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.
Originally posted by Ben johnson
I don't think anyone has ever answered the question---"If a dozen people attend a revival and ALL of them receive Jesus and believe, but then the building's boiler blows up and everyone dies---before they are baptized---will any of the twelve go to Heaven?"
Simple question. What's the answer?
Originally posted by edpobre
NO! NOT one of the twelve will go to heaven even if they were BAPTIZED by the Evangelist. That's because NOT one of these twelve is a MEMBER of the TRUE body of Christ or TRUE Church of Christ which is the IGLESIA NI CRISTO.
Christ is the SAVIOR of the church, his BODY (Eph. 5:23). It is the church, his BODY that Christ GAVE his life for (Eph. 5:25). It is the church, his BODY that Christ PURCHASED with his own blood (Acts 20:28 Lamsa). That CHURCH is the IGLESIA NI CRISTO.
Ed
MMmmm, hmmm. I fully accept that there are Christans in every denomination; there are saved Baptists, saved Presbyterians, saved Methodists, saved Pentecostals, saved Catholics; wonder how you believe that only those in one-certain-church are saved? What is "SAVED"? I would say, "believing in Christ, receiving Him, BORN AGAIN, indwelt by Christ and filled with the Spirit, new creations, died-to-sin & walking-in-Him, righteous, forgiven, repentant, humble, doing God's will, mature, abiding in Him, all of that..."NO! NOT one of the twelve will go to heaven even if they were BAPTIZED by the Evangelist. That's because NOT one of these twelve is a MEMBER of the TRUE body of Christ or TRUE Church of Christ which is the IGLESIA NI CRISTO.
Originally posted by Ben johnson
Baptism is the natural consequence of one who has been saved. That they refused the baptism is consistent with them "not-believing". The refusal of the baptism alone is not why they were not saved.
Acts 2:38 says, "repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;" I ask you---is it the WATER that remits sin, or is it THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST? To answer, I submit to you Acts 22:16: "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
It is HIS NAME that remits sins. If it was the WATER ITSELF, how then do you deal with Acts 10:44-48? Are you prepared to say that "those Gentiles who were speaking with tongues and exalting God were NOT SAVED? Are you?
They had NOT YET BEEN BAPTIZED!
Because water-baptism is the natural consequence of all who believe, then everyone who believes and is baptized is saved---it becomes a non-issue. Yet, for one who thinks the water ITSELF remits sins, I do not think he/she has a complete understanding of salvation. This is why I have persisted in this discussion---it causes me concern when one does not grasp the essence of salvation.
He who believes will be saved. He who is saved will be baptized. Thus, he who believes and is baptised is saved. But he who disbelieves is not saved. An unsaved-one will likely not be baptized. But it is not the water that saves, nor is it the "dry" that condemns---it is belief that saves, it is unbelief that condemns. It is no more complicated than that.
The Gentiles of Acts 10 had not been water-baptized---but were SAVED. Were they NOT?
Originally posted by Ben johnson
Baptism is the natural consequence of one who has been saved. That they refused the baptism is consistent with them "not-believing". The refusal of the baptism alone is not why they were not saved.
Acts 2:38 says, "repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;" I ask you---is it the WATER that remits sin, or is it THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST? To answer, I submit to you Acts 22:16: "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
It is HIS NAME that remits sins. If it was the WATER ITSELF, how then do you deal with Acts 10:44-48? Are you prepared to say that "those Gentiles who were speaking with tongues and exalting God were NOT SAVED? Are you?
They had NOT YET BEEN BAPTIZED!
Because water-baptism is the natural consequence of all who believe, then everyone who believes and is baptized is saved---it becomes a non-issue. Yet, for one who thinks the water ITSELF remits sins, I do not think he/she has a complete understanding of salvation. This is why I have persisted in this discussion---it causes me concern when one does not grasp the essence of salvation.
He who believes will be saved. He who is saved will be baptized. Thus, he who believes and is baptised is saved. But he who disbelieves is not saved. An unsaved-one will likely not be baptized. But it is not the water that saves, nor is it the "dry" that condemns---it is belief that saves, it is unbelief that condemns. It is no more complicated than that.
The Gentiles of Acts 10 had not been water-baptized---but were SAVED. Were they NOT?
Oooooooo----it does sound like we're in agreement!when one rejects what God tells them to do is the same as "not believing"...
Originally posted by Ben johnson
Oooooooo----it does sound like we're in agreement!
When one refuses to be baptized, then he/she is rejecting God, and is therefore not saved; yet when one believes, and is saved, that very belief causes them to be water-baptized!
(Why is it called "dodgerblue" anyway???)
Nope, 'fraid not. It does not give the conditional "smoking gun", TO BE saved. It uses the "future-passive-indicative", merely stating the fact: "He who believes and is water-baptized, is saved". What I'm wanting you to find is the conditional---that predicates salvation on the CONDITION of baptism. I can give you PLENTY of verses predicating salvation on the condition of BELIEF---can you give me ONE on WATER-BAPTISM?Do you understand it better now Ben.
