• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

What about Baptism?

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by cougan, Oct 6, 2002.

  1. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    Scott if you noticed I am working my way down your posts. I have not made it to your post on eis yet. But dont you worry I will. I will do my best to get to all of your arguements. Just be patient because it takes time for me to get to all these arguements you have presented. Real quickly I would like to make a comment on your last post and ask you to expound on part of it.

    I dont contend at all that baptism is a WORK OF MAN. Col 2:12 very clearly says that baptism is a work of God and not of man. Baptism is a act of obedience. There are 2 kinds of works in the bible works of merit which we dont do and works of obedience which we do today. Do you not agree that we must have an active faith to be saved? Scott did you know that Jesus himself told us that faith is a work. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They wanted to know in vrs 28 how they could do the works of God. Jesus tells them that the work that is approved by God is for them to belive on Jesus. So Faith is a work.

    You left out love. I want to know where love comes in.  For example is it before faith or after faith? I also want you to tell me where at in your order is someone saved? For example is someone saved at faith or is at faith and confession. etc...

    I am still looking into your supposed exeception but like I already said very clearly and plainly you can not produce a reason for an exception to the Greek rule I have already stated in this verse now can you. So that there is no confusion Scott I want you to admit to the following. Even if you could find 1 or 2 execeptions to rule of aorist participles not occuring before the main verb in some other verses there would have to be a reason found within the grammatical structure of the sentence to cause the rule to be broken and this would'nt have any effect on the grammatical structure of Mark 16:16 now would it. You would have to show in Mark 16:16 from the Greek why the standard rule is broken in this sentence and you can not do it can you Scott? This verse must really bug you since you can not change its clear teaching. I could camp out on this if I wanted to Scott, because if it teaches that baptism is part of salvation here then guess what it is teaching baptism is a part of salvation in those other verses as well.

    What questions have I not answered? Your saying if the majorty says it it has to be right. I disagree with that because the majorty is not always right now are they. The bible says it best.  Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    Remeber those men I mentioned in one of my earlier post that were from about 90ad to 250 ad that proclaimed in their writings that water baptism was for the remmisson of sin? It was'nt until around 250 and afterwards that men started corupting the word of God teaching Faith only doctrine without water baptism or water baptism by sprinking or infant baptism. The evidence is on my side friend both internal and external.

     
  2. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    I had'nt planned on being on here so long and I did'nt plan on answering  your statements out of order. I will go back and try to get to each one of them but I want to deal with this one since you seem to think I have never touched it. If you look back in this thread I went into great detail on this very subject. By the way I am pretty sure you meant John 14:17 and not John 14:7.

    You seem to thing that John 14:17 was general statement to all Christians well let examine it closer.
    The Spirit of truth of I John 4:6 is the same as that promised to the apostles by Christ in John 14:16-17. Look at the contrast in John 14:17. In this verse you have "the Spirit of truth" in contrast with "whom the world cannot receive." "The Spirit of truth" is a promise of inspiration to the apostles. "Whom the world cannot receive" is the assurance that no false teacher would have inspiration. "Because it seeth him not" means that false teachers would have no manifestation to establish their claim of inspiration. "But ye know him" indicates the proof to the apostles that they really were inspired by the Spirit. The phrase, "For he dwelleth with you and shall be in you," refers to the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit manifest in and through the apostles.
    Now compare I John 4:1-6 with John 14:15-16. The "Spirit of truth" of I John 4:6 is the "Spirit of truth" (inspiration) of John 14:17. The spirit of error of I John 4:6 is equal to the teaching of false teachers who could not receive the Spirit of John 14:17. Since God is a God of truth, He could not, in keeping with His character, give any false teacher inspiration and miracles to confirm false teaching. John 14:16-17 is a divine commentary on I John 2:20, 3:24, 4:1-6, and 4:13.

     There is nothing in any passage of I John to prove an ordinary non-miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is as much a perversion of these passages to use them to prove a non-miraculous indwelling of the Spirit as it is to use John 14:16-17, 15:26-27, and 16:13 as a promise to Christians in general. All of these passages are speaking of miraculous gifts, not non-miraculous. These gifts have ceased. It is as reasonable and scriptural to claim the inspiration of the apostles today, or the gifts of I Corinthians 12, as to insist that I John 3:24 and 4:13 is proof of the indwelling of the Spirit today.

     What the Spirit did directly then, He now does through the Word and only through the Word. A failure to realize this simple truth is to open the door for every kind of error and make the Spirit responsible.

