 3:18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

NKJV - did not obey? 19So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief

NAS - who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

ESV - who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

They went the wrong way!

I'm sure you think they did. Why, because it does not support your position.

So these are all about "believing", and the physical act of baptism is tied to belief, not salvific in itself.

Oh really? When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" he meant to say "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized"? If it were worded this way, you might have a leg to stand on.

When Peter told them to repent and be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins, he should have told them to repent for the remission of sins and then be baptized?

Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, not (hoti) because of. Baptism is for (eis) the same reason that Jesus' blood was shed. Compare Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28 and be sure and check the Greek, since it is the EXACT PHRASE used in both places.

Calling on the name is something they did while being baptized. You cannot make the synonymous. Tow acts together. Like people today will call on the name when coming down to the altar (which is what has basically replaced baptism today). No one will say walking down to the altar in itself is "calling on the name", or that it saves.

So, why did Saul still have his sins? He believed and prayed for 3 days? You might have replaced baptism in your practices, but God never did. In Saul's case, he called on the name of the Lord after baptism (right? since it was two separate acts, it had to be before or after and it is listed after. I say he did it during baptism), but you say you call on the name of the Lord before baptism or in place of baptism, contrary to the biblical example.

Likewise, we can look elsewhere to see if God allowed instruments, and we see He did. You have never been able to prove that this was rescinded because of the change of the covenants (i.e. that instruments were somehow like sacrifices, and superseded by singing only, like some [platonism-influenced] Church leaders claimed).

First of all, God did not allow instruments in the Old Testament, he COMMANDED them. Look at 2 Chronicles 29:25 - He then stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with harps and with lyres, according to the command of David and of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the LORD through His prophets.

So, it was a command from the Lord. Either all the commandments were nailed to the cross or none of them were. That requirement was removed, Col 2:14, "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

OLD TESTAMENT
Animal sacrifices
Human high priest
Physical temple
Fleshly circumcision
Instrumental music (II Chron 29:25, Psa. 150)
Tithing (Heb. 7:5)
Sabbath & holy days

NEW TESTAMENT
Sacrifice of Jesus (Heb. 10:9ff)
Jesus is high priest (Heb. 9:11f)
Spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16)
Heart circumcision (Rom. 2:28f)
Singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)
Give as prospered (1 Cor. 16:1f)
First day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2)

The commands and instructions of the old law are replaced in many cases with those on a higher spriritual plane. In addition to those listed above, a couple more examples are:

Old Law - Don't Murder
New Law - Don't Hate your brother

Old Law - Don't commit adultry
New Law - Don't lust

And man pleases himself by making issues wth which to exalt himself over others by claiming they are pleasing God, while others are only pleasing themselves. Most of us grew up in churches with instruments, and never even though of this issue until coming in contact with Campbellists. So we did not just fashion this according to what we want. No one ever saw any principle banning instruments in the New Testament. So once again, it was certain men who rose up making an issue of it, (always connected with some previous bias against others who they saw as sliding into worldliness) with the CofC being the latest group. This is more carnal than anything you accuse us of!

Just because you grew up doing something doesn't make it right. Why don't you give them up? You don't want to. Again, it comes down to will worship.

"supplement" means "replacement", not "addition". IT is not really two types of music, because the iinstruments carry the same melody the singers are singing. (in fact, it helps them keep in tune and in step; which is probably why they were added in the first place).

Thank you for admitting why they were probably added, to please man.

Supplement does not mean replacement. If you do something to supplement your income, you are "adding" to your income, not replacing it.

It is two types of music. Have you ever heard of accapella music? Is that the same as a symphony if they follow the same tune? Of course not. That is the weakest argument I've EVER heard in support of instrumental music.

One is made by God, the other is made by man.

"Leavened" and "unleavened" are diametric opposites. To specify one excludes the other completely. The whole concept of "leaven" originally, in the Law was that it was to be put away during the Passover, so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven. These are two totally different analogies.

No they are not. One has yeast added and the other does not. All other ingredients are the same, not opposites. If you can see the principle of "so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven", why can't you see the command to sing would exclude the instrumental music. It is the same concept.

I was using "dunked" for "baptized". It obviously didn;t save him, so all he did was get wet.

Why do you say that? He believed and was baptized. Do you not think he really believed? The bible says he believed. Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

I absolutely believe Jesus and that Simon's sins were washed away. Simon also fell quickly into the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness.

So his motives were never right to begin with. "Believe" was sometimes used to mean "profess", even though they do not completely understand it, and are operating on a false presumption on what it is. We see this with the Jews in John 8, who Jesus goes on to call "children of their father, the Devil". This does not mean they were briefly saved and then lost it because of works. They believed "in vain", with the wrong motives.

The bible plainly states he believed. Either he didn't really believe and the bible says he did which would be deceiving, or he believed.

John 8:45 "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me." Jesus made it plain that they did not believe in Jesus. What do people living under the old law have to do with Simon who lived under the new law?

No, that was the ultimate proof that BAPTISM was *NOT* what saved, and REPENTANCE was an entirely separate (mental) act that had the final effectiveness in salvation. [/QB]

Simon was already a Christian, he had believed and was baptized. He was told to repent and pray, so this is the way Christians receive forgiveness, not alien sinners.

 

[Eric B]

So now you are in opposition to the translators also. I agree that translators don't always pick the right word or sometimes words change through the years, but when several sets of consistently translate [apeitho] as obey not, I trust their knowledge and not yours.

Look at Heb 3:18-19.

NIV -Heb 3:18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

NKJV - did not obey? 19So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief

NAS - who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

ESV - who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They went the wrong way!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure you think they did. Why, because it does not support your position.

The word means "disbelieve". It doesn't matter how anyone translates it. That is what the Greek word was. They can't change that; I can't change that and you can't change that. (You argue over "NT worship", and "man's additions", but trust man's translational additions because it supports your position!)
"Beliveing" is a form of "obeying". If you're told to "believe" something, and you believe it; you have OBEYed! The trasnlators probaly realized this, and didn't count on legalists coming and taking it to support their ideas. Sorry, but you cannot get physical works into this.

Oh really? When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" he meant to say "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized"? If it were worded this way, you might have a leg to stand on.

When Peter told them to repent and be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins, he should have told them to repent for the remission of sins and then be baptized?

Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, not (hoti) because of. Baptism is for (eis) the same reason that Jesus' blood was shed. Compare Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28 and be sure and check the Greek, since it is the EXACT PHRASE used in both places.

It doesn't matter which ORDER it was said in. (That only comes up now with people trying to prove baptism as saving in itself). They were simultaneous. But clearly, it was the faith that saved; not the physical act.

So, why did Saul still have his sins? He believed and prayed for 3 days? You might have replaced baptism in your practices, but God never did. In Saul's case, he called on the name of the Lord after baptism (right? since it was two separate acts, it had to be before or after and it is listed after. I say he did it during baptism), but you say you call on the name of the Lord before baptism or in place of baptism, contrary to the biblical example.

Why do you say that? He believed and was baptized. Do you not think he really believed? The bible says he believed. Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

I absolutely believe Jesus and that Simon's sins were washed away. Simon also fell quickly into the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness.

Then he was never "Saved" to begin with. If his sins were "washed away", be would still be condemned for sin. We do not fall in and out of "salvation", based on works (which nobody does enough of anyway). Else, we are no better off than in the OT, only we have changed the works. That is NO GOSPEL (good news) at all!

The bible plainly states he believed. Either he didn't really believe and the bible says he did which would be deceiving, or he believed.
Simon was already a Christian, he had believed and was baptized. He was told to repent and pray, so this is the way Christians receive forgiveness, not alien sinners.

I just explained to you above that "believing" was "in vain", meaning they were never saved. For Simon, the bapotism did NOT A THING for him, and when he was told to repent; he was not told to be baptized again. They "Accepted" and "professed" Christ on a false premise --the Jews, that He was bringing in a physical kingdom, and not saving them from their sins, which they were completely ignorant of; and Simon, that he could buy the power of the Spirit for his own misuse. He was plotting this ulterior motive from the beginning. You think that was GENUINE faith?!

