The leader of website left Bapism out od the Plan of Salvation!

 

Does anyone know how to stop getting /DIV at every line? Have no clue why thats showing up - driving me nuts!

Cougan, if Baptism by water is so essential, why do most Christians, even theologists and pastors/ministers agree its not a requirement?

John baptized in water for the preparation of the coming of Jesus - it is only a sign of the inward baptism by the holy spirit.


<DIV class=words-list>Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. </DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>&nbsp;</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>I don't think this is talking about water Baptism. To me it means He that believes and is THEN baptized by the holy spirit is saved, but he that doesn't believe is condemend since without belief, the holy spirit doesn't baptize you.</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>&nbsp;</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>If baptism by water were so essential it would have said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not and is not baptized in water shall be condemned.</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>&nbsp;</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>Being baptized in water is a WORK on our part to show our inward change in Jesus.&nbsp; And God makes it quite clear, without contradiction that no work by man has anything to do with salvation.&nbsp; It is all on God.&nbsp; Baptism in water isn't a gift from God, its a work done by us.</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>&nbsp;</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>Also on your point of why Paul didn't baptize because people would be doing it in his name.</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>By that logic, in order to be baptized in Jesus' name, Jesus himself would have had to baptize - which he clearly never did.&nbsp; So that is a blatant condradiction on your part.</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>&nbsp;</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>You also seem to be a small minority on this board that believes its a requirement?</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>&nbsp;</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>Afterall, the main denomination that requires it is the Catholic Church and we all know the contradictions and heresy that come out of&nbsp; there - so i don't consider them to be a good role model.</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>&nbsp;</DIV>


<DIV class=words-list>I'm sorry but you are essentially condeming tons of true believers and people alive in Jesus to Hell based on your own interpretations - Jesus said numerous times that faith alone in him is how you get to Heaven, not faith and works or water immersion.</DIV>

hmm
as i said in another thread i dont have the time to be on here anymore and put hours of my life into this.
but i will try to reply to you, and make this my last post here.

yes i am saying that a sinner prays, and asks him into their heart and then they are saved. if they had faith anyway.

i agreed that the&nbsp;water baptism isnt effective unless after salvation, but the reason i did is becuase i dont agree that it has the purpose that you believe it does.
i dont think it ever adds anything to your salvation, your growth in christ yes, but i dont believe it makes you saved or any more saved than you were.
i believe it is effective in its purpose only after salvation, but i dont believe this purpose is your salvation.


ok, the one baptism.
it is saying there is only ONE baptism into Christ, only ONE pathway to salvation, only ONE way into the body of Christ.
it is not saying that there is only one baptism.
becuase paul talks about a "...doctrine of BAPTISMS..." heb 6.2

becuase there are 3 diffrent baptisms. only one saves a man, becuase there is only one that is reffering to a mans true salvation.
and that is the baptism into Christ.
but there is also baptism in water and a baptism in the holyspirit.
so there are baptisms, 3 of them, yet there is only 1 baptism, whicn is refering to the one that saves.

i never disagreed that one must be baptised into christ to be saved.only that that term does not refer to water baptism.

i agree that the baptism into christ is what saves us, though im not really into trying to debate how many seconds it takes after this happens for you to be saved, if you get what i mean.

i dont read that it says "into the name" of Jesus, only in the name of Jesus. matt 28.19 i dont agree that this is refering to you being baptised into the name of jesus, but being baptised in his name or in honor or proclamation&nbsp;of him. i dont agree that this is saying baptism puts you into him. so i dont agree that it means water baptism was that ONE&nbsp;baptism."

i agree that it doesnt get any more simple than that for you, but i do not agree with&nbsp;that teaching&nbsp;and it doesnt sit right with me or my understanding of the word of God. and just becuase something is easy to believe means very little.
just becuase peter included baptism in the salvation message, becuase it is a commandment of God as a part of your christianity, does not mean that the act of baptism is what saves and not simply the repentance. which is what i believe.

