What about Baptism?

cougan · Dec 13, 2002

Originally posted by Ben johnson
Faith does not come from the word of God---faith comes from our own HEARTS---from HEARING the Word of God...

"For with the HEART man believes (has faith-to-salvation)..."

So then faith <I>cometh </I>by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

What exactly is your point. The belief/faith comes from the word. If you never heard the word you would never have faith.

Jude says "the FAITH was delivered once for all"---it doesn't say that there are no prophesies today...
That's not what it says at all! Did you even READ this Scripture?
Again you must not have READ it---nothing here that says "end". While we are "not to put the Lord God to the test" (Matt3:7,Deut6:16), Paul was BITTEN by a snake and nothing happened to him... Acts 28:3

Click to expand...

You obviously did not read my entire posts.

WHEN? When the PERFECT COMES. (1Cor3:10) Hasn't happened yet. THAT will happen when JESUS returns. You are correct that 1Cor14:20 is a rebuke against immature tongue-speaking (thinking they were HOT because they TONGUED), but Paul also says, "do not FORBID". And Paul says, "earnestly desire the higher gifts, especially that you may prophesy"...

[\QUOTE]

Again I showed clearly in my post that this can not refer to Jesus 2nd comming. Please read my posts.

No it's not, no I haven't. Salvation is "IN CHRIST"---"he who HAS the Son has the life---I write this that you may KNOW you have eternal life". Eternal life is the goal, the promise, the inheritance, the reward (Col3:24). Salvation is our GRASP of that inheritance. Thus, "he who endures to the end is saved"---meaning, "he who remains saved to the end, is saved"---displaying the SECOND meaning of saved, "saved-to-the-end", "eternal life".

Eternal life is the goal, saved is HAVING CHRIST---having the eternal life. If we REMAIN IN CHRIST, remaining saved, then we will be SAVED-ETERNALLY.

"Saved" has two meanings---saved now, and saved finally.

What does *snip* mean?
"As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name". RECEIVING CHRIST, is identical to BELIEVING. "As you have RECEIVED CHRIST, so walk IN Him." "He who HAS the Son, HAS the (eternal) life." We HAVE Jesus by RECEIVING Him, as LORD and SAVIOR. Which am I to believe---you, or Scripture?

Apparently you're not understanding the essence of salvation---salvation is IN CHRIST. Those in Acts 10:44-48 BELIEVED, RECEIVED CHRIST---and they were saved, filled with the Spirit, spoke with tongues. ...and they were NOT YET WATERBAPTIZED... Let's see what salvation is---it is ONE THING, with SEVERAL DESCRIPTIONS!

1. Believing (John3:16)
2. Doing the will of God (Matt7:21)
3. Humbled as a child (Matt18:3-4)
4. Born-Again (John3:3)
5. Receiving Christ (John1:12)
6. Abiding in Christ (John15:1-7, 1Jn4:15-16)
7. Walking in the Spirit, walking in Christ (Rm8:12-13, Col2:6---As you have RECEIVED CHRIST, so walk IN Him"
8. Immersed in Christ (not water), old crucified/dead, new born (Rm6:4-11, Gal2:20, 2Cor5:17)
9. Baptized in the Holy Spirit (different from water) (Matt3:11)
10. Righteous, godly (1Jn3:4-12)Jms1:2-4,12)
11. Saved through fire of trials ("Every tree that bears fruit, He will PRUNE that it may bear more fruit"---John15:2) (1Cor3:15,1Pet1:7, Jms1:2-4,12)

Do you understand now? One SALVATION, many descriptions---all equally valid, all identical---all referring to the ONE SALVATION
Baptism does NOT mean "immersed-into-water", it means "IMMERSED". Haven't you been looking up the verses we've been throwing at you? Since you are disinclined to look them up, then I'll quote Matt3:11: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who comes after me ...WILL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT"

The Greek, means "immerse". Let's use the ACTUAL meaning in the verse:
"I immerse you in water, but He will immerse you in the Holy Spirit".
Christ will immerse with the Holy Spirit, not water. Is it finally clear? Or will you contend that John means "immersion-in-the-Holy-Spirit-THROUGH-WATER"? Be careful---if you take THAT path, then you ALSO MUST contend that sinners are immersed in Hell-fire THROUGH WATER!!! Are you prepared to argue that Hell is through WATERBAPTISM???