John 8:45 "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me." Jesus made it plain that they did not believe in Jesus. What do people living under the old law have to do with Simon who lived under the new law?

OH NO? Look at v. 30, and 31, and afterwards. They "believed" in one sense, but it was not real belief.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by mman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ituttut:
He tells us that in chapter 1. It was the “troublers” from the Jews in Judah. They were telling those saved by the Grace of God, through faith, that they had to be circumcised just as they, for the Gentile must come as the Jew, with their law, ordinances, Holy Days, blood sacrifices, and all the rest. The Galatians are weak in the faith, but it is those that teach Works of the flesh of any sort, that are to be detested. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

Exactly. The old law was nailed to the cross taken out of the way (Col 2:14) and by work of the old law can no one be justified (Gal 2:16).

They were childern by faith because they had been baptized and Paul makes that clear in Gal 3:26-27. </font>[/QUOTE]The “troublers” are of the kingdom gospel, as they believe only those to enter must be circumcised. So that is that other gospel that is the same, but different than we that have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.

Your Gal. 3:26-27 reference is to us, and not to them, for their salvation is different entering into the kingdom other than throughJesus Christ.
Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

[Eric B]

Correction:

If his sins were "washed away", be would still be condemned for sin.

If his sins were "washed away", he would NOT still be condemned for sin.
Continuing:

First of all, God did not allow instruments in the Old Testament, he COMMANDED them. Look at 2 Chronicles 29:25 - He then stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with harps and with lyres, according to the command of David and of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the LORD through His prophets.

So, it was a command from the Lord. Either all the commandments were nailed to the cross or none of them were. That requirement was removed, Col 2:14, "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

Yes, it was nailed to the Cross as a COMMANDMENT. We're not arguing if it is commanded or not; but whether it is forbidden simply because it is not commanded. Since you want to go this way, perhaps the whole principle in the examples your side keeps mentioning of what is not commanded is forbidden was "nailed to the Cross" as well!

OLD TESTAMENT
Animal sacrifices
Human high priest
Physical temple
Fleshly circumcision
Instrumental music (II Chron 29:25, Psa. 150)
Tithing (Heb. 7:5)
Sabbath & holy days

NEW TESTAMENT
Sacrifice of Jesus (Heb. 10:9ff)
Jesus is high priest (Heb. 9:11f)
Spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16)
Heart circumcision (Rom. 2:28f)
Singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)
Give as prospered (1 Cor. 16:1f)
First day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2)

The commands and instructions of the old law are replaced in many cases with those on a higher spriritual plane. In addition to those listed above, a couple more examples are:

Old Law - Don't Murder
New Law - Don't Hate your brother

Old Law - Don't commit adultry
New Law - Don't lust

Scriptures plainly teach that 5 of the 7 things in that first list were replaced by the second list. With giving, it doesn;t explicitly say that a tenth is replaced, but the principle of "as propspered" would supersede the command for a tenth. They are contradictory. One is a definite amount, and the other is variable.
But your side has shown no scriptural correlation at all that instruments were a shadow of a-capella singing.
And here's something else I just realized. Since "singing" and "instruments" are supposed to be so contradictory or diametrically opposite; like leavened vs. unleavened; then if they used instruments in the OT; they must not have sang! Are you willing to argue that there was no singing of the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in the OT, but only playing of melodies? If not; then we see right there that "sing" and "instruments" are not mutually exclusive.

Just because you grew up doing something doesn't make it right. Why don't you give them up? You don't want to. Again, it comes down to will worship.

You are talking what you do not know. It's not about what I want. I could care less about having instruments in service. I could care less about the standard organized "service". I have told you this about 3 times already. My point was not what people want, but the fact that it was already that way for us, so it was not like the Churches were all a-capella, and we decided we liked instruments, and brought them in.
We don't give them up because we seen no scriptural reason to. It's just an issue that some rise up (1 John 2:19, Acts 20:30) and argue over, for no other reason than pride (1 Tim.6:4). So why don't you give up this time-wasting, unfruitful argument? You don't want to. It's your will worship! (Ha, Ha, we worship this way; we are better than all of you!)

Thank you for admitting why they were probably added, to please man.

That's not to please man; rather that was for an "expedient" reason (To help people keep the notes and rhythm).

Supplement does not mean replacement. If you do something to supplement your income, you are "adding" to your income, not replacing it.

The way I was thinking of it, it is an "addition" that CHANGES the original thing completely. When we work on a supplement train schedule; it changes everyone's normal leaving times, and often route, etc.)

It is two types of music. Have you ever heard of accapella music? Is that the same as a symphony if they follow the same tune? Of course not. That is the weakest argument I've EVER heard in support of instrumental music.

Still, the instruments are an accompaniment. It doesn't in any way take away from or change the singing. In fact, it can possibly help it!

One is made by God, the other is made by man.

Now that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. We write songs and sing them; how is that "made by God", any more than an instrument? (any material we make them with is also made by God).

No they are not. One has yeast added and the other does not. All other ingredients are the same, not opposites. If you can see the principle of "so of course unleavened would exclude the leaven", why can't you see the command to sing would exclude the instrumental music. It is the same concept.

But the distinction between them is solely that one ingredient. Therefore, they are opposite. Leaven CHANGES the other ingredients. Instruments do not change the singing.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The word means "disbelieve". It doesn't matter how anyone translates it. That is what the Greek word was. They can't change that; I can't change that and you can't change that. (You argue over "NT worship", and "man's additions", but trust man's translational additions because it supports your position!)

Language changes. I'm sure you understand that. I am not a greek scholar and never claimed to be one. To get the intended meaning, I will often consult several translations, some new and some old. They don't just get people off the street with a greek bible dictionary to do the translations. It's unfortunate that some translated 2 different greek words into the same english word. A distinction was obscured. There is so much more evidence for what I believe, that of course it does not hinge on this one verse.

[quote"Beliveing" is a form of "obeying". If you're told to "believe" something, and you believe it; you have OBEYed! The trasnlators probaly realized this, and didn't count on legalists coming and taking it to support their ideas. Sorry, but you cannot get physical works into this.[/quote]

Ok, what about Acts 2:44, what had those believers?

What is your definition of physical works?

It doesn't matter which ORDER it was said in. (That only comes up now with people trying to prove baptism as saving in itself). They were simultaneous. But clearly, it was the faith that saved; not the physical act.

What? It doesn't matter which order? Maybe baptism is for the remission of sins. Why did Peter say baptism was for (eis) the remission of sins?

Compare Acts 3:19 to Acts 2:38
Repent=Repent
Be Converted=Be Baptized
That your sins may be blotted out=For the remission of sins

Being baptized and being converted are the same.


[/QUOTE]Then he was never "Saved" to begin with. If his sins were "washed away", be would still be condemned for sin. We do not fall in and out of "salvation", based on works (which nobody does enough of anyway). Else, we are no better off than in the OT, only we have changed the works. That is NO GOSPEL (good news) at all! [/QUOTE]

So you are saying he didn't really believe when the bible says he did?


The bible plainly states he believed. Either he didn't really believe and the bible says he did which would be deceiving, or he believed.

[/QUOTE]I just explained to you above that "believing" was "in vain", meaning they were never saved. For Simon, the bapotism did NOT A THING for him, and when he was told to repent; he was not told to be baptized again. [/quote]

Exactly, he was not told to be baptized again, because he already had been baptized. If he had not really been baptized, then there would have been instructions for him to be baptized just like the rest of those in Samaria.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Simon was not told to believe again or be baptized again because he had already done these. He was told to repent and pray, instructions never given to an alien sinner.

Yes people can believe in vain, because belief alone cannot save, otherwise it would be IMPOSSIBLE to believe in vain.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Yes, it was nailed to the Cross as a COMMANDMENT. We're not arguing if it is commanded or not; but whether it is forbidden simply because it is not commanded. Since you want to go this way, perhaps the whole principle in the examples your side keeps mentioning of what is not commanded is forbidden was "nailed to the Cross" as well!

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, but I think I understand.