no, i am not saying that i have the idea that if a man baptised someone that he is saving them.
i am saying that for you to be correct a man going under water and coming back out saves a man, whether in union with anything else or not.

you quoted col 2 for your statement on the work of water baptism, but no i dont agree that verse speaks of water baptism.

i do not agree that when peter spoke of water baptism not washing off the filthiness of the flesh, that he was simply saying it wasnt cleaning dirt off your body. i believe he is saying that baptism is not what saves you cleanses you from the filthiness of sin.

ok, the salvation of water baptism.
i agree that it says water baptism does save us. but what this means is where i am diffrent from you.
ok,
water baptism is a like figure that saves us.
but then peter makes it very what this salvation is and is not.
IT IS NOT THE PUTTING AWAY OF THE FILTHINESS OF THE FLESH.
or, it is not changing of the dirty old man, into the clean new man.

but,
it is the answer of a good conscience toward God.
IT IS THE ANSWER OF A CONSCIENCE THAT IS GOOD, AND CLEAN TOWARD HIM.
i believe that if a person rebelled agaisnt God and refused to be baptised in his name then they would be in sin, contrary to salvation.

but i find it very clearly saying that water baptism, isnt what saves you and cleans you of all moral depravity or filth, but is a reply to God out of the cleanliness of your heart.

again im going to be blunt,
acts 22.16
it says paul needed his sins washed away, but it doesnt say water baptism is what did it. you assume thats what it means.
the blood of jesus washes us by faith, yet we do need to be water baptised.

the samarian saw the water and&nbsp;was&nbsp;urgent to be baptised.
why?
becuase baptism in water saves.
NO.
that is your assumption, not scripture.

you brought up the fact that cornelius' house was not unbelieving gentiles becuase of fearing God and such, i disagree becuase none of the things that was named of them like fearing God and praying save people. they were as unsaved as anyone, which is why the angel told him hed soon learn how to be saved.

whether you think it was simply a sighn to the jews or not, the fact still stand that nowhere do i read in scripture can an unbeliever be filled with the holyghost, these people were saved becuase they were filled with the Holyghost.
whether it was a sighn or not, it doesnt change anything.
you still cant work in the gifts of the spirit unless your saved.

i agree that the bible never says the holyspirit baptism saves you, i dont think it does, because i dont think it can happen unless your already saved.
ok, the bible never says pilates wife was filled with the holyghost, and just becuase God showed her something is no reason to believe she was. a dream is not a gift of the spirit.
and the pharisee that prophicied,
ok, i believe this could easily simply mean that this pharisee could have once been right with God, but backslid, and the bible says that the gifts are not remittable. the bible does teach that the gifts of the holyspirit do not go away after a man backslides, becuase solomons wisdom never left him, and moses' power to do miracles didnt leave him when he fell from God in disobedience by stricking the rock. but thats a whole new area.
i agree there were people filled with the holyghost in the old covenant.

i have taken what you said and thought on it honestly, and i admit you did raise alot of good points that made me question what i believe. but some other simple foundational truths of myne still remain that werent refuted, and they&nbsp;still hold me believe that salvation is not by baptism for a number of reasons.

becuase really, all you did was disagree with me about what baptism into christ meant. which isnt proving anything.
pretty much all your argument was, was that baptism into christ is water baptism, which isnt said in scripture. and you took some other verses to mean what you wanted them to mean, but not what they clearly proved, only what they could be taken to mean.
and denied that a person must be saved in order to be filled with the holyghost which also isnt proved.

well, ill be gone for a while. so.
Godbless.
lee myers.

