• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Baptism? Necessary for Salvation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SLStrohkirch said:
Prove it! 1 Peter 3:18-22

.
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

How do you interpret these verses and in particular the one with the Bold letters?
Romans 8:9b if any man have not the Spirit from Christ, he is none of His.

1 cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or freel and have been all made to regenerated by one Spirit.

Phil 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before

Phillipppians 4:19 But my God shall fill full all your [mental eph 3:16,19 eph 4:23, Hebrews 4:9-10,16] needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus


Are God is so awesome
 
Upvote 0

SPALATIN

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther
May 5, 2004
4,905
139
63
Fort Wayne, Indiana
✟20,851.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A Brethren IN CHRIST said:
Romans 8:9b if any man have not the Spirit from Christ, he is none of His.

1 cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or freel and have been all made to regenerated by one Spirit.

Phil 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before

Phillipppians 4:19 But my God shall fill full all your [mental eph 3:16,19 eph 4:23, Hebrews 4:9-10,16] needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus


Are God is so awesome
So how do you receive that spirit? When you are Baptized. Baptism is the MEANS of GRACE by which we receive forgiveness of Original sin (that which we are borne into). We, however, are still sinners as long as we live. We must continue to confess our sins and receive continued forgiveness through the second MEANS of GRACE known as Holy Communion. Notice I didn't just say Communion, but Holy Communion as it is a Sacrament.

As for the other verses I have no problem with them as they are promises of God.

Sacraments are instituted by God, not ordained necessarily as they are not laws but a means of grace and hope by which we are saved.
 
Upvote 0
SLStrohkirch said:
So how do you receive that spirit? When you are Baptized. Baptism is the MEANS of GRACE by which we receive forgiveness of Original sin (that which we are borne into). We, however, are still sinners as long as we live. We must continue to confess our sins and receive continued forgiveness through the second MEANS of GRACE known as Holy Communion. Notice I didn't just say Communion, but Holy Communion as it is a Sacrament.

As for the other verses I have no problem with them as they are promises of God.

Sacraments are instituted by God, not ordained necessarily as they are not laws but a means of grace and hope by which we are saved.
#1 there are a lot of verse that we are made rightoues/ remission when we believe and since we believe the HS baptizes us into Christ

#2 verse please? where are you coming from?
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,169
1,377
75
Atlanta
✟109,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
SLStrohkirch said:
Prove it! 1 Peter 3:18-22

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

How do you interpret these verses and in particular the one with the Bold letters?

Which baptism does that speak of?

"There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4-5 niv

There is water baptism......and baptism of the Holy Spirit. We have only one.
Which one?

"On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:4-5 niv

Which one saves? If John's could save? We would not need the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Would we?

"For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."
1 Corinthians 12:13 niv

If we let the Word be your guide... and not the traditions of men... that's when we begin to grow up in Christ. For some, it comes as a shock. Humilty will accept it. Arrogance will deny it, and fight it.

"one Lord, one faith, one baptism..."
Ephesians 4:5 niv

Which one? If John's (water) could save? Would we need another?

"On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:4-5 niv

Grace in peace, GeneZ
 
Upvote 0

@@Paul@@

The Key that Fits:Acts 28
Mar 24, 2004
3,050
72
55
Seattle
✟26,081.00
Faith
Baptist
SLStrohkirch said:
So how do you receive that spirit? When you are Baptized. Baptism is the MEANS of GRACE by which we receive forgiveness of Original sin (that which we are borne into). We, however, are still sinners as long as we live. We must continue to confess our sins and receive continued forgiveness through the second MEANS of GRACE known as Holy Communion. Notice I didn't just say Communion, but Holy Communion as it is a Sacrament.

As for the other verses I have no problem with them as they are promises of God.

Sacraments are instituted by God, not ordained necessarily as they are not laws but a means of grace and hope by which we are saved.

How come the first and only example of a Gentile receiving the Spirit in Acts recorded this event BEFORE water baptism?
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Now I came accross this fantastic article by J N Darby! Well worth the read...especially the bits in BOLD:



THE APOSTASY OF THE SUCCESSIVE DISPENSATIONS



by John Nelson Darby
...

It is not my intention to enter into any great detail, but to shew simply how, in every instance, there was total and immediate failure as regarded man, however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on by grace the dispensation in which man has thus failed in the outset; and further, that there is no instance of the restoration of a dispensation afforded us, though there might be partial revivals of it through faith.

...

Here dispensations, properly speaking, begin. On the first, Noah, I shall be very brief: restraint and godliness should have characterised it — the government which would have repressed corruption and violence. But the first thing here found is the saved patriarch drunk, and his son shamefully mocking him, for which the curse justly descends upon him. This issued in idolatry; Joshua 24.