Worship is to be according to truth (John 4:24). God's word is truth (John 17:17). Man cannot teach his doctrine or precepts as truth (Matt 15:9), because that would result in vain worship. That principle is throughout the bible, not an Old Testament principle only.

Scriptures plainly teach that 5 of the 7 things in that first list were replaced by the second list. With giving, it doesn;t explicitly say that a tenth is replaced, but the principle of "as propspered" would supersede the command for a tenth. They are contradictory. One is a definite amount, and the other is variable.
But your side has shown no scriptural correlation at all that instruments were a shadow of a-capella singing.
And here's something else I just realized. Since "singing" and "instruments" are supposed to be so contradictory or diametrically opposite; like leavened vs. unleavened; then if they used instruments in the OT; they must not have sang! Are you willing to argue that there was no singing of the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in the OT, but only playing of melodies? If not; then we see right there that "sing" and "instruments" are not mutually exclusive.

No it doesn't mean that at all. The passover meal was a shadow of the Lord's supper. That doesn't mean that the two are opposites. Unleavened bread is included in both. So was the fruit of the vine because that was present when Jesus instituted the Lord's supper. They also had roast lamb, but Jesus is our passover lamb.

In the old law, they had singing, no doubt, and instrumental music. Under the new law we have singing and the only strings that are plucked are the heart strings.

You are talking what you do not know. It's not about what I want. I could care less about having instruments in service. I could care less about the standard organized "service". I have told you this about 3 times already. My point was not what people want, but the fact that it was already that way for us, so it was not like the Churches were all a-capella, and we decided we liked instruments, and brought them in.

It doesn't sound like you could care less. The simple fact is that SOMEBODY introduced them. It may not have been you or your parents, but somebody did, because they were not present in the early church and they are where you worship, so SOMEBODY did.

Those that came after, accepted them, for the same reason they were introduced. They like them and don't see anything wrong with it. However, when they were initially introduced, it caused much division, and is still a point of division today.

We don't give them up because we seen no scriptural reason to. It's just an issue that some rise up (1 John 2:19, Acts 20:30) and argue over, for no other reason than pride (1 Tim.6:4). So why don't you give up this time-wasting, unfruitful argument? You don't want to. It's your will worship! (Ha, Ha, we worship this way; we are better than all of you!)

I'll tell you why I don't give up. Because I love you and I am concerned. If I didn't think you were important and this was important, do you think I would waste my time?

That's not to please man; rather that was for an "expedient" reason (To help people keep the notes and rhythm).

The early church didn't need them for that reason, why do you? It is not an "expedient" it is an addition. You end up with 2 types of music when only vocal is authorized.

Still, the instruments are an accompaniment. It doesn't in any way take away from or change the singing. In fact, it can possibly help it!

Help it? In whose eyes (or ears) would it be helped? Who are we trying to please, Man or God? God has authorized singing. Why do you feel you need to help God by adding other music that is not authorized?

Now that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. We write songs and sing them; how is that "made by God", any more than an instrument? (any material we make them with is also made by God).

Maybe it's only the most ridiculous because you do not understand. Singing comes from the heart, not a sheet of paper. Our singing comes from us, not something made with hands.

Our voices are made by God. We use our voices to sing praises to his name, not with something made with hands, but from our heart.

Singing is not words on paper, but the words that come from our heart. It is the fruit of our lips.

But the distinction between them is solely that one ingredient. Therefore, they are opposite. Leaven CHANGES the other ingredients. Instruments do not change the singing.

So again you make the argument that it would be ok to use grape jelly and other fruit juices in addition to the Lord's supper, because none of the ingedients are changed, just added to. Why would anyone want to add to the Lord's supper. To make it taste better? Why would anyone want to add instruments? To make the singing better?

Again, who are we trying to please? Ourselves or God.

 

[Eric B]

Language changes. I'm sure you understand that. I am not a greek scholar and never claimed to be one. To get the intended meaning, I will often consult several translations, some new and some old. They don't just get people off the street with a greek bible dictionary to do the translations. It's unfortunate that some translated 2 different greek words into the same english word. A distinction was obscured. There is so much more evidence for what I believe, that of course it does not hinge on this one verse.

I forgot to mention, that the "two words" are simply variations. one is "pisteuo", the other is a [without, non]+ pistos (trustful).

Ok, what about Acts 2:44, what had those believers?

"All that believed had all things in common". What doies this have to do with anything. It is telling us something that those who "believed" did; but it does not say anythign about "obey"

What is your definition of physical works?

Something that we physically DO, such as go down into a pool of water (even if you argue that it is done to us).

What? It doesn't matter which order? Maybe baptism is for the remission of sins. Why did Peter say baptism was for (eis) the remission of sins?

Compare Acts 3:19 to Acts 2:38
Repent=Repent
Be Converted=Be Baptized
That your sins may be blotted out=For the remission of sins

Being baptized and being converted are the same.

No; one represented the other; so they could be spoken of as the same thing.

So you are saying he didn't really believe when the bible says he did?


The bible plainly states he believed. Either he didn't really believe and the bible says he did which would be deceiving, or he believed.

I explained what "believed" meant. Once again; do you really think his "believing" with it's ulterior motive was saving faith?

Simon was not told to believe again or be baptized again because he had already done these. He was told to repent and pray, instructions never given to an alien sinner.

Yes people can believe in vain, because belief alone cannot save, otherwise it would be IMPOSSIBLE to believe in vain.

He was told to REPENT; which in that case, meant to believe for the right reason.

Will get back later.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
"All that believed had all things in common". What doies this have to do with anything. It is telling us something that those who "believed" did; but it does not say anythign about "obey"

What does that have to do with it? They had believed, repented and had been baptized (Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41), then refered to as "those who believed" in verse 44.

Look how the verb pisteuo is used in the book of Acts.

Pisteuo is found some thirty-nine times in Acts. In the ASV, it is rendered by such English terms as believe, believed, and believers.

A careful study of the use of this verb in Acts will show that in many instances “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.

On the question,"What is your definition of physical works?", you replied,

Something that we physically DO, such as go down into a pool of water (even if you argue that it is done to us).

That would include confession, since that is something we physically "do".

By your definition, you might could slide repentance as a work.

Something you CANNOT do is show from the scriptures where baptism is a work. By your definition, you would have to say, By work, Noah prepared an ark. The bible say, by faith, Noah prepared an ark.

By faith, the walls of Jericho fell. You would have to say, by work, the walls of Jericho fell. That is wrong. They fell by faith. Was obedience required. Yes. Did they pound the walls down? No. Did their marching cause an earthquake? No. God did the work. You do not understand biblical faith.

Gal 3:26=27 Through faith we are the childern of God because we have been baptized.

Of course, Col 2:12 tells us it is God that is doing the work. No matter what you say, this does not change the clear teaching of this verse.

No; one represented the other; so they could be spoken of as the same thing.

It's easy to say, "No", where's your proof. What scriptures do you have that back up what you say. Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19 are saying the same thing, just using different words.

Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins so that is why he could use the word converted in Acts 3:19.

You do not have one verse to show that baptism is NOT for the remission of sin.

I explained what "believed" meant. Once again; do you really think his "believing" with it's ulterior motive was saving faith?

I think he believed just like the other people of Samaria. The bible says he believed and I believe the bible.

He was told to REPENT; which in that case, meant to believe for the right reason.

Will get back later.

Repent means to believe or believe for the right reason? Where did that come from. No, repent means to change or turn towards God.

The believers in Acts 2 were told to repent (Acts 2:38). They had not believed for the wrong reason. They had believed for the right reason. They were told to repent because they had not done that yet. That was a prerequisite for baptism, which was for the remission of their sins.

Nothing in the text indicates that Simon did not really believe or that he was not a proper subject for baptism.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

Simon also believed. Also? Who else believed? The Samarians. Simon believed just like the Samarians. How long until the Apostles showed up and began bestowing the Holy Spirit by the laying on of their hands?

It doesn't say. It would have taken some time for word to travel back to Jerusalem. It was probably several weeks or months. That is beside the point. The scriptures say Simon ALSO believed and was baptized.

