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

[rapt]

Craig, you answered my request for scriptures that prove that the baptised believers at Pentacost lost their salvation with this:

The kingdom was taken because of their unbelief.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Rom. 11:19 (KJV)

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: Rom. 11:20 (KJV)

Branches are believers not unbelievers! They were to continue to abide until all things had be come "new". It is the new that they did not believe.

O.K, I'm seeing something here. They were believers in Christ Jesus, but no doubt a number of them still vainly held to circumcision as something that must be adhered to to please God. They also had a problem with anyone who ate with gentiles who had turned to Christ. Paul called such "believers" that continued to embrace the law of Moses and circumcision "false brethren" in Galatians 2. He said those who added circumcision to the gospel of Christ (either by word or conviction) were accursed along with their perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-9). The false gospel Paul fought was not 'water baptism in Jesus' name'; it was the addition of CIRCUMCISION and keeping the law* that was the problem.

(* Acts 11:1-3; Acts 10:28; Gal 2:12-21; Gal 5:1-12; 1Cor 7:19; Phil 3:3; Col 3:11; Tit 1:9-11)

Your argument has caused me to see now more clearly what Rom 11 is talking about. Before, I couldn't make sense out Paul calling the fleshly Jewish enemies of the gospel "the elect", and "beloved", but now I understand what he meant. I still think you are mistaken to think that Peter didn't preach the true gospel at Pentacost. You are also mistaken to say that Jewish believers were commanded to be under obedience to Christ, and to be water baptised in Christ's name, but that gentile believers aren't under obligation to obey either. Of course they are, just as any Jew still is. Only they that hear the one true gospel and obey it are walking saved; everyone else who thinks they are walking saved while they continue in sin and disobedience to the gospel is deceived (by either false teachers or by themselves).


Had you have continued your quotation of Rom 11, you would have seen that scripture overthrows the once-saved-always-saved heresy, for believing gentiles can be cut off just as believing Jews had been:

Ro 11:19
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, IF thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Those that were "cut off" were those Christ-believing but circumcision-clinging Jews that refused to eat with gentile Christians. They refused that part of the new wine, saying, "The old is better". They were those who did not bear the required fruit of belief in the gospel of Christ, which required them to accept the the believing uncircumcised gentiles. They thought they were saved instead by mixing the old law with their faith in Christ. That is what caused them to be cut off as false brethren, for you cannot embrace both covenants without being likened to an adulteress (Ro 7:1-4). The old law required that you keep it all, or none of it. They couldn't merely stop sacrificing animals in faith that Christ fulfiled that part of the law, and yet still embrace circumcision and gentile apartheid, and continue to walk in a saved condition.

Jewish believers, just like any believing gentile, were required to continue in the faith in obedience to ALL of the gospel if they desired to walk saved (Jn 15:6; James 5:19,20; Heb 3:12-15. Faith without works is DEAD, and dead faith will save NOBODY. A one-time faith that doesn't CONTINUE to follow on to know the Lord is dead as well. All those that forsake the Lord's Word are damned, regardless of how much they contend that they have "believed".

There has never at any time been more than one true gospel Rom 1:16; Gal 1:8,9. No false gospel ever saved anyone. But some of those at Pentacost who accepted Peter's Holy Ghost led preaching continued to embrace circumcision and old law keeping in thier hearts (even though Peter never included those things in the gospel), and this caused them to fall from grace, and Christ to become of no effect to them (Gal 1-5:15). Those that believed in Christ, but refused to stop trusting in circumcision and wouldn't accept the uncircumcised gentiles as brethren were cut off in their unbelief, but if they repented they could be graffed back into the vine of true faith.

This fact ought to make us fear God, and awaken us to the fact that though we believe in Christ, we are still obligated to OBEY ALL of the gospel, not just the part about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, that His death was the sacrifice for our sins. We can be cut off just as easily as those believing Jews had been who embraced that part of the gospel, but thought to refuse the rest. We can even be deceived into thinking we're still on the way to heaven when we have embraced the very lie that will damn us (2Thes 2:10-12).

We see by their example how believers can become unbelievers. Even Peter needed reproved for hypocrisy that could have damned him had he continued in it (Gal 2:11-14).

He that endures sound doctrine stedfast unto the end, continuing in faith shall walk saved. THAT is what it means to "believe" or to have "faith" in Christ. Any definition of "believe" or "faith" that denies this truth is lame.
(Mat 10:22; 2Tim 4:3,4; James 2:14,17

 

[HopeofGlory]

Hello Ian,

You said:
Joke] Being quoted favourably by you is a bit like being offered the biggest snail at a French dinner

Especially when you then say I have completely misunderstood what you assert as "truth."

[Joke] You do write Scriptural truth, but finding it in your postings is like sorting sugar & salt with forceps

I hope you were joking when you wrote the words I have used to head this posting

You make an assertion & quote Scripture. Rarely does your assertion match the Scripture.

Reply:
I could respond with more of the same but I really don't see any benefit in it but I do enjoy a joke now and then.

You said:

It seems very clear that the title of this thread "The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!" is completely vindicated. And has been a heresy for almost as long as there has been a church.

I believe water baptism is commanded by our Lord in the Great Commission. BUT I would rather identify with those who insist on baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit as the true baptism, and do not practise water baptism, than with those who insist that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

It is clear you do not believe one must be baptized to be saved of which is true for us today but when you imply it was a heresy in the early church you are completely wrong. If they had not obeyed in water baptism at Pentecost they would not have been saved and the gift of the Holy Ghost would not have been received.

Then you go on to say water baptism was commanded! You are confused Ian, Jesus never commissioned "water" baptism. Then you say you would rather identify with those who deny water baptism. The problem with that is we believe water baptism was required under the OLD testament and with that said we agree with Rapt.

You flop back and forth like a fish out of water. ((((LOL)))) That was a [joke] (((((LOLROTF)))))

The main point here is those at Pentecost had to be water baptized to be saved and that was a clear message....Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that OBEY him.

Ian, the message has changed from the OLD testimony to the NEW testimony in the NEW testament. You either have not understood when the NEW testament was given "for" remission or maybe you will deny the words of Jesus and say it wasn't NEW.
Which is it Ian?

You said:
You have never proved that water baptism was an Old Covenant ritual for the remission of sins. Your main argument seems to be that it was initiated before the cross.

Reply:
Water baptism was an OLD TESTAMENT ritual and had it's inception with John the Baptist "for" remission of sins!

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 (KJV)

So what do you say Ian? Was this baptism ritual not "for" remission of sins or will you say it was after the cross or it was not a ritual which is a required act performed for religious
benefit. Which is it?

You said:
When Hebrews was discussion Old Covenant "various baptisms" he said:
Hebr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 [It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

You have never disproved that John's baptism was not a sign of what it signified:

Reply:
Even if it was a "SIGN" of which you have never proven it was and never will ,on which your whole theology hangs, we do not need a sign we have the real thing.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Cor. 5:17 (KJV)

To you Ian, old things have not pass away! Stop defending those old things and accept that "all things" have become new! Don't let your theology blind you from this truth.

You said:
THe Old Covenant baptism with sprinkled blood was for the remission of sins, as was John's baptism with water, as was the Pentecostal baptism with water. All signify the sprinkled blood of Christ, and Pentecostal baptism onwards signifies baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ. None saved without true, saving repentance.

Reply:
You seem to throw it all in one big pile and grab what you want and run with it. It want work!

The priest were washed (baptized) to be made clean before they could administer the water of purification and the blood.

This was the shadow of that to come!
Israel was God's chosen to deliver the message to the world. They would enter their kingdom as priest and were baptized (washed) and this was the first step. Water baptism was the type of Spirit Baptism it can not also be the blood. You have to prove which type it was. They were immersed by the way and not sprinkled.
Do you see your confusion. The priest were fully washed to be made clean from sin not sprinkled! They were not immersed in the blood it was sprinkled of them. That is why John set up at the river, they had to be fully washed otherwise John and the apostles could have carried a vessel of water and sprinkled people. This water sprinkling business does not make sense. If you don't believe me then ask Rapt, he will set you straight.

You said:
No-one was ever saved by the Old Covenant sacrifices, let alone a non-sacrificial water baptism. Salvation is only and ever by the sacrifice of Christ.

Reply:
Sometimes I wonder if you read the same bible the rest of us have. They were saved (received remission) but they did not receive eternal life! Their salvation was corruptible in that it was not eternal. You might want to research eternal and who first taught it after the cross and what the people had to believe to receive it.

You said:
Bear in mind when you 'cast away' the Pentecost believers, who repented, were baptised in water, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and showed their faith by their godly living .... That these believers are the subject of Acts 2:41 - 13:3.

THere is not the slightest suggestion in Scripture that they were unbelievers as you assert.

Reply:
How many times must I say they were believers to get you to believe it. Let me say it again, THEY WERE BELIEVERS and they WERE SAVED. They refused the NEW testament and continued in the Old testament "for" remission of sins. Here they are so you can see them and I hope one day you will understand the difference in the type and the antitype.