    Now lets deal with Corneilus household. You seem to think that they were saved when they received the HS baptism. Even though it doesnt say anywere in the text that they were saved. Scott I am going to keep it short on this because like I said I have already went into great  detail earlier in this thread. You have to ask yourself what was the purpose of the HS baptism of Cornelius household. The purpose was to show the Jews that is Peter and his companions that the Gentiles were now accepted by God to receive repentence unto life. Acts 11:18. If Peter had taught them them the  truth and water bapatized them then laid his hands on them there would'nt of been that much of a surprize to see these guys speaking in tongues. But that was not the case. There HS baptism that is the oupouring of the Holy Spirit came directly from heaven without the laying on of hands by Peter. So when they saw these Gentiles speaking tongues  they were amazed. Acts 10:45. Why because this had not happened since the day of Pentacost. Peter remembers back to when the HS was poured out on the apostles. This not only fufilled Joels prophecy of the spirit being poured out on all flesh it also showed to the Jews that the Gentiles are accepted by God just like they are. The Jews would of loved to of made the Gentiles follow after their customs of circumsision but we find Peter in Acts 15 refering back to the outpouring of the HS at Corneleius and taking care of this very discussion on whether the gentiles should be circumsized or not. Notice what Peter says.
     7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

    So Peter settles the matter that the Gentiles dont have to conform to Jewish tradition that God accepts them how they are. I want you to notice that it says God acknowledged them by giving them the HS. That is exactly what I have been proclaiming Scott. It doest say they were saved by it like you would like it to say instead it says exactly what I have been saying. It was to show to the Jews that God now acknowledged the Gentiles.

    Now lets Go back to Acts 11:4 But Peter explained <I>it </I>to them in order from the beginning, saying: I want you to notice Scott that Acts 11 explains how the events in acts 10 occured in order. As Peter starts telling the story we find in vrs 14 that he was to tell them words by which they would be saved.&nbsp; I want you to get this Scott pay attention in vrs 15.

    15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.
    Scott notice the greek word for began in derived from archo. J.H Thayer comments that the word "...indicates that a thing was but just begun when it was interupted by something else... Acts 11:15..." (78-79) So understand this Scott Peter began to speak the words they were to be saved by but he just barely got started before it was interupted by the outpouring of the HS. They had not heard the words they needed to here&nbsp;to be saved before the HS was poured out on them. Watch this Scott. If The gift of the HS before baptism proves that baptism is not essential for salvation then it must also be argued here that faith is not essential for salvation either.

    Now Scott one more point look at verse 17.
    17 "If therefore God gave them the same gift as <I>He gave </I>us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"

    Peter did not withstand God that is why as soon as he saw the Gentiles were accepted by God his first thoughts were.

    47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we <I>have?"</I>48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

    So it is very clear Scott. They did not receive the HS because they were saved it was for a sign to the Jews that the gentiles could not be saved just like the Jews by faith, repentence, confession Jesus as Lord and being baptized in water for the remmission of sin. I submit that this one baptism that saves Eph 4:5 is water baptism because it was commanded and we are to obey those things commanded. HS baptism does not save because it was a promise and not a command not to mention the fact it only occured at the day of Pentacost and here at the house of Cornelius. This is why this total destroys your view that 1cor 12:13 is talking about HS baptism. Just look at&nbsp;the word "all" in that sentence. Its obvious that not even all those in the Corith church were HS filled. I will expound more on this latter. So much for a quick comment. Once I got started I could'nt stop.

     
  3. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    John 6:29 says that the work of God was that man believes. How is this a man-work? He doesn't say that faith is a word at all.


    Love is a result of belief. Man cannot truly love God until he believes in Him. Love is a fruit of the Spirit, not something one must somehow have before becoming saved. It is something that God bestows on a believer. A man is saved by faith.

    The exception comes in the context. Just as in all languages.

    Number 1: It is not talking specifically about baptism of water here, so you would have to prove this somehow for your defence.

    Number 2: You still are dealing with a verse that is highly, highly questioned among 99% of the Greek scholars out there (the 1% being Church of Christ, of course).

    Number 3: The fact that baptism is not in the second clause of the sentence means SOMETHING, and you'd have to show why the construction is that way.


    Number 4: Have you drank deadly poisons and lived? Is this not also commanded? Have you done this to prove your faith?

    I'm saying that if only the absolute minority believes something that would exclude the absolute majority from salvation, then it is an unorthodox belief and a heresy.

    You've spouted off names, but nothing about evidence. If you'd like, go ahead and post what these authors stated about water baptism. (Also make sure they are talking about immersion and not infant baptism as well.)

    To be a disciple, "if any man come after me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross and follow me." Christ can make a disciple of a man strictly through the work of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them all things is a matter of discipleship, but one can be a disciple without being taught by man. All Christ had to say was, "Follow me," and they were disciples.

    &nbsp;
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    Please&nbsp;clarify. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit no longer indwells in man?&nbsp;Does not world mean in many, many places mean those who are not of Christ? IN the context of John 16, it seems that the Holy Spirit is going to convict the world of guilt, not just the disciples. Why does&nbsp;John 14-16&nbsp;have NO mention of miracles? Christ says that the Counselor will go to the entire world. Do you deny this?

    Point blank - you completely ignore Acts 11:16.&nbsp;This turns the&nbsp;entire argument against you. Through all your words, you fail to answer it. Of course the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles. Nowhere does it say it would stop. So you think that the miracles have ended huh? What do you say to the healings that have happened? Are they all frauds? What about speaking in tongues? What about the gifts of prophesy, apostleship, and so on? Do you deny all of these gifts.