 

[Eric B]

Worship is to be according to truth (John 4:24). God's word is truth (John 17:17). Man cannot teach his doctrine or precepts as truth (Matt 15:9), because that would result in vain worship. That principle is throughout the bible, not an Old Testament principle only.

Just remember that that was spoken before the Cross, at Jews who added their own precepts to the Law. Once again, when we come into the NT, we do not simply trade one Law for another, so the "rules" for worship are not as tight as it was back then. So your restrictions on instruments are more of "commandments of men" than us using them!

No it doesn't mean that at all. The passover meal was a shadow of the Lord's supper. That doesn't mean that the two are opposites. Unleavened bread is included in both. So was the fruit of the vine because that was present when Jesus instituted the Lord's supper. They also had roast lamb, but Jesus is our passover lamb.

Nobody suggested that the OC practices were "opposites" of the NC practices,. You had compared unleavened bread with leavened bread, in terms of substitutiong one for the other in the Lord's Supper. Those are opposites, not a "shadow" of one another. (both of which were used in both testaments).

In the old law, they had singing, no doubt, and instrumental music. Under the new law we have singing and the only strings that are plucked are the heart strings.

But you have not proven this assertion. And now you make it sound like the singing ("no doubt") and "instrumental music was separate, or something, so that singing always means singing only, and instruments were always apart of some other production. No, the Bible can refer to music as singing and/or instruments with both being used in the same pieces.

It doesn't sound like you could care less.

I don't respond because it is some personal issue with me; but because when men rise up in the Church with unbiblical issues read into scripture, we are to challenge it. If you're saying we're wrong, then we should either change if we are, or prove that we're not wrong. So us responding to you does not prove that we're only trying to protect our own selfish "wants", or whatever. But now you need to prove that your (CofC/Campbellism) whole raising of the issue is not your own carnal one-upmanship (using a ridiculous issue to put down other christians).

The simple fact is that SOMEBODY introduced them. It may not have been you or your parents, but somebody did, because they were not present in the early church and they are where you worship, so SOMEBODY did.

Because there was no BAN on instruments, but probaly a variety of factors as to why they were not mentioned. If it is true that they weren't used; as it was said, it could have been because they were mostly hiding and on the run, and in people's homes, and didn't have many skilled musicians (and maybe instruments were costly for the average person back then), so they weren't needed. Then, when persecution ended, and the Church got its own buildings, and other signs of power, then some introduced them, seeing that the barrier to them had been removed. Others by that time had developed a Platonistic outlook on the world, (worship was to be somber and almost mournful, and joy/liveliness was carnal) and then took the former lack of instruments as some "rule" of the NT "spiritual worship", which they tried to read back into the NT (between the lines), and opposed them.
Whatever the case, there was no ban in the NT; no NT teaching that they were OT shadows of singing only-worship, and no issue made of it at all. Iw we really want to claim to follow the NT and "be silent where it is silent", then we will cease making such a ban, and following the paganized Medieval Church, which we reject on so many other issues developing then (Mary, real presence, infant baptism, monoepiscopacy, etc).

Those that came after, accepted them, for the same reason they were introduced. They like them and don't see anything wrong with it. However, when they were initially introduced, it caused much division, and is still a point of division today.

You want to throw charges of man and their selfish preferences; this takes two sides. Men opposed it because they didn't like them, because they had gnostic ideas about worship and liveliness, an instead of turning to the Bible to see if their ideas were scriptural; they simply read them into the Scriptures, and then up came these "bans" from between the lines that one could nowhere find in them otherwise. Today, people take any issue to cause division and prove they are the true Church. You are appealing to every [human] other authority except the Bible for your rule. You need to just admit that this is YOUR preference, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

I'll tell you why I don't give up. Because I love you and I am concerned. If I didn't think you were important and this was important, do you think I would waste my time?

If you are suggesting by this that I am lost (and hence you need to be "concerned" about me) just because of a doctrine of instruments (as well as being in "the true Church"), then you need to be concerned about yourself (as we are about you). You are trusting in a gospel of works--unbiblical ones at that--which is no gospel at all! It's not even like we're arguing over basic morality (adultery, killing, stealing, etc). This is what Jesus said the "vain worship" was.
No, this isn't for us, this is for you, because you get to see yourself as the lone preacher trying to "resue' all of us apostate Christians from all our false worship, and other things that have us condemned--just like every other cult leader. Since salvation is by faith in Christ, a person then must rraise up all of these other issues in irder to prove that he alone has the truth. I know; because I used to be into sabbatarianism (which has a much stronger case than this), and when I was shown how that was false, I realized how it was all about pride (being better than others); not God, nor concern for all those other souls.

The early church didn't need them for that reason, why do you? It is not an "expedient" it is an addition. You end up with 2 types of music when only vocal is authorized.

Help it? In whose eyes (or ears) would it be helped? Who are we trying to please, Man or God? God has authorized singing. Why do you feel you need to help God by adding other music that is not authorized?

Maybe it's only the most ridiculous because you do not understand. Singing comes from the heart, not a sheet of paper. Our singing comes from us, not something made with hands.

Our voices are made by God. We use our voices to sing praises to his name, not with something made with hands, but from our heart.

Singing is not words on paper, but the words that come from our heart. It is the fruit of our lips.

All of this has just implicated song books as well.

So again you make the argument that it would be ok to use grape jelly and other fruit juices in addition to the Lord's supper, because none of the ingedients are changed, just added to. Why would anyone want to add to the Lord's supper. To make it taste better?

Once again; there is evidence in Cor. that that may have been a meal beyond just wine and crackers, (which themselves may have been used as an illustration of any food and drink) and while this is somewhat speculatory, it is still therefore not a good example. It would not be to taste better, but because it was simply a meal!

Why would anyone want to add instruments? To make the singing better?

Again, who are we trying to please? Ourselves or God.

Why wouldn't that please God? If instruments were so displeasing to God; then you would have to take the argument (of some of those Church leaders who opposed them) that He simply "allowed" them in the OT, because of the "hardness of their hearts" like He did divorce, and other things. But there is no proof of that. So why assume that it only pleases man, and not God?

 

[Eric B]

What does that have to do with it? They had believed, repented and had been baptized (Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41), then refered to as "those who believed" in verse 44.

Look how the verb pisteuo is used in the book of Acts.

Pisteuo is found some thirty-nine times in Acts. In the ASV, it is rendered by such English terms as believe, believed, and believers.

A careful study of the use of this verb in Acts will show that in many instances “believing” is a summary term that embraces all of the conditions inherent in the divine plan of salvation, including the command to be immersed in water.

Ocea gain, "believing" is MANIFEST by works. But the works by themselves do not make the act of "believing".

That would include confession, since that is something we physically "do".

Not really; because hypothetically, if comeone picks up the Gospel, and believes it without coming in contact with another person, bhe is saved even though he didn't "confess". So "confess" is a visible sign of faith, like baptism. (hence the altar call replacing it in modern evangelism). But ultimately, it is about what is received in the heart. Then, we would ask, why wouldn;t one then go and show it, through confession, baptism, etc.? But yet again, whatever visible sign is a manifestation of faith, not faith itself.

By your definition, you might could slide repentance as a work.

NO; because this is done in the heart. The, like, or as apart of faith; it is to be manifest in a changed life.

Something you CANNOT do is show from the scriptures where baptism is a work. By your definition, you would have to say, By work, Noah prepared an ark. The bible say, by faith, Noah prepared an ark.

That once again was "faith" MANIFEST in a work. If one of those wicked people in that day had buit their own ark, would they have been "saved by faith" as well?

By faith, the walls of Jericho fell. You would have to say, by work, the walls of Jericho fell. That is wrong. They fell by faith. Was obedience required. Yes. Did they pound the walls down? No. Did their marching cause an earthquake? No. God did the work. You do not understand biblical faith.

No, YOU don't. You think it is something we DO, rather than something we RECEIVE; and THEN do things, out of gratitude, because we love Him. (John 14:15-21, 1 John 4:19)
Walls do not have faith. But the people did; and obeyed out of faith, and then God rewarded them with voctory. This is so simple, yet you have to try to make something else out of it!

