Baptism Essential to Salvation

[newbirth]

Well, can we all just agree that Believers should get baptized in water out of obedience, and just leave it there.
We all agree on that, and neither side has budged an inch, and some in both positions have taken steps sideways, stumbling into error trying to prove their point.

Christ saves.
Out of love for our Savior we strive to be obedient.

Not a good idea
Not knowing why they have done what they did , when the deceivers come with false doctrine they will be easily swayed.

 

[mailmandan]

It is not proof the thief had never been baptized. There is just as much evidence the thief was once a disciple who turned from Christ to a life of crime then found himself being crucified with his one time Master and so he repented.

Where is the evidence that the thief was once a disciple who turned from Christ to a life of crime? Being crucified as a thief and blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus is NOT the fruit of repentance/faith. The evidence stands in my favor that the thief was not converted until just before he died and did not have the chance to be water baptized. You are simply grasping at straws here in a desperate attempt to accommodate your doctrine.

Of course what I posted was speculation, just as all you posted was speculation too. It's ALL speculation for the bible never tells us with certainty whether the thief was or was not baptized. I am not being dogmatic about the thief for I am not the one using the thief to try and prove the necessity of baptism. But those that ARE trying to use the thief as 'proof' baptism is not necessary then they have the onus to prove he was never baptized, something that can not be proven since the bible does not say..so it is ALL speculation.

The proof is in the fruit. So you believe that that thief may have been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely) In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

If the thief were never a baptized disciple, how did he know all the information Luke reveals to us? How did the thief know Christ was innocent? How did he know Christ dying would not be the end of Christ? How did he know Christ would have a kingdom?

The thief may have already had some knowledge about Christ prior to getting crucified, word gets around, but also, he was hanging next to Christ. Do you think that Christ remained silent to him about these things while hanging on the cross?

Evidently he must have been taught about Christ by someone, maybe evening becoming a disciple himself.

All you can do is cling to maybe about him previously being a disciple. I say highly unlikely.

The thief could not just blindly be guessing about those things, things he ALREADY knew about Christ.

Like I said, he may have already had some knowledge about Christ, but Christ was hanging next to him and could have easily spoken with him while hanging on the cross. It wouldn't take Jesus long as all to explain to the thief that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who has a kingdom that is not of this world and whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This possible one time disciple mocked and blasphemed Christ but later repented.

All you can do is grasp for possible. Luke 23:40 - "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." That does not sound like the words of a disciple of Jesus who repented, but a lost sinner repenting for the first time and receiving Christ through faith.

Yet Peter, an apostle, denied Christ but later repented. Since Peter denied Christ are we to ASSUME Peter must never have been a disciple?

Peter was a genuine disciple of Christ who had a weak moment because he was afraid, but after the Holy Spirit was given, he boldly confessed Christ (Acts 4:8-13). We know that prior to Peter's weak moment, he was a disciple of Christ who confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Where do we find the proof that prior to his crucifixion, the thief was a disciple of Christ?

It does not matter that Christ died before the thief. Christ promised the thief paradise while BOTH were alive and under the OT law.

So what is the plan of salvation under the OT law vs. the NT law?

Besides, the NT did not come into effect at the very second Christ died. Testaments/wills go through probation periods before coming into effect. Note how Lk 24:47 records Luke's account of the great commission which is part of Christ's NT, but this did not come into effect for a few weeks/months after Christ's death at Pentecost in Acts 2.

So how does this change that before the death of Christ and after the death of Christ, man is saved through believing in Him/faith in Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (John 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17,18; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc...). Notice that Luke 24:47 says and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Acts 3:19 says Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

Mk 1:4 was John's baptism that ended at Acts 2:38 where it was replaced by Christ's baptism of the great commission. How can you prove the thief was not of those of Mk 1:5 that was baptized with John's baptism?

So what is the difference between John's message in Mark 1:4 - "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" and Peter's message in Acts 2:38 - "Repent and and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" Are both John and Peter teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation under the old law and the new law?

Is Christ ON EARTH today personally forgiving the sins of those whom He thinks are deserving? No. So how can anyone claim they are saved just like the thief when they are not?