    Frankly, the more you say in defense of baptism the more you (and by association) your denomination appears to be absolutely heretical.&nbsp;
     
  5. MizDoulos

    MizDoulos <font color=6c2dc7><b>Justified by grace through f

    +3
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Note:&nbsp&nbspBefore this thread deteriorates into flaming, I suggest cooling off before posting again. While everyone has his own viewpoint, let's learn to respect other member's opinions and respond with kindness.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    [notroll]Just a reminder.[/notroll]
     
  6. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    Thanks for your advice. I don't think Scott nor I will enter into a name calling or flaming contest. We are simply reasoning from the scripture and we will only continue to discuss it as long as it is done in a Christian type manner.


    I only have time for this question at the moment and I mean it this time. :)
    I am not 100% positive of what you are stateing. Would you please put it in order for me and show me specifcally where one is saved. For example Faith, love, repent, confess, baptism, (saved). Could you do that for me please?
     
  7. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian


    Absolutely.

    Baptism is a way to identify with salvation, so it is not found in the ordi salutus. It is commanded to be done upon salvation, but it is not a requirement for salvation.

    The Holy Spirit draws a person.

    He believes that Jesus is Lord and that he must accept the propitiation of Christ's sacrifice to atone for his sins. Part of this accepting of the atonement requires a turning away from sins (repentence &amp; confession)

    That person is saved and the Holy Spirit indwells him.

    Love comes as a fruit of the Spirit. In other words, because of the indwelling of the Spirit, a man can&nbsp;agape (or love with Christlike love). Love is not a requirement for salvation - it is a result.

    &nbsp;
     
  8. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    Now Scott lets deal with your eis arguement. It seems to me now that you would agree that the word eis in acts 2:38 is properly translated "unto" which means "for the purpose of" I listed about 15 or so scholars from differing denominations showing the meaning they applied to the wor eis in Acts 2:38. Mr Thayer even says in his Greek&nbsp;English Lexicon&nbsp; that the word eis in acts 2:38 means "to obtain the remission of sins". I want to mention what Mr J. Henry Thayer says in the Handbook on baptism page 356. "I accept the rendering of the Revised Version 'unto the remission of your sins' The eis expressing the end aimed at and secured by repentence and baptism just previously enjoined." I all ready showed you that AT Roberterson was bias to his interpertation of eis in acts 2:38 because his interpetation had to give way to his theolgy. You try and bring up some example from a different verse and try to say that eis can be mean "because of" in Mat 12:41 and Lk 11:32. The word eis is translated "at" in these verses and I could not find any version of the bible that rendered "because of". Besides that I gave you a verse that is gramatical the same as acts 2:38.

    Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

    I dare you to translate eis or even hint that it could mean "because of" here. It would say that Jesus blood was poured out because we already had remisson of sins. Scott we are not dealing with those verses we are dealing with Acts 2:38 and the meaning of eis there. I have showed you what the scholars say about eis in acts 2:38 and I could stand on that alone. I dont even have to show that both repentence and baptism can be connected to remission of sins because of their different tenses. Oh but I will Scott just for you because it will only strengthen my arguement.

    &nbsp;I am not a Greek scholar, but I know where to go to those men who are scholars on these technical points.
    &nbsp;Mr. John Reumann of Lpthern Theological Seminary, "In that passage cited, Acts 2:38, I see no grammatical reason why one couldn't take the phrase `eis aphesin hamartiou,' `for the forgiveness of sins,' with both verbs, repentance and baptism."
    &nbsp;Marvin K. Franzmann, Concordia Seminary, "As regards the expression in Acts 2:38, it is grammatically possible to connect `eis aphesin' with both verbs."
    &nbsp;D. A. Penick of the University of Texas, in reference to&nbsp; connecting both of those verbs with the expression "unto the remission of sins," says, "That it is correct to do so."
    &nbsp;Carl H. Morgan, dean of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, "I would agree with the statement which you quote from Mr. H. B. Hackett, where he says, `we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs'."
    &nbsp;Notice again the statement of Thayer in which he says, "the `eis' expressing the end aimed at and secured
    by"-what--"by repentance and baptism, just previously enjoined."
    &nbsp;Again, D. A. Penick, University of Texas, " `Repent ye,' the writer then wishes to be more emphatic, so he says `hekastos baptistheto' `let each one of you be baptized.' This distribution of a plural subject and predicate by the use of `hekastos' and a third person singular is quite common in all Greek, and is frequently used in the New Testament."
    &nbsp;H. B. Hackett, foremost Baptist Commentator, says in his Commentary on Acts, "We connect naturally with both the preceding verbs."
    &nbsp;J. W. Wilmarth, a great outstanding Baptist scholar, "This interpretation compels us"-that is, to try to separate the two verbs-"either to do violence to the construction, or to throw the argument or the course of thought in the context into complete confusion. Indeed we can hardly escape the latter alternative if we choose the former. For those who contend for the interpretation `on account of remission' will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said `Repent' as well as `be baptized on account of remission of sins.' This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet to escape it we must violently dissever `repent' and `be baptized' and deny that `eis' expresses the relation of `repentance' as well as `baptism' to forgiveness of sins. But the natural construction connects the latter with both the preceding verbs. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other, as Hackett says."
    &nbsp;
    Scott says you can't, but these men-scholars, recognized to be among the greatest in the world-have said that you can connect, that it is possible, to connect both of them.

