baptism necessary to be saved???

A Brethren IN CHRIST said:

romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth


No Baptism interest

Click to expand...

no responses interesting

Brethren,

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about Rom.9:11. So, I am offering some comments on the verse (and its context).

Rom.9:11 “(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)”

My comments on this verse and its context:
Beginning with the first of the chapter, Paul is revealing his feelings of sorrow and grief for his “kinsmen” (Israelites) vs.2-3. The nature of his sorrow and grief is captured in vs. 6 – “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” Paul then goes on to explain what he means by this expression. Although the Israelites descended from Abraham, not all of Abraham’s descendants were Israelites - - the lineage of the Israelite nation (God’s chosen people) came solely through Abraham and his son Isaac – vs.7-9. The lineage would continue through Rebecca and Isaac – vs. 10. Now we come to vs. 11. The text of vs. 11 is enclosed in parentheses, showing that the information, although related to the discussion, departs from the main subject. The thought of vs. 11 is as follows: Before Rebecca and Isaac’s children were born (“for the children not yet being born&#8221, when they were unaccountable before God (“nor having done any good or evil&#8221, and so that God’s purpose and choice might stand (“that the purpose of God according to election might stand&#8221, which was not determined by their deeds, but by God (“not of works but of him who calls&#8221. Verse 12 takes us back to the main subject - - Rebecca was told that the older child would serve the younger child. God’s choice for the lineage was Jacob, not Esau (vs. 13). God’s choice was righteous (vs. 14). God has mercy according to his will (vs.15-18). Man is not in a position to find fault with God’s choices (vs.19-21). God has also made his riches (blessings in Christ) available to the Gentiles (vs.22-25). Only a remnant (a part of the whole) of Israel would be saved (vs.26-29).

Now, can you be more specific about your question or point you would like to make about verse 11?

How do you feel about Acts 8:35-39 after typing it?Are you ready to admit that the eunuch's baptism was in water?

FC

Election

called Gal 1:6

chosen Gal 1:15 called me by HIS grace

Predestinate Romans 8:28

foreknown

God is going to do what he is going to do

we are in .........just for a ride

God's the director
Ages and Generation are the actor's

John 6:29 ..People believing is God's work

Brethren,

This is a resend of a prior memo. The previous posting lost some of the formatting is confusing to read. I hope this posting does better.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about Rom.9:11. So, I am offering some comments on the verse (and its context).

Rom.9:11 “(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)” NKJV

My comments on this verse and its context:
Beginning with the first of the chapter, Paul is revealing his feelings of sorrow and grief for his “kinsmen” (the Israelites) vs. 2-3. The nature of his sorrow and grief is captured in vs. 6 – “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” Paul then goes on to explain what he means by this expression. Although the Israelites descended from Abraham, not all of Abraham’s descendants were Israelites - - the lineage of the Israelite nation (God’s chosen people) came solely through Abraham and his son Isaac – vs.7-9. The lineage would continue through Rebecca and Isaac – vs. 10. Now we come to vs. 11. The text of vs. 11 is enclosed in parentheses, showing that the information, although related to the discussion, departs from the main subject. The thought of vs. 11 is as follows: Before Rebecca and Isaac’s children were born (“for the children not yet being born"), when they were unaccountable before God (“nor having done any good or evil"), and so that God’s purpose and choice might stand (“that the purpose of God according to election might stand"), which was not determined by their deeds, but by God's choosing (“not of works but of him who calls"). Verse 12 takes us back to the main subject - - Rebecca was told that the older child would serve the younger child. God’s choice for the lineage was Jacob, not Esau (vs. 13). God’s choice was righteous (vs. 14). God has mercy according to his will (vs.15-18). Man is not in a position to find fault with God’s choices (vs.19-21). God has also made his riches (blessings in Christ) available to the Gentiles (vs.22-25). Only a remnant (a part of the whole) of Israel would be saved (vs.26-29).

Now, can you be more specific about your question or point you would like to make about verse 11?

How do you feel about Acts 8:35-39 after typing it?Are you ready to admit that the eunuch's baptism was in water?