Matt3:12 explains that the FIRE in 3:11, is for the CHAFF, IE Hell.
BECAUSE Holy Spirit baptism is SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from waterbaptism, then the "IMMERSION INTO CHRIST" of Rom6, which is equivalent to IMMERSION IN THE HOLY SPIRIT (both refer to SALVATION), Rom6 is ALSO not speaking of waterbaptism!!! It is IMMERSION INTO CHRIST! Both, "IMMERSION ITO CHRIST", and "IMMERSION INTO THE HOLY SPIRIT" happen at SALVATION---and NEITHER means WATER!
The burden of proof is left to the accuser---if you REALLY BELIEVE that they were "filled wiith the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, but were NOT SAVED, then please, PLEASE show me the Scripture where the Holy Spirit INDWELLS THE UNSAVED!

Does Hellfire come through WATERBAPTISM? If you answer "NO", then you are FORCED to admit that HOLY-SPIRIT-IMMERSION is DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE from waterbaptism.

If you admit that the Holy Spirit WILL NOT indwell unbelievers, if you will simply read Paul's words in Acts 11:17, "God gave the same gift as He gave to us AFTER BELIEVING", then you have NO CHOICE but to accept that they BELIEVED---and they RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH that belief---and they were SAVED!
...but they were NOT WATERBAPTIZED!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ben these arguements have already been refuted and you just keep rehashing them. You know good and well that I dont think that HS baptism, Fire baptism, or water baptism are the same thing. By the way the verse reads like this

Acts 11:17 If then God gave unto them the like gift as <I>he did </I>also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?

No where does it say that they were saved because they were HS bapitzed. These men were belivers in God and they found favor in the site of God to be the ones to be chossen to have the HS fall on them to show that all Gentiles were now accepted by God. I showed you without a doubt that Peter had just began to speak when he was interurpted by the HS falling on them. I also pointed out that Peter was to tell them words by which they were to be saved. How in the name of logic can you say that they were saved before they heard the words? I showed you that John prophecy was stated but then clairfied later by Jesus to whom the baptism of the HS was promised to. Jesus promised it to the apostles. Only the apostles could bind and lose Math 18:18, remit or retin sin John 20:23, and only they could pass on the gift of the HS through the laying of hands. acts 8:18. The baptism of the HS of Cornelius household was similiar in that it came directly from heaven and not through the laying of hands. No where is it recorded that they had the same abilities that an apostle had. This sign at Corneilus household shoud clearly stand out as a special occasion. Peter had to think back to the time that the HS was poured out before and he was reminded of the day of Pentacost. Why? Because this is the ONLY other time this happened. If HS baptism is a common thing like you like to portray then he could of surely sited another instance of it. After all approximatly 7 years had passed by since the day of Pentacost. Why else would the Jews be shocked, they were used to seeing people get the gifts of the HS after they were water baptized through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. After the church was started at Pentacost this is the ONLY instance of someone being HS baptized BEFORE water baptism. With all this combined it should clearly stand that this was a special time and that God chose these God fearing Gentiles to show that they were now accepeted. That is why Peter was first thoughts were to water baptize them as the great commission plainly stated for them to do. You can not have miracelous gifts of the HS without having one of those apostles alive today!

Do you believe that one can prophecy today like they did back then? If so then our bible is not complete and we should be adding more pages to it as we go.

Do you belive that people can be raised from the dead today? If not why not.

Do you believe that we have apostles alive today? And now I dont mean apostels in the generice sense. I mean can they bind and loose, remit and retain sin, and pass on the gift of the HS through the laying on of their hands.

Can you produce 1 video where a visable miracle is done similar to what Jesus did to the withered hand? If not why not.  

cougan · Dec 13, 2002

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
I don't have time to say much, but it is interesting that the exact same people of the early church who believed in the validity of baptism for salvation believed in tongues.

Irenaeus (A.D. 115 to 202) a pupil of Polycarp (A.D. 70-155), who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote: "in like manner do we also hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms 'spiritual', they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit".

Justin Martyr (A.D.. 100-165) wrote that in his time the gifts of the Spirit were active and operating in the Church.

Tertullian (A.D. 160-220), according to Smith' dictionary of the Bible, speaks in his writings of the gifts of the Spirit, including speaking with tongues, as being manifested in his day.

