Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Baptismal Regeneration (revisited)


Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Members


So, coc333, when does a person actually become regenerated, that is, pass from death to life? At the moment of faith? At the praying of a prayer? At the moment of baptism? Somewhere in between? It's all well and good to say that these things (which IMO are all metaphors for the same thing) all "save" a person, but perhaps we're not being precise enough with our speech here. What say you?


A person is saved at the point which the Bible states that he is. Let us simply look at what God's Word says. Mark 16:16 says that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved....." Notice it does not say that he that believeth and is saved shall be baptized. Now just wait and see, someone will protest that the second half only says that :he that believeth not shall be damned" and says nothing about baptism. Two prOBlems: 1. this argument simply ignores what Christ said in the first part of the statement and 2. one who does not believe will benefit nothing from being immersed in water. Romans 6:3ff teaches us that we are buried through baptism (the dead is buried) and that we then rise a new creature (are then alive spiritually).

The Bible speaks for itself. We would all do so much better if we would simply listen to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

It seems to me that I am seeing a debate between that I have come to understand is CoC doctrine or tenets and Baptist (IFB if you like) with the CoC folks asking what we believe and then sitting out to show/prove us wrong. Kinda of like the new kid on the block determining that now his is the way and only way to believe. As to the translators, if what they did outside of the translating and how we came to understand the truth of the KJB because of the translating, meaning now people had the Word of God to go to rather than some man's interpretation. Are we to say because because Westcott and Hort were wicked and nonbelievers we should be too.
beatdeadhorse.gif

Paul was told that he would be told in what he was to do after his conversion on the Damascus road, after he got to Damascus not what he had to do to be saved. Peter said, "...repent , (comma) and be baptized ..." then Acts 2 goes on to say, 3000 were baptized and added to the church not just 3000 saved. Even in every instance of Christ preaching or teaching not all in attendance responded in conversion, as a matter of fact He rebuked those that disagreed with Him.

I don't believe in baptism as part of salvation, (what do you do about the thief on the cross), what happens to the individual that can't be baptized (car wreck, heart attack, the CoC baptistry is broken, being cleaned ...) are they then condemned or is there special circumstances?


Jim, I asked a question about IFB so that I might learn what the IFB believe and teach. I asked honestly and am thankful that people answered me. I was asked a question and did my best to answer it with and honest heart. I do not apologize for that.

What would you have me to do when someone does ask me a question? Am I to tell them something I do not believe? Am I to tell them that though they have a question I will not answer? If someone wishes to ask me a question through private message, I will be happy to answer in that mode but if they ask me here I can do nothing but answer honestly.

I do not understanding your issue with KJV. I will say that I do use the KJV myself.

Paul was not converted on the road to Damascus. Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26 clearly demonstrate this fact.
The comma is not in the original. I understand your position on the KJV and will simply leave that issue alone. Again, I use the KJV myself.

I am missing the distinction you are making with 3,000 being baptized and added to the church and not just 3000 saved. Acts 2:47 clearly shows that we are added to the church at the point of salvation. The Bible doesn’t make a distinction.

You are of course free to believe what you wish. As I have pointed out before, the thief on the cross was still under the OT law. He was not required to be baptized. Also, Christ while on earth had the power to forgive sins on earth. I will also say that there is nothing that says he was not one of those baptized by John, though it does not say that he was.

You mention all of these possibilities, but that is assuming that these individuals have never had previous opportunities to OBey the Gospel. I will say that if someone came to me, day or night, who wanted to OBey the Gospel, I would find a way to help them do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The "Church of Christ" is a denomination, just because you call yourself "the church of Christ" doesn't make you the actual, literal, church of Christ any more than calling one's self a Latter Day Saint makes one in fact a saint in the latter days. I'm being gracious in calling the Church of Christ a denomination, what they are is a pusher of damnable heresy started by Alexander Campbell in the 1800s, who, like Joseph Smith, thought that it was his jOB to fix the church and the faith which Jude said was "...once delivered to the saints".

Nowhere in the Bible do any individuals get their sins forgiven, or washed away, or anything by water baptism. You have people getting baptized after they're saved, people getting baptized before their saved to identify themselves with the coming Messiah, and you have people getting the Holy Spirit before they're baptized and people getting it after their baptized - but water baptism doesn't save anyone.

