What about Baptism?

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by Thaddaeus
no, many scholars believe that the book of James was written for people already saved. You are argueing faith alone. Here let me show you the main reason why i believe that I am justified by Faith ALONE
Ephesians 2:8,9 kjv
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Notice he sai NOT OF WORKS and NOT OF YOURSELVES, this clearly shows that it is not salvation by works

Paul and James were talking about the same thing and most scholars and even secular scholars would agree that you can't really avoid the conflict with fanciful theories.  There is a problem.  I can reconcile the two but evangelical dogma cannot and must fancy that James was talking about something else like salvation after salvation.

You are justified by faith but James described that faith as dead if it has no evidence.  Paul talked about the same living faith but couched it in different language.  He said we were dead to sin and alive to the spirit. 

Teaching salvation by faith alone should be replaced with teaching that we are saved by a living faith and not by a dead faith.  A lot of people who have preached and prophecied for God think their faith is alive but they will hear the Lord say, "When I was hungry, you did nothing, when I was naked, you did nothing, etc."

Even if their pastors were inclined to do so, these people will never hear a sermon to unseat their belief that they are saved because they have this tape running in their head which says, "Saved by faith alone, saved by faith alone, saved by faith alone." 

Just because James disagrees with that position does not mean he declares it to be false---he might be merely pointing out that it is not the whole story.  Jesus came to give us life and life more abundantly but at the great banquet of life, most poor souls are starving.  They can feast by feeding the poor.

 

[Thaddaeus]

James was saying that the evidence of Salvation was works, aswas paul, he was not saying that it took works to become saved, for that would contradict ther passage i gave to you. I truly find no other evidence of work based salvation outside of james. I also believe tht christ chose the elect, which makes it even a more non works based form of savation (yes i can giv verses to back up this) if Pedestination is true then one is saved without works, without even having to work to have faith.

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by Thaddaeus
James was saying that the evidence of Salvation was works, aswas paul, he was not saying that it took works to become saved, for that would contradict ther passage i gave to you. I truly find no other evidence of work based salvation outside of james. I also believe tht christ chose the elect, which makes it even a more non works based form of savation (yes i can giv verses to back up this) if Pedestination is true then one is saved without works, without even having to work to have faith.

Just because one says you need works to be saved does NOT mean that person has endorsed a works based salvation.  Salvation is by faith.  It is faith - based.  But without the works, no salvation---your faith is dead.

Paul adn James were saying that works are evidence of a living faith.  They said nothing about works being evidence of salvation.  That's medieval muddle.

Predestination is foreign to Calvin.  his followers made it up to make themselves special.  Follow Jesus, jettison Calvin and his folowers' notions.

 

[Thaddaeus]

I dont follow calvin, I follow christ,andthe word of God which quite plainly shows election, Here are some reference for you to ponder on that subject which closely corresponds to this subject Mathew 24 says much about the elect refering to crhistians the chosen ones of God.
Rom:8:30: Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom:8:28: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Their are others but for know these are enough.

Alls im trying to show is that IT is salvation completely by the grace of God thier is nothing we do to obtain this. If one says that it is other than he grac of God or the mere pleasure of God that keeps us from the pit of hell than he is wrong.

The just shall live by faith.

By grace are you saved through faith not of WORKS lest any man should boast not of yourselves it is the gift of God

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by Thaddaeus
I dont follow calvin, I follow christ,andthe word of God which quite plainly shows election,

In law school, they taught us that anyone using "clearly" or "quite plainly" is arguing something which is anything but plain.  The Calvinist doctrine of election in the New Testament is anything but plain.  If it were plain, someone would have noticed it before Calvin (invented it) and those after Calvin would have universally acceded to its plainness.

 

[ScottEmerson]

The Bible IS clear about election, in that it occurs, and the Elect are the ones who are saved. What the Bible is UNCLEAR about is the nature of electoin.

Oh, and Calvin didn't invent it - it appeared in Augustine's writings over a thousand years earlier.

SEC, who is not a Calvinist.

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
The Bible IS clear about election, in that it occurs, and the Elect are the ones who are saved. What the Bible is UNCLEAR about is the nature of electoin.

Oh, and Calvin didn't invent it - it appeared in Augustine's writings over a thousand years earlier.

SEC, who is not a Calvinist.

You're confusing election and original sin. Augustine would be as shocked as Calvin to see what has been done in their names.