Oregon (A.D. 186-253) and Cyprian (A.D. 200-258), his contemporaries, give the same testimony.

Your such a stinker Scott.

When I introduced some of these early Christian writters I did not do it beacause I think that everything they pen has to be truth. I only introduced the fact that the majoryty of the early writters saw water baptism as being the point your sins are washed away. I wanted to show that I did'nt just dream up water baptism. I find it funny that you are using the same writter that you discredited to try and prove your point. You seem to think they are correct in their writting about tongues and such but you do not hold any validity to what the majorty of them write about water baptism. Instead of trying to use a source you have already discredited lets use the bible to iterpret itself. I want you to deal with my post from the bible and not from some writters point of view. Again, when I introduced the early writters it was not to show that their words were gospel but to show the majorty consisder water baptism the point your sins are removed. This is exactly what the bible teaches about water baptism in my opinion. It was a command and was to be carried out to the end of time however HS baptism was a promise and not a command and was limited as I have clearly shown. There is only 1 baptism for the christian. If its HS then there is no need for water baptism and visa versa. Water baptism is not some public proclamation that you belong to Christ. It is an act of obedience and it is our faith in the working of God that we know that through our obedience of faith that we are being united with Christ and having our sins removed being added to the one body that is Christ body. col 2:12. You show me 1 just 1 visable miralce on tape and I will preach HS baptism and miracles for the rest of my days. But you know good and well that a video like that doesnt exist. If it did all these denominations that teach miracles would be sure and make such an event know and forever shut the mouth of those like myself that belive that word of God plainly teaches that the miracles ceased shortly after the word was fully revealed.

Ben johnson · Dec 14, 2002

What exactly is your point. The belief/faith comes from the word. If you never heard the word you would never have faith.

It's just a fine point, Cougan. To say "faith comes from the Word of God", places the faith in the direction of GOD-TO-MAN. (This is aligned with "Predestined-Election", that God APPOINTS the elect to salvation---to which I do not hold...)

To say, "Faith comes from our heart's RESPONSE to God's word", places faith in the direction of man-to-God. This then reflects ALL the Scriptures, like "receiving as the outcome of YOUR faith the salvation of your souls", and "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this YOU WILL SAVE YOURSELVES and those who hear you..."

Ben these arguments have already been refuted and you just keep rehashing them. You know good and well that I dont think that HS baptism, Fire baptism, or water baptism are the same thing.

You recognize that "HOLY-SPIRIT-BAPTISM", or more properly worded, "HOLY-SPIRIT-IMMERSION", has nothing to do with waterbaptism. Since Holy Spirit Immersion equates to salvation, and since Immersion into Christ also equates to salvation, why is it such a stretch for you to understand that immersion into Christ is ALSO a spiritual thing---and just like Holy-Spirit-Baptism, ALSO has nothing to do with water? Holy-Spirit-Baptism errr, Immersion, is a spiritual thing; so too IMMERSION-INTO-CHRIST is a spiritual thing. NEITHER has anything to do with water...

No where does it say that they were saved because they were HS baptized. These men were believers in God and they found favor in the site of God to be the ones to be chosen to have the HS fall on them to show that all Gentiles were now accepted by God.

You say "they were believers in God"---do you think that they realized Jesus was the MESSIAH? I submit they did. You think you have refuted the passage because you make three assumptions:

1. They had not heard enough of the Gospel to believe---Peter had only STARTED speaking
2. They did not believe/receive Jesus.
3. They were filled with the Holy Spirit WHILE THEY WERE UNBELIEVERS

You reason, "Peter had only STARTED to speak, Peter hadn't TIME to tell them the Gospel". But let's look more closely at Acts 10, may we?
"And opening his mouth, Peter said: 'I understand God is not one to show partiality, but ...those who respect Him ...are welcome to Him. The word ...through Jesus Christ (HE IS LORD OF ALL)---you yourselves know what took place. You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power; He went doing good and healing a who were oppressed---God was with Him. We were witnesses ...and they put Him to death on a cross, and God raised Him up on the third day, seen by us. He ordered us to preach ...that this is the One who has been appointed by God as the judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that THROUGH HIS NAME EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM receives forgiveness of sins.' "

THIS is the context that Peter UTTERED, BEFORE they received the Holy Spirit. Thus your FIRST assumption (of the three listed just above), evaporates. They heard MORE THAN ENOUGH to understand the Gospel. Perhaps Peter had a WHOLE SPEECH written---and this is all they heard, the "archomai", the beginning. BESIDES, as Peter boldly declared, they had SEEN Jesus, they already KNEW much about Him. So they already knew much about Jesus, Peter actually said ALL THESE WORDS to them BEFORE they were FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT---they therefore had MORE than enough knowledge of the Gospel.