Acts is the worst place in the world to build Bible doctrine, because it is an historical account (not doctrinal instruction) of a time in which many things are happening, some of which are:

1. Old Testament to New.
2. Jew to Gentile.
3. Law to Grace.
4. Signs, wonders, and miracles to a complete canon.

Yet, this is the place that the Church of Christ denomination get's their bedrock doctrine from. They take Acts 2:38 (corporate baptism, see the next chapter), ignoring that Paul told us he came not to baptize but to preach the gospel - distinguishing the gospel as being something separate from baptism.

I Cor. 1:17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

The biggest mistake the denomination makes is that it fails to see that not all baptism in the Bible involves water. See this article. Christians are baptized spiritually into the spiritual body of Christ - no water involved.

I Cor. 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Not to mention the thief on the cross never got baptized, but he went to Paradise.

In my experience with the Church of Christ denomination, putting faith in baptism isn't enough. One must pretty much agree with everything the church says, this is why I've called them "the Church of the Clones" in the past in my dealings with them. If you are not a member of the physical "Church of Christ" - then you are not a member of the spiritual Church of Christ. Absolutely ridiculous. You can't believe in the doctrine of the Godhead, or as some call it - the Trinity, and be saved.

Oh, and they don't think that God hears the prayers of sinners based on this passage, which is just a testimony of a mixed up Jew:

John 9:30-31, "The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31) Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth."


Just because you call the church of Christ a denomination does not make it a denomination either, does it? I suppose we can argue back and forth but I will simply stick with the Word of God and let you believe what you choose. I will continue to simply ignore the name calling. It seems that is what you are best at and it is a waste of time arguing with someone of such a heart. I will say this, you and others often argue that the church of Christ was founded by Alexander Campbell. This shows that 1 of 2 things is true. Either you are simply ignorant of the facts (history) or you are choosing to ignore it. I suggest that either way you look at the facts. Barton W. Stone was working in the restoration movement prior to either Alexander or his father Thomas coming to the US. So, there goes your whole Campbellite view point. The church of Christ is not a name but simply shows ownership.

I don’t know what Bible you read but Acts 2:38 shows that the Jews were baptized to have there sins remitted (saved), Acts 8:10ff shows individuals, including Simon, who were baptized to be saved, Acts 9, 22, and 26 shows Saul (Paul) who was baptized to be saved….

If you want to ignore what is taught in the book of Acts, we can turn to the other books of the NT. How about we look in Romans (Romans 6:3ff), or maybe we should look in 1 Cor 12:13 were we are taught that we are to be baptized, or maybe we should look at Gal 3:27 or perhaps Col 2:12, or maybe we can look at 1 Peter 3:20-21…We might also recall that these epistles were written during the time that we read of the book of Acts….

Paul did not in fact say that he did not baptize anyone as a matter of fact he names those he baptized at Corinth. Also, notice that Christ did not actually baptize though He had His apostles do so (John 4:1-2).

Why is it that all the Baptist can do is turn to the thief on the cross? I will simply point you back to my previous response above on that issue.

Where do you get this stuff? The church of Christ teaches according to the Word of God the Godhead (trinity).

Perhaps you should actually check about what you say before you say it. That is why I actually ask what the IFB believes prior to accusing you of believing something
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

coc, 1 Peter 3:20 and 21 are often quoted by Church of Christ to say that baptism is an essential part of eternal salvation. But, in fact, it is an incorrect assumption.


Please note the underlined. God tells us very clearly that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God - the act of baptism has absolutely no bearing on eternal salvation. If, in your post in which you claim we are saved by many things and you are insinuating that said being saved is eternal, you are quite wrong, my friend.


I have read the passage and it does in fact teach that one must be baptized in order to be saved.

Um...I have not said anything about "once saved always saved," if that is what you are speaking about. No, I do not believe in such, but that is another issue from what we are speaking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A person is saved at the point which the Bible states that he is. Let us simply look at what God's Word says. Mark 16:16 says that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved....." The Bible speaks for itself.