John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 (KJV)


For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)

Jesus said....But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37 (KJV)
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. John 5:38 (KJV)
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39 (KJV)
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. John 5:40 (KJV)
I receive not honour from men. John 5:41 (KJV)
But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. John 5:42 (KJV)


In Christ
Craig

 

[rapt]

Craig:

If they had not obeyed in water baptism at Pentecost they would not have been saved and the gift of the Holy Ghost would not have been received.

Amen. But for anyone to suppose that Peter did not preach the gospel by the leading of the Holy Ghost, after Christ's ascension, which included the crucifixion message that Isaiah had foretold in Is 53, and to teach that that gospel is not for anyone today, and can save no one is rank heresy.

Ian is indeed mistaken to say that one need not be baptized today to be saved, and for you to agree is just as incorrect. You are correct to reprove him for saying that the doctrine Peter preached (repent and be baptised) was a heresy in the early church, and to tell Ian that they were saved by the obedience of baptism. But unless you believe in TWO SEPERATE AND DISTINCT GOSPELS, one for Jews and another for gentiles, both legitamate, both able to save the hearers, you contradict yourself. And if you do believe in two gospels, your teaching is accursed according to Paul. The only correct understanding is that baptism is just as legitamate today as it was on the day of Pentacost, that Peter preached the same gospel Paul preached, and that there is not two seperate gospels. I have proven every other doctrine to be false by much scripture. Let every other gospel and teaching be accursed.

Jesus never commissioned "water" baptism.

Oh yes He did! He didn't baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit during His lifetime, but he sent out his disciples to WATER BAPTIZE many, and they indeed did. You are in great error to say and teach otherwise.

Jn 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23
And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
24
For John was not yet cast into prison.
25
Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.
26
And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

They were not saying that Jesus baptized anyone with the Holy Spirit. They were saying that he baptized in water.

John 4
1
When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2
(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

The comma in verse two may be a cause for some confusion. Nevertheless it is clear that water baptism is what is being refered to here, since Holy Spirit baptism was not done until Pentacost.

Some get baptized in Jesus' name when they hear the Word of God, and don't get the Holy Ghost immediately upon faith in Christ:

Acts 8:14
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Some today mistakingly suppose that everyone that hears of Christ is automatically filled with the Holy Ghost, or recieves the gift of it. The above scripture shows that even those who were baptized correctly didn't receive it before they heard about it, so why would anyone suppose that it is received today before anyone is taught about it? Water baptizm certainly doesn't HINDER it, because Peter commanded water baptism at Pentacost so that they COULD receive it!

Acts 9
18
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Does this scripture have to say "in water" before you will believe that Paul was water baptised?

Acts 10
47
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

In this case, gentiles received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptised in water, AND YET they were water baptised by the apostles! Go figure! This was AFTER Pentacost, and after Paul's conversion! Dispensationalism is hereby exposed as a LIE, and the doctrine of water baptism is proven to be for today, even for those who receive the Holy Spirit baptism!

WHO ELSE would dare to teach to 'forbid water baptism' but the proud false brethren that teach a false, bible-rejecting doctrine?

Lydia, the seller of purple, and all her household was baptized in water (Acts 16:15)

The prison gaurd and all his household were baptized in water (Acts 16:32)

Acts 18
8
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

The above scripture refered to water baptism.

The following scriptures show that the apostle commanded certain ones to be re-baptized in water, and then laid hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost:

Acts 19
1
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Verses 5 and 6 show conclusively that water baptism is still valid and commanded, and that Holy Spirit baptism is not the only valid baptism under the New Covenant. These scriptures show that they are seperate and distinct baptisms and that water baptism did not cease at Pentacost.

those at Pentecost had to be water baptized to be saved and that was a clear message....Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that OBEY him.

Ian, the message has changed from the OLD testimony to the NEW testimony in the NEW testament.

And you say Ian flip flops like a fish out of water! You can clearly see the message (in red) was that Jesus Christ is the Saviour and Prince who gave forgiveness and remission of sins to the repentant, and that the Holy Ghost bore witness to that message, and was given to all them that OBEY him, yet you deny this to be the NEW TESTAMENT GOSPEL?? If that isn't the new testament gospel, then what pray tell IS IT???

we do not need a sign (water baptizm) we have the real thing.
...Stop defending those old things and accept that "all things" have become new!

You are saying that we do not need to obey the Holy Spirit who bore witness to the message at Pentacost. This is evidence that you do not have it, for it is only given to them that OBEY Him.

Sometimes I wonder if you (Ian) read the same bible the rest of us have. They were saved (received remission) but they did not receive eternal life! Their salvation was corruptible in that it was not eternal.

...as if only they were responsible to obey the Holy Ghost and to endure to the end to be saved, but the gentiles aren't!

MAN! Which bible do YOU read?? ANYONE found worthy of the eternal life that is yet to come will enter it at the resurrection, not before. We are all being tested here, and are all subject to being cut off if we fail to abide in Christ, just as those at Pentacost were. To imagine that one is "once-saved-always-saved" is to DENY multiple warnings (...of "falling from grace", being "cut off in unbelief", "falling from your stedfastness", to "take heed when you THINK you stand, lest ye fall"; about the five foolish virgins, the parables of the sheep and goats, the unfaithful servant, reaping what you sow, dead faith saving no one, continuing in the faith, grounded and settled, not being removed from the hope of the gospel, and on and on and on and on ) that the New Testament is replete with!

What, did you just go though and discard all those "negative" warnings, and keep everything you thought sounded encouraging? When they say "peace peace" when there is no peace, or "peace and safety", then sudden destruction comes on them. There is no safety or peace in trusting in another gospel, and dispensationalism IS another gospel.

How many times must I say they (at Pentacost) were believers to get you to believe it. Let me say it again, THEY WERE BELIEVERS and they WERE SAVED.

Yes indeed they were. And I agree that as many as did not accept the truth concerning circumcison and the law of Moses being past away fell away from the faith and were cut off. I doubt that they were all lost. And I trust that many of them were graffed back in when Peter repented of his hypocrisy and strengthened the brethren in the truth, and returned to eating with his uncircumcised (in flesh, but circumcised in heart) gentile brethren.

But the scriptures you posted in response to Ian's post don't even apply to those believers at Pentacost. The ones you quoted from Jn 5 were about when Jesus was speaking to those unbeleiving Jews who did not accept Him as the Messiah at all. Those scriptures match the ones in Jn 8, where Jesus calls them of the devil. Ian correctly says that many times the scriptures you try to use to support your argument have nothing to do with what you're saying.

 

[Ian Day]

Rapt, Craig,

[Rapt]
Craig, you answered my request for scriptures that prove that the baptised believers at Pentacost lost their salvation with this:

quote:[Craig]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The kingdom was taken because of their unbelief.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Rom. 11:19 (KJV)

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: Rom. 11:20 (KJV)

Branches are believers not unbelievers! They were to continue to abide until all things had be come "new". It is the new that they did not believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:[Rapt]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K, I'm seeing something here. They were believers in Christ Jesus, but no doubt a number of them still vainly held to circumcision as something that must be adhered to to please God. They also had a problem with anyone who ate with gentiles who had turned to Christ. Paul called such "believers" that continued to embrace the law of Moses and circumcision "false brethren" in Galatians 2. He said those who added circumcision to the gospel of Christ (either by word or conviction) were accursed along with their perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-9). The false gospel Paul fought was not 'water baptism in Jesus' name'; it was the addition of CIRCUMCISION and keeping the law* that was the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The refutation of both arguments (Rapt & Craig) is that "Israel" has a double meaning:
1. The physical descendants of Abraham
2. The united body of Christ, comprising Jew & Gentile, one in Christ.

The branches broken off are unbelieving physical Israelites, NOT those who repented at Pentecost, (you CAN'T read that into the Scripture) while the branches grafted in are Gentiles grafted in by faith. Believing Israelites stand also by faith, and once-unbelieving Israelites who once rejected Christ (like Paul) are grafted in by faith.

The Jews who believed at Pentecost were NOT told to cease circumcision, and the practises according to the Law, either by Paul or by Peter. The whole situation was transitional. There was no need to give offence to the Jewish authorities by speaking against what God had clearly ordained. AND there was no need to give offence to God by commanding obsolete rituals to the Gentiles. (Acts 21:20ff, 28:17ff)

THere was no problem in continuing to be a Jew, and practising the rituals of the Law. THe problem was seeing salvation by keeping those rituals, and imposing proselytism on the Gentiles. The problem also was failing to see that Jew & Gentile were one body in Christ, and therefore free AND REQUIRED to eat together, particularly the New Covenant, communion meal, for the blood of the New Covenant is for both Jew & Gentile. (Luke 22:20 , 1 Cor. 11:25, [also Gal:2:12].)

In God's time he brought the sacrifices to an end, in AD 70.