The first account after his call we have of faithful Abraham, which as a minuter circumstance I also pass briefly over, is Genesis 12: 13, "Say, I pray thee: thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee"; and plagues because of him in whom the families of the earth were to be blessed. As regards man, under the calling of grace, we find shameful failure.

The history of the children of Israel is one scene of "a stiffnecked and rebellious people." But to take up the point of the dispensation — obedience under the law by which life was to be: this obedience they undertook; and Moses returned to receive the various orderings of divine appointment as under it, and the two tables of testimony. But this dispensation, which met the failure of the world, which had gods many and lords many, and in form was to bring righteousness in the flesh, came to nothing in man's hand, before the order of it was brought down from the mount, or they had received in detail the record of what they had undertaken. They made, while Moses was in the mount, a golden calf, and said, "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of Egypt." The spring and foundation-stone of all the commandments and ordinances was gone. They had turned their glory into the similitude of a calf which eateth hay.

The ordinance or dispensation of priesthood failed in like manner. Before Aaron and his sons had gone out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, because the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them, Nadab and Abihu had already offered strange fire and been consumed before the Lord. The sons had not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, and the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place, as was commanded. The Lord spared them, but the service had failed in its very outset. And the Lord also spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord and died; and the Lord said unto Moses, speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil. The consequence was, that the garments of glory and beauty were never worn by the high priest save at his consecration. For he was to wear them only on going into the holy place within the veil, and his going in being now only on the day of atonement, he was desired withal on that day to come in other though holy garments. Thus failed the law—thus failed the priesthood, as all else, however God might carry it on in patience and mercy for a time, "till there was no remedy."1

The kingly dispensation failed in the same way as did the nation under the previous ordering which made way for the king (see Judges 2), the Lord having failed in nothing; Joshua 23: 14. David and Solomon having exhibited the royalty in victory and peace, Rehoboam and Jeroboam are but the witnesses of its utter failure, patience and mercy still going on, till the provocations of Manasseh set aside all hope of recovery or way of mercy in that dispensation. The same is true of universal rule transferred to the Gentiles: Nebuchadnezzar, the golden head, sets up the golden image, persecutes the faithful, and is turned into the image of a beast for his pride.

The rejection of our blessed Lord proved that no present mercy and grace, no present interference of God in goodness here, would meet the wilful and persevering enmity of the human heart, but only shewed it in its true light. But this, never being set up as a dispensation, but only the manifestation of His Person (to faith), I pass by. The last we have to notice, in a humbled sense of sin in us, is the present, where we are apt to take our ease in the world, as necessarily secure, but which, and the sin of which, the Lord sees and recognises, takes as much notice of, though not openly, as of others — the dispensation of the Spirit.

Much has been said, with strong objection to it, as to the apostasy or failure of this dispensation.

The results are but too plain. If we believe that the exhibitions of the Spirit's power and presence, in the second and fourth chapters of Acts, were gladsome and well-pleasing to the Lord, if the blessed Spirit was right in these effects — and who blasphemingly and in the darkness of his own soul dare to say He was not? — then is the present picture of Christendom just as opposite as one thing well can be from another. They have not kept their first estate. The patience and mercy, and sure grace of God has still kept up a witness to Himself through the mediation of Christ, it is true. So it was in every dispensation; but this did not alter or prevent the result of the apostasy. And the facts shew us that it was ever at the outset the failure or apostasy took place; and that it was patience and grace, which bore with and carried it on, but never undid the result of the first failure.

So to our shame has it been in Christianity. The state of the seven churches, I think, would shew this sufficiently to have been the case, and the way in which John was left at the close, to awaken the threats of judgment against a declining church. Where was Paul to hold all in vigour and beauty for the coming of the Lord, presenting every man perfect in Christ Jesus? He had to confess at the close of his career, "I have none likeminded who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."

Such was the result of apostolic labour; and the history of the book of Revelation, the testimonies of Peter and Jude, as well as the warnings of John and Paul, also shew that this would be the result of Christianity, according to the solemn sentence of the apostle,

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; on thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

But we may trace the immediateness of this failure more actually and definitely in circumstances to which the attention of the church seems little directed. When the Lord was parting from the disciples, He gives them the commandment, "Go ye and disciple all nations." Where is the fulfilment of this by the apostles whom He had chosen? This was their special commission from Him, as risen and having all power in heaven and earth. The principle and value of the dispensation could not be altered. But where is the fulfilment by the twelve apostles? Scripture affords it not. There is no account of the twelve in Scripture going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature: nothing which Scripture recognises as the accomplishment of this command. This in itself would be sufficient to show that the command on which the dispensation hung was, in the revealed testimony of God, unfulfilled by those to whom it was committed.