 

[Ben johnson]

Rom:8:30: Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Questions:
1. WHO are "predestined"?
2. WHAT are they predestined TO?
3. Those whom He "predestined", He CALLED---are they called EXCLUSIVELY, or do MANY called, not ANSWER?

THe answers to these questions, from Scripture:
1. He predestined, those whom He FOREKNEW---"Proginosko", have knowledge beforehand. This does not say "those he foreCHOSE", it says "those He knew BEFOREHAND."

2.They are predestined to be CHRISTLIKE---this in harmony with Eph4, "to mature manhood, to the measure and stature of the fullness of Christ---no longer children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, by trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head..."

THOSE whom God FOREKNEW---not foreCHOSE; He predestined towards CHrist; are THESE then CALLED? Absolutely. But called EXCLUSIVELY?

&#149"...I will draw ALL MEN to Myself" (Jn12:32).
&#149"He is the propitiation for our sins; not just ours alone, but also for the HOLOS KOSMOS whole world." Jn2:2
&#149"SO THEN as condemnation CAME to all men, EVEN SO justification CAME to all men" Rm5:18.
&#149"For MANY are CALLED, but FEW are CHOSEN." Matt22:14 (in this parable, ALL were called, only those who RECEIVED the invitation AND clothed themselves with righteousness, became the CHOSEN."

The answer to #3 is: those God has PREDESTINED towards "Christlikeness", are CALLED; but the REST of the world are ALSO called. Only those who RECEIVE the invitation become the CHOSEN. (Word-for-word 2Thess2:12---chosen from the beginning, THROUGH OUR OWN FAITH...)

Salvation is RECEIVING CHRIST. Salvation is "fellowship" with God and Christ. Salvation is "partners in a heavenly calling", AND "partners with the Holy Spirit", AND "partners with Christ"---according to Matt3, "partners with the Holy Spirit" IS a baptism, but it has nothing to do with WATER. And "partners in a heavenly calling" ALSO has nothing to do with water. And "partners with Christ", IS a baptism, it's "immersion into Christ", it's "buried/raised with Christ", it's "united with Christ"---and it also has nothing to do with water.

There's just no way to make the accout of Cornelius and his friends and his family go away---they all BELIEVED, they RECEIVED the Holy Spirit---which according to Matt3:11 amounts to salvation---according to Acts 10:47b and 11:17a, they believed IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS PETER HAD---there is no way to persist in believing they had received the Holy Spirit but had not believed and were not saved.

Partnership in the Holy Spirit equates to salvation---so does partnership in a heavenly calling, so does partnership in Christ---all three.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by FluviusNeckar
You're confusing election and original sin. Augustine would be as shocked as Calvin to see what has been done in their names.

Read again. Read Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings. You'll find specific references to "election," "predestination," and "the gift of perseverance."

http://www.ccel.org/pipeline/1-html/4-schaff-encyc01-articles/AUGUSTINE,%20SAINT,%20OF%20HIPPO_.htm

 

 

[Thaddaeus]

Originally posted by FluviusNeckar
In law school, they taught us that anyone using "clearly" or "quite plainly" is arguing something which is anything but plain.  The Calvinist doctrine of election in the New Testament is anything but plain.  If it were plain, someone would have noticed it before Calvin (invented it) and those after Calvin would have universally acceded to its plainness.

  Idont know how you can say that,if you read the Bible it ismention over and over again that we are the elect the chosenofGOd.  Calvin didnt invent it, God invinted it when he chose us beforethe foundation of the earth.  Paul also believed it.  What can you say to Eph:1:4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  That says in plain english that we were chosen by God before the foundation of the earth. To denie that Christ chose you is to deny part of the Bible.

So in conclusion, you are saved because God chose you to be saved, work matter not neither does baptism. Obviously both of those works and baptism are signs and if you dont go through with thoseit is a good possibility that you were never caledby God, for if you were you want to do his work.