 

[rapt]

Ian Day:

The Jews who believed at Pentecost were NOT told to cease circumcision, and the practises according to the Law, either by Paul or by Peter. The whole situation was transitional. There was no need to give offence to the Jewish authorities by speaking against what God had clearly ordained. AND there was no need to give offence to God by commanding obsolete rituals to the Gentiles. (Acts 21:20ff, 28:17ff)

Such a statement is contradictory if you believe there was one gospel, Ian. If circumcision was "obsolete ritual" as you say, and as it indeed was, then Paul did indeed manifest it both to the Jews as well as to the gentiles. Surely HE didn't believe in two different gospels. The book of Galatians proves this point emphatically.

Sure there was transition being made. But I cannot accept for one minute the idea that there were two seperate and distinct legitimate gospels being preached; one for the Jews and another for gentiles. One of the two was accursed according to Paul if so. Yes, God had at one time ordained both circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses, but both became obsolete at the crucifixion of Christ, and the rending of veil of the temple by God himself is evidence of it, for it testifies to the fact.

You provided a reference to Acts 21:20, which says:

20
And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

...but you failed to consider the next verse, that says:

21
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

If this was a false accusation, then how do you explain the book of Galatians? Paul WAS doing exactly that by the preaching of the new covenant. He said if you become circumcised that Christ wouldn't profit you anything, and that you would fall from grace.

Paul said in the other reference you provided:

Acts 28
17
And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Was the gospel of Christ "against the people, or customs of the fathers"? No, of course it wasn't. In that he was correct. Christ's death fulfilled the law of sacrifice, freeing them from the heavy burden of that now obsolete custom! His death can be nothing short of FOR the people. He was not saying that he did not do what he had been accused by the Jews of doing at all, for we know he did.

THere was no problem in continuing to be a Jew, and practising the rituals of the Law.

No problem? The circumcision never caused any "problem"?? Then why was so much that Paul preached wholly directed against the circumcision? Why did he continually have to manifest who a true Jew is, who true Israel is, what true circumcision is, who is to be partaker of the promises made to Abraham, contrary to the teaching of the circumcision? It was such a problem that even many believing Jews were cut off because of the unwillingness to believe the WHOLE gospel, that they denied the gentiles their rightful place in the inheritance, and refused to even EAT with them! And you say it didn't cause a problem??

Paul said that if a church body failed to "discern the body of Christ", and yet endeavored to participate in the communion of the body of Christ, that they ate and drank damnation to themselves. Many were weak and sickly among them, and God had even killed some for just that! (no problem?) Many of the believing Jews failed to discern that the gentiles were part of Christ's body, or supposed that they were something lesser than Jews (just as disps today do!) They still fancied themselves as God's chosen people; as "Abraham's seed", and failed to believe that God would make Jew and gentile one in Christ. No one that believes such a falsehood can remain in a forgiven state before God: not then, and not now.

In God's time he brought the sacrifices to an end, in AD 70.

No, the efficacy of the sacrifices ended the day of the crucifixion. Even the seventy week prophecy says so.

Dan 9:27
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

70AD came some fourty years after Jesus caused the sacrifices and oblations to cease to be of any value. So the destruction of the temple could not have happened within the seventy weeks. God made Jerusalem desolate, consuming it because of her many abominations, but that happened long after the sacrifices were made obsolete.

 

[Coach]

Water Baptism For Salvation

Water Baptism For Salvation

Arial 12

Those who teach salvation through baptismal water whether infants (Catholicism) or various other groups, please review the following:

John 3v8, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it is goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

If baptism saves, then Jesus is clearly wrong here for one can know when he or she is to be "saved" by baptism. Think about this.

 

[tralon]

The bible,water baptism and becoming a Christian

The bible,water baptism and becoming a Christian

Water baptism is greatly downplayed in Christian circles today because of the teaching all one must do is simply believe and one is considered a Christian.But the bible does not teach such nonsense.The bible teaches an obedient faith to the gospel.When the gospel is presented to sinners, they are required to DO something if they want to become a Christian.

Acts 2:38 is an excellent example as well as Acts 10:43-46. In the bible, sinners were required not only to believe , but to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus before they were constituted as Christians. Even Jesus himself stated in Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:16 that when one shares the gospel with a convert and they believe, they ARE to be baptised at that time.

Notice the phraseology."Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations BAPTISING THEM..." Also Mark 16:16 He that believeth AND IS BAPTISED shall be saved." Water baptism was NOT an OPTION after one believed, but was a rite that MADE one a Christian, just as much as believing and repentig..

For Paul clearly says that in the rite of water baptism we are BURIED with Christ and are CLOTHED with Christ.Rom 6:3-4,Gal 3:27. Water baptism is a a uniting in Christ and a public rite showing our inward faith to others of our faith in Jesus.One is NOT BIBLICALLY considered fully a Christian UNTIL one believes, repents and is baptised. This is VERY difficult for many believers to accept because of the "easy believeism" doctrine that has poisoned the churches today. Tragically, most churches do not even require converts to repent for their sins before God, but just believe. But the bible teaches that godly sorrow LEADS to repentance.II Cor 7:10.

Yes the bible teaches MUCH more than what modern churches expouse today concerning what must a person DO to be saved. The hard part is believing the bible and not what seems easier. Jesus Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all who OBEY him.Heb 5:9. Have you completely obeyed him? Have you believed, repented and followed him in water baptism. If not, do so today.

 

[Ian Day]

Rapt,

The BIG problem with your argument against my posting is that you simply used it to base a restatement of your position.

quote:[Ian]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jews who believed at Pentecost were NOT told to cease circumcision, and the practises according to the Law, either by Paul or by Peter. The whole situation was transitional. There was no need to give offence to the Jewish authorities by speaking against what God had clearly ordained. AND there was no need to give offence to God by commanding obsolete rituals to the Gentiles. (Acts 21:20ff, 28:17ff)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:[Rapt]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such a statement is contradictory if you believe there was one gospel, Ian. If circumcision was "obsolete ritual" as you say, and as it indeed was, then Paul did indeed manifest it both to the Jews as well as to the gentiles. Surely HE didn't believe in two different gospels. The book of Galatians proves this point emphatically.

Sure there was transition being made. But I cannot accept for one minute the idea that there were two seperate and distinct legitimate gospels being preached; one for the Jews and another for gentiles. One of the two was accursed according to Paul if so. Yes, God had at one time ordained both circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses, but both became obsolete at the crucifixion of Christ, and the rending of veil of the temple by God himself is evidence of it, for it testifies to the fact.

You provided a reference to Acts 21:20, which says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20
And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...but you failed to consider the next verse.

Please note that Acts 21:20ff means the following verses.

Who said anything about two different Gospels?

Who said circumcision had to stop at once? Not Paul. He circumcised Timothy. Why should believing Jews abruptly stop their food Laws? Not Paul. Not James. (Acts 15) James simply said they did not apply to the Gentiles.

The verses I quoted from Acts show that believing Jews continued with circumcision, vows & sacrifices, and that Paul was happy to join with them.
Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.
...........
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

The rites were obsolete, and these were believing Jews who knew the Gospel, yet the rites were being practised still. And Paul joined in them, and would have sacrificed. Was Paul in error himself, in being so easily persuaded? Or was he becoming as a Jew for the Gospel's sake:

1 Cor. 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with [you].

We have a problem in Southall. 100,000 people, 20% assorted white including English, 80% assorted Asian, in order: Sikh (Punjabi), Hindu (Indian), Moslem (Pakistani & East African).

When one in a family becomes a Christian, does he cease to be a member of his family. Should he change his clothing style, food, attandance at family gatherings, family relgious practices, etc?

As far as possible, he should continue as a member of his family, showing that a good Christian can still be a loyal family member. UP TO A POINT. The women of our fellowship (most of whom were converted from their family religion, and have unconverted husbands) still wear Indian dress, and provide Indian food. They don't attend temple worship. (1 Peter 3:1ff)

It IS sad when a boy of such a mixed marriage chooses the family religion rather than Christ.

I had a similar problem when I was converted, & I ceased to attend the CHurch of England, & was baptised as a believer.

All this is relevant. Believing Jews, including Paul, did not condemn the unbelieving Jews for their continuing in their "customs" but for their unbelief.

Their is no record of Paul condemning anyone for practising circumcision as Jews, only for trying to make the Gentiles proselytes, and separating from Gentile believers. That's what Galatians is about. Not the continuing practice of the Jewish religion as Christians.

 

[rapt]

tralon:

Water baptism is greatly downplayed in Christian circles today because of the teaching all one must do is simply believe and one is considered a Christian.But the bible does not teach such nonsense.The bible teaches an obedient faith to the gospel.When the gospel is presented to sinners, they are required to DO something if they want to become a Christian.

In the bible, sinners were required not only to believe , but to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus before they were constituted as Christians.

Water baptism was NOT an OPTION after one was believed, but was a rite that MADE one a Christian.