But I further find (contrary to the word, "when they persecute you in one city, flee ye to the next") that on the persecution which arose about the matter of Stephen, they were all scattered abroad except the apostles. But the testimony is not merely negative, for I find, in extraordinary grace, a new arrangement entirely made—an apostle of the Gentiles raised up, entirely distinct: "one born out of due time"; "not of man, nor by man"; who was neither apostle with them, nor from them, but asserts, as he proved, his own independent qualifications. And the Acts of the Apostles, as to ministry, are the acts of Peter, as one in whom God was mighty to the circumcision, and it was agreed that he should go to the circumcision, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles; and so the acts of Paul, as one in whom the same God was mighty towards the uncircumcision. That is, we find an express special office of apostle to the Gentiles, and whatever work was done of the commission, "Go ye into all nations" (Gentiles) was done, as presented to us in Scripture, actually by somebody else specially and extraordinarily raised up for the purpose. Thus, whatever grace and power from Him that was glorified might effect, this dispensation as well as any other failed and broke off in the very outset; and in point of fact the gospel has never been preached in all the world, nor all nations discipled to this day, but the church which was gathered has departed from the faith of the gospel, and gone away backward, so as to be as bad or worse than the heathen.

But the point which is proved in this is not merely that it is in a bad state now, but that like all others it broke down in the commencement — no sooner fully established than it proved a failure. This does not touch upon the faithfulness of God, but exalts it, as in the case of the Jews, where their lie abounded to the glory of God. The remnant have been preserved all through, and according to the measure of grace and faith have prospered, or have been raised up from depression according to the counsels of God; but the dispensation was gone. We belong to a better glory. Nor, this being brought in as the object of desire, can the believer seek other or old things and earthly arrangements. And as he cannot desire, so neither does Scripture present the restoration of a dispensation; it never justifies its actual condition; and though grace and faith may, as I have said, effect revivals during the long - suffering of God, the dispensation, as such, is actually gone, that the glory of the principle contained in it may shine forth in the hands of Messiah. The attempt to set this dispensation on another footing, as to its continuance, than those dispensations which have failed already, not only shews ignorance of the principles of God's dealings, for the calling of God was always by grace true (and if it were it never could make way for that which is to come under Messiah), but it is actually negatived by the assertion, that it stands on the same ground as to this with the Jewish — "if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise, thou also shalt be cut off." (Romans 11).

When He is come who can bind Satan himself, so that his power in the world shall be set aside, and not merely the testimony of the Lord's power maintained there, then shall there be continuance, until, for the accomplishment of the purposes of God, and the final separation of evil and good, he be let loose again for a little season. And the close of all dispensation, and the end of all question and title of authority shall come, and, all being finished, God shall be all in all without question and without failure. How the glory of God and our consequent blessing in these things is increased and enhanced might be very plainly shewn, as it is indeed just declared by the apostle; but if the fact be recognised and its truth established as before the Lord, it may suffice now.

Reference to the second chapter of Galatians will confirm and establish the point historically as to the present dispensation, where not only is the fact stated of Paul having the ministry of the Gentiles, as Peter of the circumcision; but it was actually agreed on their conference, consequent upon the grace given, that Paul and Barnabas should go to the uncircumcision; and James, and Cephas, and John should go to the circumcision. And so far was the apostle's mind under Judaising influence, that it required a positive fresh revelation to induce him to go into company with a Gentile at all, and even after this he would not eat when certain came from James. In fact the Gentile dispensation, as a distinct thing, took its rise on the death of Stephen, the witness that the Jews resisted the Holy Ghost: as their fathers did, so did they.

 
Upvote 0

SPALATIN

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther
May 5, 2004
4,905
139
63
Fort Wayne, Indiana
✟20,851.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
AV1611 said:
Now I came accross this fantastic article by J N Darby! Well worth the read...especially the bits in BOLD:



THE APOSTASY OF THE SUCCESSIVE DISPENSATIONS





by John Nelson Darby

...

It is not my intention to enter into any great detail, but to shew simply how, in every instance, there was total and immediate failure as regarded man, however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on by grace the dispensation in which man has thus failed in the outset; and further, that there is no instance of the restoration of a dispensation afforded us, though there might be partial revivals of it through faith.

...

Here dispensations, properly speaking, begin. On the first, Noah, I shall be very brief: restraint and godliness should have characterised it — the government which would have repressed corruption and violence. But the first thing here found is the saved patriarch drunk, and his son shamefully mocking him, for which the curse justly descends upon him. This issued in idolatry; Joshua 24.

The first account after his call we have of faithful Abraham, which as a minuter circumstance I also pass briefly over, is Genesis 12: 13, "Say, I pray thee: thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee"; and plagues because of him in whom the families of the earth were to be blessed. As regards man, under the calling of grace, we find shameful failure.