Gal 3:26=27 Through faith we are the childern of God because we have been baptized.

Of course, Col 2:12 tells us it is God that is doing the work. No matter what you say, this does not change the clear teaching of this verse.

Once again, faith manifest through a work. And God does the spiritual "work" of saving us, or making us His children; something we cannot do ourselves.

It's easy to say, "No", where's your proof. What scriptures do you have that back up what you say. Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19 are saying the same thing, just using different words.

Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins so that is why he could use the word converted in Acts 3:19.

You do not have one verse to show that baptism is NOT for the remission of sin.

You are just not getting it. Baptism was a SIGN of something that takes place in the heart. Once again, Simon should have been saved regardless of his heart ocndition, then, if it is just the water that saves.

I think he believed just like the other people of Samaria. The bible says he believed and I believe the bible.

You don't believe it. It says his "belief" was of an ulterior motive. That's why all the baptismal water int he world could not save him. But you have to deny this, because your whole doctrine falls apart on it.

Repent means to believe or believe for the right reason? Where did that come from. No, repent means to change or turn towards God.

If a person PRETENDS to "believe" and change his lifestyle (which anyone can do), then he has not really REPENTED. His heart is stillt he same. there are such things as "tares", remember (i.e. those in the congregations who were false believers).

The believers in Acts 2 were told to repent (Acts 2:38). They had not believed for the wrong reason. They had believed for the right reason. They were told to repent because they had not done that yet. That was a prerequisite for baptism, which was for the remission of their sins.


Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

Simon also believed. Also? Who else believed? The Samarians. Simon believed just like the Samarians. How long until the Apostles showed up and began bestowing the Holy Spirit by the laying on of their hands?

It doesn't say. It would have taken some time for word to travel back to Jerusalem. It was probably several weeks or months. That is beside the point. The scriptures say Simon ALSO believed and was baptized.

Nothing in the text indicates that Simon did not really believe or that he was not a proper subject for baptism.

Not at the time of baptism. But later, his real motive became evident, and it was clear he had not repented, but was only trying to USE the power of the Holy Spirit for his own selfish gain. Like many false preachers today.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Just remember that that was spoken before the Cross, at Jews who added their own precepts to the Law. Once again, when we come into the NT, we do not simply trade one Law for another, so the "rules" for worship are not as tight as it was back then. So your restrictions on instruments are more of "commandments of men" than us using them!

John 4:21Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Does this sound like it was for the Jews? He was talking to a Samaritan woman. Jesus said, “the hour is coming”, meaning that this would also apply in the future. He also said, “and now is” indicating that it was true when he said it. True worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

That implies there will be false worshipers, who do not worship in spirit and in truth?

What is truth? God’s word is truth (Jn 17:17). Since God authorized singing as the type of music in worship, and I sing, is that according to truth?

So, if I use the authorized music of the New Testament, I am more guilty of “teaching as doctrine the commandments of men” than if I use non authorized instrumental music that the early church did not use.

Quite frankly, I fail to see the logic in that.

You claim our rules for worship are not as tight as it was back then. That should be easy to show through the scriptures, if true.

This is way off the topic of this thread. I would like to return to the original intent of this thread. If you want to open another thread for this topic, I would be more than happy to participate.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
You are just not getting it. Baptism was a SIGN of something that takes place in the heart.

You're right, I don't get that. I read that baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) not a sign that they have already been forgiven. Where do you ever read that it was a "sign"?

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
No, YOU don't. You think it is something we DO, rather than something we RECEIVE; and THEN do things, out of gratitude, because we love Him. (John 14:15-21, 1 John 4:19) Walls do not have faith. But the people did; and obeyed out of faith, and then God rewarded them with voctory. This is so simple, yet you have to try to make something else out of it!

Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days.

OK, you have correctly ruled out that it was not the wall's faith? So whose faith was it?

Those who obeyed.

I agree, this is simple. God gave them a command, they believed and obeyed. The bible calls this faith.

You say faith is something you receive and then actions result out of gratitude and love.

The bible says "by faith" the walls of Jericho fell. They could have "believed" all they wanted, but that would have NEVER resulted in the walls falling down.

Without the action, it is not faith, only belief. Without the obedience, it is a dead fatih (belief only) as James tells us.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". When we obey, we do it because we believe God. That is how we are , "all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

According to this, how does one get INTO Christ? When is one clothed with Christ? Before baptism? Is one saved before he puts on Christ?

and

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

So, you see, we really are "saved through faith" as Eph 2:8-9 so plainly states.

 

[Eric B]

Does this sound like it was for the Jews? He was talking to a Samaritan woman. Jesus said, “the hour is coming”, meaning that this would also apply in the future. He also said, “and now is” indicating that it was true when he said it. True worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

That implies there will be false worshipers, who do not worship in spirit and in truth?

Like Simon. That's why I don't see why you didn't see that point. You think he was a true worshipper just because he wwent through the motion of being baptized.

What is truth? God’s word is truth (Jn 17:17). Since God authorized singing as the type of music in worship, and I sing, is that according to truth?

So, if I use the authorized music of the New Testament, I am more guilty of “teaching as doctrine the commandments of men” than if I use non authorized instrumental music that the early church did not use.

Quite frankly, I fail to see the logic in that.

You are the one giving a command God never gave. He never commanded instruments, but we do not command them or say hHe commanded them. The issue is are they forbidden or commanded to be omitted. It is only MEN in the early church and afterwards who commanded that. Therefore it is a commandment of men.

You claim our rules for worship are not as tight as it was back then. That should be easy to show through the scriptures, if true.

Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days.

OK, you have correctly ruled out that it was not the wall's faith? So whose faith was it?

Those who obeyed.

I agree, this is simple. God gave them a command, they believed and obeyed. The bible calls this faith.

You say faith is something you receive and then actions result out of gratitude and love.

The bible says "by faith" the walls of Jericho fell. They could have "believed" all they wanted, but that would have NEVER resulted in the walls falling down.

Without the action, it is not faith, only belief. Without the obedience, it is a dead fatih (belief only) as James tells us.

Faith is believing God enough to do whatever He tells you. In the Old Testament, works were emphasized more, but while some were faithful and did what God said; especially in the particular one time commands we see illustrated in these examples, overall, men did not keep God's commands, and God really demanded perfection. Just like it may be possible to have dead "belief" without works; it is also possible to have "dead works" without faith. Peoplewent through the motions, thinking that doing those works saved them (like Simon), but their hearts still weren't right. Since no one was perfect; those who ended up justified were those who obeyed in faith (so we see they are still two separate items). Since no one does all the works God commands consistently or perfectly,then salvation cannot be tied to any one work; or ACT (since you try to challenge the designation of the word "works"). You yourself admit that we are not perfect, so it is about "faithfulness". So then it can't be by any particular work. It also can't be by an amount of works, else, you would have to have a "cutoff line, where "OK, that's one sin too many; salvation revoked until you repent again".

You're right, I don't get that. I read that baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) not a sign that they have already been forgiven. Where do you ever read that it was a "sign"?

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". When we obey, we do it because we believe God. That is how we are , "all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

According to this, how does one get INTO Christ? When is one clothed with Christ? Before baptism? Is one saved before he puts on Christ?
Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

So, you see, we really are "saved through faith" as Eph 2:8-9 so plainly states.

He is in Christ when he believes. Believing back then was accompanied by baptism. In reality, he was saved as soon as he believed, before baptism. But nobody could really see that until he was actually baptized, so that was looked at as the actual act of getting into Christ. Nobody sat and picked it all apart arguing "was he saved by the water, or before?" To the watching world, he entered Christ when he went down into the water. But once again, there were tares (like Simon) who went through the motion, but did not really repent. Rather than them actually being saved, and then losing it when their true motives became evident (as if people's view of him was what made him saved or revoked it), he was never saved then.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Like Simon. That's why I don't see why you didn't see that point. You think he was a true worshipper just because he wwent through the motion of being baptized.

No, I think he was a true worshipper because the BIBLE says he also believed and was baptized. He obviously repented from being a sorcerer, because in verse 9 of Acts 8 it plainly states, "who previously practiced sorcery". To say that he did not "really" believe, did not "really" repent, or was not "really" baptized is to oppose what is written. I understand the necessity of some to say that he didn't, but the scriptures say he did.