One is NOT BIBLICALLY considered fully a Christian UNTIL one believes, repents and is baptised. This is VERY difficult for many believers to accept because of the "easy believeism" doctrine that has poisoned the churches today. Tragically, most churches do not even require converts to repent for their sins before God, but just believe.

Yes the bible teaches MUCH more than what modern churches expouse today concerning what must a person DO to be saved.

Jesus Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all who OBEY him.Heb 5:9. Have you completely obeyed him? Have you believed, repented and followed him in water baptism. If not, do so today.

AMEN tralon! Now THAT'S Bible doctrine through and through!

Ian Day:

Rapt,

The big problem with your argument against my posting is that you simply used it to base a restatement of your position.

You mean I answered your post line upon line by relevant scripture? Is there a problem with that? I even posted the scriptures that you provided and showed how they don't support your argument, and how it appeared that you took them out of context.

Who said circumcision had to stop at once? Not Paul. He circumcised Timothy. Why should believing Jews abruptly stop their food Laws? Not Paul. Not James. (Acts 15) James simply said they did not apply to the Gentiles.

I never said circumcision had to stop all at once. I said that it was never a part of the gospel. I said it was obsolete at the cross. I said that the practice, even though it may have been tolerated, caused a "big problem". And you KNOW it did if you've read the new testament.

Sure, like you said, it was "allowed", but the Jews continued not only to practice those things (the works of the old law and circumcision), but to make an ISSUE of them to the point of contending with the apostles about eating with the gentiles who didn't practice them. They even tried to get the gentiles to believe they MUST practice them to be saved.

You can't ignore this fact, and claim that their heart was not the problem; many did indeed try to add the works of the law to the gospel. Many, even though they "BELIEVED" Christ was the Messiah, contended about it, as if it was mandatory. It was the heart of trusting in the righteousness of the old testament and the contention that came from that lack in their faith that was the root of the problem, not the practices themselves.

It reminds me of how God had Moses lift up the brasen serpent in the wilderness. At the time, it was something for the afflicted people to look upon to be healed. But then later it became a curse to them, since they offered incense to it! It became an IDOL! In the very same way, the law and circumcision was good for it's time, but it became an idol to many. In their hearts they exalted it above a love for their gentile brethren, and it became sin to them. Many did fall from grace embracing a cursed mixture of law and gospel, but they were surely graffed back into the vine when they repented.

Your post seems to plead for an ecumenical Christianity that accepts all religions and even heathen customs; for a Christianity that doesn't require a complete separation from darkness and paganism. Please consider, even though these verses do indeed cause problems, they ARE the Word of God:

2Cr 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].

Jer 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen

...For the customs of the people [are] vain

But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock [is] a doctrine of vanities.

Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, [even] they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

Every man is brutish in [his] knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image [is] falsehood, and [there is] no breath in them.

They [are] vanity, [and] the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.

Jer 10:16 The portion of Jacob [is] not like them


Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.


Matt 15:6b Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

If God was going to allow the Jews to continue their obsolete laws and customs, then why did He destroy the temple in 70AD? And if He was going to continually just overlook such practices, do you also suppose that He overlooks the heathen today who continue to practice the customs of their fathers?

If that is the case, then the RCC is correct in absorbing them all like she does.

I do think that God gave the Jews a transition period, or Paul wouldn't have "become as Jew to a Jew". Do you think he also sacrificed to heathen gods to become as one of them to win them? I doubt it. He might have eaten their food and worn their dress, but I doubt that their religious customs were tolerated.

Since God had been the author of the law of Moses and of circumcision, not of pagan gods and customs, I can see that He in His grace gave the Jews a space to make the change from the old law, but by the time Hebrews was written, it seems that Paul understood that God was putting it away for good, even before the temple's destruction. (Or was Hebrews written after 70AD?)

It's a sad thing that some believers today seem to think that water baptism after the cross was not part of the gospel, and that it was only "allowed" like circumcision had been. That is definately not the case.

It IS part of the gospel, and always will be.

 

[rapt]

Coach:

John 3v8, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it is goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

If baptism saves, then Jesus is clearly wrong here for one can know when he or she is to be "saved" by baptism.

Welcome to the discussion, Coach!

I thought about it, but I fail to see your point, Coach. I don't see this scripture saying anything about 'knowing when' one is born of the Spirit.

Even so, (in spite of my dullness ), didn't they that received the gift of the Holy Spirit "know" when they received it?

 

[Ian Day]

The confusion is becoming clearer every post !

The confusion is becoming clearer every post !

Craig,

My replies in BOLD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Ian]
It seems very clear that the title of this thread "The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!" is completely vindicated. And has been a heresy for almost as long as there has been a church.

I believe water baptism is commanded by our Lord in the Great Commission. BUT I would rather identify with those who insist on baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit as the true baptism, and do not practise water baptism, than with those who insist that water baptism is necessary for salvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Craig]
It is clear you do not believe one must be baptized to be saved of which is true for us today but when you imply it was a heresy in the early church you are completely wrong. If they had not obeyed in water baptism at Pentecost they would not have been saved and the gift of the Holy Ghost would not have been received.

It is BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED that they were baptised. Both with water and with the Holy Spirit into Christ THere is no contradiction. Salvation leads to willing obedience. And willing obedience includes baptism in water. BUT baptism does not save, and disobedience shows that they are not saved.

Salvation is the work of God. God regenerates the sinner (dead in trespasses & sins), and spiritual life begins. As Jesus said:

John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
..........
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

The dead sinners can hear the words, but remain dead until they hear the voice of the Son of God. It is the personal Word of Christ that commands life. And that life is eternal life.

It is the Holy Spirit of God who applies the Word of Christ, and imparts spiritual life, eternal life. (And promises the resurrection.)

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.



Then you go on to say water baptism was commanded! You are confused Ian, Jesus never commissioned "water" baptism. Then you say you would rather identify with those who deny water baptism. The problem with that is we believe water baptism was required under the OLD testament and with that said we agree with Rapt.

Rapt has answered that.
My point is that belief, faith in the crucified & risen CHrist, MUST preceed baptism. It is a sign, and the significance must be real BEFORE it is applied.

You flop back and forth like a fish out of water. ((((LOL)))) That was a [joke] (((((LOLROTF)))))

No. I am consistent. Baptism DOES NOT SAVE. Disobedience shows that the sinner is NOT SAVED. Baptism is a sign to the believer & to the church. But only a sign.

When I read the Old Covenant Scriptures, by which we should understand primarily the Law of Moses, I do not find water baptism as a rite for the remission of sins. Blood sacrifices wre required, not that they secured remission in themselves, but pointed to the ONLY saving sacrifice, the SHED BLOOD OF CHRIST.

High priestly washing, sprinkled blood, ashes & water, are all typical Old Covenant baptisms. They are not John's baptism.

The main point here is those at Pentecost had to be water baptized to be saved and that was a clear message....Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that OBEY him.

See above.

Ian, the message has changed from the OLD testimony to the NEW testimony in the NEW testament. You either have not understood when the NEW testament was given "for" remission or maybe you will deny the words of Jesus and say it wasn't NEW.
Which is it Ian?

The message has always been "repent and turn to God." The message becomes ever clearer the more it is revealed, but it does not change.
The Everlasting Covenant in the blood of Jesus is the ONLY basis for salvation. From Adam(?) onwards. And the New COvenant is the Everlasting Covenant made clear IN CHRIST.

If you want to argue that, Jerry has a thread to discuss it. He's dropped out now, without refuting any of my postings.

[Ian] said:
You have never proved that water baptism was an Old Covenant ritual for the remission of sins. Your main argument seems to be that it was initiated before the cross.

[Craig]
Water baptism was an OLD TESTAMENT ritual and had it's inception with John the Baptist "for" remission of sins!

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 (KJV)

So what do you say Ian? Was this baptism ritual not "for" remission of sins or will you say it was after the cross or it was not a ritual which is a required act performed for religious
benefit. Which is it?

Pure water baptism was used under the Old Covenant for washing both priests & sacrifices. Jesus baptism at the age of thirty was as priest, and as sacrifice.

It was prophesied by Ezekiel:

Eze 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

And the Jews expected water baptism to be a Messianic (or pre-Messianic) ritual:

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

It is plainly a New Covenant ritual and a sign of true cleansing, and of spiritual life. Heart circumcision was always required, and in Ezekiel we see a new heart and the Spirit of God being promised.

[Ian said:]
When Hebrews was discussing Old Covenant "various baptisms" he said:
Hebr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 [It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

You have never proved that John's baptism was not a sign of what it signified:

[Craig's reply]
Even if it was a "SIGN" of which you have never proven it was and never will ,on which your whole theology hangs, we do not need a sign we have the real thing.

We have a sign in the Lord's Supper, to remember the 'real thing.' Why do you reject a sign of water baptism, to teach us the significance of the 'real thing?'

[Craig]
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Cor. 5:17 (KJV)

To you Ian, old things have not pass away! Stop defending those old things and accept that "all things" have become new! Don't let your theology blind you from this truth.