FC

A Brethren IN CHRIST said:

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth


cool verse never got water baptised interesting

Click to expand...

God calling put them IN CHRIST

I know that[IN CHRIST] is not there

word study buddy

called, calling, predesination , chose, chosen,

Zephyr,

Would you be so kind as to tell me what exactly you hoped to accomplish by your rude post to Galadriel?

I don't think that your speech is "with grace, seasoned with salt." Christ would often tell people what they needed to hear, but He would do it without berating sincere individuals. (But it's not even as if Galadriel needed to hear what you said.)

Galadriel,

Your gentle spirit reminds me of the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11. "They received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures daily to find out whether these things [Paul and Silas' teaching]
were so."

Your search for truth has taken you to a modern dictionary to find information on baptism. The definition you found reflects the way the religious world tends to view baptism today. However, today's definition does not accurately reflect the way the word was used during New Testament times. "Baptism" is an English form of the Greek word
"baptisma." The Greek word for baptize is "baptizo."
The definition for the these Greek words is submersion, immersion, or to dip. This action is clearly seen during the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:35-39. Baptism is an act of faith -Mark. 16:16 and Romans 6:3-11.

Please write again?

FC

Zephyr,

I am struggling hard to capture the right words to address you.

You seem to be angry at the world and everyone in it. You also seem to be angry at the God. I can't help but wonder why? Care to elaborate?

There is no respectful way to say "screw baptism." It is a command of the Lord and necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16). While, I don't know anything about your baptism, I do know that your present state of mind leaves much to be desired!

I pray that you come to your senses. You owe Galadriel an apology. And at a much higher level - - you owe the Lord an apology! I demand nothing of you. The Lord is very capable of handling matters such as this . . . in his own time.

FC

Galadriel,

Time is short at the moment. Tomorrow, the Lord willing, I will send a reply with some thoughts on the Christian's crown.

FC

Chuck's quote:
Someone needs to explain to me that if Baptism saves then how did the Ethiopian Eunich [sic – Acts 10 deals with Cornelius and his household, not the Ethiopian “Eunich”] receive the spirit before being baptized in Acts 10:41??? Especially when Acts 10:43 says “. . . that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”

Your response:
1 Peter 3:21 “ . . . even baptism doth also now save us . . .” ( I will comment more on this particular scripture later.) The scripture is clear

Chuck says:
It isn't clear at all that baptism saves because you ignored that it says,'..through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." I believe and I have the remission of sins.

Your response:

. While it is true that Cornelius (and his household) received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water, does that mean that they

Chuck says:
The Spirit of God does not indwell unsaved people:

"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."-I Cor. 10:21

You write:
were saved before baptism in water? It does not? All that it showed was that God was offering salvation to the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. You quoted vs. 43 accurately, “. . . that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” This is the point of our real disagreement: what does it mean to have faith in the Lord?

My answer:
To have faith in the Lord you have to come by grace and not a requirement of the long arm of the flesh. You are just twisting scripture to me and I will talk to rational people who are willing to look at the facts instead of talking to people who constantly go around the facts.

I am saying this so you will know why I don't wish to respond and that is because I get it all of the time from different people.

Interesting reply aggie

Tell me, though, about the theif on the cross. Where does he fit in with what you suggest scripture says a person must do and what Christ actually tells him.

RaptureTicketHolder,

Aggie03 responded to your previous answers - - and an excellent response it was. This memo was sent to me for response. The following paragraph has been posted twice in previous discussions. I pray that you are not on your deathbed - - and in good health and of sound enough mind to discern the teaching of the scriptures.