I'm joining this discussion kind of late.&nbsp; Let me say first&nbsp;to Cougan that you have a great understanding of&nbsp;what the scriptures&nbsp;say on this subject.&nbsp; Thank you for your study.&nbsp;&nbsp;Baptism is not a work as many here have said.&nbsp; Works is spoken of in two ways in the new testament.&nbsp; The verses where Paul states we are not saved by works are referring to works of the law.&nbsp; When James speaks of works, he is speaking of works that are a result of faith.&nbsp; This is clear in two main passages.&nbsp; In Romans 4, Paul speaks of justification by faith.&nbsp; He uses Abraham as an example stating that he was justified by his faith not his works.&nbsp; In verse 13 he says, "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith."&nbsp; Paul's point is separating the law from having anything to do with justification or righteousness.&nbsp; That is his main point throughout the entire book of Romans.&nbsp; James also uses Abraham to prove a point in his epistle.&nbsp; In chapter 2, he discusses Abraham being justified by works.&nbsp; Is this contradictory to Paul's teachings as many say it is?&nbsp; Not at all!&nbsp;

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?&nbsp; You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected." (James 2:21,22)&nbsp; Then in the next verse he quotes the exact old testament scripture as Paul did in Romans. "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness".&nbsp; Verse 24 then says, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."&nbsp; Does this contradict Paul's words?&nbsp; Not if you understand the difference in the works that are spoken of in both epistles.&nbsp; We will never be justified by our performance or by how well we keep certain aspects of the Law.&nbsp; Paul makes that abundantly clear.&nbsp; But we also will not be reckognized as having saving faith if obedience to Christ does not follow.&nbsp; Ask yourself this question.&nbsp; Would Abraham had been justified by faith had he refused to take Isaac up to the altar?&nbsp; His faith drove him to the altar just as our faith drives us to baptism.&nbsp; Baptism is our obedience to the gospel that we have believed in.&nbsp; Without it, we cannot be justified.&nbsp; We are not saved by works of the law or our own accomplishments, but we also cannot be saved by a prayer.&nbsp; There is nothing scriptural in that.&nbsp; Look at the examples in the book of Acts.&nbsp; Noone stopped to "Ask Jesus into their heart" as we so often say or to say the 'Sinner's Prayer'.&nbsp; But ALL were baptized in water without exception.

I have more thoughts, but don't have time right now.&nbsp; I'll be back later.

&nbsp;

Endure all I can do is try and teach you what I believe to bible truth. I cant make you belive it is up to you to see if what I have said is so. Its very hard for someone that has been raised up beliving a certain way to change their view even if it is clearly stated within the bible. Just because I am in the minorty does not make me wrong. What matters is what the bible says and not what the masses say. I have just one thing left for you to consisder. You seem to think that one can pray the sinners prayer and then Jesus will enter them hence be baptized into Christ. Go and read about Paul conversion in Acts 9, 22, and 26 and you will clearly see that Paul belived that Jesus was the lord and he even confessed him as lord. He was repentitive and prayed and fasted for 3 days before Ananias came to him. I want you to note that Paul was not saved yet he was still in his sins even though he had belived , repented, confessed and prayed. No where in the bible do you see some one praying the sinners prayer or being said they were saved after the prayed. What we do have is Ananias coming to Paul and telling him what he must do.

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

He tells paul to arize. First of all if it was a prayer that baptizes one in to Jesus then Paul would of already been baptized. 2nd there would be no reason for Paul to arize as he could pray laying down, sitting, or standing. If you look at the Greek it actual tells Paul to arize and get thyself baptized. The only thing that makes logical sense here is that Paul needed to arize to go get himself water baptized as this is the only kind of baptism that he would have to arize to do. Again this would not be HS baptism here because HS could come on him laying down, sitting up , or standing up. So it should be very obivious that Ananias was telling Paul to get up and get yourself water baptized washing away sins. This goes right along with acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16. Open your eyes to the simplicity thats in the plan of salvation endure.

Cougan Collins

Just to let all know I changed the poll. I added the one vote in the "Yes, because it is backed up by the Bible!" to Yes, because they are the same I also added an i dont know just to add another option.