The history of the children of Israel is one scene of "a stiffnecked and rebellious people." But to take up the point of the dispensation — obedience under the law by which life was to be: this obedience they undertook; and Moses returned to receive the various orderings of divine appointment as under it, and the two tables of testimony. But this dispensation, which met the failure of the world, which had gods many and lords many, and in form was to bring righteousness in the flesh, came to nothing in man's hand, before the order of it was brought down from the mount, or they had received in detail the record of what they had undertaken. They made, while Moses was in the mount, a golden calf, and said, "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of Egypt." The spring and foundation-stone of all the commandments and ordinances was gone. They had turned their glory into the similitude of a calf which eateth hay.

The ordinance or dispensation of priesthood failed in like manner. Before Aaron and his sons had gone out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, because the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them, Nadab and Abihu had already offered strange fire and been consumed before the Lord. The sons had not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, and the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place, as was commanded. The Lord spared them, but the service had failed in its very outset. And the Lord also spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord and died; and the Lord said unto Moses, speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil. The consequence was, that the garments of glory and beauty were never worn by the high priest save at his consecration. For he was to wear them only on going into the holy place within the veil, and his going in being now only on the day of atonement, he was desired withal on that day to come in other though holy garments. Thus failed the law—thus failed the priesthood, as all else, however God might carry it on in patience and mercy for a time, "till there was no remedy."1

The kingly dispensation failed in the same way as did the nation under the previous ordering which made way for the king (see Judges 2), the Lord having failed in nothing; Joshua 23: 14. David and Solomon having exhibited the royalty in victory and peace, Rehoboam and Jeroboam are but the witnesses of its utter failure, patience and mercy still going on, till the provocations of Manasseh set aside all hope of recovery or way of mercy in that dispensation. The same is true of universal rule transferred to the Gentiles: Nebuchadnezzar, the golden head, sets up the golden image, persecutes the faithful, and is turned into the image of a beast for his pride.

The rejection of our blessed Lord proved that no present mercy and grace, no present interference of God in goodness here, would meet the wilful and persevering enmity of the human heart, but only shewed it in its true light. But this, never being set up as a dispensation, but only the manifestation of His Person (to faith), I pass by. The last we have to notice, in a humbled sense of sin in us, is the present, where we are apt to take our ease in the world, as necessarily secure, but which, and the sin of which, the Lord sees and recognises, takes as much notice of, though not openly, as of others — the dispensation of the Spirit.

Much has been said, with strong objection to it, as to the apostasy or failure of this dispensation.

The results are but too plain. If we believe that the exhibitions of the Spirit's power and presence, in the second and fourth chapters of Acts, were gladsome and well-pleasing to the Lord, if the blessed Spirit was right in these effects — and who blasphemingly and in the darkness of his own soul dare to say He was not? — then is the present picture of Christendom just as opposite as one thing well can be from another. They have not kept their first estate. The patience and mercy, and sure grace of God has still kept up a witness to Himself through the mediation of Christ, it is true. So it was in every dispensation; but this did not alter or prevent the result of the apostasy. And the facts shew us that it was ever at the outset the failure or apostasy took place; and that it was patience and grace, which bore with and carried it on, but never undid the result of the first failure.

So to our shame has it been in Christianity. The state of the seven churches, I think, would shew this sufficiently to have been the case, and the way in which John was left at the close, to awaken the threats of judgment against a declining church. Where was Paul to hold all in vigour and beauty for the coming of the Lord, presenting every man perfect in Christ Jesus? He had to confess at the close of his career, "I have none likeminded who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."

Such was the result of apostolic labour; and the history of the book of Revelation, the testimonies of Peter and Jude, as well as the warnings of John and Paul, also shew that this would be the result of Christianity, according to the solemn sentence of the apostle,

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; on thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

But we may trace the immediateness of this failure more actually and definitely in circumstances to which the attention of the church seems little directed. When the Lord was parting from the disciples, He gives them the commandment, "Go ye and disciple all nations." Where is the fulfilment of this by the apostles whom He had chosen? This was their special commission from Him, as risen and having all power in heaven and earth. The principle and value of the dispensation could not be altered. But where is the fulfilment by the twelve apostles? Scripture affords it not. There is no account of the twelve in Scripture going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature: nothing which Scripture recognises as the accomplishment of this command. This in itself would be sufficient to show that the command on which the dispensation hung was, in the revealed testimony of God, unfulfilled by those to whom it was committed.

But I further find (contrary to the word, "when they persecute you in one city, flee ye to the next") that on the persecution which arose about the matter of Stephen, they were all scattered abroad except the apostles. But the testimony is not merely negative, for I find, in extraordinary grace, a new arrangement entirely made—an apostle of the Gentiles raised up, entirely distinct: "one born out of due time"; "not of man, nor by man"; who was neither apostle with them, nor from them, but asserts, as he proved, his own independent qualifications. And the Acts of the Apostles, as to ministry, are the acts of Peter, as one in whom God was mighty to the circumcision, and it was agreed that he should go to the circumcision, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles; and so the acts of Paul, as one in whom the same God was mighty towards the uncircumcision. That is, we find an express special office of apostle to the Gentiles, and whatever work was done of the commission, "Go ye into all nations" (Gentiles) was done, as presented to us in Scripture, actually by somebody else specially and extraordinarily raised up for the purpose. Thus, whatever grace and power from Him that was glorified might effect, this dispensation as well as any other failed and broke off in the very outset; and in point of fact the gospel has never been preached in all the world, nor all nations discipled to this day, but the church which was gathered has departed from the faith of the gospel, and gone away backward, so as to be as bad or worse than the heathen.