    &nbsp;Henry J. Cadbury, member of the Revised Standard Version Committee has this to say, "The grammar of the sentence in Acts 2:38 is perfectly regular and better Greek than if the author had kept the second person plural `baptize' after using the singular `each.' I have no doubt that another author would have written `Do ye repent,' and `be ye baptized,' each of you. But this writer seems to have preferred the less loose construction. I think that there would be no essential difference in meaning." Whether you said "Do ye repent, and be ye baptized each of you," or as it stands exactly, there would be no essential difference in meaning.
    &nbsp;
    Now, Scott says, "Why, you can't do that! According to Greek grammar you can't do it." Well it's strange that all of these men who are outstanding in their field-Greek grammar-say that you can. They say there is absolutely no reason why you could'nt do it.

    Let me add one more. This a quote from "The Acts of the Apostles by Wayne Jackson on page 27. "In early 1968, I wrote a letter to F.W. Gingrich, co-translator of the famous Arndt-Gringrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. The letter, dated February 12, 1968, reads as follows.

    Dear Professor Gingrich: Is it grammatically possible that the phrase "for the remission of sins, in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, "repent ye" and "be baptized each one of you," even though these verbs differ in both person and number?

    From Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania (February 21, 1968), Gingrich replied: Yes. The difference beteween metanoesate (repent) and&nbsp; baptistheto (be baptized) is simply that in the first, the people are viewed together in the plural, while in the second the emphasis is on each individual. "

    Surely you can see clearly now Scott that in Acts 2:38 one must repent and be baptized to be saved. I know it goes against your view but I hope and pray you will consider it.

    &nbsp;
     
  9. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    I want to be completly sure I understand what you are saying here Scott. Please correct me if I am wrong as I put it in my own words.

    You are saying that a person must belive but not belive only. They are not saved by faith alone. There faith must mainfest repentence and confession of Jesus being their savior and the son of God before they are saved. When they do this then they are indweled by the HS then comes love. If they want to identify themselves with Christ death burial and resurection they should be water baptized. They will be comitting a sin if they do not get water baptized but the water baptism is not part of salvation or the process of becoming saved just a command that we should obey after we are saved.

    Is this your view? Do I have it right?
     
  10. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    Scott I dont really have a lot to say about your article you posted since it doesnt represent my view. I know that that remission and forgiveness of sins means the same thing. I do not put the power of the forgiveness of sin in the water. I put it in the blood of Jesus Christ. I do not teach that a person literaly dies nor is literaly crucifed with christ in the water. The water baptism is symbolic of the death burial and resurection. It is at baptism when the blood of Jesus is applied to you by faith. Rev 1:5. The faith is in God and it is at the point of baptism when the power of God cleanses us of our sin. You can see this with an OT example. When Naaman was told to go dip in the Jordan 7 times he was cleansed of his leporsey. Was the power in the water. No it wasnt. The power was in God. Naaman leporsey was not cleansed until he obeyed the word of God and dipped that 7th time. Then and only then was his leporsey cured. In a like manner we are told repent, confess, and be baptized to have our sins washed away. So when we obey Gods word and we come up from the water it is not the power of the water that washes our sin but the blood of Jesus that does by the power of God. I have tried to get you to see this. I can name you account after account through out the bible where God gives the gift but then man must obey the word and after he has then he gets the gift. Faith throughout the bible is alway an active faith.

    The thing the article says about the LS is not logical at all. The fruit of the vine is to be taking as a memorial or in rememberance of his shed blood and taking the LS proclaims his death.
    25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

    It never implies or says that drinking the fruit of the vine will give you forgiveness of sins.

    If am missing something about the article that you were trying to point out please bring it to my attention and I will deal with it.
     
  11. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    CooOOool! :cool: We're very close to agreement!!!
    Better! :)
    AWEEESOOOME!!! :D
    OK---here is where one of our trains has switched to a siding. In Acts 10:44-48 they BELIEVED, and RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT. (I think you tried to assert that the Holy Spirit indwelt them before they were saved---but didn't we refute that? Don't you agree that He only indwells the SAVED?)

    If sins are forgiven at BELIEF (very-much admittedly, at the KIND of belief that CAUSES repentance and CAUSES confession), then doesn't 1Jn1:9 hold true? ("If we CONFESS our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.")

    Or are you saying "there are two KINDS of sin-forgiving"? Is there a SINFORGIVING that happens at salvation, and a SECOND sinforgiving that happens when a CHRISTIAN sins?

    Isn't sinforgiving, SINFORGIVING?
    What you say is TRUE and ACCURATE (it IS an active faith---"Faith that produces no works is DEAD/UNSAVED, being by itself" Jms2:17); but what WE are not getting YOU to see, is that it is SAVING FAITH that CAUSES the "ACTIVENESS", and that CAUSES WATERBAPTISM!

    If the power of sinforgiveness is not in the WATER, but in Jesus' BLOOD---then why do you hold to the idea that WATER EQUALS FORGIVENESS?