Look, I could proof text as you have just done, and say that works save a person. Here goes: James 2:24: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified."
The prOBlem with such proof texting is that I (and you above) just ignored a ton of Scripture dealing with soteriology. I yanked out one verse that seemed to indicate salvation by works, and made my case. This is hardly a responsible usage of Scripture. In order to get a complete idea of true, biblical soteriology, one must actually study all of the verses on that subject. Here are some more for you:

Luke 18:42 (blind man): And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. (But the man hadn't been baptized...yet was pronounced "saved" by Christ Himself.)
Luke 7:50 (woman): And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. (Again, no baptism, yet Christ says she has been saved.)
Acts 16:30-31 (Philippian jailer): Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (No mention of baptism here. The jailer was baptized later on.)
Romans 10:9, 13: that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved....For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And...Jesus' response to the thief on the cross (along with the sick woman and blind man) does indeed expose a fatal flaw in your position. If Christ Himself says that the thief will be in paradise with Him that day, without being baptized, it totally contradicts your theory. Let's see...who to believe: coc333 or Jesus Christ? Hmmm...That's a no-brainer. :) But, you say, the very same person--Jesus--said that we are saved by baptism in the other passage you quoted. So...Jesus contradicts Himself? Uh...no. The answer is that you have to dig deeper than just isolated proof texts.

These are just a few of MANY verses which teach salvation by faith alone. The thing is that in ancient times, baptism followed very closely on the heels of salvation; it was the way for new believers to immediately and publicly confess Christ...much like our prayer for salvation is today (which focuses on the "confessing with the mouth" part). It is not "the prayer" that saves, just like it isn't "the baptism" that saves; these things are merely outward manifestations of what has happened in the heart. Those who are trusting in baptism, prayer, walking an aisle, etc., for salvation have misplaced their faith in that they are trusting in a work that they themselves did instead of the work that Christ did in their hearts.

We would all do so much better if we would simply listen to it.

True...and ya gotta listen to ALL of it to get an accurate picture of what it says.

EDIT: Look, I grew up in a church that proof-texted like crazy: "See, James 5:19 says you can lose your salvation! It's right there!" We were not taught to use the Bible responsibly...to seek the whole counsel of God...to compare, study, reconcile, etc. We would just take a few isolated verses that seemed to indicate a particular idea, and then twist the whole weight of Scripture which seemed to indicate the opposite idea to fit the mold of the few verses. Irresponsible hermeneutics, to say the least! That's exactly what you are doing here. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members




The building is just a building. The only “doctrine” that we have is the Bible. We do not have any “creeds” etc. I suppose that is different from denominations.

Many in the church of Christ use the term “undenominational,” I prefer the term “anti-denominational” since that is what Christ was. In John 17 he prayed for unity. Paul called for unity in Eph 4:1ff. He also condemned division in 1 Cor 1:10ff (read the first 4 chapters as a matter of fact.) Paul clearly stated that there is but 1 body (Eph 4:4) and that that body is the church (Eph 1:22-23). Notice he did not say that it was made up of many denominations which teach many different and often contradictory doctrines. Paul spoke pretty strongly against those who teach other doctrines (Gal 1:6-9)

I just can’t agree with you on Acts 3.

I will simply point back to my previous post on these passages. They say what they say. I can say that 1 Peter 3:20-21 says one must be baptized and you can say it doesn’t and it still says what it says. It clearly states that baptism does save. It does say anything about it being a symbol.

Baptism is required and it is clear that it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Thunder! Thank you for the time you took to pull this together. I'm 100% with you.

Now, like the penitent theif many are saved on their death bed receiving Christ as their savior. Why would someone from the CoC bother going to the death bed of the lost? They can't sprinkle the individual because they believe baptism is by emersion. So, why does the minister of a CoC bother going? The dying person's profession of faith is of no use to the CoC, they died in their sins because they were not baptized. What does the CoC minister say to the family after the person passes into eternity? Does this minister or a lay person console the family and tell them the person was saved; which according to CoC is a lie. Or possibly they say sorry friend but your dearly departed is now in hell, we couldn't baptize them in time to save them.

Is Christ coming again wondering how many baptised He will find? Or, is He coming again wondering if He will find faith?
Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

How many times does Christ say thy baptism hath made thee whole?