Assumption #1 gone---they knew, they heard enough, they understood Jesus WAS THE MESSIAH.

Assumption #2, which you largely base on #1, is that they HAD NOT BELIEVED. But I take Acts11:15-17 to be CLEARLY saying "they received the HS just as WE had, WE believed and received the HS, THEY believed and received the HS. I think your "assumption #2" has fallen flat. They heard, they knew, they believed.

Assumption #3---this is the one that I cannot understand---how is it that you believe the Holy Spirit INDWELLS THE UNSAVED? Eph1:13 says "the SEAL of salvation, which is the Holy Spirit, is conditioned on BELIEF. Heb3:1 says "metochos/partners of a heavenly calling", 3:14 says "metochos/partners of Christ", and 6:4 says "metochos/partners of the Holy Spirit". Aren't the three PARTNERSHIPS, CONNECTED? Please explain to me how you believe the Holy Spirit INDWELT THE UNBELIEVERS?

After the church was started at Pentecost this is the ONLY instance of someone being HS baptized BEFORE water baptism. With all this combined it should clearly stand that this was a special time and that God chose these God fearing Gentiles to show that they were now accepted. That is why Peter was first thoughts were to water baptize them as the great commission plainly stated for them to do. You can not have miraculous gifts of the HS without having one of those apostles alive today!

But I gave you an instance where they were WATERBAPTIZED but had not yet received the Holy Spirit---what I established with those two passages, is that waterbaptism is SEPARATE from salvation! You say "Acts 10 is only ONE INSTANCE"---but that it exists at ALL denies your view! John laments that "there were too many things to write down"---so this ONE is very arguably only one of MANY times they were SAVED, FILLED, before being DIPPED!

Do you believe that one can prophecy today like they did back then? If so then our bible is not complete and we should be adding more pages to it as we go.

You don't believe spiritual gifts exist today? You don't believe in prophecy? "Earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." You don't believe that applies today?

Do you believe that people can be raised from the dead today? If not why not.

I've heard of it happening---absolutely!

Do you believe that we have apostles alive today? And now I don't mean apostles in the generic sense. I mean can they bind and loose, remit and retain sin, and pass on the gift of the HS through the laying on of their hands.

In Matt18, Jesus promises that "wherever two or more of you are gathered, there am I in their midst; whatever you agree to bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven..." You don't believe that applies to us today?

Can you produce 1 video where a visible miracle is done similar to what Jesus did to the withered hand? If not why not.

I've heard of it happening. A girl when I was in college was healed of blindness. We do have miracles today---one happened on this very site just a couple days ago---God redirected a PM to just the exact person needed!

...do not ask me for details, I cannot comment...

I think I have "refuted your refutation" of Acts 10. What do you think?

ScottEmerson · Dec 15, 2002

Quick and easy case scenario:

A person in Uruguay believes with his whole heart that Jesus is Lord because of the witness of a person and is not baptized, because the person who witnessed doesn't believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. This person confesses with his mouth and has faith that Christ was raised from the dead. For the rest of his life, he does good works, shares his faith with all the people that he meets, and converts hundreds to his faith. This person dies, having never been baptized. Is this person going to Hell?

One more scenario:

A 90-year-old man at a Church of Christ feels the spirit beckoning. He accepts Christ then and there. As he goes up front to announce to the pastor that he wishes to be baptized, (he believes that baptism saves),he dies of a massive stroke immediately. He never gets immersed in water. Does God say, "Depart from me, I never knew you?"

All I ask is your answer to these two questions. I never really received an answer from my last series, but I hope that you can read these and prayerfully consider what the answer to these questions would be. Thanks.

ScottEmerson · Dec 15, 2002

Oh, and for the proof of resurrections, just do an internet search for Ronald Winans. He is the father of the musical group the Winans, as well as BeBe and CeCe Winans. He was raised from the dead due to the prayers of the saints.