Does the example of the thief on the cross negate the teachings on the necessity of baptism? You obviously think so. I don't. Consider how harmonizing the scriptures works in this case.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jesus taught that baptism was necessary for salvation - Mk. 16:16.
When did Jesus' law go into effect? If you don't know the answer, read Hebrews 9: 15-17. According to this passage, Jesus' law (testament, or will) could not go into effect until after he died. Was Jesus dead at the time he granted parton to the thief on the cross? It doesn't appear that he was in Lk. 23:39-43. So the real questions are . . . what law was in effect when the thief was on the cross? . . . and was baptism into Christ required under that law in order to be saved? The only written law in effect at that time was the Law of Moses - - given exclusively to the Jews. Baptism into Christ was not required under the Old Testament. But what about after Jesus' death? What law went into effect then? According to the passage in Hebrews 9: 15-17, then Jesus' law could go into effect. In fact, if you consider that Jesus' testament or law is the same as a will that goes into effect when the one that made it dies, then you could think of Acts 2 as reading the will and stating the terms of the will. What did Peter tell those Jews that believed the sermon in Acts 2 and asked what they should do since they were guilty of putting to death the Christ? Did he tell them that as long as they had faith they would be saved from their sins? No, he told them to "repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins." In Acts 2 the message of salvation had been proclaimed, and the terms to the will stated. Now, can you find any examples of salvation without baptism after Jesus' testament went into effect?

FC

It seems to me you are overlooking the example of the theif.

Maybe you have not looked at my profile, but baptism for me was taken care of 22 yrs ago when I was about 12. thank the Lord!

I believe that following Christ's examples are perfect ways to live given time, but you've got to include what He did with the theif.

I believe this is the SOLE reason, and reason ENOUGH, the know that baptism is not a NECESSARY fuction to salavation.

Just as death is not a necessary fuction to be kept from this earth (as in the case of Lazerath (sp)) the Lord is capable of doing some wonderful things, including granting those who finally give their heart over to Him just prior to death, access to heaven.

That theif was DYING! Repeat w/me what Christ said to him:

......come on you can do it!

Remember, all of our actions are like filthy rags to Him! I would include baptism in this relm because water baptism is an effort done by MAN, and we can only TRY to follow by example, we will never be up to par with Christ in the things we DO.

Thank you for the best wishes for my disernment. We will not see eye to eye on this issue, but I am in hopes that when such debate arries, we all consider the ENITRE word, vice just sections of it. I truely believe you are purposely overlooking the issue of the theif because it doesnt fit into what else is listed in scripture.

Did you ever consider that the Lord, in some cases, carries an IF, THEN mindset?

I can see that He does carry such a mindset, and the theif is a perfect example.

A Brethren IN CHRIST said:

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth


cool verse never got water baptised interesting

Click to expand...

Matt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called but few chosen

Matt 22:14 many are called, but few are chosen.

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the father in my name, he may give it you.

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love[agape] God, to them who are the called according to His purpose 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. Wot ye not what scripture saith of Isaiah? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying........

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

1cor 1:26-30

1 cor 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak, I am made all thing to all men, that I might by all means save some
determative will

Gal 1:6 I marel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separted me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace.

eph 1:4 According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

where vs 3 ..heavenly places..aka postional truth




1 tim 2:4 Who will[desireous will] have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth

Does this happen SORRY IT DOES NOT NOT HAPPEN

2tim 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we die with Him{and we did,Romans 6:8}, we shall also live with Him: 12 If we suffer {and we will, romans 5:3,12:12} we shall also reign with Him: if we deny Him {and we will, Peter} He also will deny us {rewards}: 13 If we beleive not, yet He abideth faithful: He cannot deny himself.

first class condition

titus 2:11 For the [saving] grace of God that bringeth salvation made available to all men[believers,chosen,elect]

1peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of the God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obediebence and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace, be multipled.

1peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

1peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation a royal priesthood, an holy nation[gentiles] a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

2 peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to Us-ward {elect/chosen/believers}
not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance

Galadriel,

Concerning the Christian’s Crown (all scripture references from the NKJV)

1 Corinthians 9:24-27
In these scriptures, an analogy of a foot race is used to illustrate the Christian’s race through life. The first point that is made is that there is only one winner in a foot race. Christians are admonished to view their race through life as if it were a foot race with only one winner. That encourages each Christian to give their best effort to serve the Lord. Just as being “temperate”, or exercising self-control, is necessary for the runner, the same is true of the Christian. While the runner competes for a crown that is perishable (envision a victor’s crown of olive branches), the Christian labors to obtain an imperishable crown (one that will not perish over time - - a contrast with the crown of olive branches). The Apostle Paul exercised discipline in his Christian race: without discipline, he himself could become “disqualified,” or be rejected by God.