Blesings,

FOMWatts<><

cougan,

yes i understand the simplicity that you are presenting, but how simple would it be if this was true, and a person in the desert wanted to be saved and knew the word, prayed, and all that, but could find no water before he died?
what you are presenting is not so simple actually.

and also, you must realise that simple things are not always true, and the truth cannot always be expected to be simple, just because something seems to fit perfectly together inside its own realm of belief, it does not mean its truth.

if i did not have reason to believe that a person can be saved and has been saved without baptism, i would believe you.
but i simply cannot agree with you becuase at the root of your aregument there is a claim that people can be filled with the holyghost use the&nbsp;gifts of the spirit,&nbsp;without being saved, this is something i do not agree with.
whatever pauls sins reffered to, i dont believe it was his salvation, and i dont believe it was the baptism that did away with them.

yes i understand the simplicity that you are presenting, but how simple would it be if this was true, and a person in the desert wanted to be saved and knew the word, prayed, and all that, but could find no water before he died?

Click to expand...

Actually, Endure, it is that simple.&nbsp; Cougan presented the issue of baptism very well so I will not repeat what he said.&nbsp; But the kind of question you are asking is one I get all the time and I have two main responses for you.

First, I do not believe that God would actively seek someone to be saved and then not provide the way for their salvation.&nbsp; Even the Ethiopian eunich was provided with water (in the desert by the way) for his baptism.&nbsp; God will make it possible.

Secondly, we must always remember that God is a perfect judge.&nbsp; There is noone who will wind up in hell who did not deserve to be there.&nbsp; Is it possible in the situation you described that God would save them anyway?&nbsp; That's up to God.&nbsp; He is judge; not you or me.&nbsp; He will decide and it will be a perfect judgement.&nbsp; As for me, I am required to present the way of salvation as the word of God tells me which includes faith, repentance and baptism.&nbsp; Let us also remember that the plan for salvation is God's alone!&nbsp; He has&nbsp;determined the way to Him and He made part of that to be baptism.&nbsp; We cannot change what God has decided for salvation to make it easier or more appealing to us.&nbsp; The bible is clear.&nbsp; Jesus Himself made it clear (Mark 16:16).&nbsp; Having said all of that, let us also remember that neither Cougan nor myself are saying that baptism alone will save.&nbsp; Someone can be dipped in the river all they want, but if they do not first have faith and a repentant heart, they will not be saved.

&nbsp;

i am sorry, i dont agree that it is "that simple".

becuase you get&nbsp;some problems with your belief.

you say you can be filled with the holyghost&nbsp;who has also been called the&nbsp;SPIRIT&nbsp;OF JESUS&nbsp;and even be used in the gifts of the spirit yet not be saved,
i find that foolish and do not believe it. how can the Spirit of Jesus take over and fill&nbsp;your life, yet you are not even saved yet?
becuase thats really what it means to be saved, to have the holyspirit living in you, thats how were born again in&nbsp; simple way of saying it.

and that is what your belief teaches becuase cornelius was filled with the holyghost and spoke in tongues before he was baptised.

second problem,
from the experiences and walk with God that i had "i knew him, and he knew me" youll never be able to convince me that i wasnt saved untill i was baptised. because i didnt give my heart to the lord the same day i was baptised.

third problem,
i can only find one scripture that even really seems to suggest that baptism is what saves. i understand that there are many scriptures where it says we are to baptised those who have given their lives to God, but it doesnt say baptism is what does it.
the only one i can find that even seems to suggest that is in acts 22.
and let me remind you, when it talks about being baptised into Christ, i do not believe that is water baptism, but the actual salvation experience. that is not something you can make happen with any bodily action, its the actual spiritual change that takes place in the spiritual realm.

fourth problem,
and i find this to be quite intriguing,
in 1st corinthians ch 1, paul boldly proclaims he was not a baptiser and didnt really focus on doing that, if it was such a great obligation, then why not be more diligent about it?
and look at this,
1 cor ch 1.17-18
v17
For Christ sent me not to BAPTISE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL...