Your argument of no miracles falls.

seebs · Dec 17, 2002

It occurs to me that I think I've heard of Catholics discussing the concept of a "baptism of desire" - if you *wanted* a baptism, that counts. This would solve the old guy's problem, anyway.

ScottEmerson · Dec 17, 2002

Hey, seebs!

THe two on this forum who are arguing that a person MUST be baptized would disagree. It's got to be literal water and literal dunking. Poor guy... If only he hadn't died! Maybe God didn't want him in heaven... (tongue-in-cheek...)

seebs · Dec 17, 2002

I think it's a bad idea to get too confident of what God can or cannot do, or will or will not do. He is merciful, and He has done things in the past which were "impossible" to help us.

pinkangel · Dec 26, 2002

I reckon each guy will go to heaven, although I soppose we'll never know. I was baptized just over a yr go and it was amazing! But still i think it has to be a choice like the old man, if u think that baptizm aint necessary then I dont think it needs to be done, as long as you have given your life to God I reckon that the water bit doesnt matter too much

Ben johnson · Dec 26, 2002

if u think that baptizm aint necessary then I dont think it needs to be done, as long as you have given your life to God I reckon that the water bit doesnt matter too much...

It depends on what things are necessary FOR. Paul writes in Eph2, "salvation is grace through faith, NOT of works lest anyone boast"---but throughout Paul's letters, Paul endorses what Jesus said, "a SAVED tree (person) WILL produce good fruit (works)"! Eloquently clarified by James, in ch2: "What use is it if you say you have faith, but have no works? THAT kind of faith can NOT save you, CAN it!" (14---"Me Dunamai", is-not-able-to)

So, while waterbaptism is not necessary for salvation, it is absolutely a consequence of TRUE SALVATION. So the saved-heart will be baptized, the unsaved one will not...

waterwizard · Dec 28, 2002

I don't know if this has been touched on yet, but I'll say it anyway.

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized.  No one ran up and threw water on him after he said "Remember me" to Jesus.  Where is the thief now?

Also, was John the Baptist ever baptized?  If so, by whom?  And is he in heaven if he wasn't?

If baptism is necessary, we would have to have a baptismal ready at a person's deathbed confession, so that person can be baptized before he dies. 

pinkangel · Dec 28, 2002

hmmm yeah I get what you mean, but still I dont think that if you arent baptised you dont have a good a faith as someone who is baptised? I think it is also better to be baptised like you said to show your true faith and let it speak out to others, but still I dont think that not haveing a baptism shows that you are unsaved.

Evangelion · Dec 28, 2002

WW -

I don't know if this has been touched on yet, but I'll say it anyway.

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized. No one ran up and threw water on him after he said "Remember me" to Jesus. Where is the thief now?

Dead in the ground, awaiting the resurrection and judgement.

Will he be saved?

Undoubtedly.

Also, was John the Baptist ever baptized?

LOL! He would have been quite a hypocrite if he hadn't been baptised, wouldn't you say?

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me why he would tell others to be baptised, but refuse it himself?

If so, by whom?

Don't know, don't care. It's irrelevant.

Yours is an argument from silence.

And is he in heaven if he wasn't?

Nope.

Regardless of whether or not he was baptised, he is now dead in the ground, and will continue to lie there until the resurrection.

If baptism is necessary, we would have to have a baptismal ready at a person's deathbed confession, so that person can be baptized before he dies.

False dichotomy.

Since baptism is the outward sign of an inward change, it is God's prerogative to extend salvation to those who are genuinely sincere - even if their circumstances prevent them from carrying out His will to the letter.

Hence the words of Hübmaier to Zwingli, during their debate in the Fraumünster:

Zwingli:
The thief on the cross believed, and on the same day was with Christ in paradise; yet he was not baptized with outward baptism.

Hübmaier:
A man who has the excuse of the thief on the cross will have the favour of God. But when this excuse is lacking the word of Christ holds true that "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved".

pinkangel · Dec 28, 2002

WW is totally agree with your comment about the thief on the cross, I think baptism really doesnt make the desion wether you have eternal life. God isnt going to forget someone just becaus they didnt show an outward sign.

ScottEmerson · Dec 28, 2002

Evangelion writes,

"Zwingli:
The thief on the cross believed, and on the same day was with Christ in paradise; yet he was not baptized with outward baptism.