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Read again. Read Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings. You'll find specific references to "election," "predestination," and "the gift of perseverance."

http://www.ccel.org/pipeline/1-html/4-schaff-encyc01-articles/AUGUSTINE,%20SAINT,%20OF%20HIPPO_.htm

 

Great cite.  Thanks.  I quote a pertinent section below:

. We may even say that this grace is an <I>interna illuminatio </I>such as a study of Augustine's Neoplatonism enables us easily to understand, which restores the connection with the divine <I>bonum ease<B>. </B></I>He had long been convinced that "not only the greatest but also the smallest good things can not be, except from him from whom are all good things, that is, from God;" and it might well seem to him to follow from this that faith, which is certainly a good thing, could proceed from the operation of God alone. This explains the idea that grace works like a law of nature, drawing the human will to God with a divine omnipotence. Of course this Neoplatonic coloring must not be exaggerated; it is more consistent with itself in his earlier writings than in the later, and he would never have arrived at his predestinarian teaching without the New Testament. With this knowledge, we are in a position to estimate the force of a difficulty which now confronted Augustine for the first time, but never afterward left him, and which has been present in the Roman Catholic teaching even down to the Councils of Trent and the Vatican. If faith depends upon an action of our own, solicited but not caused by vocation, it can only save a man when, <I>per fidem gratiam accipiens, </I>he becomes one who not merely believes in God but loves him also. But if faith has been already inspired by grace, and if, while the Scripture speaks of justification by faith, it is held (in accordance with the definition of grace) that justification follows upon the <I>infusio caritatis, -</I>-then either the conception of the faith which is God-inspired must pass its fluctuating boundaries and approach nearer to that of <I>caritas, </I>or the conception of faith which is unconnected with <I>caritas </I>will render the fact of its inspiration unintelligible and justification by faith impossible.

&nbsp;

We must be more precise in our language.&nbsp; I distinguish the predestnation&nbsp;of Augustine from that of Calvin and even from that of Calvin's followers.&nbsp; While I maintain that all three are foolishness of men and foreign to the Scriptures, I also maintain that we cannot rebaptize Augustine and make him a Calvinist.

Thanks for the cite.

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by Thaddaeus
&nbsp; Idont know how you can say that,if you read the Bible it ismention over and over again that we are the elect the chosenofGOd.&nbsp; Calvin didnt invent it, God invinted it when he chose us beforethe foundation of the earth.&nbsp; Paul also believed it.&nbsp; What can you say to Eph:1:4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:&nbsp; That says in plain english that we were chosen by God before the foundation of the earth. To denie that Christ chose you is to deny part of the Bible.

So in conclusion, you are saved because God chose you to be saved, work matter not neither does baptism. Obviously both of those works and baptism are signs and if you dont go through with thoseit is a good possibility that you were never caledby God, for if you were you want to do his work.

The predestination you mix with your solafideism has never enjoyed the clear monopoly you wish it to enjoy.&nbsp; But to trace the doctrine back to Paul and God is really stretching academic honesty when, in fact, what you believe first appears, full blown,&nbsp;with Calvin and his followers.&nbsp; It is telling that rabbinal scholars find no evidence of it in the&nbsp;Old Testament.&nbsp;

It is equally possible that Paul was speaking of the opportunity to be saved&nbsp;since the choice to believe can indeed come from God from whom all good things come.&nbsp; If God gave us choice then that ability to choose is good.&nbsp; But since it is by definition an ability to choose, then the choosing can be good or bad while the ability to choose remains a good that comes down from the father of lights.

If your theology must bow and offer incense before the idol of sola fide, then you must jettison, as you indicate, the baptism which Peter bound in heaven.&nbsp; If you jettison that sacrament then you must admit a violation of sola scriptura.&nbsp; If you are comfortable with abandoning sola scriptura then you should have no difficulty tossing the Book of Jesus' brother James in the trash for saying that we are not justified by faith alone.

 

[cougan]

Ok I want to continue. I took a small break to do a debate on musical instruments. Now let us consisder a passage that Ben has presented as teaching we have our sins washed away by calling on the name of the Lord but not by water baptism.

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

I have already delt with this arguement in past post and buried it. Once again I will show the simple truth of this verse. Now I am going to have to assume something here and I ask Ben to correct me if I misrepresent him. He would have to say that calling on the name of lord would be how and when you are immersed in Christ/HS&nbsp; baptism. So this would mean that Anaias tells Paul to first be water baptised then he is to call on the name of the lord to have his sins washed away and to be HS baptized. Question.

If water baptism is something you do after you become a christian because you are already saved then why would Ananis tell Paul to be water baptized first then after that was done to call on the name of the Lord so he could be saved by being baptized by the HS?