(he makes a very large distinction between these 2 things, baptising and preaching the gospel are 2 very diffrent things that you must view as seperate&nbsp;from each other)

v18
For the PREACHING OF THE CROSS...unto us which are saved IS THE POWER OF GOD.

i cant get much more clear than that,
cougan gave many scriptures that said one needed to be baptised,&nbsp;but they do not say that baptism is what saves.
but this is diffrent,
paul very clearly says
"i was not sent to baptise, but to preach the cross, because preaching the cross is what saves"

read it slow,
he speaks of 2 diffrent things, and says he wasnt sent to do both, becuase only one matters as far as salvation goes, and that is not baptism, but the preaching of the cross.

ok,
yes i understand how the eunich found water and you saying that God would provide a way for him to be saved as he always does, but are you really willing to step out on that?
i mean really, are you really willing to believe that such of thing must be? that one must find enough water to immerse him in, or else he cant be saved and it is possible to be around water yet you hope that God provides away?

no i do not agree that maybe God would save them anyway,
and i do not agree that there is anyone who does not deserve to be in hell. because no matter what happens, we have all sinned and were born in sin, we were shapen in iniquity and crafted in evil. no matter how bad things get, we can still be thankful becuase it should have been alot worse if we are judged by our&nbsp;own righteousness.

the bible makes it very clear, that no man goes to heavon who is not born again. and those who did not know the law or hear the truth, still perish, but perish without the law. if you arent born again, you dont go to heavon, even if you never knew about it, your simply not judged by the law when you go there.
romans 2.12
so, if baptism is needed to be saved, there is no possible way for a man to enter heavon without being baptised.

i understand that i&nbsp;cant change Gods plan of salvation, but it is yet to be proven to me&nbsp;that baptism is needed to be saved.
and you can look at my replies for why i do not agree with you.
i do have simple reasons for why i dont agree, it isnt that i simply dont want to, though i do admit i dont want to.

i dont agree that paul wasnt saved at the time of his baptism, becuase he was filled the spirit and even healed of his blindeness before his baptism. and i dont see how you can filled with the spirit of Jesus, and not be saved.

and lets look at mark 16.16
he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be ******.
v17
and these sighns shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues.

ok, speaking in tongues, the gifts of the spirit, the filling with the holyghost, those 3 things dont happen untill after youve believe and are saved. and cornelius skipped baptism got the sighns of salvation, without being baptised.
yes i agree we should be baptised, but it doesnt say if we dont get baptised we wont be saved, it says if we dont believe we wont be saved. faith and a right heart toward God is what saves.

romans ch 8.9
But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, IF SO BE THAT THE SPIRIT OF GOD DWELL IN YOU.

if you are filled with the spirit, then your saved and born again, the whole thing.

romans ch 8.11
but if the spirit of him that raised up&nbsp;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.

if the spirit of God is in you, then you will go to heavon, that means you are born again and fully saved.

i do not believe you can be filled with his spirit, and not be saved.

As a member of a Church of Christ, I can tell you that this, and instrumental music, is something that gives us a bad rap among the general Christian community.&nbsp; I can understand that.&nbsp; After all, there are those in our number who use these issues as divisive and polarizing issues to try and ascertain who is "saved" and who is not.

After thinking about these issues, I came to a conclusion...&nbsp; What does it matter?&nbsp; We are to treat all equally, with the love we would hope they would afford to us.&nbsp; If baptism is an absolute necessary part of salvation, then it is.&nbsp; If it isn't, then it isn't.&nbsp; No amount of debate one way or another between two well-versed parties will change a mind.&nbsp; The issue at hand is not really baptism at all.&nbsp; It is an interpretation of the Nature of God.&nbsp; Depending on how you believe God works, you will have a certain view of the gospel and the Bible in general.

Love edifies.&nbsp; You can cite every bible verse in the world, use every argument you've ever heard or thought of, and present as much evidence as you can garner, but ultimately it is God who will work a change of heart.&nbsp; Why would God take two people who love him equally, give them the exact same tools to examine, the exact same words to interpret, and have them come out with different answers?&nbsp; Does God desire one to be condemned and another saved.&nbsp; In the words of Paul, "May it never be so!."&nbsp; God has a reason for everything, even if we don't know.