Craig, please stop calling the command of Christ, and the Holy Spirit inspired obedience of the Apostles "old things."

[Ian said: ]
THe Old Covenant baptism with sprinkled blood was for the remission of sins, as was John's baptism with water, as was the Pentecostal baptism with water. All signify the sprinkled blood of Christ, and Pentecostal baptism onwards signifies baptism by the Holy Spirit into Christ. None saved without true, saving repentance.

[Craig's Reply:]
You seem to throw it all in one big pile and grab what you want and run with it. It want work!

I believe in ONE way of salvation, through the saving work of Christ. Therefore I see it throughout Scripture.

[Craig]
The priest were washed (baptized) to be made clean before they could administer the water of purification and the blood.

This was the shadow of that to come!
Israel was God's chosen to deliver the message to the world. They would enter their kingdom as priest and were baptized (washed) and this was the first step. Water baptism was the type of Spirit Baptism it can not also be the blood. You have to prove which type it was. They were immersed by the way and not sprinkled.

Water baptism is not an Old Covenant type. It is a New Covenant SIGN.

[Craig]
Do you see your confusion. The priest were fully washed to be made clean from sin not sprinkled! They were not immersed in the blood it was sprinkled of them. That is why John set up at the river, they had to be fully washed otherwise John and the apostles could have carried a vessel of water and sprinkled people. This water sprinkling business does not make sense. If you don't believe me then ask Rapt, he will set you straight.

Because water baptism follows repentance & faith in Christ, it is a sign: of cleansing from sin, remission of sins, new birth, sprinkled blood, baptism of the Holy Spirit into Christ, new life in Christ, filling with the Holy Spirit, the mode is not significant.

Can you not see that what matters is LIFE?
The Apostle John wrote of ETERNAL LIFE:
1 John 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, [even] eternal life.
3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
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.
5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

And you insist that those who repented & believed the preaching of Apostles did not receive eternal life:

[Craig]
Sometimes I wonder if you read the same bible the rest of us have. They were saved (received remission) but they did not receive eternal life! Their salvation was corruptible in that it was not eternal. You might want to research eternal and who first taught it after the cross and what the people had to believe to receive it.

You obviously read the Bible to try to prove your bizarre theories. Not to learn what God is seeking to teach in his Holy Word.

 

[Ian Day]

Rapt,

I am not suggesting that converts from other religions should continue the practises of those religions. The problem is that they have to continue to live in their community. In their family. They need to distinguish between giving unnecessary offence, and necessary separation.

Likewise the converted Jews after Pentecost were still Jews. They believed in Jesus as Messiah, they repented, and were baptised. And they continued in the temple:

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Rapt, what do you think would be a proper response for a converted Jew invited to a Passover meal by his family?

To eat it, knowing that it speaks of the Lamb of God, the Messiah, or to refuse, and give offence?

[Rapt]
I never said circumcision had to stop all at once. I said that it was never a part of the gospel. I said it was obsolete at the cross. I said that the practice, even though it may have been tolerated, caused a "big problem". And you KNOW it did if you've read the new testament.

Sure, like you said, it was "allowed", but the Jews continued not only to practice those things (the works of the old law and circumcision), but to make an ISSUE of them to the point of contending with the apostles about eating with the gentiles who didn't practice them. They even tried to get the gentiles to believe they MUST practice them to be saved.

You can't ignore this fact, and claim that their heart was not the problem; many did indeed try to add the works of the law to the gospel. Many, even though they "BELIEVED" Christ was the Messiah, contended about it, as if it was mandatory. It was the heart of trusting in the righteousness of the old testament and the contention that came from that lack in their faith that was the root of the problem, not the practices themselves.

Regardless of the misunderstandings, and problems, (& I am NOT ignoring them) Paul was happy to join with believing & practising Jews in an Old Covenant ritual involving animal sacrifice.

I'm quite sure he would have no part in pagan sacrifices, yet he was willing to eat asking no questions, for conscience sake. And he was unwilling knowingly to partake of meat offered to idols.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Ian,

You Said:

It seems very clear that the title of this thread "The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!" is completely vindicated. And has been a heresy for almost as long as there has been a church.

It is BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED that they were baptised. Both with water and with the Holy Spirit into Christ THere is no contradiction. Salvation leads to willing obedience. And willing obedience includes baptism in water. BUT baptism does not save, and disobedience shows that they are not saved.

My response:
Indeed you do flop like a fish! You jump out of the water and say it is a heresy to be water baptized for salvation and then you jump back in the water and say if your not water baptized your not saved. Your confusion is evident!

You said:
Salvation is the work of God. God regenerates the sinner (dead in trespasses & sins), and spiritual life begins. As Jesus said:

The dead sinners can hear the words, but remain dead until they hear the voice of the Son of God. It is the personal Word of Christ that commands life. And that life is eternal life.

It is the Holy Spirit of God who applies the Word of Christ, and imparts spiritual life, eternal life. (And promises the resurrection.)

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Reply:
You deny salvation is the work of God when you say man is not saved if he does not obey in water baptism. You do not comprehend "the flesh profiteth nothing".


You said:
My point is that belief, faith in the crucified & risen CHrist, MUST preceed baptism. It is a sign, and the significance must be real BEFORE it is applied.

Reply:
You have never proven that water baptism is a sign!


Reply:
No. I am consistent. Baptism DOES NOT SAVE. Disobedience shows that the sinner is NOT SAVED. Baptism is a sign to the believer & to the church. But only a sign.

Reply:
Your never consistent and your theology is based on your own private interpretation of which goes against the word of God. Again, it was not a heresy in the early church that water baptism saved. They first had to obey and then they received the Holy Ghost and were given remission. You contend the reverse and go against the word of God which applied at Pentecost.

You said:
When I read the Old Covenant Scriptures, by which we should understand primarily the Law of Moses, I do not find water baptism as a rite for the remission of sins. Blood sacrifices wre required, not that they secured remission in themselves, but pointed to the ONLY saving sacrifice, the SHED BLOOD OF CHRIST.

High priestly washing, sprinkled blood, ashes & water, are all typical Old Covenant baptisms. They are not John's baptism.

Reply:
The washing of the priest BEFORE THE SACRIFICE was to make them CLEAN! What do you think that meant? It removed sin.
The same occurred in the gospels in that they were WASHED before the Sacrifice. Again, THEY WERE NOT SPRINKLED!

I said:
Ian, the message has changed from the OLD testimony to the NEW testimony in the NEW testament. You either have not understood when the NEW testament was given "for" remission or maybe you will deny the words of Jesus and say it wasn't NEW.
Which is it Ian?

Your response:
The message has always been "repent and turn to God." The message becomes ever clearer the more it is revealed, but it does not change.

Reply:
What do you mean ever more clearer? That simply means it was not fully revealed and if it was not fully revealed it was NOT fully understood. Do you beleve we receive eternal life even if we don't fully understand the NEW testimony of Christ? I don't think so and we are not saved by an implied gospel. It must be fully revealed!

You said:
The Everlasting Covenant in the blood of Jesus is the ONLY basis for salvation. From Adam(?) onwards. And the New COvenant is the Everlasting Covenant made clear IN CHRIST.

My reply:
Wake up Ian, the NEW testament is a NEW testimony of a better witness. You deny the clear words of Christ when He said it was NEW. As I said before you want to throw it all in a big pile and grab what you want and run with it but it want work. You cannot combined the old with the new. Rapt showed you clearly that the old is obsolete:

Yes, God had at one time ordained both circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses, but both became obsolete at the crucifixion of Christ, and the rending of veil of the temple by God himself is evidence of it, for it testifies to the fact.

You said:
If you want to argue that, Jerry has a thread to discuss it. He's dropped out now, without refuting any of my postings.

Reply:
The eternal message became effectual at the cross not before.
I have argued this with Jerry on the Virtual Berea forum. They were saved before the NEW testament was given by Christ in the gospels but the NEW testimony had to be believed to receive eternal life. Abraham's bosom was a holding place until Christ delivered His NEW testimony.

You said:
You have never proved that water baptism was an Old Covenant ritual for the remission of sins. Your main argument seems to be that it was initiated before the cross.

I said:
Water baptism was an OLD TESTAMENT ritual and had it's inception with John the Baptist "for" remission of sins!

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 (KJV)

So what do you say Ian? Was this baptism ritual not "for" remission of sins or will you say it was after the cross or it was not a ritual which is a required act performed for religious
benefit. Which is it?

Your response:
Pure water baptism was used under the Old Covenant for washing both priests & sacrifices. Jesus baptism at the age of thirty was as priest, and as sacrifice.

It was prophesied by Ezekiel:

And the Jews expected water baptism to be a Messianic (or pre-Messianic) ritual:

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

It is plainly a New Covenant ritual and a sign of true cleansing, and of spiritual life. Heart circumcision was always required, and in Ezekiel we see a new heart and the Spirit of God being promised.