    In that passage that presents such a problem for your position, Acts 10:44-48, we have neglected verse 43: "All the prophets bear withness that through His name everyone who believes in Him RECEIVES FORGIVENESS OF SINS!" Do you see any WATER in this? Only belief.

    In Acts 10, they BELIEVED---they received the Holy Spirit, and THEN (and only then) they were waterbaptized).
     
  12. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    Hey, cougan, let's simplify things.

    You're smart enough to know that for every exegete you show, I could show you three or four who disagree. That's the nature of defending such a minority position! I think that several of the scholars you posted were taken out of context, but I doubt you have the actual sources handy, so I though we could take a different approach.

    First, I will answer this:

    For a person to truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord involves as a subset the faith that if a man repents and confesses he is saved. Belief through faith, therefore, as is defined by the Bible is inclusive of confessing and repenting. If a man does not have faith in Christ, he will not confess and repent. HOwever, baptism is a means of identifying with Christ. Although it is a command, many people do not do it. I believe this to be a sin - however, Christians often lie after becoming saved, which is also a sin. Neither not being baptized or lying after believing through faith can cause one NOT to be a Christian.

    Let us go back to this idea of all those people who were baptized. I have some questions for you now that will help make sure that I am on the same page as you:

    1. Does the Holy Spirit indwell a believer? When does he do so?
    2. What is the proof of such an indwelling? Fruits of the spirit?
    3. Is an indwelling of the Spirit evidence of salvation?
    4. If it can be shown that the Spirit is indwelling a man because of the necessary fruits of salvation, would a person be saved?
    5. What if that person was not baptized, as there are millions of people all over the world both now and in the past who were not baptized, yet showed the fruits of the Spirit? Would he still be saved?
    6. Are there still spiritual gifts, or did those cease after the Pentecost and the HS coming down on the Gentiles?


    My premise is that if we take an approach such as this, we would be more effectively arguing, since our scholars would, in effect, cancel each other out (although I maintain that the number of scholars agreeing with my position is MUCH greater than yours.)
     
  13. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian


    Howdy Ben. I was wondering when you would finally put your 2 cents worth in. :) Why do keep bringing up the same old arguement that I have exponded on and expounded on. I showed without a doubt the reason why they had the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles were now granted to be Christians to. 2 I showed how that they did not hear the words they needed to be saved before the HS fell on them. You have never toched my arguements I made on these 2 chapters you just keep saying you rufuted it but in my opinon you arguments just dont stack up next to the truth that I have humble taken the time to point out to you. Just look back at the many times I wrote on this very topic. The latest one was in Post 162. Again, show me where it says they were saved because they were HS Baptized? You cant do it&nbsp; because its not there.

    It is at the point of water baptism when your past sins are removed and you die to the world and become a new creature united with Christ. This puts you into Christ death and this only has to be done&nbsp;1 time. When you began you Christian race you are still going to stumble from time to time but now that you are in Christ you do like the passage you quoted you pray and confess your sins to God and they will be forgivin. Notice what verse 7 says.

    7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

    You must get in the light first Ben and when you do must contiune to walk in it. This denotes action on our part. When we do this as Christians his blood cleanses us from all sin. How?

    9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us <I>our </I>sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    Ben you destroy your Faith only doctrine by saying that it has to be active faith. You are defining 2 different kinds of Faith. You would say that if someone just beliefs that Jesus is Lord but that is all that they do that they are not saved. 2nd you would be willing to say that someone that belives that Jesus is Lord is saved at that very moment If they have it in their mind to have an active faith. That is to do those things God would want them to do. You tell me what is the difference between the person who just belives and the one that belives that will do something at the point that the belive? If the active faith beliver has not done anything yet that would make them in a state of a dead faith. But you would say that this person is saved but the other is not.

    You dont seem to understand that God is the one that laid out the commandments. As I have pointed out over and over again it is at the point of baptism that God cleanes us from our sins. I did'nt make up the rule its what God has us to do as we humble ourself in obedience of our faith being water baptized. What about Naamen? Did you even read my last post? I have showed you that God has always requried an active faith through the bible. You can not deny this. He would give the gift, Man belived it and then acted up on the commands that brougt about the blessing and the gift. God does his part then man does his part in obedience. To deny this would be the same as denying the bible.

    43 "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

    Thats funny Ben. This verse has been there all along and I have watched you use verse all around it and I have been waiting for you to use it. This verse does not teach Faith Alone. It is "through his name," by virture of his authority, that "remmission of sins" may be obtained by "everyone" (Gentiles and Jews) on the basis of beliefing. The term "beliveth" is a present tense form, showing that saving faith is not merely a single act, rather it involves a process of submission To refer to faith as "the condition of pardon" is erroneous. Such a interptation would exclude repentence and confession are you willing to live with that conclusion? "Beliving" is a summary term which includes everthing necessary to becomming a child of God. The bible is full of synecdoches that is where a word or speech represents the whole. This is why it is important to go by the whole council of God and not just one verse. Since I can't seem to convince you maybe you listen to what the early Christians were saying around the 2nd Century.