To a point, I think it is our folly for trying to put an infinite being in a finite system that we can understand.&nbsp; Rather than having faith, we replace that with the stubborn desire to understand.&nbsp; Rather than believing in grace, we rely on our own ability to discover God's will.&nbsp; Rather than relying on Jesus to provide a way back into the Perfect Love of out Creator, we cheapen his sacrifice though bickering and legalism.&nbsp; What is baptism?&nbsp; A means to an end?&nbsp; What is the end?&nbsp; The beginning.&nbsp; As through one man sin entered into the world, Jesus has come to relieve us of its burden.

All this window dressing draws us away from what is important.&nbsp; Christ never intended all his followers to be lawyers.&nbsp; Apart from the jews, the vast majority of the first Christitans could neither read nor right.&nbsp; How then were they to study the scriptures in depth to find the answers of all religion?

The only answer is Christ on the Cross, paying the debt of the world in innocent blood.&nbsp; Everything else is just exortation, edification, instruction.&nbsp; The gospel is the power of salvation to everyone who believes.&nbsp; The limit of God's grace is the limit of our ability to comprehend something so loving.

Pax

well, i dont want to sound argumentive, but...

me loving cougan and disciple, really does not touch on our debate, i assure you, my disagreeance with them is not a bitterness toward them.
and really, i simply do not agree that we can just both walk away and say "if it is it is, and if it isnt it isnt" becuase that is not the desired of effect the word of God in our lives, it was written that men understand and be full of wisdom and know the truth from the deception.
i do not find this confusion acceptable. it certainly isnt the will of God, he is not the author of confusion and he never intended his words to be an issue of great mystery.

many people come upon a debate and see that its intense or whatever, and say WHAO WHAO we cant do this, we have to love each other. but just becuase a debate is intense or taken very serious is by no means a sighn that anything wrong is taking place. we should be quite serious about the absolute truth of the bible.
an intense debate isnt something to shy away from or be afraid of for any reason. and it isnt wrong.

im sorry, but to be frank it is&nbsp;wrong to close debate, becuase of fear of malice arising. becuase then, youve given place to deception, and it is entirely possible to be devoted to debate without being angry at the other&nbsp;person. you can be quite passionate about your theology, and still be full of love for your brother who you are openly disagreeing with.

love never accepts a lie. love never accepts sin. and we should never be quiet about theology simply becuase we think it wouldnt be loving. the truth is that serious and debate no matter how passionate isnt dangerous ground to tread on anyway, unless the other party has hidden motives.

i say let the debate go on, no one is in danger.
the truth needs to be told, and no i dont secretly that&nbsp;mean i need to be exalted.

the common excuse for not understanding the word becuase of "the infinite of God" is really not a good one.
i completely understand that we dont know the depth of God, all his ways etc. but that isnt whats being talked about.
when God began to speak, and through man penned the word of God,&nbsp;THAT most certainly COULD be understand, becuase that was the meaning of the writing. Jesus said "hear and understand"
paul said "the things written afore hand were written for your learning" we are supposed to understand these things.
it is understandable to not&nbsp;understand what we have not been told, but is it reasonable to not understand when someone clearly speaks to you with the full intention of your understanding? no.


God almighty, surely hes able to make himself understood.
if he cannot write a book that is understandable, then who can?
and if he spoke to us, and never intended for us to understand his words, then why did he speak?

no it is not putting lines on God that shouldnt be, it is true faith, and taking him at his word. God looks for men, that will trust him enough to challege him to keep his word. he isnt looking for these people who say GOD IS GOD, I CANT KNOW, becuase really what they are saying is, I CANT TRUST WHAT GOD SAID.

we cannot expect him to be less than what he said, or any more.
we can expect him to exactly as he said he was.