Going through the motions or for the wrong reason would not produce a valid baptism. What is the remedy? Being baptized properly or for the right reason. To show this point, in Acts 19, we have some followers of Jesus who were baptized under John's baptism (still immersed in water) and when Paul found out, he had them baptized again.

If Simon had not been "really" baptized, he would have been instructed to be baptized again, just as Paul did in Acts 19. However, that is not the case. To say otherwise, is to inject into the text, what is not there.

You are the one giving a command God never gave. He never commanded instruments, but we do not command them or say hHe commanded them. The issue is are they forbidden or commanded to be omitted. It is only MEN in the early church and afterwards who commanded that. Therefore it is a commandment of men.

Your logic would allow for anything not prohibited, i.e., grape jelly with the unleavened bread. For anyone to say that is not acceptable is to give a command that God did not give us. Therefore it is a commandent of men. Therefore, the door is wide open and anything not expressly prohibited is acceptable, by your logic. Again, I would like to keep this about the "water and the blood". If you want to start another thread that is fine.

Faith is believing God enough to do whatever He tells you. In the Old Testament, works were emphasized more, but while some were faithful and did what God said; especially in the particular one time commands we see illustrated in these examples, overall, men did not keep God's commands, and God really demanded perfection. Just like it may be possible to have dead "belief" without works; it is also possible to have "dead works" without faith. Peoplewent through the motions, thinking that doing those works saved them (like Simon), but their hearts still weren't right. Since no one was perfect; those who ended up justified were those who obeyed in faith (so we see they are still two separate items). Since no one does all the works God commands consistently or perfectly,then salvation cannot be tied to any one work; or ACT (since you try to challenge the designation of the word "works"). You yourself admit that we are not perfect, so it is about "faithfulness". So then it can't be by any particular work. It also can't be by an amount of works, else, you would have to have a "cutoff line, where "OK, that's one sin too many; salvation revoked until you repent again".

What I think you are confusing is the difference in getting into Christ and walking in Christ. There is only one way into Christ. The bible makes this clear. It is even simple. The instructions are easy to follow. Following the instructions do no earn you anything. Are the instructions optional? No. Unless you repent, you shall likewise perish (Lk 13:3). Does this sound optional? We know we can't obey perfectly, so it must be alright to miss a few things. Right? No, repentance is not optional. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Do either of these sound optional? No. How about repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Does that sound optional? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16). Does that sound optional if he wants his sins washed away? It doesn't to me.

He is in Christ when he believes.

So you must have some scripture to back this statement. Lets look at a biblical example. In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to them and they were cut to the heart. If they did not believe, they would not have been cut to the heart. They would have gone about their business, thinking those men were crazy or really were drunk.

No, the people in Acts 2 believed. Were they saved at that point, before they even ask Peter what to do? According to your statement, the answer would have to be "YES". How about after they asked the question in Acts 2:37, "What shall we do?". Were those believers saved then? What would have been your answer to those people in Acts 2? Oh, you don't have to "DO" anything. You are believers and since you have already been saved, you need to be baptized to show that you are already saved. If Peter had given that answer, then your answer would have some merit.

However, Peter told them to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for (eis) the remission of sins". Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, not belief.

If one is really saved at the point of belief, then he is saved prior to repentance, for who would repent who did not believe. If one is saved at belief, then he is saved prior to confession, for who would confess in what he did not believe. If one is saved at the point of belief then he is saved prior to baptism, for who would be baptized if they did not believe. The bible teaches none of this.

Believing back then was accompanied by baptism. In reality, he was saved as soon as he believed, before baptism. But nobody could really see that until he was actually baptized, so that was looked at as the actual act of getting into Christ.

I cannot get your statement to agree with Gal 3:26-27. It doesn't say it looks like we are baptized into Christ. It says we "have been baptized INTO Christ." It does not say that when we are baptized it looks like we are baptized INTO Christ, but you are really put INTO Christ when you believe.

Baptism is not for others to "SEE" to know that you believe or you are really saved. Nowhere is that concept even alluded to in the New Testament. If that were the case, then baptism would have taken place with many present to witness. However, baptism always took place immediately, even during the middle of the night, sometimes with only 2 present (Philip and the Eunuch). Philip and the Eunuch went their separate ways, therefore, those living around the Eunuch did not witness his baptism and it was not a sign for any person.

If a person is saved at belief, what does Peter really mean when he said baptism was for the remisison of sins in Acts 2:38? I know that it can't mean what it says. All 3000 who obeyed understood exactly what he said. For someone to attempt to twist the meaning of this passage would be to imply that all 3000 people who were baptized understood that Peter really meant "hoti" when he said "eis".

Nobody sat and picked it all apart arguing "was he saved by the water, or before?"

I agree with that statement. They all understood baptism was for (eis) the remisison of sins and that is why it took place at the first available opportunity.

To the watching world, he entered Christ when he went down into the water. But once again, there were tares (like Simon) who went through the motion, but did not really repent. Rather than them actually being saved, and then losing it when their true motives became evident (as if people's view of him was what made him saved or revoked it), he was never saved then.

I've already addressed this. Your statements do not agree with what is revealed in the circumstances surrounding Simon in Acts 8. He also believed (Acts 8:13). Does that mean the others didn't really believe?

You sure use a lot of words without any scripture. You say, were saved at belief, but do all the scriptures support this idea? You say belief puts us into Christ, but do all the scriptures support this idea. I can only find 2 passages that tell us how to get "INTO" Christ.

 

[Eric B]

No, I think he was a true worshipper because the BIBLE says he also believed and was baptized. He obviously repented from being a sorcerer, because in verse 9 of Acts 8 it plainly states, "who previously practiced sorcery". To say that he did not "really" believe, did not "really" repent, or was not "really" baptized is to oppose what is written. I understand the necessity of some to say that he didn't, but the scriptures say he did.

Let's take a step back. This was in response to your statement that there would be false worshippers. If people can "worship" falsely; they can "believe" falsely! If I took your line of reasoning; I would day, "no; I believe the Bible, when it says they worshipped, so they were not false. They simply turned from worshipping". But that is not what it says!
The context clearly shows; that while he may have "formerly" practiced sorcery (as if that alone proved he was saved); he now simply plotted to manipulate the power of the Holy Spirit in its place! Note v.13 18, 19, where he was watching Philip, and eveutally approacehd Peter, and was totally focused on "miracles and signs", just like he was using under sorcery. He smply wanted a greater, divine power to continue his old practice with! This was not genuie belief; but rather the same "belief" of those Jews in John 8, who Christ said were "f [their] father, the Devil". You are taking a word in our common use of it and refusing to see its full range of uses in the Bible!

Going through the motions or for the wrong reason would not produce a valid baptism. What is the remedy? Being baptized properly or for the right reason. To show this point, in Acts 19, we have some followers of Jesus who were baptized under John's baptism (still immersed in water) and when Paul found out, he had them baptized again.
If Simon had not been "really" baptized, he would have been instructed to be baptized again, just as Paul did in Acts 19. However, that is not the case. To say otherwise, is to inject into the text, what is not there.

You have it completely backwards! Those baptized under John were not baptized for a wrong reason or motive. They were baptized by an OT prohpet for a right reason; but the true Christ whom he pointed to was here, and has superseded John, as both Jesus and John himself had testified! So they needed to be baptized into Christ. On the other hand, we have a person who went through the motions of being baptized in Christ, but with an ulterior motive, which is exposed by the apostles. He has no need to be baptized again, but to repent of his evil plans (which would mean accepting Christ truly in his heart; and not as a genie to continue his bewitching of people) is what he now needs to do, thus proving baptism is not the key to salvation.

Your logic would allow for anything not prohibited, i.e., grape jelly with the unleavened bread. For anyone to say that is not acceptable is to give a command that God did not give us. Therefore it is a commandent of men. Therefore, the door is wide open and anything not expressly prohibited is acceptable, by your logic.