If baptism by water emersion were important for salvation then why didn't Jesus mention this when telling of Lazarus and the rich man?

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


The thief on the cross, as I said, the Baptist can turn to nothing but this one example which does not in any way prove or even suggest what they teach.

What would the Baptist say to the family of the person who died without “professing his faith?” We can both ask these questions. I will simply say that the Bible says what it says and I won’t attempt to give someone a false hope simply because it saddens me for someone to reject the truth.

If immersion was not important then why did Jesus specifically state that “He that believeth and IS BAPTIZED shall be saved…?” 1 + 1 = 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Brother, you hit the nail on the head right there. Over, and over, and over again salvation is said to be by faith alone, easily over a hundred times. Campbellites find about five OBscure verses that can easily be reconciled with the other one hundred that say it's faith only.



Excuse me Rick, but you can not provide even 1 passage that says that salvation is by "faith alone." Not 1. I can on the other hand provide one that says that it is not. (James 2:24). I can provide one that says we are saved by Grace (Eph 2:8) which would prove your statement to be false. I can provide one that says we are saved through baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21) which proves your statement to be false. I can continue but this should be enough.

Can you provide even 1 passage that says we can be saved by faith alone? Just show 1?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The thief on the cross, as I said, the Baptist can turn to nothing but this one example which does not in any way prove or even suggest what they teach.

Ahem....(see my newest post) :)

What would the Baptist say to the family of the person who died without “professing his faith?” We can both ask these questions. I will simply say that the Bible says what it says and I won’t attempt to give someone a false hope simply because it saddens me for someone to reject the truth.

"The Baptist" (along with most mainline Christian denominations) would say that he was quite possibly saved, but that only God knows. The same thing would be true for those who DO "profess their faith," verbally, or by baptism...A profession of faith does not a Christian make!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I always read this verse:

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

For example, a judge telling a criminal to go to jail ("be baptized") for the crime he committed ("remission of sins"). So, the remission of sins (saved, born again) happened and then you were baptized.

Another simplistic look at scripture I guess, I don't know. Go to jail for the crime you committed. You don't say "Go to jail for the crime you are going to commit".

:puzzled3:


That is simply not what that passage teaches. It does not teach that we are baptized "because of" our sins being remitted. IF it did, it would also teach that we "repent" "because of" the remission of our sins. Is that what it teaches?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Can you provide even 1 passage that says we can be saved by faith alone? Just show 1?

Ahem...me again. :) (see post)
Belief is, after all, a synonym of faith, is it not?
John 11:25-26: Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Acts 13:39: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
See the others in my previous post...haven't even scratched the surface yet of passages which declare people saved after they have believed and before they have been baptized.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You got it right, brother. And what you said there fits with all the rest of the New Testament. "For" is an important word to get right, and this is an excellent example why it's best to go with the weight of Scripture.

"Jump for joy": jump because of joy, not jump to recieve joy.

"Christ died for our sins": Christ died because we sinned, not Christ died so we could sin.


Why don't we do a study of the Greek word "eis?" Does it mean "because of?" Interesting that the KJV does not so translate it. Interresting that no other reputable translation so translates it (mute since I know that this board only accepts the KJV, but it is interresting anyway). If we are honest about it, we clearly see that it makes no sense to even suggest that it here means "because of" rather than into. If it does mean "because of" then we are to repent because of. Also, if it does mean "because of," then we run into a bit of a prOBlem with Matt 26:28 which uses the same Greek word (eis) and translates it into the same English word (for). Was Christ blood shed "because of" the remission of sins or in order that sins might be remitted? Answer that question and you have an answer to your idea that one is to be baptized "because of" ones sins being remitted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was baptised into the Church of Christ when I was about (guessing) 7 or 8 years old. Later in life after attending many different churches, I was saved under the ministry of an IFB and followed the Lord with believer's baptism.

Some years ago I had a relative and member of the Church of Christ pass away. After the services there was a meal at the church. During discussion among family and old friends, membership at this church was discussed. A deacon of the church mentioned that I was still carried on the membership roll. I said I had since been saved and become a Baptist. Another person said, "But you were baptized here!" No discussion of salvation or receiving Christ as personal Savior and Lord occurred. I was thankful a distraction occurred at that point and freed me from having to answer any other questions or continue on that path. This was not the time to debate baptismal regeneration. I knew this church taught your salvation required baptism to be complete.