2 Timothy 4:6-8
As the Apostle Paul nears the end of his life, he reflects on his “race.” He finished the race, and remained faithful to Christ. There is reserved for him a “crown of righteousness” that the Lord will present to him on the judgment day. Not only will Paul receive a crown, but also “all who have loved His appearing.” (Keep in mind that this crown is imperishable - 1 Cor. 9:25.)

James 1:12
The Lord has promised the “crown of life” to all that love him.

Conclusion: The “crown of life” (alluded to as a symbol of victory) is promised to all Christians who exercise self-control, remain faithful, and do not succumb to temptation.
What is the crown that will not perish? It is eternal life - - which is the ultimate victory. To become a Christian, one must hear the gospel, believe the message, turn from their sins (repent), confess Jesus as Lord, and be baptized in water for the remission of sins (the basis of our on-going study). Then the Christian must remain faithful until death, or the Lord returns, whichever comes first.

FC

RaptureTicketHolder,

I don't really see how you can say that I'm ignoring the thief on the cross. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the topic. Here is the same teaching concerning the thief on the cross' salvation that I sent before:

Does the example of the thief on the cross negate the teachings on the necessity of baptism? You obviously think so. I don't. Consider how harmonizing the scriptures works in this case.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jesus taught that baptism was necessary for salvation - Mk. 16:16.
When did Jesus' law go into effect? If you don't know the answer, read Hebrews 9: 15-17. According to this passage, Jesus' law (testament, or will) could not go into effect until after he died. Was Jesus dead at the time he granted parton to the thief on the cross? It doesn't appear that he was in Lk. 23:39-43. So the real questions are . . . what law was in effect when the thief was on the cross? . . . and was baptism into Christ required under that law in order to be saved? The only written law in effect at that time was the Law of Moses - - given exclusively to the Jews. Baptism into Christ was not required under the Old Testament. But what about after Jesus' death? What law went into effect then? According to the passage in Hebrews 9: 15-17, then Jesus' law could go into effect. In fact, if you consider that Jesus' testament or law is the same as a will that goes into effect when the one that made it dies, then you could think of Acts 2 as reading the will and stating the terms of the will. What did Peter tell those Jews that believed the sermon in Acts 2 and asked what they should do since they were guilty of putting to death the Christ? Did he tell them that as long as they had faith they would be saved from their sins? No, he told them to "repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins." In Acts 2 the message of salvation had been proclaimed, and the terms to the will stated. Now, can you find any examples of salvation without baptism after Jesus' testament went into effect?

I don't see any indication in your response that you even read this.

Let me show you what I noted from your posting: absolutely no use of scripture whatsoever! Rather than scripture, here is the reasoning I was given:
"It seems to me"
"I believe that"
"I believe that"
"I would include baptism in this relm [sic]"
"I truly believe you are purposely overlooking the issue of the thief"

Considering that faith comes by hearing the word of God (or Christ), and you based none of your reasoning or beliefs on the word of God, how is that supposed to show me the error of my reasoning?

I know how you feel about the thief on the cross. Tell me how you feel about the Lord. He is the one that said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" - Mk. 16:16. Why would he say that if he didn't mean it?

You include baptism in the realm of human works. A believer that is baptized into Christ is acting on faith - - Rom.6:3-11. Acts 8:35 plainly says that Philip preached Jesus. While I don't know exactly all that he preached to the Ethiopian eunuch, I know for certain that he preached about baptism - - note the eunuch's response in vs. 36. Was Philip, under guidance of the Holy Spirit (vs. 29), promoting a human work?

You have told me what you believe. Actually, you told me several different times. Now, I will tell you what I believe: "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Rom. 10:17 If your faith is not based on scripture, it is just your belief, nothing more!