Reply:
You're confused again! The New Testament was given after John's baptism. Your theology causes you to deny the truth!
Ian, all things changed at the cross.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Cor. 5:17 (KJV)

You said:
You have never proved that John's baptism was not a sign of what it signified:

I said:
Even if it was a "SIGN" of which you have never proven it was and never will ,on which your whole theology hangs, we do not need a sign we have the real thing.

Your response:
We have a sign in the Lord's Supper, to remember the 'real thing.' Why do you reject a sign of water baptism, to teach us the significance of the 'real thing?'

My reply:
The Lord's Supper is not water baptism and water baptism is NOT a sign to the body of Christ. More confusion! If you believe water baptism is a sign of receiving the blood of Christ then why do we need the sign again in the Lord's Supper? You declare water baptism the sign of the applied blood by your mixing the old with the new and you build false analogies based on assumptions without biblical proof. Again, you need to prove water baptism is a sign to the body of Christ!


In Christ
Craig

continued.........

 

[Ian Day]

Craig,

You challenge me to show that baptism is a sign:

"Even if it was a "SIGN" of which you have never proven it was and never will ,on which your whole theology hangs, we do not need a sign we have the real thing."

Consider these Scriptures:
Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
...............
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life

1 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.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
............
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


The sign of Jonah was the death & resurrection of Christ, and according to Romans 6, baptism is a sign of death to sin, and rising to new life in Christ.

Circumcision was a sign and seal to Abraham of righteousness imputed by faith ..... not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also. (Rom. 4)

We are not circumcised but we have an imputed righteousness through being circumcised in Christ, buried with him in baptism. (Romans 4 & 6, Col. 2)

Paul's discussion of baptism leads into the Jews seeking a sign, and the Greeks seeking wisdom - but Paul preaches Christ crucified, the wisdom & power of God.

Baptism into Christ is identifying with him, in his death & resurrection.

Water baptism is a sign of our identifying with Christ - in his death, and our benefits given by his resurrection - all his saving work, not forgetting the cleansing blood, imputed righteousness & the indwelling of his Holy Spirit.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Ian,

I said:
To you Ian, old things have not pass away! Stop defending those old things and accept that "all things" have become new! Don't let your theology blind you from this truth.

You said:
Craig, please stop calling the command of Christ, and the Holy Spirit inspired obedience of the Apostles "old things."

My reply:
The command of Christ was part of the NEW testament given AFTER the cross. It can be clearly seen they are commanded to teach and that teaching will baptize all that believe. He did not command "them" to do the baptizing.

Let's look at each account before Christ ascended in what He commissioned the apostles and not "add" water. This commission must be understood in the light of the “new” testament “for” remission of sins.

#1
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

It is clear the apostles are being instructed to teach and the teaching of the word will baptize them. The word is spirit and it is by this word we are baptized...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV) The quickening of the spirit (baptism) is immediate when the words of the new testament are believed. The apostles never baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because this baptism is performed by Christ when we believe.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6 (KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8 (KJV)
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1 John 5:9 (KJV)

#2
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Again, the teaching but also when one believes the word they are baptized by that word. This baptism (quickening) is received the moment one believes the word. This word of the gospel is spirit and life eternal in the new testament.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)

#3
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: Luke 24:46 (KJV)
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47 (KJV)

Christ said that remission of sins would be received through His death. He did not say remission would be in water baptism. The word of the "new" testament for remission of sins must be believed.

#4
For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)

Christ speaks of the contrast of the two baptisms and confirms it will not be in water BUT Spirit!

Conclusion:
By comparing scripture with scripture it is evident the commission was to preach the new testimony for sin remission and when one believes the words of this gospel of Christ they would be baptized by the Spirit. The confusion is had when men go against the warning of God and “ADD” the word “WATER” to the final words of Christ.
Jesus instructed the apostles in the "new" testament for remission of sins but because of their unbelief they taught the "old" testament of water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost. Christ Jesus did “NOT” commission the apostles to “WATER” baptize for remission after He gave the NEW TESTAMENT for remission of sins.

You said:
Can you not see that what matters is LIFE?

Reply:
Not only do I see it but I understand when it was first given
at the cross and that it is the NEW testament in His blood!

The Apostle John wrote of ETERNAL LIFE:
1 John 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, [even] eternal life.
3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
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.
5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Reply:
Amen

You said:
And you insist that those who repented & believed the preaching of Apostles did not receive eternal life:

Reply:
Paul was the first man after the cross to teach the eternal message. You cannot jump years ahead and take the teachings of John who benefited from Paul's teachings and apply it to their belief at Pentecost. If you will notice in all these teachings of John
in reference to receiving eternal life not once does he mention water baptism.

In Christ
Craig

 

[HopeofGlory]

Ian,

You said:
You challenge me to show that baptism is a sign:

I said:
"Even if it was a "SIGN" of which you have never proven it was and never will ,on which your whole theology hangs, we do not need a sign we have the real thing."

You said:
Consider these Scriptures:
Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Reply:
Read it again and pay attention to the words...."and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas". The ONLY SIGN will be the death of Jesus but you say no that's not true by including water baptism as a sign.

Next:
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Reply:
Circumcision of the flesh has nothing to do with water baptism.

Next:
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Reply:
No proof for water baptism being a SIGN!

Next:
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life

Reply:
Baptism into His death is received by faith in believing He died in our place and it has nothing to do with water.

Next:
1 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.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Reply:
Why would Christ send Paul NOT to baptize if you believe the GREAT COMMISSION was... You apostles go water baptize?
There is no rhyme to your reason.

Next:
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Reply:
Do you require a SIGN other than the only SIGN which is the death of Christ.

Next:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Reply:
Note this circuimcision and baptism is the OPERATION OF GOD and it is NOT water baptism.

You said:
The sign of Jonah was the death & resurrection of Christ, and according to Romans 6, baptism is a sign of death to sin, and rising to new life in Christ.

Reply:
The death of Christ is the ONLY sign! Spiritual baptism the OPERATION OF GOD and is the WITNESS of the death of Christ to the inner man.

You said:
Circumcision was a sign and seal to Abraham of righteousness imputed by faith ..... not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also. (Rom. 4)

Reply:
Old testament sign of circumcision was done away with at the cross and ALL THINGS have become new and are of GOD.

You said:
We are not circumcised but we have an imputed righteousness through being circumcised in Christ, buried with him in baptism. (Romans 4 & 6, Col. 2)

Paul's discussion of baptism leads into the Jews seeking a sign, and the Greeks seeking wisdom - but Paul preaches Christ crucified, the wisdom & power of God.

Baptism into Christ is identifying with him, in his death & resurrection.

Reply:
Circumcision and baptism into His death are operations of God and have nothing to do with man obeying in the ritual of water baptism.

You said:
Water baptism is a sign of our identifying with Christ - in his death, and our benefits given by his resurrection - all his saving work, not forgetting the cleansing blood, imputed righteousness & the indwelling of his Holy Spirit.

Reply:
Again you have proven you method of throwing everything in a big pile and grabbing what you want. You than add WATER to the mix and say there I proved it. It simply will not work.

In Christ
Craig

 

[Ian Day]

Craig,

Replies in BOLD

Read it again and pay attention to the words...."and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas". The ONLY SIGN will be the death of Jesus but you say no that's not true by including water baptism as a sign.

Please, death AND RESURRECTION !
Note that the witnesses of the the resurrection were only pre-chosen believers. The risen Jesus never appeared to unbelievers.
It is therefore reasonable to see water baptism as the sign.

Next:
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Reply:
Circumcision of the flesh has nothing to do with water baptism.

Next:
Rom 4:23ff
Reply:
No proof for water baptism being a SIGN!

Next:
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life

Reply:
Baptism into His death is received by faith in believing He died in our place and it has nothing to do with water.

Paul's arguments from Romans 4 culminate in Romans 6, in showing that the imputed righteousness is evidenced by godly living. The sign of baptism is worthless without evident new life.

I know that true saving baptism is baptism by the Holy SPirit into Christ, but that does not mean water baptism is not commanded, & not significant.

Next:
1 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.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Reply:
Why would Christ send Paul NOT to baptize if you believe the GREAT COMMISSION was... You apostles go water baptize?
There is no rhyme to your reason.

Paul's primary commission was to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Members of his team did the baptising in water, & Paul also baptised. His message was NOT "just repent & believe, but do not get baptised in water. Water baptism is being phased out."
Paul's words are a matter of emphasis, to rebuke those who were following the one who baptised them. As if baptism in the name of Paul was significant.

Next:
22 For the Jews require a sign ...

Reply:
Do you require a SIGN other than the only SIGN which is the death of Christ.

The death AND RESURRECTION of CHrist was not a visible sign.
I do not REQUIRE A SIGN. The sign is God-commanded.

Next:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Reply:
Note this circumcision and baptism is the OPERATION OF GOD and it is NOT water baptism.

THere is no doubt that circumcision was a sign & seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he {Abraham} had yet] being uncircumcised.
Colossians indicates that baptism is the sign to the Christian that circumcision was to the Jew. Of course the operation of God is necessary, & the sign is worthless without the significance.