You have really butchered up this passage my friend. You have broken the gramactical structure of this verse that cannot be warented. It is important to remember that at this Point Paul belived in Jesus, repented, and confessed Jesus as lord yet he was still in his sins. He had been fasting and praying to God for 3 days while he waited for further instructions. Again, we have him praying yet he is still in his sins. Then Ananias comes to him and tells him to Arize and be baptized,(this is in the middle voice which would mean "have yourself immersed" See Vine,63:Robertson, 391. In his New Testament Greek Grammer 1965:132, W.E. Vine stated that the aorist tense and the middle voice froms here&nbsp;emphaisize "a decisive and immediate" action, and that Saul had to make the arrangment for himself to be immersed. This is consistent with the concept that baptism is a personal decision. This also rules out the baptism here being HS baptism since Paul would not to arize or prepare anything because HS baptism could occur lieing down, sitting or standing up. I have established that the baptism mentioned here in this verse is not HS baptism and based off all the above we can conclude that it is water baptism.

Now is this water baptism part of this washing away sins and calling on the name of the Lord. The answer of course is yes. This has been a real thorn in the flesh for theolgians that deny the connectiion of water baptism with washing away ones sins. Both Robertson (391) and Pohill (461) concede that the language is capable of being viewed as a prooftext for the essentiliaty of baptism, but on purly arbitray grounds they reject the idea. It goes bact the idea that the word of God cant get in the way of denominational bias.

Robert H Stein of Bethel Theological Seminarry, in addressing the question "Is baptism necessary for salvation?" affirmed the following in regards to 22:16. "Washing away ones sins is here clearly connected with baptism and calling on the name of Jesus name (330).

Thayers Greek Lexicon discusses this passage and says the following. For the sinner is unclean, polluted as it were by the filth of his sins. Whoever obtains remission of sins has his sins put, so to speak, out of Gods sight,__is cleansed from them in the sight of God. Remission is {represented as} obtained by undergoing baptism; hience those who have gone down into the baptismal bath[..dv. ***.3:5; Eph. 5:26] are said... to have washed themselves, or ... to have washed away their sins, i.e. to have been cleansed from their sins (65).

You cannot grammatical break this verse up like you did. Get your self immersed and washed are both aorist participles and are joined by the cordinating conj and. The contruction of this verse demands that calling on the name of the lord occurs simultaneous&nbsp;with that of the aorist imperatives get yourself immersed and washed. To put it simply when one submits to immersion in water, one is actually, by that act, calling on the Lords name. Do remeber when Peter was preaching at the day of Pentacost and he said.

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass <I>That </I>whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.'

We know that this is not merely vocal call Mat 7:21. We find that in Acts 37 after hearing these words and others the people wanted to know what they should do. In verse 38 we see Peter tells them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sin. Again we can see clearly that calling on the name of the Lord involves these elements.

Once again your arguement is taken from you by the word of God and other proofs. Even though Paul belived in Jesus, confessed him, repented and prayed he was still in his sins until he was water baptised and his sins were washed away calling on the name of the Lord. Of course there is no way that mere water can wash away your sins. Immersion in water is, however, is the divinly appointed means of accessing the blood of Christ Rom 6:3-4, and to deny this goes againt the plain testimony of the NT.

In my next post I will show that Bens arguement in John 3:5 just is not logical at all. Then Lord willing I will show 1cor 12:13 is not baptism in the HS and then I will stack all the evidence up and with one swoop put to rest Bens acts 10and 11 arguement that he so dearly clings to. Which by the way I already belive I have already taken care in the past.

God Bless,

Cougan

 

[Ben johnson]

What can you say to Eph:1:4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: That says in plain english that we were chosen by God before the foundation of the earth. To deny that Christ chose you is to deny part of the Bible.

Let's deal with this methodically, in sequence. First, everyone agrees that we are saved by God's grace, through faith. Where does that SAVING FAITH come from? According to "predestinationists", it is BEQUEATHED (installed) by God. Referencing Ezekiel 36:26-27; yet in the MIRROR passage in Ezekiel 11:19-20--- verses 18 and 21 plainly show VOLITION, not PREDESTINATION.

According to Paul, saving faith comes from a man's OWN HEART (see Rom10:10,17). NOT from God, And this makes sense---if Faith was a BEQUEATH from God, then Paul would have meant, "For by grace have you been saved through grace". FAITH that is irresistibly INSTALLED by God, is but a second dispensation of GRACE. "By grace through grace have you been saved". But it says, rather, "by grace THROUGH FAITH."