But the point which is proved in this is not merely that it is in a bad state now, but that like all others it broke down in the commencement — no sooner fully established than it proved a failure. This does not touch upon the faithfulness of God, but exalts it, as in the case of the Jews, where their lie abounded to the glory of God. The remnant have been preserved all through, and according to the measure of grace and faith have prospered, or have been raised up from depression according to the counsels of God; but the dispensation was gone. We belong to a better glory. Nor, this being brought in as the object of desire, can the believer seek other or old things and earthly arrangements. And as he cannot desire, so neither does Scripture present the restoration of a dispensation; it never justifies its actual condition; and though grace and faith may, as I have said, effect revivals during the long - suffering of God, the dispensation, as such, is actually gone, that the glory of the principle contained in it may shine forth in the hands of Messiah. The attempt to set this dispensation on another footing, as to its continuance, than those dispensations which have failed already, not only shews ignorance of the principles of God's dealings, for the calling of God was always by grace true (and if it were it never could make way for that which is to come under Messiah), but it is actually negatived by the assertion, that it stands on the same ground as to this with the Jewish — "if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise, thou also shalt be cut off." (Romans 11).

When He is come who can bind Satan himself, so that his power in the world shall be set aside, and not merely the testimony of the Lord's power maintained there, then shall there be continuance, until, for the accomplishment of the purposes of God, and the final separation of evil and good, he be let loose again for a little season. And the close of all dispensation, and the end of all question and title of authority shall come, and, all being finished, God shall be all in all without question and without failure. How the glory of God and our consequent blessing in these things is increased and enhanced might be very plainly shewn, as it is indeed just declared by the apostle; but if the fact be recognised and its truth established as before the Lord, it may suffice now.

Reference to the second chapter of Galatians will confirm and establish the point historically as to the present dispensation, where not only is the fact stated of Paul having the ministry of the Gentiles, as Peter of the circumcision; but it was actually agreed on their conference, consequent upon the grace given, that Paul and Barnabas should go to the uncircumcision; and James, and Cephas, and John should go to the circumcision. And so far was the apostle's mind under Judaising influence, that it required a positive fresh revelation to induce him to go into company with a Gentile at all, and even after this he would not eat when certain came from James. In fact the Gentile dispensation, as a distinct thing, took its rise on the death of Stephen, the witness that the Jews resisted the Holy Ghost: as their fathers did, so did they.


Darby is a classic dispensationalist and if you believe in dispensations he is your man. Of course most who follow his lead also hear nothing but Law in their sermons every week. Most refer to him in terms of Eschatology. Much of the Left Behind series was developed or based on his theology.

The Left Behind series is nothing and has no bearing on what Revelation is even about. I also found it to be Anticlimactic in the storytelling.
 
Upvote 0

GreenEyedLady

My little Dinky Doo
Jan 15, 2002
2,641
167
Missouri
Visit site
✟4,791.00
Faith
Baptist
SLStrohkirch said:
So how do you receive that spirit? When you are Baptized. Baptism is the MEANS of GRACE by which we receive forgiveness of Original sin (that which we are borne into). We, however, are still sinners as long as we live. We must continue to confess our sins and receive continued forgiveness through the second MEANS of GRACE known as Holy Communion. Notice I didn't just say Communion, but Holy Communion as it is a Sacrament.

As for the other verses I have no problem with them as they are promises of God.

Sacraments are instituted by God, not ordained necessarily as they are not laws but a means of grace and hope by which we are saved.
Sacrements do not free you. You are still in the prison of sin trying to work you way out hanging on just a hope of being saved. Christ is freedom, salvation is freedom. This is one of the reasons why I left the church years ago. Just me simply taking of the bread and confessing when I sinned could not compare to the work Christ did on the cross. I still felt guilty like I needed to do more. Now that I have accepted his work, as he stated "It is finished!", I now have the freedom of Gods grace always. There is no hope, I KNOW I am going. God wants us to KNOW, not to merley hope and string us along.
GEL
 
Upvote 0

SPALATIN

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther
May 5, 2004
4,905
139
63
Fort Wayne, Indiana
✟20,851.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
GreenEyedLady said:
Sacrements do not free you. You are still in the prison of sin trying to work you way out hanging on just a hope of being saved.
GEL,

They do free you to be forgiven of the sins you have confessed to and need to be forgiven. I realize that nothing I can do of my own reason or strength will gain me anything in the heavenly realm. No it does not. I never said that we were not assured of salvation because I received that when I was Baptized.