paul wrote to timothy and commanded him to give himself fully to stirring up his gift, and to give himself to&nbsp;sound&nbsp;doctrine.
Christ wrote these things to be read and understood.

it is foolish to think that God wrote the bible for us, yet doesnt require for us to read it, or understand it. actually if i remember correctly, he condemned the servant that did not use everything that was given him to the fullest and couldnt give it back with enterest.

i understand we must have peace, but making a truce with the enemy isnt true peace.&nbsp;
God is a jealous God, and will not share his glory or throne. and will not allow anyone in his temple who is not dressed properly and isnt supposed to be their.
God does not love lies. he does not have a love for a lie, and does not accept one having&nbsp;a home in the body of Christ.
whoever is wrong, whichever is a theif that didnt come in the front gate, it must be rooted out and destroyed.
the only true way to make peace, is to destroy the enemy. we are to never love the enemy and give it a place on our lives, in an attempt to be more loving, for the sakes of the little ones, we must destroy the enemy... becuase their lives are what he seeks.

im not saying quarrel over pointless matters, but somethings are important, and it isnt Gods will that those lies&nbsp;have a home in our lives.

My basic point, when it comes to things like this, is despite any and all evidence either side uses to try and convince the other, neither will yield.&nbsp; What concern of yours is another person's salvation, if you are sure of where you are going...&nbsp; Which is not to say that you should not minister to those who do not know Christ.&nbsp; I say, minister to them wholeheartedly.&nbsp; What I am trying to say is that all this arguing back and forth will not change a mind.&nbsp; It will only serve to bolster your own sense of assurance, and perhaps give you an ego boost because you can "disprove" some minor scriptural points.

I definitely endorse discussion tenants of Christianity.&nbsp; I believe that a discourse is helpful in edification and education.

However, after wading through 43 pages of discussion on this same subject, not a single worthwhile concession was made.&nbsp; No new knowledge immerged.&nbsp; People still went on believing as they believe.&nbsp; Now, where is the profit.&nbsp; I say it lies in discussion and discourse about the person of God.&nbsp; But going into a debate with a closed mind and a notebook full of quote will result in you leaving with a closed mind, a notebook full of quotes, and carpal tunnel.

Now, if any person in the debate would admit that they were not necessarily correct, things would get interesting.&nbsp; But because we as human beings cannot let things like uncertainty and self-doubt get in the way of our egos, we find it hard to grow in situations such as these.

Pax

i understand arguing will not change a mind, becuase arguing isnt based on a desire for truth, its based on&nbsp;a desire to be right.
but that isnt what me and cougan were doing, if you look back at one of my posts, actually i thanked him for showing me i was wrong in a certain area.

you say this,
"But going into a debate with a closed mind and a notebook full of quote will result in you leaving with a closed mind, a notebook full of quotes, and carpal tunnel.

Now, if any person in the debate would admit that they were not necessarily correct, things would get interesting.&nbsp; But because we as human beings cannot let things like uncertainty and self-doubt get in the way of our egos, we find it hard to grow in situations such as these."

i agree with that truth, close minded people dont change.

but i do not agree that that is the case here.
i believe cougan&nbsp;is a honest person and desires to be in the truth more than he desires himself an image, and i know the same goes for me. i have admitted being wrong before, and will not hesitate to again if need be..

10th March 2003 at 03:21 AM Philo said this in Post #31&nbsp;
What concern of yours is another person's salvation, if you are sure of where you are going...&nbsp; Which is not to say that you should not minister to those who do not know Christ.&nbsp; Pax

Click to expand...

The fact is that the teaching of "baptismal regeration"&nbsp;[water as a "means of grace"]&nbsp;as well as the teaching that salvation = regeneration + baptism are both false, and have eternal consequences.&nbsp; Millions will be in hell sincerely believing that their baptism&nbsp;might have contributed to their salvation. The Roman Catholic Church must answer for this before God.