That we come to Him by our own volition, is consistent with every part of the New Testament. The argument of "the SHEEP know His voice" (meaning that HE CHOSE WHO WOULD BE THE SHEEP) is removed merely by reading John10:9; "TIS", anyone (it says "if ANYONE enters through Me"---this is universal, not limited). John1:12, 3:16-20, 8:43-44, Revelation 22:17 are but SOME of the many passages that say "salvation is by CHOICE." Romans 5:17-18 is a favorite passage of mine---it undeniably shows justification is UNIVERSAL IN AVAILABILITY, but only is REALIZED by those who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. "Predestined-Election" demands the parallel belief of "Limited Atonement"---and it is easy to demonstrate that atonement is NOT limited; Jesus came to be the "propitiation for our sins, and not just ours (the SAVED), but also the HOLOS KOSMOS entire world. The WORLD can be saved, if they BELIEVE...

What about the "I chose you before the foundation of the world"? And "you did not choose Me but I chose you"? (Eph1, John15) The chosen-in-Him is by voluntary belief, free-will-receiving-Christ; HE is "predestined before the beginning", that whosoever BELIEVES should not perish but have eternal life." Whosoever believes? According to "Predestined-Election" ("Calvinism", "Irresistible Grace), only those God DECIDES can believe; but according to Scripture, "Let (O THELOS) WHOSOEVER WILL take of the river of life FREELY." Rev22:17 There is NO WAY to twist Rev22:17 to reflect "LIMITED".

Because SAVING-FAITH comes not from God but from a person's OWN HEART, 2Thess2:13 plainly says, "God has chosen you from the beginning through sanctification by the Spirit, and by faith in the truth". By WHOSE FAITH? By OUR faith.

Matt22:2-14 allegorizes salvation; by the end, ALL have been called; but only those who CAME, and clothed themselves with righteousness, only THEY became the CHOSEN. Jesus very clearly says, "for MANY are CALLED but FEW are CHOSEN." Let me ask you a simple question---if Jesus had asserted a gospel of "predestination", then could ANYONE who WAS called, not be chosen? NO! According to the parable, EVERYONE is called; and those who CAME and became RIGHTEOUS, became the chosen.

Jesus was "from the beginning"; we were "chosen in Him from the beginning", when and IF we receive Him.

If Paul really believed that it is GOD who MAKES us holy and blameless before Him in love (as you quoted from Eph), then Paul would NEVER have written Col1:21-23: "...present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--- IF INDEED you CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and NOT BE MOVED AWAY from the HOPE of the gospel..." (the HOPE of the GOSPEL, is JESUS! 1Tim1:1)

Can you really read this Col1:23 passage and still assert that Paul embraced "Predestination"? This is only one place of many where Paul issues stern warnings (see 1Tim4:1,16; Heb3:12-14,4:1).

John15:16 says, "You did not choose Me but I chose you..." Have you read the FIRST of the chapter? "Abide in Me, and I (will abide) in you. Anyone who does NOT abide in Me is thrown away as a branch, and dries up and are gathered and cast into the fire---and they are burned." Does this sound like "OSAS"? Nope. "If you KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, you will abide in My love. These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love hath no one than to loay down his life for his friends. And you are My friends, IF you do what I command."

Every belief of "OSAS" ("predestination", "responsibility-in-coming-but-eternal-security", "carnal Christian") puports that "if they aren't saved NOW, then they were never saved in the FIRST place." But passages like 2Pet2:20-22, James5:19-20,1:12-16, Heb6:4-6, 3:12-14, 2:1, 1Tim4:1&16, 1:18-19, 2Pet1:10-11, Col2:8 and so many others present the warning against true apostasy. To persist in "OSAS", each of theses passages must be "dismissed", with beliefs such as "dispensationalism" (which believes James' and Peter's letters apply to a different DISPENSATION than our, so we IGNORE them), or "hyperbole" (empty meaningless warnings against that which CANNOT happen so just IGNORE them), etcetera. But can we ignore 2Jn1:7-9? Was this not written to BELIEVERS? Is this warning not SINCERE? Does "not-having-God", equate to UNSAVED? (See 1Jn5:11-13---yes it DOES!)

 

[Ben johnson]

So this would mean that Anaias tells Paul to first be water baptised then he is to call on the name of the lord to have his sins washed away and to be HS baptized.