GreenEyedLady said:
Christ is freedom, salvation is freedom. This is one of the reasons why I left the church years ago. Just me simply taking of the bread and confessing when I sinned could not compare to the work Christ did on the cross.
You are correct but what does it free me from? It frees me from Original sin and for each sin I have committed and confessed to and then asked forgiveness.

Christ did it all for me on the cross but does that negate my sinful nature?



GreenEyedLady said:
I still felt guilty like I needed to do more. Now that I have accepted his work, as he stated "It is finished!", I now have the freedom of Gods grace always.
So you left the church and now you feel less guilty? What condemns you of the sins you continue to commit? Christ fulfilled the law he did not negate the law. The law is a useful tool as it shows us how inadequate we are compared to CHrist and that only our faith in him gives us grace to be forgiven and santified.

GreenEyedLady said:
There is no hope, I KNOW I am going. God wants us to KNOW, not to merley hope and string us along.
GEL
I am glad that you are assured of your faith, but I don't agree with you that there is no hope. Hope is the assurance of things unknown in which we have faith.

I believe that you are trying to escape part of God's kingdom in many ways, but I also believe you when you say you are saved.

Scott
 
Upvote 0

DanielRB

Slave of Allah
Jul 16, 2004
1,958
137
New Mexico
✟26,622.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Michael.C.Hadley said:
Baptism the bible talks about,preachers talk about it. But is it really necessary for salvation?Post your findings here.
:rules:
BUT REMEMBER I WANT BIBLICAL SUPPORT ONLY!!!!!
NO OPINONS,NO GUESSES,ONLY SOMETHING STRAIGHT FROM THE BIBLE.
First, let me apologize by saying that I did not read every message in this thread before posting. If I am redundant by posting what I post here, please forgive me.

Let me ask: what motivates this question? Are you wondering about the salvation of someone who didn't have the opporunity to be baptized before dying, yet they sincerely repented and expressed faith in Christ before they died? My own answer to this is that I trust in Christ's mercies for these situations.

If, on the other hand, you are wondering "Do I need to be baptized in water, now that I believe in Christ?"--then that's another question. In my mind, whether it is "necessary for salvation" or not, Christ commanded it (Matt 28:19), and it is certainly an easy command to follow. Why hesitate, why not just do it?

In the book of Acts, water baptism is a normative part of the conversion process (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 36; 9:18; 10:47; and many other passages in Acts). If you want to know if the precise moment of your salvation was when you came back up out of the water or not--I honestly don't see how that is the important question.

Have Christ as our Lord means to obey Him. Why not obey Him in this simple matter? Why debate if it's necessary for salvation or not? For me, the fact that Christ commands it means it is necessary for me to do it, whether it is "necessary for salvation" or not. We should not look for just the bare minimum of obedience in order to be saved, but rather strive to serve Christ in every way possible out of a loving heart transformed by His Spirit.

In Christ,

Daniel
 
Upvote 0

GreenEyedLady

My little Dinky Doo
Jan 15, 2002
2,641
167
Missouri
Visit site
✟4,791.00
Faith
Baptist
SLStrohkirch said:
So you left the church and now you feel less guilty? What condemns you of the sins you continue to commit? Christ fulfilled the law he did not negate the law. The law is a useful tool as it shows us how inadequate we are compared to CHrist and that only our faith in him gives us grace to be forgiven and santified.

I am glad that you are assured of your faith, but I don't agree with you that there is no hope. Hope is the assurance of things unknown in which we have faith.

I believe that you are trying to escape part of God's kingdom in many ways, but I also believe you when you say you are saved.

Scott
Here is WHY I am not guitly anymore.
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

God keeps his promises, He never lies. Man lies, but God does not.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

You see the above verse......Its the Holy Spirit that is in me that gives me the convction of my sinful nature. How can you discern the law without the holy spirit?
Yes I am still a sinner, but I am a born again sinner, I have on the coat of rightousness NOT because I did anything special BUT ONLY because Christ the Messiah died for my sins and I trusted HIM, not anything I did. There is no work that I could do to attain salvation.
I never said there was no hope, what I said was that the church preachs hope ONLY and the Word of God says that YE SHALL KNOW. So God gives us assurance that way, not just the HOPE of being saved, but the assurance to KNOW that we are His children that are sealed forever.

1 John 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.

I am not escaping God's kingdom, I am embracing it now that the chains of sin and false doctrine are off me. I am free.

PRAISE THE LORD, for He is Good and His work is sufficiant.

GEL
 
Upvote 0

@@Paul@@

The Key that Fits:Acts 28
Mar 24, 2004
3,050
72
55
Seattle
✟26,081.00
Faith
Baptist
genez said:
Problem was this. The Church age was a new age. All the disciples were Jews. Jesus discipled them as Jews.