    (130 AD) BARNABAS: Let us inquire if the Lord was careful to make a&nbsp; revelation in advance concerning the water and the cross. Concerning the water it was written with regard to Israel how they will not receive the baptism which brings forgiveness of sins but will supply another for themselves . . . . Blessed are those who placed their hope in his cross and descended into the water . . . . We descend into the water full of sins and uncleanness, and we ascend bearing reverence in our heart and having hope in Jesus in our spirit. (11:1, 8, 11)

    (130 AD) HERMAS, SHEPHERD: The tower which you see being built is myself, the church. . . Hear, then, why the tower has been built on the waters. Your life .was saved and will be saved through water. The tower has been founded by the pronouncement of his almighty and glorious Name, and it is supported by the invisible power of the Master. (Vision III.iii.3)

    "I have heard, Sir, from some teachers that there is no other repentance except that one when we descended into the water and received the forgiveness of our former sins." He said to me, "You heard correctly, for it is so. He who has received forgiveness of sins ought to sin no more but to live in purity." (Mandate IV.iii.l)

    Therefore these also who have fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and "entered into the kingdom of God." For, he said, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead, but whenever he receives the seal, he puts away mortality and receives life. The seal then is the water. They descend then into the water dead and they ascend alive. The seal itself, then, was preached to them also, and they made use of it in order that they might "enter into the kingdom of God." . . . These apostles and teachers who preached the name of theSon of God, when they fell asleep in the power and faith of the Son of
    God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them and gave to them the seal of the preaching. They descended therefore with them into the water and ascended again. The former went down alive andcame up alive, but the latter who had fallen asleep previously went down dead but came up alive. (Similitudes IX.xvi.3-6) &nbsp;
     
  14. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    (150 AD)JUSTIN MARTYR: We shall explain in what way we dedicated ourselves to God and were made new through Christ lest by omitting this we seem to act improperly in our explanation. As many as are persuaded and believe that the things taught and said by us are true and promise to be able to live accordingly are taught to fast, pray, and ask God for the forgiveness of past sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to where there is water, and in the manner of the regeneration by which we ourselves were regenerated they are regenerated.For at that time they obtain for themselves the washing in water in the name of God the Master of all and Father, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, "Unless you are generated, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." . . . Since we have been born without our knowledge or choice at our first birth from the moist seed at the union of our parents and have existed in bad habits and evil conduct, in order that we might not remain children of ignorance and necessity but become children of choice and knowledge and might obtain in the water the forgiveness of past sins, there is caIled upon the one who chooses to be regenerated and who repents of his sins the name of God The Master of all and Father . . . . This washing is called illumination since they who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding. (Apology I, 61)

    For Christ, being "the firstborn of all creation," became also the
    beginning again of another race, who were born again by him through water, faith, and wood (that is, the mystery of the cross). (Dialogue138:2)

    FRAGMENT OF AN UNCANONICAL GOSPEL: You have washed in these running waters wherein dogs and swine have been cast night and day, and you have cleansed and wiped the outside skin which also the harlots and flute girls anoint, wash, wipe, and beautify for the lust of men, but within they are full of scorpions and all wickedness. But I and my disciples, who you say have not bathed, have been dipped in the waters of eternal life . . . ." (Oxyrhynchus Papyri V:840)1

    (180 AD)THEOPHILUS: On the fifth day came into existence the living creatures in the waters, through which the manifold wisdom of God is made plain. For who would be able to count their multitude and variety? Moreover, the things which come from the waters were blessed by God, in order that this might be a sign that men were going to receive repentance and forgiveness of sins through water and the "washing of regeneration," namely all those who come to the truth and are born again, and receive blessing from God. (To Autolycus II.xvi)

    (180 AD)IRENAEUS Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for remission of sins -in the name of God the Father, and in the name` of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal and everlasting God. (Proof of theApostolic Preaching 3)a


    (200 AD)TERTULLIAN: We as little fishes, in accordance with our ichthys Jesus Christ, are born in water. (On Baptism 1)

    It has assuredly been ordained that no one can attain knowledge of salvation without baptism. This comes especially from the pronouncement of the Lord, who says, "Except one be born of water he does not have life." (Ibid. 12)

    TERTULLIAN: Baptism itself is a bodily act, because we are immersed in water, but it has a spiritual effect, because we are set free from sins. (On Baptism 7)
    &nbsp;There is no difference whether one is washed in the sea or in a pool, in a river or a fountain, in a reservoir or a tub, nor is there any distinction between those whom John dipped in the Jordan and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber, unless that eunuch whom Philip dipped in the chance water found on their journey obtained more or less of salvation. (1b id. 4)


    (225 AD)ORIGEN (in commenting on the crossing of the Red Sea speaks of Christian baptism): The evil spirits seek to overtake you, but you descend into the water and you escape safely; having washed away the filth of sin, you come up a "new man," ready to sing the "new song." (Homilies on Exodus V:5)

    (350 AD)BASIL OF CAESAREA: How then do we become in the likeness of his death? We were buried with him through baptism . . . . How then do we accomplish the descent into Hades? We imitate the burial of Christ through baptism. For the bodies of those being baptized are as it were buried in water. (On the Holy Spirit XV:35)

    The majorty of the early writter express water baptism being the avenue that you receive the forgiveness of sin. Its not until later around 250ad and past that men start changing their view of water baptism. Give it enough time and man can alway mess up the clearly written truth.
     