They are not sequential, they are simultaneous. Separate things (hence the "KAI-AND", but separate and distinct). In this instance, the water-baptism and the washing-away-sins occurs sumultaneously; other times, one precedes the other, and in different passages the other precedes the one.

I have already delt with this arguement in past post and buried it.

Cougan, with great respect, you have only "delt with it" and "buried it" in your own esteem. I think that you can naught but affirm the "three-fold-aspect" of salvation, cited in Hebrews with the word, "Metochos", partakers, partners:

1. Partners in a heavenly calling (3:1)
2. Partners in the Holy Spirit (6:4)
3. Partners in Christ (3:14)

Three-fold, each distinct and different, each indicating SALVATION.

You have affirmed that "baptism in the Holy Spirit", which is to say "immersion in the Holy Spirit" is not through water (as John plainly says in Matt3:11). Thus, ONE of the three-fold-aspect-of-salvation is NOT by water.

Yet the passage in Romans 6, which says: "immersed/buried/united in Christ", which is a SECOND of the three-fold-aspect-of-salvation, you stubbornly insist IT is through WATER. The same word used for "immersion in the Holy Spirit" in Matt3 is used for "immersion in Christ} in Rom6. What grounds are there to not siimply understand the "immersion/buried/united--in-CHRIST" is the same as "immersion in the Holy Spirit which are both simply parts of salvation? And BOTH are EQUIVALENT, that "being partnered with the Holy Spirit IS SAVED", and "being partnered with Christ IS SAVED"?

I will stack all the evidence up and with one swoop put to rest Bens acts 10and 11 arguement that he so dearly clings to. Which by the way I already belive I have already taken care in the past.

You have not. First you said, "Peter had only STARTED speaking so had not really SAID ANYTHING." But verses 10:34-43 is an account of all that Peter DID say; if Peter had only gotten out one or two words, then when did he have a chance to say all of the ten verses?

THEN you said, "The HOLY SPIRIT indwelt them while they were UNBELIEVERS." There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that the HS indwells unbelievers. You accept that "immersion into the Holy Spirit" (which is not by water) is part of salvation, I think you accept that it is exactly the same as "partnering with the Holy Spirit"---so I cannot see how you can deny that the Holy Spirit simply does not indwell unbelievers.

AND you very clearly said, "they WERE unbelievers." Flat contradicting what Peter said:

"They received the Holy Spirit just as we did!" (10:43)
"The Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us!" (10:15)
"God gave them the SAME GIFT that He did to us also after believing"(11:17)

There is no way to deny they BELIEVED. They believed in the same way Peter and the Apostles had. They received the Holy Spirit exactly as Peter and the Apostles had. They received the Holy Spirit after believing EXACTLY as Peter and the Apostles had.

There is only one thing that prevents you from recognizing that they were saved---the fact that they were not waterbaptized. 'Cause if you admit they WERE saved, then you would be forced to admit that they were saved apart from the water. So you are forced to deny what Peter said...

Same motivation for you with John3. One of many clear examples of the literary device, "repetetive empasis" (the "twice-told-tale")---something stated, and then restated for emphasis and explanation. That passage in Matt3 is one---saying "He will baptize you with the Spirit and with FIRE"; he continues, repeating and explaining that the "SPIRIT" is for the SAVED (wheat, gathered to the barn), but the FIRE is for the REPROBATE (chaff burned with fire). Romans 5:12-21 is "repetition run amuck"---it repeats no less than eight times (he really wanted the readers to get the point).

Jesus was ANSWERING Nicodemus---who had asked, "what do you mean about a SECOND birth? Can a man enter his mother's womb again?"

Jesus said, Unless you are PHYSICAL BORN and SPIRIT BORN and WATER BAPTIZED you cannot see Heaven". Noooo, that's not what He said. He said, "Unless one is born of HUDOR and of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter the kingdom. That which is flesh is flesh, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Jesus said TWO THINGS (not THREE), and He said it TWICE---first in verse 5, second in verse 6.

HUDOR is "water-as-the-fundamental-element"---useless as a "smoking gun for DIPPED-OR-CONDEMNED" theology. You must find ONE VERSE that says "undipped are condemned". You can show me a verse that says "he who believes and is baptized is saved", but I can show you verses that say 'whoever believes is saved". I can show you "whoever does not believe is condemned". You cannot show me "whoever is not dipped is condemned".