Water baptism was the baptism of John during the Jewish age. Now, here is the key passage given by the resurrected Christ:

"On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:4-5 niv

There is only one faith... one baptism!

Problem was, Peter quickly forgot those words and continued on as if it were no different from before. In the past the disciples had baptized others in water, so Peter and others only continued on doing as before. But, there came a point whan Peter stopped demanding water baptism. It happened about ten chapters after Jesus told him that Johns baptsim was to be replaced with the Spirit.

"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' " Acts 11:15-16 niv

Likewise, Peter had to be shown by the Lord to stop eating kosher and to freely associate with Gentiles. That took a while also.

Most do not realize that the Bible records the mistakes of the saints. They drew lots to see who would replace Judas, but we never hear of who they picked any more after that. Paul was God's choice later on. What was done in the Book of Acts are all not directives for the Church to follow. Certain things which were errors were also recorded to show how Christianity eventually changed over from Jewish ways to the New Age of Christ. Water baptism was stuck to at first, but once Peter finally remembered the words spoken by the Lord, we find no more water baptisms recorded in Acts.

"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' " Acts 11:15-16 niv

Some can not see the importance of this and would rather ignore it in the name of sentimental traditionalism. Yet, in certain countries where Christianity is banned, lives could have been saved if certain believers did not try and sneak off into the woods to be water baptized. They were exposed by this ritual and murdered. That is why we need to deny tradition when the Word is made clear. You never know who's life it may save, even though it seems insignificant to us in our circumstances of life.

Grace in peace, GeneZ
Hello GeneZ... I'm easily confused, :blush: , could you clarify your thoughts regarding my questions below??

Are you suggesting that Peter made mistakes???
1) Peter and the 10 should never had replaces Judas?
...a) Are you suggesting Paul should have been the 12th Apostle who is to sit on a throne judging the 12 tribes?
...b) Peter should never have been baptizing in water?

I'm a little confused at your comments on Acts 11...
2) What exactly are you saying was happening at his point in time?

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,169
1,377
75
Atlanta
✟109,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
@@Paul@@ said:
Hello GeneZ... I'm easily confused, :blush: , could you clarify your thoughts regarding my questions below??

I will try....

Are you suggesting that Peter made mistakes???

Yes. At times. That is why we need to rightly divide the Word of God. Just was the Bible records the words of Satan in the fall, it also records errors made by the saints, as well. Yes, Peter made mistakes. Paul even had to chew out Peter at one point when Peter fell from grace and reverted back into legalism.

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray." Galatians 2:11-13 niv

1) Peter and the 10 should never had replaces Judas?

The man they picked is never heard of again. God did not tell them to draw lot's on the issue. They took it upon themselves to do so.

From Acts 1

23~~ And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

{Note: NO! God the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts. The gifts are not ever given to someone that man chooses (or even a group of men). The Exodus generation made a similar type error in trying to replace God's choice for leader.}

24-25~~ And they prayed {example of a useless prayer}, and said, "Thou, Lord, Who knows the hearts of all men, show which of these two Thou has chosen, 25~~ that he may take part of this ministry and apostle-ship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place?"

26~~ And they gave forth their lots {they voted!}; and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

{Note: Apostleship was a temporary spiritual gift. It was not awarded by God based on a vote by men!}


...a) Are you suggesting Paul should have been the 12th Apostle who is to sit on a throne judging the 12 tribes?

God chose Paul. Men did not vote for him.

...b) Peter should never have been baptizing in water?

"On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:4-5 niv

The time to baptize with water was over. Jesus told Peter it was. Just read my other post, again. I did give chapter and verse for all of it. I realize that if you have been dogmatically taught otherwise, that it may come as somewhat of a shock to you. Just as many teach that the Three Wise men met Jesus in the manger. Fact is, they did not find Jesus until he was about two years old! We have a good number of misconceptions because no one questions the traditions of men and do not search to see what the Scriptures actually teach.

I'm a little confused at your comments on Acts 11...
2) What exactly are you saying was happening at his point in time?


"Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with (in) water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' " Acts 11:16

Peter had totally forgotten what Jesus had told him back in Acts 1:5. He says that he forgot in chapter 11. It is right after he recalls the words of the Lord, that we no longer see water baptisms recorded in the Book of Acts. All water baptisms take place before Peter remembered.

"At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized." Acts 16:33 niv

How could the entire household be all immediately baptized in water? That only can happen with the Holy Spirit baptism!

"immediately" NASB

"immediately" Amplified Bible

"immediately" New King James Version

"immediately" American Standard Version

Grace and peace, GeneZ
 
Upvote 0

Simon_Templar

Not all who wander are lost
Jun 29, 2004
7,865
1,129
50
Visit site
✟44,157.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
There are many verses which have already been quoted that mention baptism in connection with remission of sins, redmeption etc. However, many of the citations of these verses have taken them out of context or said that they say things that they really don't.