FC

I apologize,

I am not going to read through 227 postings to see catch up on this thread, but instead, I am just going to jump right in and reply....


There were two reasons under Jewish law as to why a person would be condemned to the death penalty by crucifixion: revenge (an eye-for-an-eye) or to purge uncleanness from society. Jesus Christ was sentenced to be crucified for insurrection. Under Roman law, only the "humiliores" or the persons of status and property were subject to certain kinds of punishment (crucifixion, torture, and corporal punishment); and Roman citizens of low status were subject to crucifixion.

Therefore, we may know that the thief was either a Jew worthy of revenge or to be purged from society, or a Roman citizen of such low status to warrant death by crucifixion.


Now, I refer you to John the Baptist and his baptism of water. John the Baptist was very busy baptizing Jews, and for what purpose was John baptizing people?

John's baptism was different from the believer's baptism of today, for his baptism was relative to his message. A messiah was coming and John was preaching repentance to a nation. And what does the passage tell us today concerning John's baptism?


Matthew, chapter 3 tells us that John preached repentance and baptized "unto repentance" (v 11). But, verse 5 and 6, it states,

"Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins"

That word "all" tells me that that "all" of the Jews in Jerusalem and Judean and the region around Jordan went to be baptized.

If the thief were a Jew, he probably was baptized with the baptism of repentance that John taught. The thief was saved by his faith, but we don't know that his previous actions didn't include baptism unto repentance for the Jewish people.


Baptism isn't a requirement to be saved, but it is a part of the process of salvation; and people weren't "redeemed" by Christ until His resurrection; therefore, even though the thief may have been baptized by John, the need for baptism as an external indicator of internal change wasn't necessary until such time as people were redeemed.


~malaka~

Howdy Malaka! Welcome to the thread ! You've made some interesting points about crucifixion, thank you for the time you spent on sharing that information with us.

Malaka said:

If the thief were a Jew, he probably was baptized with the baptism of repentance that John taught. The thief was saved by his faith, but we don't know that his previous actions didn't include baptism unto repentance for the Jewish people.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between the baptism of John, and the baptism that is now necessary for our salvation. As you have noted, the baptism of John was a baptism that was for repentance while we are called to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for the remission of our sins. Can we be saved without the remission of our sins?

I would like to show you from the Scriptures that John's was not sufficient unto the remission of our sins, and that it was separate and distinct from the baptism that we are commanded of.

Acts 19:1-5 ASV

And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: (2) and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given. (3) And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism. (4) And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. (5) And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

I find it very interesting that when Paul asked those at Ephesus who he met if they had receive the Holy Spirit when they believed he assumed that they had been baptized. That's because this is something that was done in order to become a Christian. It wasn't done as an outward sign of an inward change, but it is part of the plan for our salvation, indeed it is one of the conditions of that salvation.

Upon hearing their reply the first thing that Paul does is explain what John's baptism was about and what it was leading to. John came and preached a baptism of repentance in order that the road might be cleared for the one who would come after him, namely Christ. Everything that John did was for this purpose.

When they heard these things from Paul, the very first thing that they did was to be baptized in the name of Jesus. This is because the baptism of John was insufficient as a condition of salvationl; only the baptism that they received after hearing Paul is sufficient because it is the one we are commanded to partake in, and it is the baptism for the remission of sins.

Baptism isn't a requirement to be saved, but it is a part of the process of salvation; and people weren't "redeemed" by Christ until His resurrection; therefore, even though the thief may have been baptized by John, the need for baptism as an external indicator of internal change wasn't necessary until such time as people were redeemed.

~malaka~

Click to expand...

A process is a series of actions, operations or a sequence of steps producing an end. If we were to take out one of the steps, actions or operations, then we no longer have that same series or sequence. In the same way, if we remove something from the process of salvation, we no longer have the same process that God has given us. So in your claim that baptism is part of the "salvation process" you have claimed that baptism is a necessary part of that process.

I pray that I have been of some help to you in your study of this topic thus far. I would ask that you please go through and read some of the scriptures regarding what we are talking about: Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21.

I look forward to hearing back from you .