You still have not answered the question: did Corrie Tenboom's friend in the prison camp, go to Heaven? Did those who received Christ in Viet Nam or Korea or WWII (but had no opportunity to be dipped before being killed) go to Heaven?

Did they?

 

[cougan]

They are not sequential, they are simultaneous. Separate things (hence the "KAI-AND", but separate and distinct). In this instance, the water-baptism and the washing-away-sins occurs sumultaneously; other times, one precedes the other, and in different passages the other precedes the one.

I do love watching you back peddel my friend. Ok now that I have pointed out the grammer of this verse you story now is that Pauls sins were washed away at the same time as his water baptism but it had nothing to do with the water baptism its because he must of called on the name of the Lord while he was being water baptized which in turned made him HS baptized. Well thanks for clearing that up Ben. Then you try and make out there are all these different instances of where someone would receive the HS first then then they would be baptized or one would be baptized then HS baptized. This simply is not the case my friend and you know it. Every single conversion when someone accepted the word being taught they would be water baptized then if there was an apostle around they would lay hands on that person so they could receive the gift of the HS. The ONLY exception you have is that of Cornelius. He and his family were HS baptized directly from heaven before they water baptized. If there is another instance just point out for everyone to see. I sure cant find another instance like that. You can try and try but you cannot take the power of Gods word away. My arguement on acts 22:16 stands solid against what you barely had to say about it.

Then you jumped the gun when I told you what I was fixing to post about next. I guess you just couldnt wait could you. Don't worry Ben just like the truth was exposed in acts 22:16 the truth will be exposed with the rest. But, you will have to wait until tommorrow before I do the post. Again, nice try Ben.

Cougan

 

[Ben johnson]

There was no "back-pedalling", Cougan. In that instance, Paul says: "be baptized, AND wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord". Two things---"baptized", and "wash away your sins". Notice he doesn't say, "be baptized TO wash away your sins"---why do you s'pose that is? Gosh, if Ananias had meant TO wash away your sins, seems he woulda SAID that.

Yes you can find many examples of "they were SAVED, and then were WATERBAPTIZED". And I can find you many examples of "they were SAVED, and they TONGUED." Do you speak in tongues? Is it necessary to tongue to be saved? Not according to Paul.

Example doth not set policy.

I need to see POLICY in Scripture. Something that clearly says, "undipped are condemned".

So you persist in saying "Cornelius & family & friends had a SPECIAL DISPENSATION from Heaven"!---totally throwing out what Peter said. Which was:

"They received the Holy Spirit just as we did!" (10:43)
"The Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us!" (10:15)
"God gave them the SAME GIFT that He did to us also after believing"(11:17)

What amazed Peter, was that Gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as he had. Yet you say "this was a SECOND PENTECOST, but THIS time it happened to UNBELIEVERS". Do you see what hoops one must jump through to support a non-Scruptural-theology? You (meaning "you-in-general") must first decide the issue, and then whatever verses DON'T match, you bend and twist and say, "Well, it doesn't REALLY mean what it SAYS..."

What if it DOES mean what it says? What if Peter and the Apostles, received the Holy Spirit BECAUSE THEY WERE SAVED? What if Cornelius believed, and was saved---evidenced by their "tonguing" and "exalting God"---as Peter SAID, "believed just as we did"?

I don't HAVE to wait 'til tomorrow to see what you will type. You'll do exactly what I said you'll do---try to paint Acts10 as a "special dispensation of the Holy Spirit to the UNSAVED"---and we here all know that an UNSAVED canNOT receive the Holy Spirit.

The ONLY exception you have is that of Cornelius. He and his family were HS baptized directly from heaven before they water baptized. If there is another instance just point out for everyone to see. I sure cant find another instance like that. You can try and try but you cannot take the power of Gods word away. My arguement on acts 22:16 stands solid against what you barely had to say about it.

Heh heh heh. There is a NUMBER rule? It must be in the Bible TWICE, or THREE TIMES before it's TRUTH??? Nope. It's not the only evidence that "water is separate from salvation", it's just the most GLARING. That it's there at ALL destroys your argument. They were NOT "unbelievers", they HAD heard the Gospel, they HAD seen and heard Jesus, they BELIEVED.

To convince us, you'll need to do better---you'll hafta set POLICY. Policy that connects the WATER with SALVATION. Meanwhile, I can give you a whole bunch of verses that say "believe and be saved". (Like Jn3:16, Jn6:40). These set policy, and they do not mention "water".