  15. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Kicker.

    Fine work, cougan. :cool:
     
  16. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian


    Justin Martyr also says that before a person could be admitted to baptism, he had to be instructed in the old Testament revelations of the divine activities as well as in the ways of satan. Otherwise, he would continue being blinded by the devil and would be in danger of confounding divine and satanic activities as happened in the case of the Jews who went so far as to say that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Belzebub. So, if we are following his teachings, we MUST be doing the same thing. Does your church do this? If we're going to follow Justin Martyr's teachings on baptism, we MUST do this, right?

    Interestingly enough, if you read Justin's history, you can see that he tried to combine Platonic philosophy with Christianity, and admitted as much. One can only wonder how this affected his view of theology.

    Theophilus also believed in the speaking of tongues and the raising of the dead. You want to change your belief on that, now?

    According also to Irenaeus, all Christians should be miracle-working as well, especially gifts of exorcism, prediction, healing, raising the dead, and speaking with tongues (Cent. Haer., II, Ivi, Ivii; V, vi). Would you also believe that as proof of salvation? Done any miracles lately?

    Same guy who calls the Jews "the seed-plot of all the calumny against us" (Nat. 1.14.1, CCSL 1.32-33)[1] and calls the synagogues "fountains of persecution" (Scorp. 10.10, CCSL 2.1089). Great moral leader, he was.


    Origen was a believer of INFANT baptism (Homilies on Luke XIV, 2.22a; Homilies on Leviticus, VIII, 12.2; Commentary on Romans, V, 6.5-7 )
    Is this what you're saying?

    This doesn't say anything about baptism equalling salvation. It talks about likeness, indicating a mere symbol.

    Go back even further and you'll see infant baptism expressed. If we're going by this, shouldn't we all believe in infant baptism?

    Perhaps this method isn't working so well for you. I'm still waiting for answers to the last post.
     
  17. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    OK, yes-or-no-answer: did the Holy Spirit indwell them before they believed, before they were saved?

    Yes or no?
     
  18. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    Scott please be patient. I am trying to make sure I am commenting on your questions and responses. Give me time I will get to them. For now I want to comment on the above. I find your post above almost laughable and sad at the same time. I don't think you realize the postion you put yourself into. But, I will point it out to you Scott. Please note the following.

    Scott there are many things that are found in Christ. Every spiritual blessing Eph 1:3, Redemption and forgiveness of sin Eph 1:7, No Condemantion Rm 8:2, New Creation 2 Cor 5:17, Salvation 2Tim 2:10 and eternal life. 1Jn 5:11.&nbsp; With this is mind it would be very important for us to get into Christ where all&nbsp;these things are would'nt you say?

    The bible plainly teaches us that baptism is how we get into Christ.&nbsp;

    Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.
    Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?


    Whatever this baptism is here wheather water baptism or HS baptism must&nbsp;occur before one gets into Christ. There is only one baptism that gets you into Christ thus saving you. Or at least that is what Paul tells us in Eph when he wrote it. Ephesians 4:4 <I>There is </I>one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;6 one God and Father of all, who <I>is </I>above all, and through all, and in you all.

    The one body mentioned here is the church and the church is the body of Christ. So when one is baptized into Christ one is put into the body which is the one church.

    Colossians 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,

    Ephesians 1:22 And He put all <I>things </I>under His feet, and gave Him <I>to be </I>head over all <I>things </I>to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
    1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free -- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

    Again, we want to be found in that one body&nbsp;because Jesus is the savior of the body.

    Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

    So let it stand by the word of God that whatever this baptism is in all of these passages wheather water baptism or HS baptism it must&nbsp;take place before&nbsp;one&nbsp;enters into Christ&nbsp;and is saved.

    Now with all that said let me show you the perdicment you have put yourself into Scott.



    Do you see the problem with what you have written? I have very clearly pointed out that the baptism whichever it may be must take place in order to get into Christ. Watch this Scott. You say that it is possible that some of them had not been baptized and if it is refering to water here that the church could exist without water baptism. Do you know what else you are saying here Scott? Using your same thinking here you would have to say that the church could exist without HS baptism.

    Now that I have clearly showed you the error in your view on this verse let me humbly submit my take on these verses.
     
  19. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    First lets look at vrs 26 and how it actually reads in the Greek Testament. "...you (plural) are the sons of God, through the faith..." It is not the act of beliving that is in view; rather, the faith system, i.e., the gospel plan (cf. gal 1:23;Jude 3;Acts 6:7) is under consideration. Children of God are made through the gospel system. Second, the pharse "in Christ Jesus," the names "Christ Jesus" are not in the grammatical case (accusative) which would be&nbsp;employed if these terms were objects of the action of faith. Rather, they are in what is known as the dative case&nbsp;in this instance, representing a sphere of location. One becomes a child of God in Christ (2tim 2:10). The passage thus answers 2 questions. By what means&nbsp;does one become a Christian? Through the gospel plan. Where is that blessing produced? In Christ Jesus.