For example, when peter said "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" this does not necessarily require that baptism remisses sins. Repentance in fact remisses sins (as we see from other instances in scripture which don't mention baptism). Further more Jesus said that it was his shed blood that remitted sin. No mention of baptism. The verses offered to support the idea that baptism is necessary are intriguing, and they deffinetly are worthy of strong consideration, but they do not logicaly demand that one must be baptized in order to be saved. The remission of sin is a sovereign act of God's grace, he can give it where he will to whom he will.

Now having said that, I can't deny that baptism is very important and I think it deffinetly is a mode of grace, that is grace is transmitted to us through true baptism (and I mean water baptism, by true I mean the condition of the heart of the person being baptised). I don't think it can be proved from scripture that baptism is the only, or even a necessary mode of grace. It is good, and it is of God.. that is enough to make it worthy and significant and important for every christian.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Simon_Templar said:
There are many verses which have already been quoted that mention baptism in connection with remission of sins, redmeption etc. However, many of the citations of these verses have taken them out of context or said that they say things that they really don't.

For example, when peter said "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" this does not necessarily require that baptism remisses sins.
Peter said "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" but what he meant was "repent for the remission of sins"? You are assuming what he said is wrong...I like to read what it says and it say "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" therefore Peter meant "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" and so tinorder for the remission of sins JEWS needed to repent and be baptised.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
A Brethren IN CHRIST said:
does one believe and getting baptized one action? or is it two? shelb5

Two. I am so to the point of repeating myself in this thread. One comes to believe they are sinners in need of redemption. Believing itself can not redeem you- even the demons believe- that is earning it. One comes to believe and then they receive the free gift of redemption, not because of any work that have done. How clear does this need to be?? Once you are redeemed, not “saved” in this free gift you have been given faith. Faith is a gift, not something we can come to on our own in our fallen state. One then must accept the gift of faith if their faith will be a living faith that will save them.

I know Protestants like to think it is all a wham, bam, thank you mam deal, but it’s not, we have to become what we were redeemed (not OSAS) to be. Redemption and salvation are not the same.

Why do you think Paul said we have to work out our salvation? We have been given the hope of glory in baptism, now we accept Christ and we will be saved. It is not a matter of accept Christ and then you are saved. A fallen person has no merit before God, he must be redeemed by Christ first in order that their acceptance of Christ will have any merit to save them. You can not earn being born again, it is a gift that God gives in baptism and the bible is very explicit in saying this. There are exceptions but they are God's exceptions, not ours to decided. We are commanded to baptize.
 
Upvote 0
Shelb5 said:
Two. I am so to the point of repeating myself in this thread. One comes to believe they are sinners in need of redemption. Believing itself can not redeem you- even the demons believe- that is earning it. [can we do this romans 4:2, romans 3:23]One comes to believe and then they receive the free gift of redemption, not because of any work that have done. How clear does this need to be?? Once you are redeemed, not “saved” in this free gift you have been given faith. Faith is a gift, not something we can come to on our own in our fallen state. One then must accept the gift of faith if their faith will be a living faith that will save them.

I know Protestants like to think it is all a wham, bam, thank you mam deal, but it’s not, we have to become what we were redeemed (not OSAS) to be. Redemption and salvation are not the same.

Why do you think Paul said we have to work out our salvation? We have been given the hope of glory in baptism, now we accept Christ and we will be saved. It is not a matter of accept Christ and then you are saved. A fallen person has no merit before God, he must be redeemed by Christ first in order that their acceptance of Christ will have any merit to save them. You can not earn being born again, it is a gift that God gives in baptism and the bible is very explicit in saying this. There are exceptions but they are God's exceptions, not ours to decided. We are commanded to baptize.
1 cor 12:13 and the H.S. baptizes us into Christ when we believe

why is it nessecary ....romans 6 if not counted in him we are not counted in his death or resurrection verse 3 , 8
 
Upvote 0

SPALATIN

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther
May 5, 2004
4,905
139
63
Fort Wayne, Indiana
✟20,851.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Shelb5 said:
Two. I am so to the point of repeating myself in this thread. One comes to believe they are sinners in need of redemption. Believing itself can not redeem you- even the demons believe- that is earning it. One comes to believe and then they receive the free gift of redemption, not because of any work that have done. How clear does this need to be?? Once you are redeemed, not “saved” in this free gift you have been given faith. Faith is a gift, not something we can come to on our own in our fallen state. One then must accept the gift of faith if their faith will be a living faith that will save them.
Explain how Redemption and Salvation are two different concepts. Define each so that we know the difference. Too often believers get these two concepts mixed up so if you would honor me with the definition of Redemption and with the definition of Salvation I am sure that the Protestants here would greatly appreciate this so we don't get mixed up again.:scratch:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.