BTW, the reason they didn't take the PAINS to spell out the words, "Salvation is by BELIEF and DIPPING is of the SAVED but doesn't CAUSE salvation", is because it was so obvious to them that it never occurred to write it down. The entire Gospel presents Jesus as the propitiation for our sins, that whosoever BELIEVES shall be saved. Waterbaptism is "an appeal to God for a clear conscience". Conscience, repentance, abiding, doing God's works, persevering----these are all things that a SAVED person DOES; so also, waterbaptism.

Unsaved people cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak with tongues and exalt God, not before they believed and received Christ. Acts 11:17: "AFTER BELIEVING".

AFTER BELIEVING.

After they believed, they spoke in tongues, the exalted God; they were just as saved as Peter and the Apostles. Were they DIPPED? Not yet...

NOW---please answer the question:
did Corrie Tenboom's friend in the prison camp, go to Heaven? Did those who received Christ in Viet Nam or Korea or WWII (but had no opportunity to be dipped before being killed) go to Heaven?

Did they?

 

[FluviusNeckar]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
Example doth not set policy.

I need to see POLICY in Scripture. [/color] [/B]

Tossing out precedence (example,) are we? Really bad idea! Jesus' life is the model for all Christians. Following His example SETS POLICY. Paul commanded/exhorted us to emulate his EXAMPLE.

Jettisoning example as a tool of Christian policy has long been at the top of Satan's talking points agenda.

 

[Ben johnson]

Tossing out precence(sp?) (example,) are we? Really bad idea! Jesus' life is the model for all Christians. Following His example SETS POLICY. Paul commanded/exhorted us to emulate his EXAMPLE.

Jettisoning example as a tool of Christian policy has long been at the top of Satan's talking points agenda.

Perhaps I chose the wrong word---let's say then, ANECDOTE doth not set POLICY. Yes we are told to "model ourselves after Christ, to become Christlike"---but never are we told to follow after all the NT Christians. Take "speaking in tongues"---most all the incidents (or anecdotal recounts) of people getting-saved in the NT, they speak in tongues; are all now required to tongue? (According to certain charismatic churches, YES---"Filled with the Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues". But SCRIPTURALLY, Paul plainly says "not ALL will TONGUE" (1Cor12:30). Paul connects "private and public tonguing" in 1Cor14:2 (removing the argument that "not all PUBLICLY tongue but all PRIVATELY tongue). Paul actually REBUKES Corinth in 1Cor14:20, telling them to GROW UP!

Not everyone speaks in a tongue, yet those who don't are just as saved as those who do. In SPITE of the fact that many examples errr, many INCIDENTS are recorded in the NT where tonguing accompanied salvation.

Likewise, there are many accounts where "dipping" accompanied salvation; but there is an account where "dipping" PRECEDED salvation, and there is an account where "dipping" FOLLOWED salvation. There is only one conclusion---baptism is not part of the actual salvation.

 

[Ben johnson]

Tossing out precence(sp?) (example,) are we? Really bad idea! Jesus' life is the model for all Christians. Following His example SETS POLICY. Paul commanded/exhorted us to emulate his EXAMPLE.

Jettisoning example as a tool of Christian policy has long been at the top of Satan's talking points agenda.

Perhaps I chose the wrong word---let's say then, ANECDOTE doth not set POLICY. Yes we are told to "model ourselves after Christ, to become Christlike"---but never are we told to follow after all the NT Christians. Take "speaking in tongues"---most all the incidents (or anecdotal recounts) of people getting-saved in the NT, they speak in tongues; are all now required to tongue? (According to certain charismatic churches, YES---"Filled with the Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues". But SCRIPTURALLY, Paul plainly says "not ALL will TONGUE" (1Cor12:30). Paul connects "private and public tonguing" in 1Cor14:2 (removing the argument that "not all PUBLICLY tongue but all PRIVATELY tongue). Paul actually REBUKES Corinth in 1Cor14:20, telling them to GROW UP!

Not everyone speaks in a tongue, yet those who don't are just as saved as those who do. In SPITE of the fact that many examples errr, many INCIDENTS are recorded in the NT where tonguing accompanied salvation.

Likewise, there are many accounts where "dipping" accompanied salvation; but there is an account where "dipping" PRECEDED salvation, and there is an account where "dipping" FOLLOWED salvation. There is only one conclusion---baptism is not part of the actual salvation.