More importantly, teaching that water can somehow wash away sins or bring about the supernatural new birth is, in essence, calling God a liar. Why?&nbsp; Because the Holy Spirit (not merely the apostle Paul) teaches us both in Romans (ch 2-6) and Galatians (1-3) that the ONLY condition to obtain imputed righteousness (God's own righteousness) is FAITH.&nbsp; The entire 11th chapter of Hebrews further underpins this truth. In view of these extensive Scriptures about how we are justified and made righteous, no one should have ever even hinted that water can have any merits. To prevent any misunderstandings about this important subject, the Holy Spirit tells us that only the Holy Spirit can give us (supernaturally) the washing of regeneration and renewal of the spirit which guarantees eternal life (Titus 3:4-8).&nbsp; After salvation, good works must follow to demonstrate the genuineness of our faith (Jas.2:17-26).

What about water baptism itself? 1) It is an absolute necessity in order to testify before both God and men that we have truly believed (Mark 16:16). 2) It should be adminstered immediately after conversion (Acts 2:41 and numerous other passages). 3) It is by immersion and not by sprinkling, the Greek word "baptizo" meaning immersion and nothing else (Acts 8:38). 4) It must be preceded by a verbal confession of faith in the Son of God and His finished work ( Acts 8:35-37). 5) It must be "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt.28:19). 6) Water baptism symbolically affirms to us what has happened spiritually, that we died with Christ on the cross, and we have been raised together with Him to walk in newness of life by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit&nbsp;(Rom. 6:3-8). Everything about salvation is supernatural, therefore water can accomplish nothing.

Endure,

I believe you might misunderstand Philo. I do not think that he was dissing on the tool of discussion. I think that he was trying to throw in the point that, no matter what your view on baptism relative to salvation, it should not change how you treat a person. We are to treat saved and unsaved with the love of Christ. I agree with him. I do think that baptism is a step of obedience that we should take with faith in Christ. However, if someone is not baptized, should I not worship with them or edify them? I think that was the basic point that Philo was trying to make.

has anyone mentioned the thief on the cross?

when did his baptism take place?

has anyone mentioned the thief on the cross?

Click to expand...

when did his baptism take place?

Click to expand...

He obviously wasn't baptized.&nbsp; We must remember that Christian baptism was not instituted until the Christian age or the church age began, which was on the day of Pentecost.&nbsp; The thief on the cross was still under the old covenant because Jesus had not died and resurrected yet.&nbsp; And we also know that while Jesus walked the earth, He had full authority to forgive sins (see Matthew 9:1-8).&nbsp; Therefore, the thief would not have been baptized, nor did he need to be.&nbsp; However, we do.

&nbsp;

I voted no simply because I assumed the question regarded water baptism. A believer's sin is forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ, and true baptism is by the Holy Spirit in the soul of the believer.

Aaron,

well i certainly agree with that.

4sightsounds,

yeah i think i brought that up, thats one of the most basic defenses for the arugment that baptism isnt needed,
but as disciple has shown, it doesnt really work when you listen to how they believe the prerequisits for salvation after Jesus died and rose again and the new covenant was actually put into place,
you have to prove that it isnt needed right now. i think that can be done but theres where that one went.

I was raised in a denomination (they don't think they are a denomination however) who believe the 5 Steps to Salvation are as follows:
1) Hear the Word
2) Believe
3) Repent
4) Confess
5) Be baptized

Leave one out and you go to hell, go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I got kicked out of that church when I was in my early 30's because I made the statement that I believed there would be people from other denominations in Heaven. That belief and statement came shortly after I realized I knew a LOT about Christ, but I didn't really know Him. I gave Him my life, He gave me a new place to attend church, along with a new life and lots of other great stuff. I think I got a good deal.

praise God, i think its messed up for people to think there denomination will the only class of people in heavon.
becuase most denominations teach the salvation by grace, and that is the primary most basic truth we need from the bible, if you can get that your not far off. who cares about alot of other things? lots of SAVED people disagree and split hairs over pointless matters.
like, i dont believe that God knows EVERYTHING, but im still saved, though im not like alot of other people.