    Now vrs 26 tells us when this salvation is enjoyed. "For (a conjunction of explaination) as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ."&nbsp;Notice what one comentator said.

    &nbsp;The change of tenses in Gal. 3:26-27 is very enlightening.&nbsp; In Gal. 3:26 Paul asserted that the Galatian brethren are indeed at that moment "sons of God through faith," but then declared in Gal. 3:27 that they became "sons" when they were baptized.&nbsp; Noel Merideth perceptively states:

    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Gal. 3:26 says `ye are' ([@este] 2 person plural present active indicative of [@eimi]) and is present tense ...&nbsp; Gal. 3:27 says, `For as many of you as were BAPTIZED" ([@ebaptisthete] 2 person plural 1st aorist passive indicative, the aorist tense denotes a single act in the past), is past tense.&nbsp; Paul says, "Ye are" (present tense) children of God and that is because "you were baptized" (past tense).&nbsp; A person is a child of God by the gospel, only if he is in Christ.&nbsp; But he is in Christ only if he has been previously baptized into him.&nbsp; Therefore, the only way that it can be said that `ye are a child of God' is for it to be said of you that `you were baptized.'"&lt;10&gt;


    I hope this helps you see clearly Scott that one must have faith and be baptized into Christ to become a child of God. As far as I can tell there no denying that one must be baptized to be saved. But which baptism is it? Is it water baptism or HS baptism that puts us into Christ? What ever this baptism is it we can figure&nbsp;it out by examining other verses that talk about this saving baptism. It becomes&nbsp;very apparant that HS baptism is not the baptism that saves you considering there isnt&nbsp;1 single verse that says HS&nbsp;baptism saves you as far&nbsp;as I am aware of. Not&nbsp;to mention the fact the the HS baptism was a promise&nbsp;and never a command. There are only 2 instances of HS baptism mentioned in&nbsp;the bible. Once at the day of&nbsp;Pentacost on the apostles and once on the house of Cornelius. However in contrast we have water&nbsp; baptism commanded by Jesus in Mat 28:19 which I have already expounded on in&nbsp;great detail showing that teaching and baptizing&nbsp;is how they were to make disciples. In Acts 2:38 Peter tells these belivers how&nbsp;it is they could become children of God by having&nbsp;their sins taken away. It was by repentence and&nbsp;water baptism. Mark 16:16 shows us that water baptism is necessary to be saved as this is a parllel to Mat 28:19 great commission. Philp in Acts 8 was baptizing people in water under the insperation of the HS. Note carefully in this chapter you can see that people only were able to receive the gift of the HS through the laying on of hands of the apostles. Consisdering that HS Baptism that was poured out directily from heven only happend twice and that the only way people could get the gift of the HS through the laying on of the apostles hands we would have to have one of those apostles still alive today for us to have the gift of the HS. Since the HS purpose was to build up the church and establish it by confirming the word of the apostles and prophets by miracles and signs. When the word was fully revealed there wasnt any reason for the miracles to continue on. So it should become obvious since the apostles are not alive today the baptism that saves us is not HS baptism but our subjection to water baptism. This is why Peter commanded water baptism in Acts 10 as soon as he saw that God had accepted the Gentiles as fellow heirs to obtain salvation. 1Peter 3:21 clearly tells us that water baptism is what saves us and not HS&nbsp;baptism. Think about Paul for just a second in Acts 22. He was a beliver in Christ and was very sorry for what he had done to the church and he even prayed for 3 days but he was not saved yet. Now notice 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.' Ananias tells Paul what he must do. He tells him to Arize and be baptized (in the greek means get thy self baptized). I want you to note that if Paul could be saved by HS baptism there would be no reason for him to arize and he would not have to get himself baptized, because if HS baptism is what is attributed to washing away&nbsp;his sins it could immerse him sitting down or lying down and there would be nothing that Paul could do get himself baptized that is to prepare or set in order to get himself baptized. Paul was water baptized because he had to arize and go be baptized because he could not be immersed in water where he was. Then in Rom 6 you have to really have the blinders on not see that the water baptism is being spoken of here. When it uses terms as being buried and raised should indicate without doubt that water baptism is being spoken of here. The idea of being buried and raised&nbsp;is the same thing the eunic experienced in his baptism by Philip in Acts 8. One last quick thought if HS baptism is being spoken of in Rom 6 then you would have to say that one can be buried or immersed with the HS but then the person is raised out of or away from the HS. I want to stop for now as I am getting very tired. Tommorrow I want to finish this post up and I will cover John 3 and 1cor 12:13.

    I am thankfull to be able to share this with you and hope that it might sink in. Again, give me time and I will answer all the questions posed to me.
     
  20. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Ben -

    He's emphasising the fact that nobody has "put on Christ" unless they have been baptised. So he's actually saying "If you've been baptised into Christ, you've put on Christ." The corollory is that unless you have been baptised, you are not in Christ. Which is precisely why cougan is using this verse as a proof text.

    The expression "for as many..." is a Biblical idiom. It occurs at 5 times in the NT, and always in the context of participation. :cool:
     
Loading...