And by your logic, we can't have song books either. Once again, you take the liberty for yourself to decide for us what is "expedient" or not. We really must look at the situation to determine what is a supplement, and what is a compliment (basically). And once again; I showed you a possible case (in which Communion is a general meal) where other foods could be allowed. It depends on how we understand it. If we assume that communion was a specific special ceremony of "unleavened bread and wine", then that would automatically exclude anything else. If we understand it as a meal, of which elements of the Passover Seder Christ and His apostles partook, were used as the first example of (and the fact that people could be glottonous of it is an evidence of this), then other things are allowed.

Again, I would like to keep this about the "water and the blood". If you want to start another thread that is fine.

We were arguing both issues in the "Denominations" thread, and even a "baptism" thread, but one died down, and the other went on past that, so it is consolidated here. It is all the same methods of interpreting scripture your group uses anyway, so the issues are very much related.

What I think you are confusing is the difference in getting into Christ and walking in Christ. There is only one way into Christ. The bible makes this clear. It is even simple. The instructions are easy to follow. Following the instructions do no earn you anything. Are the instructions optional?

Yes it does earn you. Be baptized; and then you are saved from Hell by being in Christ. That is earning, through an act we DO. Read Rom.4:4,5 on this.
To you "being in Christ" really doesn't mean anything, because you are quickly out of Him by not continuing to "walk in Him" through works. (as you claim with Simon!)

No. Unless you repent, you shall likewise perish (Lk 13:3). Does this sound optional? We know we can't obey perfectly, so it must be alright to miss a few things. Right? No, repentance is not optional.

Repentance is a total change of our minds, that begins to change our acts. It is not about missing or not missing a few things. That only becomes a person's focus when he places his salvation on things he does.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Do either of these sound optional? No. How about repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Does that sound optional? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16). Does that sound optional if he wants his sins washed away? It doesn't to me.

But you are so focused on the "baptism" part of it; you can't see that that is only something that accompanies "believe"/"repent". Never do we see baptism by itself. That is why, as DHK has always pointed out; Christ did not have to say "He sho does not believe, and is not baptized shall not be saved". Clearly, the focus is on believe with baptism being a [visble] accompaniment, and not the other way around! Remember, your favorite passage on "faith without works" says "I will show you my faith BY my works" (James 2:18), not "I will show you my works to prove they are gaining salvation for me".

So you must have some scripture to back this statement. Lets look at a biblical example. In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to them and they were cut to the heart. If they did not believe, they would not have been cut to the heart. They would have gone about their business, thinking those men were crazy or really were drunk.

Not yet; because in 7:54, another group of people were also "cut to the heart"? Were they "believing"? No; quite the opposite; they gnash their teeth and then go on to stone Stephen! "cut to the heart" is the initial felling of conviction by the Spirit, and we can still react to it in one of two ways: believing, or resisting! Sorry, as much as you accuse me of not using scripture; all you are doing is picking out of them words and statements without even checking contexts and other uses of them, which completely disprove your points. The argument becomes basically on what scripture does not teach moreso than what it does, anyway.

No, the people in Acts 2 believed. Were they saved at that point, before they even ask Peter what to do? According to your statement, the answer would have to be "YES". How about after they asked the question in Acts 2:37, "What shall we do?". Were those believers saved then? What would have been your answer to those people in Acts 2? Oh, you don't have to "DO" anything. You are believers and since you have already been saved, you need to be baptized to show that you are already saved. If Peter had given that answer, then your answer would have some merit.

However, Peter told them to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for (eis) the remission of sins". Baptism is for (eis) the remission of sins, not belief.

They needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved. The group in ch.7 DID something aftert their conviction; but that they did SHOWed that they were not converted. The same with Simon. And I would have to go partly along with the person who pointed out that this was different than today; because as we see in the account of Simon, people were baptized but still had not received the Spirit. That was accomplished by the laying on of hands. So in this initial period when the apostles were still alive, and the NT not yet written and circulated; we had this physical process of being baptized and having apostles and their helpers laying hands on people to bring them into Christ. But this would not continue on forever. It was a special instance in Acts. Just like Church of Christ does not believe any of the other spiritual "gifts" recorded then continue to the present.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody sat and picked it all apart arguing "was he saved by the water, or before?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with that statement. They all understood baptism was for (eis) the remisison of sins and that is why it took place at the first available opportunity.

If one is really saved at the point of belief, then he is saved prior to repentance, for who would repent who did not believe. If one is saved at belief, then he is saved prior to confession, for who would confess in what he did not believe. If one is saved at the point of belief then he is saved prior to baptism, for who would be baptized if they did not believe. The bible teaches none of this.

I cannot get your statement to agree with Gal 3:26-27. It doesn't say it looks like we are baptized into Christ. It says we "have been baptized INTO Christ." It does not say that when we are baptized it looks like we are baptized INTO Christ, but you are really put INTO Christ when you believe.

Once again, you are picking it apart to prove youir point. Don't forget, Christ said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is
in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Matt.10:32,3) If a person truly believes; he will confess. He is saved at the point he believes, and then he is to confess and obey by being baptized. If he refuses to confess and be baptized; he shows he must not have believed in any true sense.

Baptism is not for others to "SEE" to know that you believe or you are really saved. Nowhere is that concept even alluded to in the New Testament. If that were the case, then baptism would have taken place with many present to witness. However, baptism always took place immediately, even during the middle of the night, sometimes with only 2 present (Philip and the Eunuch). Philip and the Eunuch went their separate ways, therefore, those living around the Eunuch did not witness his baptism and it was not a sign for any person.

He's showing (confessing Christ before) the person who is baptizing him. That is apparently enough. Otherwise; if it is all about water; a person should have been able to baptize himself.

If a person is saved at belief, what does Peter really mean when he said baptism was for the remisison of sins in Acts 2:38?

Baptism was the approved sign of receiving Christ, which applied His blood to them, which is what paid for their sins.

I know that it can't mean what it says. All 3000 who obeyed understood exactly what he said. For someone to attempt to twist the meaning of this passage would be to imply that all 3000 people who were baptized understood that Peter really meant "hoti" when he said "eis".

I have never argued between those two words. Still, even with "for", you can't contradict the rest of the Gospel by having the remission of sins tied to this single act IN ITSELF, istead of it simply accompanying the acceptance of Christ into one's life.why would one be baptized? Because it was to accompany believing, which placed him in Christ, and gained him remission of sins. So therefore, they can speak of "baptism for the remission of sins". But it was not simply a token act which BY ITSELF, or perhaps with "belief" accompanying it, gains you remission of sins. That is completely backwards.

I've already addressed this. Your statements do not agree with what is revealed in the circumstances surrounding Simon in Acts 8. He also believed (Acts 8:13). Does that mean the others didn't really believe?

If they walked in Christ, they would have shown themselves to have truly believed! You, focusing on BAPTISM, are trying to take that whole instance of baptism down, with Simon, so that if he didn't really believe; then none of them baptized with him did. Salvation is purely an INDIVIDUAL matter. Their salvation depends on what each individual did with the truth they were given. This one person had an evil ulterior motive, and proved he was not really believing, but rather trying to gain power for himself; which he had already been doing (i.e. "his old life"). That has nothing to do with all of the others dipped into the same pool with him.

You sure use a lot of words without any scripture. You say, we're saved at belief, but do all the scriptures support this idea? You say belief puts us into Christ, but do all the scriptures support this idea. I can only find 2 passages that tell us how to get "INTO" Christ.

On one hand, they are so basic they should be easily remembered; but then on the other hand, they get swept aside when we do give them to you; and you conter them with these other scripotures that you havge interpreted to prove your point. How about the basic "BELIEVE on the Lo9rd Jesus Christ; and you shall be saved"? (Acts 16:31). You jump right to the baptism in v.33, and then using v.34 try to redefine belief as "baptism" itself! (or if it wasn't you who did that, it was one of the others). But he didn;t say "be baptized into Christ and you shall be saved", so even though that may have accompanied belief; it still was not the FOCUS, or actual act that brought salvation. Then, we have all the other scriptures, such as "by grace are you saved, through faith...not of works", that do not even mention baptism. But all of these you somehow strech to bring back to baptism. (usually bt redefining "faith" and "works"). So as I said, it is more about what scriptures do not teach, so quoting them over and over to you does not even do any good! (Especially when I am often in a rush, and it takes a half hour or more to make one of these posts).

