c.moore,
I can and do answer on my own but I like sometime how the other people put in better wording what I believe and have the same views as me, so I use their wordings pointing to my view on the debate.
Same views as you? Your authors believes that Acts 2:38 is referring to water baptism. You think it's referring to Spirit baptism. Have you change your view on this, again?
Specially they had a good way of explaining how water baptism is only a symbol an a example of how we are baptized inthe Kingdom of God , and the spiritual baptism is that which make us children of God.
Ok, I've answered this many times, but since you like to use borrowed arguments to answer, here is one that I will use to defeat that notion that we are saved by Spirit baptism:
http://www.bebaptized.org/Wearenotsavedwhen.htm
In addition to this, my aguments still stand that man cannot baptize with the Holy Spirit, for man connot command Him. I've shown in the past in Acts 8 when Philip preached to the Samaritans that one is NOT automatically Spirit baptized upon believing the gospel. The apsotles had to travel up from Jerusalem and lay hand upon them, asking God to baptize them with the Holy Spirit. Yet, these people were certainly baptized with water in the name of the Lord Jesus previously, just as all conversions happen.
Your author then tries to use Acts 10:44, where people were Spirit baptized before being water baptized in the name of the Lord to try and back his argument (as many on this board have). The fact of the matter is that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit, yet, Peter seeing this, still commanded them to be baptized in water! Now, if Spirit baptism is really what counts, then why was water baptism commanded after Spirit baptism? There woul be NO reason to if it didn't matter to salvation.
Now I know your hung up on it just being symbolic that we have already been saved, but you'll find that NOWHERE in scripture, while I can point to Acts 2:38 and show that it's for the forgiveness of sins, which is further backed by Romans 6.
Your author's argument says that "baptism to the forgiveness of sins it does not clearly make baptism a condition for salvation." The author makes no attempt to discredit that Acts 2:38 and Rom. 6 both show that baptism is indeed for the forgiveness of sins. Why is that?
You read passed the Author and missed his point and you missed again that he has used the debate which you stand on and scriptures, and then show latter how wrong you water divers are.
Basically, your author presented church of Christ arguments in the first part, and then tried to refute them in the second sections. How did he show that we "water divers"
are wrong? By this:
But He also said this:
The historical fact that many people in the book of Acts, who placed their faith in Christ, were immediately baptized does not make water baptism a necessary condition for salvation. A Church of Christ representative would probably agree with this statement but respond that the Apostles did include baptism in their gospel message. This argument will be considered next.
Your author then tries to validate this rediculous assertion by scrutinizing the greek word 'eis' and it's meaning:
"V. The claim made by Church of Christ representatives that because the apostles included water baptism in their gospel message they believed it a necessary condition for salvation is false. In Acts 2:38 Peter said, "Repent and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus for (Greek: eiz) the forgiveness of your sins..." Two points can be made about this passage. First, Peter's statement was in response to a general question by his listeners (v. 37b), "What shall we do?" Peter said "Repent and be baptized." Peter was fulfilling what Jesus had commanded him to do in Matt. 28:18-20 ("make disciples...baptizing them")."
I'm glad that the author at least recognizes that the water baptism in Acts 2:38 was in fulfillment of Christ's command to do so in the great commission (Matt. 28: 19-20).
But then your author throws logic out the window by saying:
"Second, although Peter linked repentance and water baptism to the forgiveness of sins it does not clearly make baptism a condition for salvation.
He admits that the apostle Peter linked repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins, but then says that that does not clearly make it a condition of salvation!!!! :doh: What!? Ok folks, remission of our sins is not clearly necessary for our salvation. :doh:
He then tries to justify his rediculous statement with:
"The Greek preposition eiz (translated "for" by NAS) according to BAGD has a broad range of meanings which can include purpose ("in order that") or result ("with the result").
Although Peter's command to repent and be baptized is clear, the logical connection to forgiveness of sins is somewhat cloudy. If I say, "Repent and come to the front of the church so that you may have eternal life," I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation.8"
He is comparing apples to oranges here. The subject at hand in Acts 2, was WHAT MUST WE DO TO BE SAVED? Peter answered and said repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins. When you are asked what must be done to be saved, would you tell them what they needed to do for salvation (answering their qeustion), OR, would you give half of it and say
"Repent and come to the front of the church so that you may have eternal life,"?
Christ never talked about needing to come forward to the church for salvation, but Christ certainly included Baptism in conjuction with salvation (Mark 16:16, John 3:5). Therefore Peter answered their question - what must we do to be saved? He answered from guidance of the Holy Spirit. Your author throws in something that is has nothing to do with salvation (coming forward), and therefore Peter wouldn't have included anything unecessary in response to their question. Both things that Peter commanded were taught by Christ, and they are expected of us.
I could EASILY use your author's logic against him by saying that the command of repent isn't necessary. I coud say "Jump up and down and be baptized for the remission of sins.". Your author took baptism out, I took out repentance. Foolish argument.
The early church fathers knew the necessity of water baptism as taught in the scriptures, but yeah, this Johnny go lucky interpreter just happened to get the REAL translation right, and all those earlier Christians, some of who were taught directly under the apostles had it all wrong.... yeah, sure.
If faith only saves, then one doesn't need to repent (something man must do - a WORK). They just need to believe. I already went over this with you, and got NO reply, except borrowed arguements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that faith alone is both a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation. By necessary and sufficient I mean that not only is faith necessary for salvation (both sides agree about this), but that faith is also sufficient.14 A study of the word group believe, belief, faith, and save will demonstrate this. The Greek verb pisteuw (that is translated "believe") occurs 248 times in the N.T. and can mean believe, trust, or entrust. pisteuw occurs 100 times alone in the gospel of John. This is not surprising. John wrote, "But these things have been written that you may believe (pisteuw) that Jesus is the Christ...and that by believing you may have life in His name." (Jn. 20:31) In John 1:12 John wrote that all "who believe in His name" are children of God. John 3:16 recorded, "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." Also consider John 3:18 and 7:38, 39.
See, this is the problem with your borrowed arguement. I said that it mentioned that if faith only saves, then repentance isn't necessary, which you admitted IS necessary. And your response by quoting a section of his work mentions NOTHING about the necessity of repentance. Do you no longer believe that repentance is necessary?
--------------------------------
To sum up, here are some points/questions:
- Since the author of your borrowed argument acknowledges that Acts 2:38 is referring to water baptism, has your view changed on this?
- How can you say that faith *only* saves when you claim repentance is ALSO necessary for salvation? If faith *ONLY* was enough, then nothing else matters in regards to salvation. How do you explain your contradiction?