It is PROBABLY speaking of "water-baptism"---that's just what they did to new converts...
Again, water-baptism is what they did with new believers---those who BELIEVED, were SAVED, were then water-baptized...I also got you to admit that mat 28:19 is talking about water baptism.
No, I don't think I said "1Pet3" was not about water baptism---it definitely is. But it says, "now saves you as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---and I submitted that it was BELIEF and REPENTANCE, of which the WATER was a SYMBOL; but the BELIEF, and REPENTANCE (appealing for clear conscience) is what saves you...You say this is not water baptism.
I don't buy the argument that "those in Acts 10 were under a different, or special dispensation, so THEY were saved BEFORE dipping"---they were under the SAME COVENANT as WE are---and they were SAVED before they were DIPPED!
Okaaayyyy----tell me----turn to Matt3:11---Ben I think you need to reconsisder how confused you are and figure out why you can say some verses are talking about water baptism even when the word water is not used and then turn around and say other veres are not.
...is the "I baptize you with water", speaking of water baptism? (hint: YES!)
...is the, "HE will baptize you with the SPIRIT", speaking of water baptism?
...is the, "He will baptize sinners with fire, chaff burned with unquenchable fire", is THAT speaking of water baptism?
So you see, the word simply means "TO IMMERSE"---and they understood it to mean, "in WATER", and they also understood it to mean, "in SOMETHING ELSE".
So that in Rom6, it simply means, "to IMMERSE in JESUS (death, old self dies, resurrection, new is born again)"...
Yes---and I can show you were "salvation is by BELIEF" (Jn3:16), but NOT BELIEF (Jms2:19). As you eloquently said, we must read the text as a whole---Mark 16:16 says "he who BELIEVES and is water baptized (likely) IS/WILL-BE/SHALL-BE saved; it does NOT say "TO be saved, does it? Now tell me, is it reasonable, if Mark wanted to convey water baptism as PART of salvation, is it REASONABLE that he said "...but he who does NOT believe is condemned" (withOUT saying "...NOT believe AND NOT WATER-BAPTIZED"? Why do you s'pose Mark forgot to include water baptism in the disqaulifier???I can show you many verses that say you are saved by faith but you will never ever find a verse that says you are saved by FAITH ALONE
Mark only said, "UNBELIEF disqualifies you"---show me a verse, Cougan, that says "non-water-baptism disqualifies you"???
Nope, 'fraid not. It does not give the conditional "smoking gun", TO BE saved. It uses the "future-passive-indicative", merely stating the fact: "He who believes and is water-baptized, is saved". What I'm wanting you to find is the conditional---that predicates salvation on the CONDITION of baptism. I can give you PLENTY of verses predicating salvation on the condition of BELIEF---can you give me ONE on WATER-BAPTISM?
No, I don't think I said "1Pet3" was not about water baptism---it definitely is. But it says, "now saves you as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---and I submitted that it was BELIEF and REPENTANCE, of which the WATER was a SYMBOL; but the BELIEF, and REPENTANCE (appealing for clear conscience) is what saves you...
I don't buy the argument that "those in Acts 10 were under a different, or special dispensation, so THEY were saved BEFORE dipping"---they were under the SAME COVENANT as WE are---and they were SAVED before they were DIPPED!
Originally posted by cougan
I still want you to show me a verse that says Faith ALONE or faith by itself saves you. You will not find it my friend and I think you know the truth but you just want to cling onto your man made tradition.
Originally posted by Ben johnson
Nope, 'fraid not. It does not give the conditional "smoking gun", TO BE saved. It uses the "future-passive-indicative", merely stating the fact: "He who believes and is water-baptized, is saved". What I'm wanting you to find is the conditional---that predicates salvation on the CONDITION of baptism. I can give you PLENTY of verses predicating salvation on the condition of BELIEF---can you give me ONE on WATER-BAPTISM?Again, water-baptism is what they did with new believers---those who BELIEVED, were SAVED, were then water-baptized...
No, I don't think I said "1Pet3" was not about water baptism---it definitely is. But it says, "now saves you as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---and I submitted that it was BELIEF and REPENTANCE, of which the WATER was a SYMBOL; but the BELIEF, and REPENTANCE (appealing for clear conscience) is what saves you...
I don't buy the argument that "those in Acts 10 were under a different, or special dispensation, so THEY were saved BEFORE dipping"---they were under the SAME COVENANT as WE are---and they were SAVED before they were DIPPED!
Okaaayyyy----tell me----turn to Matt3:11---
...is the "I baptize you with water", speaking of water baptism? (hint: YES!)
...is the, "HE will baptize you with the SPIRIT", speaking of water baptism?
...is the, "He will baptize sinners with fire, chaff burned with unquenchable fire", is THAT speaking of water baptism?