So, I'm wondering...do all Churches of Christ teach you must be baptized in addition to believing in Christ to be saved?

While COC has rejected "baptismal regeneration" as I hope we all do, I don't think the specific question arising from the OP has been answered.

My questions are:

1. A child (or adult) professes repentance & faith in Christ, so he is baptised into the Christian faith (aka CoC.) Is he truly saved for eternity, even if he ceases to practise the faith?

2. Your reasons for trying different churches are not stated, nor your reason for supposing that your baptism was spurious. You apparently continued in the faith, trying different churches. When you got to the IFB, they rejected your baptism, & baptised you again. Is it IFB & CoC practice to reject the profession & baptism of other churches & rebaptise?

3. Should a person who professes repentance & faith in Christ, & refuses baptism, be consider & received into the church as a true Christian welcome at the Lord's table & membership?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


While COC has rejected "baptismal regeneration" as I hope we all do, I don't think the specific question arising from the OP has been answered.

My questions are:

1. A child (or adult) professes repentance & faith in Christ, so he is baptised into the Christian faith (aka CoC.) Is he truly saved for eternity, even if he ceases to practise the faith?

2. Your reasons for trying different churches are not stated, nor your reason for supposing that your baptism was spurious. You apparently continued in the faith, trying different churches. When you got to the IFB, they rejected your baptism, & baptised you again. Is it IFB & CoC practice to reject the profession & baptism of other churches & rebaptise?

3. Should a person who professes repentance & faith in Christ, & refuses baptism, be consider & received into the church as a true Christian welcome at the Lord's table & membership?


1. There was no real faith...only baptism. No check for understanding of scripture...no pause for reply. Just get in the tank and you're saved.

2. Whoa...I was searching for the truth and I didn't find it until I came to the IFB Church. No one was rejecting anything but me up to this point. I determined from attendance at the IFB to be baptised again after I was saved. I could have become a member of the IFB by statement of faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It is the practice of the believer to do what the scriptures teach as truth. To deny Christ's blood sufficient for my sins would be to deny Christ. To forgoe baptism after salvation would be to disOBey Christ and that would be on my conscience (sin).

3.Let me ask you...If God will receive them into heaven, will you deny them celebrating the Lord's supper and membership (fellowship) here? Edited by 1Tim115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Look, I could proof text as you have just done, and say that works save a person. Here goes: James 2:24: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified."
The prOBlem with such proof texting is that I (and you above) just ignored a ton of Scripture dealing with soteriology. I yanked out one verse that seemed to indicate salvation by works, and made my case. This is hardly a responsible usage of Scripture. In order to get a complete idea of true, biblical soteriology, one must actually study all of the verses on that subject. Here are some more for you:

Luke 18:42 (blind man): And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. (But the man hadn't been baptized...yet was pronounced "saved" by Christ Himself.)
Luke 7:50 (woman): And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. (Again, no baptism, yet Christ says she has been saved.)
Acts 16:30-31 (Philippian jailer): Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (No mention of baptism here. The jailer was baptized later on.)
Romans 10:9, 13: that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved....For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And...Jesus' response to the thief on the cross (along with the sick woman and blind man) does indeed expose a fatal flaw in your position. If Christ Himself says that the thief will be in paradise with Him that day, without being baptized, it totally contradicts your theory. Let's see...who to believe: coc333 or Jesus Christ? Hmmm...That's a no-brainer. :) But, you say, the very same person--Jesus--said that we are saved by baptism in the other passage you quoted. So...Jesus contradicts Himself? Uh...no. The answer is that you have to dig deeper than just isolated proof texts.

These are just a few of MANY verses which teach salvation by faith alone. The thing is that in ancient times, baptism followed very closely on the heels of salvation; it was the way for new believers to immediately and publicly confess Christ...much like our prayer for salvation is today (which focuses on the "confessing with the mouth" part). It is not "the prayer" that saves, just like it isn't "the baptism" that saves; these things are merely outward manifestations of what has happened in the heart. Those who are trusting in baptism, prayer, walking an aisle, etc., for salvation have misplaced their faith in that they are trusting in a work that they themselves did instead of the work that Christ did in their hearts.


True...and ya gotta listen to ALL of it to get an accurate picture of what it says.

EDIT: Look, I grew up in a church that proof-texted like crazy: "See, James 5:19 says you can lose your salvation! It's right there!" We were not taught to use the Bible responsibly...to seek the whole counsel of God...to compare, study, reconcile, etc. We would just take a few isolated verses that seemed to indicate a particular idea, and then twist the whole weight of Scripture which seemed to indicate the opposite idea to fit the mold of the few verses. Irresponsible hermeneutics, to say the least! That's exactly what you are doing here.



Annie, If by “proof texting” you are talking about taking a passage or two out of context to attempt to prove something that is not there (which is what you seem to be saying) then I absolutely do NOT do so. I strive never to misapply any passage in the Bible. We are to study and rightly divide (or handle) the word of God (2 Tim 2:15). If on the other hand you, by the term “proof texting” mean taking the Bible and using it as a whole to prove the truth, then yes, I certainly do.

Talking about taking passages out of context: You use Luke 18:42 and Luke 7:50 in conjunction with Acts 16:30-31 and Rom 10:9, 13 to try to say they all teach the same thing. You ignore the clear teaching (context) of Acts 16:30ff. You do all this to attempt to prove something that is simply not taught in the Word of God.

First, Luke 18:42; Luke 7:50; as well as the thief on the cross have some things in common. 1. They all are telling of things that happened prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and before the establishment of His Kingdom in Acts 2. These people were thus under the Law of Moses and not under the Christian dispensation thus not subject to Christian baptism. (Yes, John’s baptism was in effect but it would pass and no longer be effective (Acts 19:1ff)). 2. Christ had the power to forgive sins while he was on earth (Matt 9:6).

Now, you bring up Acts 16:30-31; let’s look at it in context. Verse 30, the Philippian jailor, having seen something different about Paul and Silas, asked “what must I do to be saved?” Verse 31, they tell him that he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and that doing so he will be saved. Now, he is told to believe upon Jesus whom he does not know. So, how is he to believe in Jesus? How is he to know the will of Jesus? Romans 10:17 tells us that faith comes from hearing the word of God and of course passages such as Heb 11:6 tells us that it is impossible to be pleasing to God without faith. So, we continue with our passage. Verse 32 says that they taught him the word of God (thus he could have faith which he was required to have. Now, what does verse 33 tell us? He was baptized. You say he was baptized LATER as though there was some great time between his teaching and thus having faith and his baptism. You add something which is not in the text. That is not context but pretext. Isn’t it interesting that though you claim that baptism is not required, the Word of God says it is and the examples we have after the establishment of the church in Acts 2 all demonstrate that those who believed were those who actually OBeyed and they did so right then. Notice Acts 8:36 that the eunuch asked about being baptized. Why did he ask such a question? Because he was taught about Jesus (starting in Isaiah 53 which says nothing about baptism). Something Philipp said about Jesus included baptism and the Eunuch was baptized right then…not later.

As to Romans 10, I do not deny that one must confess Christ. He said so in Matt 10:32-33. Notice in Acts 22:16 Saul (Paul) did so. Notice when he did so….when he was baptized.

You have still not provided even one passage that teaches the “Faith only” doctrine. Not one. Why? Because you can’t since there aren’t any. What you have done is taking passages out of context trying to prove your false doctrine.

I do want to say that if we are going to speak about “faith only” and “baptism” we do need to focus on the Christian dispensation which we are now under and not go back to previous things. You go back to the thief on the cross; I might as well go back to Adam, Cain and Able or maybe Abraham or Moses and bring in animal sacrifices which are not required for us.

Though you bring up your false doctrine of "once saved always saved," I will refrain from a discussion here since this discussion is on the issue of baptism. If you wish to discuss that, then we can. As I said to Jim, if it would be better to discuss these things privately, then I will be glad to answer any questions or comments in such a mode. If all are willing to have a fair and open discussion where we are able to discuss these things honestly without getting angry, then I will be glad to continue.

I do wish to say that I have not use any words in here to be hurtful or unkind. IF I have done so, I apologize. I do NOT however apologize for speaking the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...