Hübmaier:
A man who has the excuse of the thief on the cross will have the favour of God. But when this excuse is lacking the word of Christ holds true that "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved"

I write:

Where is your Scriptural proof of this? Hubmaier provides nothing in that area. Either Jesus was correct, the theif immediately went to Paradise, and baptism is not necessary to baptism, or baptism is necessary to enter Paradise and Jesus was just providing empty comfort to the thief.

Care to answer the questions on the previous page?

Evangelion · Dec 28, 2002

Scott -

Where is your Scriptural proof of this?

Right there in the Word of God.

Hubmaier provides nothing in that area.

Yes he does. He accepts the statement of Christ "Thou shalt be with me in paradise."

Either Jesus was correct, the theif immediately went to Paradise

Actually, the thief wouldn't have gone there "immediately", since the resurrection has yet to occur.

and baptism is not necessary to baptism

LOL, I think you meant "to salvation."

or baptism is necessary to enter Paradise and Jesus was just providing empty comfort to the thief.

Nope. That's a false dichotomy.

Read my post again.

Evangelion · Dec 28, 2002

Oh, and...

Care to answer the questions on the previous page?

Sure, but I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore?

A person in Uruguay believes with his whole heart that Jesus is Lord because of the witness of a person and is not baptized, because the person who witnessed doesn't believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. This person confesses with his mouth and has faith that Christ was raised from the dead. For the rest of his life, he does good works, shares his faith with all the people that he meets, and converts hundreds to his faith. This person dies, having never been baptized. Is this person going to Hell?

Nope. "Hell" doesn't exist anyway.

I believe he would be saved. That's God's prerogative.

One more scenario:

A 90-year-old man at a Church of Christ feels the spirit beckoning. He accepts Christ then and there. As he goes up front to announce to the pastor that he wishes to be baptized, (he believes that baptism saves),he dies of a massive stroke immediately. He never gets immersed in water.

I take it that we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that the doctrine of the CoC is 100% correct? I'll just take that "as read", then.

Does God say, "Depart from me, I never knew you?"

Nope.

I believe he would be saved. That's God's prerogative.

What you fail to understand, is that God can give a commandment and say "This is necessary", but still transcend that same commandment (without contradicting himself), depending on the circumstances of the case.

Scripture provides us with a number of examples.

ScottEmerson · Dec 30, 2002

Nope. "Hell" doesn't exist anyway.

Now you don't believe in a Hell? Do you even read the Word? Christ sure seemed to believe in a literal Hell.

I believe he would be saved. That's God's prerogative.

I thought you said his perogative was that a person MUST be saved to be baptized. I mean, isn't that what you've been harping on over and over again? A person isn't saved until he is baptized? And you're speaking for God's perogative? Where is the Scriptural proof?

I believe he would be saved. That's God's prerogative.

Again, proof found in Scripture?

What you fail to understand, is that God can give a commandment and say "This is necessary", but still transcend that same commandment (without contradicting himself), depending on the circumstances of the case.

So God can say one thing and do another? Sounds like you're making God an awfully big liar! Why doesn't he decide to take back the whole idea that not everyone is saved and let all people in? Could that not also be his "perogative"?

 

Scripture provides us with a number of examples.

Name them. For God to say one thing and do another makes him a liar. "To be saved, you MUST be baptized." "You're not baptized, but, hey, you're saved anyway." These are two contradicting statements.

This is why I wanted an answer to the question. A person cannot have it both ways.

Parakaleo · Dec 31, 2002

Evangelion has had his account suspended, but I don't mind answering these questions.

 

They're very easy questions... 

Parakaleo · Dec 31, 2002

Scott -

Now you don't believe in a Hell?

*snip*

Not a place of eternal torment, no. I believe only in the grave.

I thought you said his perogative was that a person MUST be saved to be baptized.

That is true. If at all possible, a person must be baptised. If at all possible.

I mean, isn't that what you've been harping on over and over again? A person isn't saved until he is baptized?

No, I don't see any place where Evangelion has said "A person isn't saved until he is baptised." In fact, he has consistently said that we are not saved until we are accepted at the Judgement seat of God.

Why do you keep misrepresenting him?

And you're speaking for God's perogative?

No, I'm listening to God, Who has spoken to us through His inspired men of old.

Where is the Scriptural proof?

Here:

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

That is the prerogative of God. He is able to extend mercy (and judgement) to whomsoever He chooses. Doesn't your god have this prerogative?