You said:
The sign of Jonah was the death & resurrection of Christ, and according to Romans 6, baptism is a sign of death to sin, and rising to new life in Christ.

Reply:
The death of Christ is the ONLY sign! Spiritual baptism the OPERATION OF GOD and is the WITNESS of the death of Christ to the inner man.
THe death of CHrist is a sign of the victory of Satan over God. Without the resurrection, all is lost.
While you forget the resurrection you are of all men most miserable.

You said:
Circumcision was a sign and seal to Abraham of righteousness imputed by faith ..... not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also. (Rom. 4)

Reply:
Old testament sign of circumcision was done away with at the cross and ALL THINGS have become new and are of GOD.

You said:
We are not circumcised but we have an imputed righteousness through being circumcised in Christ, buried with him in baptism. (Romans 4 & 6, Col. 2)

Paul's discussion of baptism leads into the Jews seeking a sign, and the Greeks seeking wisdom - but Paul preaches Christ crucified, the wisdom & power of God.

Baptism into Christ is identifying with him, in his death & resurrection.

Reply:
Circumcision and baptism into His death are operations of God and have nothing to do with man obeying in the ritual of water baptism.

You said:
Water baptism is a sign of our identifying with Christ - in his death, and our benefits given by his resurrection - all his saving work, not forgetting the cleansing blood, imputed righteousness & the indwelling of his Holy Spirit.

Reply:
Again you have proven you method of throwing everything in a big pile and grabbing what you want. You than add WATER to the mix and say there I proved it. It simply will not work.

I call it "CONSIDER THE WEIGHT OF SCRIPTURE."

 

[HopeofGlory]

Ian,

You said:
Please, death AND RESURRECTION !
Note that the witnesses of the the resurrection were only pre-chosen believers. The risen Jesus never appeared to unbelievers.
It is therefore reasonable to see water baptism as the sign.

Reply:
In case you missed the point!
The death and resurrection of Christ is the ONLY sign. You deny this by insisting the ritual of water baptism is also a sign.

Read it again and pay attention to the words...."and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas".

You said:
Paul's arguments from Romans 4 culminate in Romans 6, in showing that the imputed righteousness is evidenced by godly living. The sign of baptism is worthless without evident new life.

Reply:
Paul is not referring to water baptism!

If we read Romans 5 we can see how we are baptized into his death. Those who walk by sight and are still in the flesh say it is by obeying in water baptism but this is not what Paul said.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom. 5:1 (KJV)
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5:2 (KJV)

Faith is required not water baptism which is a "work". If a work is required then salvation must be earned. Jesus said “it is finished” and therefore no more “work” is required for salvation. Those who do not have “faith” in His finished work say water baptism is required and are still in their sins.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Rom. 5:9 (KJV)

We are justified by His blood and the only way that can be received is by faith. Nothing more need be added unless you do not believe. The old message for remission of sins has been superceded by the greater witness of God and the new message is faith in His blood for remission of sins.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom. 5:15 (KJV)

We can not add to the finished work of Christ and this "gift" must be received "freely" or it is no longer a gift.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:19 (KJV)

It is not "our" obedience but by the obedience of "one" so that the gift may be "free".
Some say it is not free and by adding their obedience they deny the word of God and void the free gift.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom. 6:3 (KJV)

Notice that it says baptized "into Jesus" not into "water". How are we to get into Jesus?...For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom. 6:4 (KJV)

Here it says "into death" not "water" . In other words when we are baptized by the Spirit we are in His body and we died with Him and it is received through "faith".

Paul not once says water baptism is a SIGN!

You said:
I know that true saving baptism is baptism by the Holy SPirit into Christ, but that does not mean water baptism is not commanded, & not significant.

Reply:
Jesus never commanded water baptism!

The command of Christ was part of the new testament given after the cross. It can be clearly seen they are commanded to teach and that teaching will baptize all that believe. He did not command "them" to do the baptizing.

Let's look at each account before Christ ascended in what He commissioned the apostles and not "add" water. This commission must be understood in the light of the “new” testament “for” remission of sins.

#1
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

It is clear the apostles are being instructed to teach and the teaching of the word will baptize them. The word is spirit and it is by this word we are baptized...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV) The quickening of the spirit (baptism) is immediate when the words of the new testament are believed. The apostles never baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because this baptism is performed by Christ when we believe.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6 (KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8 (KJV)
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 John 5:9 (KJV)


#2
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Again, the teaching but also when one believes the word they are baptized by that word. This baptism (quickening) is received the moment one believes the word. This word of the gospel is spirit and life eternal in the new testament.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)

#3
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: Luke 24:46 (KJV)
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47 (KJV)

Christ said that remission of sins would be received through His death. He did not say remission would be in water baptism. The word of the "new" testament for remission of sins must be believed. Christ it clearly explaining how remission of sins would be received and referring to Isaiah 53 where “it is written” He was to suffer. These scriptures not once mention water baptism.

#4
For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)

Christ speaks of the contrast of the two baptisms and confirms it will not be in water BUT Spirit! The contrast was further revealed in that the death of Christ for remission of sins superceded water baptism....But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 (KJV)
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35 (KJV)
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)


Conclusion:
By comparing scripture with scripture it is evident the commission was to preach the new testimony for sin remission and when one believes the words of this gospel of Christ they would be baptized by the Spirit. The confusion is had when men go against the warning of God and “ADD” the word “WATER” to the final words of Christ.

Jesus instructed the apostles in the "new" testament for remission of sins but because of their unbelief they taught the "old" testament of water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost. Christ Jesus did “NOT” commission the apostles to “WATER” baptize after He gave the NEW TESTAMENT for remission of sins.

You said:
Paul's primary commission was to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Members of his team did the baptising in water, & Paul also baptised. His message was NOT "just repent & believe, but do not get baptised in water. Water baptism is being phased out."
Paul's words are a matter of emphasis, to rebuke those who were following the one who baptised them. As if baptism in the name of Paul was significant.

Reply:
Again you attempt to added to scripture what is not there when you say.....Members of his team did the baptising in water. Paul said Christ sent him NOT to baptize! Paul preached the greater witness....But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 (KJV)
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35 (KJV)
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)

You said:
The death AND RESURRECTION of CHrist was not a visible sign.
I do not REQUIRE A SIGN. The sign is God-commanded.

Reply:
The witness of water baptism has been superceded by the witness of God. It is the Spirit that witnesses in the written word and we don't need a sign.

You said:
THere is no doubt that circumcision was a sign & seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he {Abraham} had yet] being uncircumcised.
Colossians indicates that baptism is the sign to the Christian that circumcision was to the Jew. Of course the operation of God is necessary, & the sign is worthless without the significance.

Reply:
You still do get it do you! All things are of God concerning salvation. Water baptism did not replace circumcision of the flesh.
God replaced it with the circumcision made without hands. Colossians says buried with him in baptism. It does not say water! We are baptized into His death by the operation of God. The Spirit is the agent not water.

You said:
THe death of CHrist is a sign of the victory of Satan over God. Without the resurrection, all is lost.

Reply:
Amen

You said:
While you forget the resurrection you are of all men most miserable.

Reply:
Get real!

You said:
I call it "CONSIDER THE WEIGHT OF SCRIPTURE."

Reply:
I call it reading into scripture what clearly is not there!
Ian, did you notice that scripture not once says water baptism is a SIGN of what we believe!

In Christ
Craig

 

[rapt]

Ian:

I am consistent. Baptism DOES NOT SAVE. Disobedience shows that the sinner is NOT SAVED. Baptism is a sign to the believer & to the church. But only a sign.

Am I correct to take from this that you are saying that obedience does not save a just person, and disobedience does not damn a sinner? If baptism, being obedience, is only a sign, is sin just a sign too? Isn't that what you must conclude to be consistant, Ian?

Ian, when was Naaman the leper healed of his leprosy? When he believed Elijah? Or was it rather when he believed him IN OBEDIENCE to his commandment? Naaman was only cleansed of his leprosy once he got in the water. He had to totally forsake his own thoughts, and DO what he was told before being cleansed. Baptism is the same way. Faith can't save anyone if it's the kind that devils have, that knows the truth, but doesn't DO it. Please stop offering a false sense of security to the many who refuse to be baptised by saying baptism (obedience) does not save, and that it's only a sign that someone is already saved, for that isn't any more true than for someone to say that Naaman was healed as soon as he believed, but that his going down and dipping in the Jordan seven times was "only a sign that he believed".

As little as I desire to agree with Craig, (who's doctrine is big time heresy, as we both know assuredly), I'm sad to acknowledge that his following statement about what you believe is true:

You jump out of the water and say it is a heresy to be water baptized for salvation and then you jump back in the water and say if your not water baptized your not saved. Your confusion is evident!