 

[Eric B]

[double post due to initial incomplete load]

 

[mman]

Originally posted by EricB
You have it completely backwards! Those baptized under John were not baptized for a wrong reason or motive. They were baptized by an OT prohpet for a right reason; but the true Christ whom he pointed to was here, and has superseded John, as both Jesus and John himself had testified! So they needed to be baptized into Christ. On the other hand, we have a person who went through the motions of being baptized in Christ, but with an ulterior motive, which is exposed by the apostles. He has no need to be baptized again, but to repent of his evil plans (which would mean accepting Christ truly in his heart; and not as a genie to continue his bewitching of people) is what he now needs to do, thus proving baptism is not the key to salvation.

Those baptized under John’s baptism prior to the new law absolutely did it for the right reason, but those baptized under John’s baptism, after Pentecost, were not valid. Where did these men learn about John’s baptism? Most likely from Apollos (Acts 18:25).

And by your logic, we can't have song books either. Once again, you take the liberty for yourself to decide for us what is "expedient" or not. We really must look at the situation to determine what is a supplement, and what is a compliment (basically). And once again; I showed you a possible case (in which Communion is a general meal) where other foods could be allowed. It depends on how we understand it. If we assume that communion was a specific special ceremony of "unleavened bread and wine", then that would automatically exclude anything else. If we understand it as a meal, of which elements of the Passover Seder Christ and His apostles partook, were used as the first example of (and the fact that people could be glottonous of it is an evidence of this), then other things are allowed.

Again, you cannot distinguish the difference between carrying out a command and adding to a command. The authorized music is singing. If I sing from memory, when I get through, the only music I have is singing. If I use a song book, when I get through, the only music I still have is singing. If I use an overhead projector so everyone can see the words, when I get through, I only have singing. If I use a piano, then the music I have is singing and unauthorized instrumental music. Using a song book and piano is not the same thing.

Again, I would like to keep this about the "water and the blood". If you want to start another thread that is fine.

Yes it does earn you. Be baptized; and then you are saved from Hell by being in Christ. That is earning, through an act we DO. Read Rom.4:4,5 on this.
To you "being in Christ" really doesn't mean anything, because you are quickly out of Him by not continuing to "walk in Him" through works. (as you claim with Simon!)

NO IT DOESN’T!!! And you cannot show through the scriptures where baptism is a work of merit. It simply can’t be done, because it isn’t. People continue to make these baseless claims without even ONE scripture as a reference to support their statements.

Here’s what the bible says, “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” – Col 2:12

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” – Gal 3:26-27

But you are so focused on the "baptism" part of it; you can't see that that is only something that accompanies "believe"/"repent". Never do we see baptism by itself. That is why, as DHK has always pointed out; Christ did not have to say "He sho does not believe, and is not baptized shall not be saved". Clearly, the focus is on believe with baptism being a [visble] accompaniment, and not the other way around! Remember, your favorite passage on "faith without works" says "I will show you my faith BY my works" (James 2:18), not "I will show you my works to prove they are gaining salvation for me".

Baptism is always associated with something. In some cases it is belief (Mk 16:16), repentance (Acts 2:38), or confession (Acts 8:36-37). Never in any case does baptism come after salvation, remission of sins, or rejoicing.

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.” – Mark 16:16

This verse tells us plainly what is required for salvation and what is required of condemnation. So, basically, do you think Jesus meant “He that believeth is saved and shall be baptized”, when he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”???

Yes, there are other verses that deal with each of these subjects, and it all must be taken into account.

Not yet; because in 7:54, another group of people were also "cut to the heart"? Were they "believing"? No; quite the opposite; they gnash their teeth and then go on to stone Stephen! "cut to the heart" is the initial felling of conviction by the Spirit, and we can still react to it in one of two ways: believing, or resisting! Sorry, as much as you accuse me of not using scripture; all you are doing is picking out of them words and statements without even checking contexts and other uses of them, which completely disprove your points. The argument becomes basically on what scripture does not teach moreso than what it does, anyway.

Ok, so the believers in Acts 2:37 were not saved, yet. We both agree.

They needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved. The group in ch.7 DID something aftert their conviction; but that they did SHOWed that they were not converted. The same with Simon. And I would have to go partly along with the person who pointed out that this was different than today; because as we see in the account of Simon, people were baptized but still had not received the Spirit. That was accomplished by the laying on of hands. So in this initial period when the apostles were still alive, and the NT not yet written and circulated; we had this physical process of being baptized and having apostles and their helpers laying hands on people to bring them into Christ. But this would not continue on forever. It was a special instance in Acts. Just like Church of Christ does not believe any of the other spiritual "gifts" recorded then continue to the present.

What? The believers had to “show” their belief before they were saved. The only way to show something is by “doing” which would be works, according to your definitions. You are teaching salvation by works, right?

Only the Apostles could pass along the spiritual gifts as seen in Acts 8:18. Philip could not pass it along, if so, there would have been no need for the Apostles to show up and Acts 8:18, makes no sense. Philip then was called away and preached Jesus to the Eunuch and the Eunuch was baptized in water. Nobody laid their hands on him and he went on his way rejoicing. The two acts are separate. Just because one was done away doesn’t mean the other one was.

Once again, you are picking it apart to prove youir point. Don't forget, Christ said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is
in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Matt.10:32,3) If a person truly believes; he will confess. He is saved at the point he believes, and then he is to confess and obey by being baptized. If he refuses to confess and be baptized; he shows he must not have believed in any true sense.

Here, you said a person is saved at the point of belief, but those believers in Acts 2:47, you said weren’t yet saved, because they “needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved.”

John 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

I know this was under the old law, but it clearly shows that one can believe without confession. Is that believer saved?

I have never argued between those two words. Still, even with "for", you can't contradict the rest of the Gospel by having the remission of sins tied to this single act IN ITSELF, istead of it simply accompanying the acceptance of Christ into one's life.why would one be baptized? Because it was to accompany believing, which placed him in Christ, and gained him remission of sins. So therefore, they can speak of "baptism for the remission of sins". But it was not simply a token act which BY ITSELF, or perhaps with "belief" accompanying it, gains you remission of sins. That is completely backwards.

Repentance with Baptism is either for (eis) the remission of sins or because (hoti) the remission of sins. The bible says it is for (eis). In fact it says that repentance with baptism is for the same reason as the shedding of Jesus blood. Both were done “eis aphesin hamartion” – For the remission of sins.

Are you saying that you reject that repentance with baptism is “for” – (eis) the remission of sins because that contradicts your other beliefs? The other option is repentance and baptism is because your sins have already been forgiven. Surely nobody believes that one repents because their sins are already forgiven. To try and make it mean something else, let the mental gymnastics begin.

Repentance with baptism for the remission of sins does NOT contradict the rest of the Gospel. It is in complete harmony with the rest of the Gospel. It only conflicts when we try to make faith mean “believe”. When we understand faith as seen in Heb 11, it all fits perfectly. However, when we think we are saved by belief only, then it takes some major league mental gymnastics to try and explain away the clear verses dealing with baptism.

Repentance with Baptism is “for the remission of sins”.(Acts 2:38)
Baptism, a burial, is “through faith”. (Col 2:12, Gal 3:26-27)
Baptism puts us “into Christ”. (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)
Baptism puts us into the Church. (I Cor 12:13)
Baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16)
Baptism saves us (I Pet 3:21)
Baptism is how we obey the Gospel (Gospel is death, burial, and resurrection according to I Cor 15:1-4) as seen in Rom 6:3-4, 17.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16)
Baptism is a work of God not man (Col 2:12)

Of course, baptism must be accompanied by belief, repentance and confession; otherwise, you are not following God’s instructions or examples.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned. – Mark 16:16. Here is a verse so simple; one HAS to have help to MISUNDERSTAND it. There is not one verse in the New Testament that contradicts this verse or negates this verse.