So you see, the word simply means "TO IMMERSE"---and they understood it to mean, "in WATER", and they also understood it to mean, "in SOMETHING ELSE".
So that in Rom6, it simply means, "to IMMERSE in JESUS (death, old self dies, resurrection, new is born again)"...
Yes---and I can show you were "salvation is by BELIEF" (Jn3:16), but NOT BELIEF (Jms2:19). As you eloquently said, we must read the text as a whole---Mark 16:16 says "he who BELIEVES and is water baptized (likely) IS/WILL-BE/SHALL-BE saved; it does NOT say "TO be saved, does it? Now tell me, is it reasonable, if Mark wanted to convey water baptism as PART of salvation, is it REASONABLE that he said "...but he who does NOT believe is condemned" (withOUT saying "...NOT believe AND NOT WATER-BAPTIZED"? Why do you s'pose Mark forgot to include water baptism in the disqaulifier???
Mark only said, "UNBELIEF disqualifies you"---show me a verse, Cougan, that says "non-water-baptism disqualifies you"???
Yes, "state-of-fact".It is verb and is indicative Mood which means that this is a state of fact from the writters perspective. It is in the Passive voice which means that the He of the sentence is the subject and is the recipient of the action of being saved if he believed and was baptized.
Hmmm---maybe you don't understand the future tense? According to the verse, they have NOT YET BEEN SAVED; this would seem to be more along the lines of, "he who endures to the end shall be saved".Most important of all is that this word is in the future tense. This means you will not be saved until you believe and are baptized. Surely you can understand the future tense.
"KAI", TBIR. Kai. "Having arisen, be baptized AND! ("Kai") wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"For one to have his/her sins washed away we were told in Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Yes, "state-of-fact".
"He who has believed and has been baptized is saved".
"He who has believed and received the gift of tongues is saved"
"He who has believed and prophecies, is saved."
Which one is true? ALL of them are. Which one is double-conditional to salvation? NONE of them. They are simply, as you eloquently said, statements of fact...
Hmmm---maybe you don't understand the future tense? According to the verse, they have NOT YET BEEN SAVED; this would seem to be more along the lines of, "he who endures to the end shall be saved".
ON THE OTHER HAND, in Acts 10:44-48, they HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT, they had BELIEVED, but had NOT YET BEEN WATER-BAPTIZED---were they NOT YET SAVED? Can an unsaved person have the Holy Spirit? Or is there a special dispensation apart from Jesus' NEW COVENANT that provided extra-water-baptismal-salvation? Yes-or-no-question: were they different in their salvatorial approach from us or not?
Originally posted by Gabriel
Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Romans 5:21 "so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Jonah 2:9 ".........Salvation is of the Lord"
Isaiah 45:22 "Look to Me and be saved, All you the ends of the earth. For I am God and there is no other."
Granted, these don't say, "faith alone" but they are clear in that Christ is our salvation, Christ alone, not works (like baptism). Baptism is a sign, an important one, for sure, but it is not a deal breaker by any means. Christ says that "Those given to Him by the Father cannot be snatched out of His hand". Period. Baptism does not complete the process, salvation is about God's work in you, not your works in the world.
"Aorist" exists outside of time---that is, it does not indicate past present or future---it just exists. Yet the translations say, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." Which is identical to, "he who has believed and has been baptized, is saved"---it is simply a statment of fact. This verb construction does not present salvation as "conditional upon either belief or baptism"---it is simply presenting their situation. They believed, they were baptized, they were saved. It us just as important to read the next verse. You understand water baptism as being PART of SALVATION; but Mark just asserted that "believers and baptized are saved"---if Mark had your understanding, there is no way he would have omitted water baptism from the DISQUALIFICATION: He who DOES NOT BELIEVE is CONDEMNED. Mark states that only DISBELIEF condemns; to say that it is "disbelief AND/OR unbaptism", is to REWRITE MARK'S WORDS!!!When you look at the words believe and baptized you will see that they are aorist, Particples and the main verb in this sentence is "shall be saved".
Oops---you blew your argument. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (subsequently). "He who enters will be saved" (subsequently, not precedingly)...Here let me show you another verse that uses the phrase "will be saved" in the same future tense. John 10:9 "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. Using your arguement a person is saved before he enters by Jesus. I think you can even see the clarity here that one must enter by Jesus to be saved.
You're nailing Peter to a point he didn't make. You think Peter only got out a few words, NOT EVEN THE BASICS OF THE GOSPEL---tell me, Cougan, do you actually believe the Holy Spirit filled them BEFORE THEY BELIEVED?!?!Then in verse 15 you see that Peter had just began to speak these words when the HS fell on them. He didn't get to tell them all the words they needed to hear yet.
I can't. But I can show you where they are saved by BELIEVING, which CAUSES them to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Can you show me ANYWHERE that the Spirit indwells one before he believes?In fact why don't you show me one verse anywhere that says someone is saved by being baptized in the HS.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?