Again, proof found in Scripture?

Apart from the quote above, we also have the example of David and Bathsheba. Remember that David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and later arranged to have Uriah killed? Both of these crimes carried the penalty of death under the Law of Moses. David even acknowledged this when he spoke to Nathan. He condemned himself out of his own mouth.

Here:

2Sa 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
2Sa 12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

But look! God is merciful. Exercising His divine prerogative, He commutes David's sentence, and repeals the death penalty in this case:

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
2Sa 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

David should have died. That was the commandment of God, under the Law that He had given to Moses. But God transcended this law, exercising His divine right to extend mercy to David on this occasion.

So Adam Clarke's Commenatary on the Bible says:

2Sa 12:13 -
The Lord - hath put away thy sin - Many have supposed that Davids sin was now actually pardoned, but this is perfectly erroneous; David, as an adulterer, was condemned to death by the law of God; and he had according to that law passed sentence of death upon himself.

God alone, whose law that was could revoke that sentence, or dispense with its execution; therefore Nathan, who had charged the guilt home upon his conscience, is authorized to give him the assurance that he should not die a temporal death for it: The Lord hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. This is all that is contained in the assurance given by Nathan: Thou shalt not die that temporal death; thou shalt be preserved alive, that thou mayest have time to repent, turn to God, and find mercy.

If the fifty-first Psalm, as is generally supposed, was written on this occasion, then it is evident (as the Psalm must have been written after this interview) that David had not received pardon for his sin from God at the time he composed it; for in it he confesses the crime in order to find mercy.

There is something very remarkable in the words of Nathan: The Lord also hath Put Away thy sin; thou shalt not die; âí éäåä äòáéø çèàúê ìà úîåú gam Yehovah heebir chattathecha lo thamuth, Also Jehovah Hath Caused thy sin To Pass Over, or transferred thy sin; Thou shalt not die. God has transferred the legal punishment of this sin to the child; He shall die, Thou shalt not die; and this is the very point on which the prophet gives him the most direct information: The child that is born unto thee shall Surely die; îåú éîåú moth yamuth, dying he shall die - he shall be in a dying state seven days, and then he shall die. So God immediately struck the child, and it was very sick.

John Gill's Commentary agrees with Clarke's:

the Lord hath put away thy sin; would not charge it upon him, impute it to him, or punish him for it, but freely and fully forgive it, cast it behind his back, and into the depth of the sea; cause it to pass from him and never more bring it against him, and which is the Lord's act, and his only, against whom sin is committed:

thou shall not die; though he should die a corporeal death, yet not by the immediate hand of God, or by the sword of justice as a malefactor, a murderer, and adulterer, as he, according to the law, deserved to die; nor should he die a spiritual death, though his grace had been so low, and his corruptions had risen so high; nor an eternal death, the second death, the lost wages of sin.

John Wesley understood this incident perfectly well, for he writes:

Not die - As by thy own sentence, 2Sa_12:5, thou dost deserve, and may expect to be done by my immediate stroke.

Why doesn't he decide to take back the whole idea that not everyone is saved and let all people in? Could that not also be his "perogative"?

*snip*

No, because even though He exercised His prerogative in the case of David by granting him temporary immunity from the death penalty, He still punished David. Not only that, but He only did this because David was a faithful man who repented of his evil. Not everyone does this, of course. So God would never withdraw the penalty from all men, for that would be a denial of His character. There must always be a punishment for sin.

For God to say one thing and do another makes him a liar.

No, you just don't understand how God works.

I think you need to start reading the Bible.

"To be saved, you MUST be baptized." "You're not baptized, but, hey, you're saved anyway." These are two contradicting statements.

*snip*

No, they're not, because both statements must be taken as qualified statements.

Tell me, Scott - did God contradict Himself when he abrogated the Law of Moses and decreed that David was not going to die, even though He had already instituted the death penalty for murder and adultery? (Both of which David committed...)

I really think you need to read the Bible. It's just amazing, the number of people who call themselves "Christians" but don't read the Bible.

What about Baptism?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Legend

I Like Traffic Lights

I Like Traffic Lights

God Made Me A Skeptic

I Like Traffic Lights

God Made Me A Skeptic

Member

Legend

Senior Veteran

Member

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Member

I Like Traffic Lights

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

I Like Traffic Lights

Hmmmm...

Hmmmm...

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency