The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[JustAChristian]

More on: What is the Purpose of Baptism

More on: What is the Purpose of Baptism

Answer my question Just a Christian....

Baptism is the point at which a person is united with Christ into His death and resurrection into "newness of life" (Rom 6:3)
There is only ONE recognized baptism. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," (Eph 4:5) There is not a spiritual baptism and a water baptism. The baptism recognized is the one instituted by Christ himself, which He said was in order to "fulfill ALL righteousness" (Mt 3:15). Even though Jesus was not baptized for the remission of sins, His baptism is the pattern for the baptism that is now recognized by God; one in which God becomes well-pleased in the one being baptized(Mt 3:17), one in which the Holy Spirit is received(Mt 3:16), one in which in its very form depicts the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus(Mt 3:16: "come UP straight way out of the WATER)--our baptism is validated by the events surrounding Christ's baptism. Baptism is the point at which a person is IN CHRIST. We are joined to the Lord at this time. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have PUT ON Christ." (Gal 3:27)

The apostle Peter ordered for converts in Cornelius' household to be baptized. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." (Acts 10:47-48)
The apostle Paul commended the believers at Rome for their baptism "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that FORM of doctrine which was delivered you."(Rom 6:17)

At Pentecost, in the midst of Peter's sermon, the adherents to his message were pricked in their hearts and asked Peter, "What shall we do?"--moved to repentance. "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." (Acts 2:38)

Baptism is not a "good work", meaning that in baptism I am trying to earn my salvation. Baptism is the response of faith. Faith ALWAYS obeys--the "obedience OF FAITH" (Rom 16:26). In Mt 28:18ff, Jesus called for the baptism of all believers, and every TRUE believer seeks to do what pleases Jesus. Baptism is the working of faith in submissive response to the command of Jesus.
Some may say, if baptism saves us, then what about the theif on the cross? This is a special acception. Believe me, if that thief could have come down from that cross to be baptized, he would have done so! Doctrines that shape our consideration of baptism can not be shaped around this single incident. If this was a pattern for sound theology than we might as well start teaching that every person who lies will die instantly, as Ananias and Sapphira did.

When explaining good works, you said "but those who are saved but do no good works, still get in but have no special credit."
There is not a single passage of scripture to butress this ascertion. In fact the bible says, concerning those who are interested in eternal life, "To them who BY PATIENT CONTINUANCE IN WELL DOING seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:"(Rom 2:7), and again, "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. {9} And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, IF WE FAINT NOT." (Gal 6:8-9), and again, "And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they BE NOT UNFRUITFUL." (Titus 3:14), and again, "Every branch in me that BEARETH NOT FRUIT He(God, the Father) taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:2) People that "do no good works" as you put it, do not have a shred of evidence of being connected to Christ and the eternal purpose of God, for Eph 2:10 says "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." "Good works" in this sense sre not works that earn salvation, but actions that are EVIDENCE of the working of salvation in a believer's life!--an important truth to see indeed!!

JustAChristian

 

[rapt]

JustaChristian:

Where does baptism ever speak of itself as a sign?

Where was circumcision ever spoken of as a "sign" in the OT? The only scripture I ever found that called circumcision a sign is in the NT.

There were other signs given beside circumcision, which could never have saved anyone who practiced them without faith in God. If they had faith in the sign without faith in God, they would have only deceived themselves (such as eating unleavened bread just before the Passover; keeping the Sabbath; sacrificing animals, etc.)

Noah, who moved with fear, had been in the process of preparing the ark long before his typical baptism took place. (Now I don't say this to coddle or justify anyone who supposes that they can either omit or put off being baptized, since Noah did just as he was commanded, and did not procrastinate) His "baptism" was a sign of his faith, and his faithful obedience was what saved him. Had he not had a good conscience toward God, he would never have built the ark, and would have perished with the wicked.

Abraham too walked in faithful obedience before he received circumcision:

Romans 4:12 (Abraham was) the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

I still think that if we truly "believe" in Christ, we will DO WHAT HE COMMANDED, but we will trust in Him and not any outward ceremony only (which even any unfaithful hypocrit can perform) to save us.

 

[rapt]

JustaChristian:

Some may say, if baptism saves us, then what about the theif on the cross? This is a special acception. Believe me, if that thief could have come down from that cross to be baptized, he would have done so! Doctrines that shape our consideration of baptism can not be shaped around this single incident. If this was a pattern for sound theology than we might as well start teaching that every person who lies will die instantly, as Ananias and Sapphira did.

Good point, JustaChristian! I believe Jesus made an exception here, and saved this man though he wasn't baptized. But the man is not a model to follow! We had better not hope that we too will recieve death bed amnesty when we have rejected God's commandment, for WE KNOW BETTER!

And I CERTAINLY AGREE with all you replied to Freak concerning good works. Jn 15:2 especially knocks his false doctrine down, as do the many others you quoted.

 

[Freak]

I would urge all of those who embrace that false teaching that baptism is essential for salvation read what Paul had to say in Romans 8:30: Whom He justified, He also glorified.

Note the words Paul used. The Apostle made it clear after you are justified you will be glorified. And we know justification occurs by faith in Christ (see Romans 5:1-"having been justified by faith"). So when you place your faith in Christ-not only are you justified but will be glorified. Notice no mention of baptism.

 

[rapt]

Obedience to the gospel is essential for salvation (2Thes 1:8)

Obedience to the gospel is essential for salvation (2Thes 1:8)

I would urge all of those who embrace the false teaching that "baptism (or obedience to any other commandment of Christ) is not essential for salvation" to read what John said about what happens to everyone who adds to or takes from the God's Holy Word, and what Paul said about anyone perverting the gospel of Christ:

Revelation 22
18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

(So much for "once-saved, always-saved"! No one ever gets their name IN the book who never was born again!)


Galatians 1
6
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7
which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. (NIV)

8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

God only gives the Holy Spirit to "THOSE THAT OBEY HIM", and if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not Christ's child. (Rom 8:9; Acts 5:32)

Acts 5
32
And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.


Romans 8
9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The children of disobedience are the children of God's WRATH; THEY WILL NOT BE SAVED, even if they ever once truly believed. (2Pet 2:20-22; 2Pet 3:17; James 5:19.20; Heb 3:7-15; Jn 15:2; Mat 3:10-12; Jn 14:15 with 1Cor 16:22; 1Jn 2:4; 1Cor 6:9,10; 1Jn 3:7)

 

[rapt]

For anyone who thinks they can object that Rev 22:18,19 is limited to the book of Revelation alone, consider what the spirit of prophecy is to begin with:

Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus IS the spirit of prophecy.

...and remember, Rev 22 is not the first time adding or taking away from God's word was forbidden:

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


Luke 16
1
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2
And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3
Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4
I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
5
So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
6
And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
7
Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.

This UNJUST STEWARD was put out of his position because he wasted his lord's goods. To have a place to stay once he got kicked out, he then did not require the full amount of payment from his lord's debtors. IN THE SAME UNJUST WAY, THE FALSE TEACHERS DO NOT REQUIRE FULL OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL IN ORDER TO EITHER OBTAIN OR RETAIN THEIR POSITION IN A CHURCH THAT TEACHES FALSELY . So they "take away" from what we are commanded to do and pervert the gospel, and scratch the itching ears of the disobedient.

 

[Ian Day]

The Baptism of Jesus

The Baptism of Jesus

Why was Jesus baptised ?

In what way did he "fulfill all righteousness" ?
WHere is baptism commanded in the Old Covenant Scriptures, for if baptism is not therein commanded, why should the Lord have sought baptism ?

Let's have a closer look at the Scriptures:

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
28 But what think ye? A [certain] man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I [go], sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen [it], repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

In these verses, Jesus is implying that John's baptism gave him authority. Priestly authority.

Jesus Christ was High Priest while on earth
In what way was Jesus a priest while he was on earth? Hebrews makes it clear that as a descendant of Judah, he could not be a priest. He was not a priest descended from Aaron. But, Aaron's priesthood was ‘typical' of Christ's eternal priesthood, for Jesus is ‘a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.' The tabernacle (temple) worship was not the true worship to which all must conform, but it was a copy of the heavenly pattern. (Heb. 8)

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, and was proclaimed king, son of David, by the people. He entered the temple and drove out the traders, saying, ‘It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers.'‘ Matt. 21:13.

Next day the chief priests and elders challenged him. Only a priest had authority to cleanse the temple. THey were priests, and they had the authority. 2 Kings 23:4.

Matt. 21:23-27. Note that Jesus answered their challenge with his own challenge. They dared not answer. Jesus seemed to be implying that he was consecrated priest by his baptism by John.

By his baptism, at the age of thirty, Jesus was submitting to the ceremonial washing for the priesthood, by a priest. The Father God owned the appointment of the Son of God, and anointed him with the Holy Spirit. Thus he was consecrated as the Great High Priest.

Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

By his baptism Jesus was submitting to the legal act of righteousness required when a priest was consecrated.

 

[JustAChristian]

Is Baptism A Sign?

Is Baptism A Sign?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JustaChristian:

Where does baptism ever speak of itself as a sign?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not find any place where it speaks of baptism as a sign.

JustAChristian

 

[JustAChristian]

Is Baptism Not A Part Of Faith?

Is Baptism Not A Part Of Faith?

I would urge all of those who embrace that false teaching that baptism is essential for salvation read what Paul had to say in Romans 8:30: Whom He justified, He also glorified.

Note the words Paul used. The Apostle made it clear after you are justified you will be glorified. And we know justification occurs by faith in Christ (see Romans 5:1-"having been justified by faith"). So when you place your faith in Christ-not only are you justified but will be glorified. Notice no mention of baptism.

On what grounds do you consider baptism not a part of faith? I have always believed that faith comes before baptism and is a prerequesite to baptism (Acts 8:36-37). Without faith it is impossible to please God. (Heb. 11:6). We are saved by grace when we do that which is received from Christ, the apostles and inspired writers, by faith. It is not faith alone that saves, but the faith that obeys (Rom. 1:5; Heb 5:8-9). I have no doubt that we are justified by faith, but not by faith alone. If we were, then even repentence would not be required for salvation (Luke 13:3; Act 17:30-31). Do you believe that one can be saved with repentence?

JustAChristian

 

[rapt]

JustAChristian,

I agreed with you on page 13 that Freak is blind to say that since baptism is not mentioned in some scriptures that refer to eternal life, therefore it isn't required. But my agreement with you is now applicable to your own blindness to the fact that baptism is a sign, and not the very substance of salvation, even though the NT never calls it a "sign" in so many words.

you:

I do not find any place where it speaks of baptism as a sign.

me, from page 13:

Such blindness makes me remember one poster that said that because the word "covenant" is not found in Genesis concerning God's commandment to Adam and Eve, therefore there couldn't have been any covenant.

That's about as bright as saying that this sentence:
quote:

He fell down the stairs

doesn't say ANYTHING about the man stumbling because the word "stumble" isn't used!

How does one deal with such childishness, and the unwillingness to admit when one is wrong?

I guess Paul said it: "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant".

 

[Freak]

Just a Christian,

The burden proof lies with you to prove to me that baptism is somehow in Romans 5:1 for example or Ephesian 2:8-9. Perhaps you can find some hidden mystical meaning behind these verses that many do not see.

That fact remains: baptism is never mentioned as being a part of justification. Paul made it clear the "righteous shall live by faith" (Galatians 3:11) not by baptism. Yes, we should be baptized, it is commanded, as is the need to evangelize and to love one another. But in no way are these acts essential for salvation. These acts are the byproduct of salvation. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Did you ever read Jesus' words when He spoke in John 10:9 and said quite clealry He was the way to be saved. Jesus never mentioned baptism, did Jesus make a mistake? I think Not. I believe you have though.

 

[HopeofGlory]

But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Luke 12:50 (KJV)
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: Luke 12:51 (KJV)
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. Luke 12:52 (KJV)
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 12:53 (KJV)


Did this baptism bring division? What was this division and where is the line of division drawn?



And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. Matt. 20:23 (KJV)


We are to be baptized with this baptism and there is ONE baptism. How does this baptism relate to WATER? If water baptism was completed by Jesus for the priesthood then why was He baptized again. Was Jesus baptized twice as the scripture says?

 

[Ian Day]

Dry baptisms

Dry baptisms

Hope,

It would be profitable to list other 'dry baptisms' to show that the secular Greek definition of baptism is not the way we should understand the sign & its significance.

Ther reference to one baptism in Eph 3 relates to the unity of Jew & Gentile in Christ. It is a common baptism for both Jew & Gentile. There is no difference in the Gospel.

John & James, and all believers are baptised into Christ's death. Baptised with Christ's baptism.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Rapt

My user name is HopeofGlory and I ask you to stop using "HOG" .
I hope this is not to much to ask of you because I take it personally of which I am sure you are aware. Christ is my "hope of glory" and your disrespect of that hope out of frustration does not benefit your arguments. If the name is longer than you wish to type please use "hope" and if you must personally attack me I am sure you can find some other way to accomplish it.

You said:
Peter understood the gospel of Christ (all except for the fact that He would yet grant the gentiles repentance too), and preached it in Acts 2:

Reply:
The gospel is Christ DIE FOR OUR SINS and Paul was the first to preach it. Do you have any scriptures to the contrary where this was understood at Pentecost.

You said:
He had a PERFECT understanding of what gives us "remission of sins", and commanded it be done! Baptism for the remission of sins was given while the OT was yet valid through John, but Jesus brought in grace and truth by the New Covenant, which did NOT "supercede" it all, it confirmed it. Jesus taught His disciples to go into all the world with the gospel that included baptism for the remission of sins...AFTER He died and rose again.


Reply:
The "new testament" was written in the "blood" of Christ and Christ taught it would be for remission of sins. A new testament is just that "NEW" meaning it replaces the old. This new testament in His blood for remission of sins is not manifested at Pentecost. How do you explain this fact?

You said:
Peter had that same day RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and was speaking as the Spirit gave him utterance! Will he say that the Holy Spirit "didn't understand" what He was saying, or that He was lying??

Reply:
Peter was not lying and the words He spoke were true and God honored those words of truth but that does not mean the "new" testament was not in effect to all those who believed. They were saved but they did not receive eternal life at Pentecost.

You said:
I think we will all agree that if someone doesn't understand, it certainly wasn't the Holy Spirit through apostle Peter, it is those who reject His doctrine.


Reply:
This is only double talk as if to imply I said the Holy Ghost lied and to some how connect this lie to me. This is extremely unfair! I have never said the Holy Ghost lied.

You said:
When the Holy Spirit led Peter into yet more truth, and showed him that the gentiles too could be saved and receive HIM, did Peter forsake water baptism for the remission of sins?

Reply:
Peter did not deliver the "new" testament (His shed blood for remission of sins) to cornelius or any other Gentile.
I can't understand why you will not respond to my post and the scripture references I use with your own interpretation if you disagree. You opt to wait several post later and respond with things like I said the Holy Ghost lied or something. If you disagree with me then reply directly to what I said. If you want to debate with me I have no problems with it but I don't called your method of attach debating scripture. Start a thread and I will join you if you wish to prove me wrong but leave the name calling out of it and debate me point for point.

If you be ever so kind as to clear these questions up for me I would appreciate it:

1- Why did the apostles respond with "who can hear it" when Christ offered the new testament in His blood if you believe they discerned the Lords body?

2-Why was the new testamant His shed blood for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) and yet the apostles still preached water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost?

3-If Peter quoted Jesus word for word on baptism are we to believe the "new" testament was not worthy of the same?

4-Why is there not one word about they must believe the death of Christ was for their sins or His blood was shed for the forgiveness of their sins at Pentecost?

 

[HopeofGlory]

Ian,

You said:
It would be profitable to list other 'dry baptisms' to show that the secular Greek definition of baptism is not the way we should understand the sign & its significance.

Reply:
Jesus is speaking of His death of which we must identify by faith and I agree it does not include water.

You said:
Ther reference to one baptism in Eph 3 relates to the unity of Jew & Gentile in Christ. It is a common baptism for both Jew & Gentile. There is no difference in the Gospel.

Reply:
His death brought unity to all people and that unity is in His body.

You said:
John & James, and all believers are baptised into Christ's death. Baptised with Christ's baptism.

Reply:
When we have faith in His death for remission of sins we at that very moment are baptized by one Spirit (Christ is that Spirit) into one body both Jew and Gentile.

Can you explain where the "division" is and how it applies to His death and why would Jesus need to be baptized a second time?

 

[Ian Day]

Hope,

You seem to be replying as if I was arguing, rather than contributing to the discussion.

Dry baptisms include baptism with the Holy Spirit; with fire; on the cross; with a sword; across the Red Sea; under the cloud; in the ark. The insistence on immersion in water obviously does not apply. The usage of the word Baptism has a much wider meaning than dipping in water.

The fact that the true, saving baptism is by the Holy Spirit into Christ does not mean that water baptism is not commanded. It is. It is a New Covenant sign, with a significance as discussed in earlier posts.

You ask: "Can you explain where the "division" is and how it applies to His death and why would Jesus need to be baptized a second time?"

The Old Covenant included all the descendants of Abraham. THe great division was between Jew & Gentile. Under the New COvenant, salvation is real & personal. When one in a family turns to Christ, he is in the family of God, and divided from the human relationship.

Jesus' water baptism was as a priest, at age thirty, and he was baptised with the Holy Spirit as he came up from the water. His second baptism was the cross, into death. Presumably he spoke of the cross as a baptism to show the significance of the baptism he commanded.

 

[rapt]

I won't call you the acronym for Hope of Glory anymore. I will use an acronym for the term Jesus and John used to refer to the enemies of the gospel, because that is what you prove yourself to be.

S/V:

The gospel is Christ DIE FOR OUR SINS and Paul was the first to preach it. Do you have any scriptures to the contrary where this was understood at Pentecost.

This new testament in His blood for remission of sins is not manifested at Pentecost. How do you explain this fact?

Haven't you ever even taken the time to READ Acts 2, S/V?

Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have CRUCIFIED AND SLAIN:
24
Whom God hath RAISED UP, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25
For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand
moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would RAISE UP CHRIST to sit on his throne;
31
He seeing this before spake of the RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32
This Jesus hath God RAISED UP, whereof we all are witnesses.
33
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35
Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38
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.
39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Who but the blind cannot see in these scriptures the preaching of the DEATH, BURIAL, RESURRECTION, and LORDSHIP of Jesus Christ?

Is not this the New Testament gospel?

S/V:

Peter was not lying and the words He spoke were true and God honored those words of truth but that does not mean the "new" testament was not in effect to all those who believed. They were saved but they did not receive eternal life at Pentecost.

WHAT? Did you add a "not" where you didn't mean to, S/V? Was the New Testament in effect at Pentacost or not?

HOW CAN ANYONE BE "SAVED", YET NOT RECEIVE the promise of ETERNAL LIFE?

Explain THAT.

You are obviously completely confused, so you should pack it up, go home, pray, and study hard before presenting any more foolishness, for you will be held accountable whenever you say the bible doesn't say something that it does INDEED say (or vise-versa).

I said:

I think we will all agree that if someone doesn't understand, it certainly wasn't the Holy Spirit through apostle Peter, it is those who reject His doctrine.

You replied:

This is only double talk as if to imply I said the Holy Ghost lied and to some how connect this lie to me. This is extremely unfair! I have never said the Holy Ghost lied.

You might as well have! It is quite obvious who is double-talking, S/V, and it's you that's being unfair to the truth Peter preached. The Holy Ghost had Peter preach the gospel of Christ's grace, and yet you say they that heard it did not hear the New Testament gospel, nor did they receive eternal life EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE "SAVED". THAT'S DOUBLE TALK. Who gets saved outside of hearing the gospel?

You can't even seem to make up your mind if the New Testament was in effect at Pentacost or not! So tell us, did they hear the New Testament gospel, repent, be baptised, and therefore receive the Holy Ghost, remission of sins, salvation, and the promise of eternal life at Penatcost, or did Peter and Holy Ghost lie?

You can't have it both ways, S/V; either Peter by the Holy Ghost did not preach the New Testament gospel, but lied instead, or those people DID hear the gospel and were indeed given the promise of eternal life when they were baptized, and YOU are who lied against the truth.

S/V:

1- Why did the apostles respond with "who can hear it" when Christ offered the new testament in His blood if you believe they discerned the Lords body?

If you would have READ Jn 6, and compared it with what Jesus said about His "sheep" in the 10th chapter, you would have understood that it was NOT the believing apostles that rejected Jesus' words:

Jn 6:48
I am that bread of life.
49
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Only disciples that failed to CONTINUE in Christ's Word fell away. There were many more than twelve, as the context shows. They did not endure sound doctrine. The twelve Apostles DID believe Jesus; they were the Sheep that heard his voice and FOLLOWED him (Jn 10). It may have been a "hard saying" to hear, and they may not have understood Christ's sacrifice completely then, but by Acts 2 they certainly did.

2-Why was the new testamant His shed blood for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) and yet the apostles still preached water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost?

I have shown you Acts 2 to refute the assertion that they did not preach the New Testament gospel, which includes faith in Christ as the Messiah, the death, burial, resurrection, and Lordship of Jesus Christ, and water baptism. To access the benefit of Christ's blood, and the remission of sins thereby, they were commanded to BE BAPTIZED IN WATER IN the name of Jesus Christ. Certainly only those that had faith in Christ would be obedient to the faith.

You claim that they didn't recieve eternal life from Peter's gospel at Pentacost. But they were not obligated to be baptised again later into a new gospel under Paul! Only those believers in Christ that had not heard of the Holy Ghost were commanded to be baptized in water again (Acts 19:1-5)

3-If Peter quoted Jesus word for word on baptism are we to believe the "new" testament was not worthy of the same?

Your argument is a lame one; one that suggests that anyone preaching the gospel had to quote Jesus word for word, and include EVERYTHING He ever said before they had preached "the gospel". Consider the fact that Jesus didn't quote every prophecy of the OT every time he preached, nor did He quote it word for word.

He that is faithful in the least is faithful with much; he that is unjust with the least will be unjust also with much.

4-Why is there not one word about they must believe the death of Christ was for their sins or His blood was shed for the forgiveness of their sins at Pentecost?

Read Acts 2 again until you see that that is the very message Peter preached. Once Peter rehearsed to them what they had done, they BELIEVED that they had crucified Christ, the Messiah, and THAT'S WHY they were pricked in their hearts and said "What shall we do?" Peter didn't have to say "ye must believe"; all he did was tell them the truth and they BELIEVED IT, and repented!

 

[rapt]

Ian:

Jesus' water baptism was as a priest, at age thirty, and he was baptised with the Holy Spirit as he came up from the water. His second baptism was the cross, into death. Presumably he spoke of the cross as a baptism to show the significance of the baptism he commanded.

A very good point to assume, Ian.

 

[JustAChristian]

Is Baptism A Sign?

Is Baptism A Sign?

JustAChristian,

I agreed with you on page 13 that Freak is blind to say that since baptism is not mentioned in some scriptures that refer to eternal life, therefore it isn't required. But my agreement with you is now applicable to your own blindness to the fact that baptism is a sign, and not the very substance of salvation, even though the NT never calls it a "sign" in so many words.

"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:22-23, NKJV).

The is probably one of the most accepted verses on the subject of signs. There are many applications of the term both the New and the Old Testament. A sign is something that indicates a fact or quality. A jesture that conveys information. A mark or symbol having a specific meaning such as a $ sign. A plaquard bearing information. Any trace or indication ( it was a "sign" of rain). Baptism is a burial. In this sense, maybe you could say it was a sign of something that indicates a fact. It is certainly not a jesture that conveys information or a mark or symbol having specific meaning such as a $ sign. It is certainly not a plaquard bearing information or any trace or indication. God gave the sabbath as a sign between Him and Israel (Exodus 31:17) throughout their generation. It was not given to the Gentiles, else it no longer becomes an exclusive action between God and Israel, which is expressed in the cited verse.

I find that the Scriptures depict Baptism as a similarity with a burial (Romans 6:3-5) and a similarity with a washing (Acts 22:16), but nowhere do I find it to be a sign. Sorry, rapt!

JustAChristian

 

[rapt]

Is not burial, or the gravesite a sign that someone is dead?

Would you go looking for someone at Taco Bell whose tombstone you saw in a graveyard?

Neither would a Jew expect to be found in synogogue on the Sabbath to practice Judaism now who has been baptised into Christ, would he? (unless he was there to testify of Christ)

Neither would we expect to find a believer drinking himself drunk at a brothel who had been baptised, would we.