Your never consistent (on baptism, but you're correct in other things) and your theology is based on your own private interpretation of which goes against the word of God. Again, it was not a heresy in the early church that water baptism saved (No, because Peter said baptism DOES save us, so it was his teaching, not a heresy). They first had to obey and then they received the Holy Ghost and were given remission. You contend the reverse and go against the word of God which applied at Pentecost.

Sadly, he's right here. But as you know, he turns coat and says that Peter's Pentacostal message is not even the New Testament gospel! So Ian, forsake this confusing, double mindedness that plagues your thinking, and just acknowledge that Peter said it right:

1 Peter 3
21
Baptism, which corresponds to (Noah's salvation from the flood), now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

God gives the Holy Spirit to them that obey Him. Baptism is not a bath to remove body odor, it is obedience to Christ's commandment, the only way to have a clear conscience before God. One who's faith is valid will desire baptism to be had immediately, as is seen in the scripture, not some man-made way at one's leasure, and not downgrading it as if it is not connected to remission of sins. Either Peter's sermon was of the Holy Ghost or it was of the flesh. Which was it, Ian? Is remission of sins because of the blood of Christ accessed as soon as one is obedient to be baptised, or as soon as one "believes"? If the latter, then Peter was wrong in TWO places: Acts 2 and 1Pet 3:21. If he is correct, then the "faith alone" doctrine is not.

Craig:

Abraham's bosom was a holding place until Christ delivered His NEW testimony.

...to the DEAD IN THEIR GRAVES? I think not.

Water baptism was an OLD TESTAMENT ritual and had it's inception with John the Baptist "for" remission of sins!

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.

The kingdom of heaven has been being preached since John, and was "at hand" only because the Messiah had come. The Kingdom of God IS the message of the New Testament, not of the old. Their's was a kingdom of the flesh, not of heaven.

Ian:

And the Jews expected water baptism to be a Messianic (or pre-Messianic) ritual:

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

That's a very good point, Ian, and the scripture you quoted is very relevant. I never thought of that before. It supports the fact that baptism is NEW TESTAMENT, NOT OLD.

But if baptism is ONLY a sign, then it would be optional, just as many churches today suppose. If it was not commanded OUTWARDLY, then surely the Lord Himself, or Paul, or some other apostle or would have said that it is unecessary, or old testament and therefore obsolete. Contrarily, we see water baptism COMMANDED time after time all through the acts of the Apostles, even the second time upon those who had been baptised in Christ's name, who had not received the Holy Spirit, since they had never heard of it (Acts 19). But all of those scriptures are completely denied by the heresy that claims that water baptism isn't a "New Testament" commandment. The blind lead the blind into the dispensational ditch, as in the following:

Craig:

To you Ian, old things have not pass away! Stop defending those old things and accept that "all things" have become new! Don't let your theology blind you from this truth.

I agree with Ian's reply to such a statement:

Ian:

Craig, please stop calling the command of Christ, and the Holy Spirit inspired obedience of the Apostles "old things."

Craig:

Let's look at each account before Christ ascended in what He commissioned the apostles and not "add" water.

You failed to acknowledge when I posted each account throughout the book of acts where the apostles DID water baptise. You only see what you want to see and ignore what you don't want to see. Is your man made teaching so dear to you that even God's word can't tear you away from it's grip?

The word is spirit and it is by this word we are baptized...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

We are baptised into Christ's DEATH. His word makes alive, and it is His word that commands water baptism. That commandment is NOT "of the flesh", nor is our fleshly filth washed by baptism, but our conscience is cleansed by our obedience to Christ's commandment.

The apostles never baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because this baptism is performed by Christ when we believe.

No, they baptised in water IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. The phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", which Peter correctly interpreted to mean "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 4:12; 2:38) was used by Christ in the same way He had commonly called himself "the son of man" rather than the "Messiah, the Son of Yahweh". It was Christ's humility that makes him great, and caused God to be well pleased with Him, and to give him a name above every name. But those that know Him not use a term to baptise that He used merely used in humility, and even deny the Apostle Peter's understanding of Christ's commandment!

Jesus told his disciples that the NEW TESTAMENT was going to be preached:

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

...and it indeed WAS at Pentacost!
After posting this very scritpure, Craig then affirms the truth of it, but DENIES that it was fulfilled at Pentacost! And yet with a strait face, he says Ian flip flops!

Christ said that remission of sins would be received through His death.

Peter extensively alludes to Christ's death at Pentacost, even telling the Jews that THEY killed Him, but Craig denies it altogether! He says the death of Christ was NOT preached at Pentacost, and says Peter preached remission of sins merely by a bloodless water baptism!

Craig:

Conclusion:
By comparing scripture with scripture it is evident the commission was to preach the new testimony for sin remission and when one believes the words of this gospel of Christ they would be baptized by the Spirit. The confusion is had when men go against the warning of God and “ADD” the word “WATER” to the final words of Christ.
Jesus instructed the apostles in the "new" testament for remission of sins but because of their unbelief they taught the "old" testament of water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost. Christ Jesus did “NOT” commission the apostles to “WATER” baptize for remission after He gave the NEW TESTAMENT for remission of sins.

Paul was the first man after the cross to teach the eternal message.

My conclusion:

Craig shows his double mindedness when he says Christ commissioned Peter to preach the new testament, because he denies that Peter obeyed at Jerusalem on Pentacost. He basically calls Peter a false apostle by saying that he did not believe, and that he preached "another gospel".

According to Gal 1:8,9, any other gospel could have ONLY been a false one, and accursed, yet Craig claims that it wasn't an evil doctrine, but that even though Peter was in unbelief, he preached a legitamate old testament way to get sins remitted, even AFTER the cross, that was not Christ nor the New Testament. So he shows that he does NOT believe that "all things became new at the cross" like he continually contradicts himself by saying.


Verily, verily I (rapt) say unto you, If the old testament had been sufficient for the remission of sins, then Christ died in vain.


Craig even goes so far to say that those Jews' sins at Pentacost WERE remitted by what he willfully ignorantly imagines is a Christless, bloodless gospel of Peter's unbelief, and that they were "saved", but that they did NOT receive "eternal life". Such confusion is so far fetched that after continual reproofs from scripture, I am left with nothing else to appeal to; scripture has surely not been exhausted, but I have, and enough was shown to convince any true believer of God's Word that Craig is in dire need of repentance before he will understand the gospel Peter preached is the New Testament truth for him too, that he is obligated to obey if he desires the Holy Spirit.

This is my last post in this string. Ian, email me if you need to.
I let every other gospel than Peter's (which IS the one true gospel of Christ) be accursed.

 

[Ian Day]

The Last Word from me .

The Last Word from me .

Craig, Rapt,

I don't think we are making progress, so I will make this my final submission.
My comments below are in the appropriate colour. Red comments are common.

I have to hold Bible ground against the extremes of "no water baptism" or "essential for salvation water baptism."

Baptism is a New Covenant sign, for the believer.

I cannot agree with Craig that water baptism is an Old Covenant "work" which effectively ended with the cross, and that Peter only preached it because he did not understand or believe the New Covenant in the blood of Christ. I believe that the Acts of the Apostles is the record of the Apostles carrying out the "great commission" of the Lord. I see a learning process, but NO ERROR.

It is not for us to judge the Holy Spirit inspired teaching of Peter & the Apostles, but to believe and submit to it.

As Rapt pointed out: "We are baptised into Christ's DEATH. His word makes alive, and it is His word that commands water baptism. That commandment is NOT "of the flesh", nor is our fleshly filth washed by baptism, but our conscience is cleansed by our obedience to Christ's commandment. "

Because the sign of baptism speaks to us of the saving work of Christ, and his cleansing blood.


I cannot agree with Rapt that water baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation. Baptism is for believers, and salvation is new life in Christ, expressed by repentance from sin & turning to God with faith in Christ, with baptism being a sign to the new believer of all that that the shed blood of Christ means, and to the church that the new believer is committing himself to Christ & willing to be numbered with them.

As Craig pointed out: "It is not "our" obedience [that saves] but by the obedience of "one" so that the gift may be "free". Some say it is not free and by adding their obedience [baptism] they deny the word of God and void the free gift. "

That is not saying that sinners are saved without repentance.


As long as we keep Christ as our head, "the author & finisher of our faith" and read and believe his Word, we will not fall either side of our walk with Christ, in the Spirit.

Baptism & communion show us Christ, and his saving work alone. And as saved believers, we must walk in obedience.

Craig accuses me: "Again you have proven you method of throwing everything in a big pile and grabbing what you want. You than add WATER to the mix and say there I proved it. It simply will not work. "

I believe the whole Bible, so that a weight of Scripture leads us into the truth.

Rapt accuses me: "Am I correct to take from this that you are saying that obedience does not save a just person, and disobedience does not damn a sinner? If baptism, being obedience, is only a sign, is sin just a sign too? Isn't that what you must conclude to be consistant, Ian? "

I only want to be consistent with the Word of God. Please don't make false "logical deductions" from another's belief. We believe the Scriptures, the Word of God.

Farewell, see you on other threads.