The thief was saved the same way (THROUGH FAITH) while Christ was on earth as we are saved (THROUGH FAITH) though Christ is now in heaven.

When Christ left earth He left behind His last will and testament, the gospel, as His authority on earth and that gospel says for one to be saved now is by believing repenting confessing and being baptized.

Christ said to repent and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15). In (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Christ connects BELIEVING IN HIM with shall not perish, has everlasting life, is not condemned. Christ mentioned nothing about baptism here.
Your complete obsession with water baptism is absolutely ridiculous! It reminds me of the obsession that the Jews had with circumcision.

Rom 10:9,10 the NT requires one to believe that Christ hath been (past tense) raised from the dead. The thief could not have this type of belief the NT requires for when he was promised paradise Christ had not yet died much less been resurrected.

So you are saying the content of what is believed has changed? The thief believed that Jesus is the Son of God and that He would save him, but just didn't understand the whole story of how He would save him? Is that what you are saying?

 

[mailmandan]

let me put you in this verse to see how it works out...then I will put myself and see how it works out....
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Noah had already "found grace" (Genesis 6:8), was "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5), and "walked with God" BEFORE he built the ark. His obedience was a DEMONSTRATION of his faith, not the origin of it. Building the ark demonstrated his faith and saved him and his family (physically) from drowning (Hebrews 11:17).

By faith mailmandan, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared not (no act of faith) an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and did not(because of no act of faith) became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

This is a straw man argument. God did not command me to build an ark.

By faith newbirth, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house(act of faith); by the which he condemned the world, and became heir (because of act of faith) of the righteousness which is by faith. Your faith my friend has no works God gave you faith and you refuse to live by faith.

So where is this ark that you built? Don't flatter yourself. So you are saying that faith "is" works. You make no distinction between faith and works? An act of faith is a work. We are saved FOR good works, NOT by good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). Who are you to judge me and say that my faith has no works and I refuse to live by faith? You are making judgment calls that only God is qualified to make.

 

[mailmandan]

[/qUOTE=mailmandan;1628312]again, this is picturesque language. Water baptism is the picture, not the reality. Oh now it's picturesque language. It's simply amazing what you will stoop to to twist the scriptures to fit your doctrine

You twist the scriptures by confusing the picture (water baptism) with the reality (Spirit baptism). Twisting the scriptures to fit your doctrine is exactly what you and your church does.

You flunked this just like you did the thief on the cross argunent.

I see that you prefer to take cheap shots at me instead of answering challenging questions from my previous posts that reveal your false doctrine.

 

[mailmandan]

It is sad to see men so much at war with the word of God, to the point that they even boldly deny the power of God just so their doctrine of man stand.

I see that you have no answers to my challenging questions. Only ironic statements.

 

[mailmandan]

You are making up your own gospel a gospel of delusions void of grace and faith without works

The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation. The gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) as the Savior of all who believe/trust in His finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of their salvation (Romans 1:16). We are saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9). You are teaching a "works based" false gospel. A "different" gospel.

 

[Alligator]

You twist the scriptures by confusing the picture (water baptism) with the reality (Spirit baptism). Twisting the scriptures to fit your doctrine is exactly what you and your church does.



I see that you prefer to take cheap shots at me instead of answering challenging questions from my previous posts that reveal your false doctrine.

Answer your challenging questions? Your questions have been answered by me or someone else over and over. The bottom line is I don't deal with people who have a "I know it all" attitude

 

[newbirth]

I see that you have no answers to my challenging questions. Only ironic statements.

this was in my response guess you did not see it...
Is John baptism from God or not? Was it a lie, was there no remission of sins at baptism? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[newbirth]

The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation. The gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) as the Savior of all who believe/trust in His finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of their salvation (Romans 1:16). We are saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9). You are teaching a "works based" false gospel. A "different" gospel.

What you have explained is God's grace ...you have not gone through faith yet...

 

[SeaBass]

Where is the evidence that the thief was once a disciple who turned from Christ to a life of crime? Being crucified as a thief and blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus is NOT the fruit of repentance/faith. The evidence stands in my favor that the thief was not converted until just before he died and did not have the chance to be water baptized. You are simply grasping at straws here in a desperate attempt to accommodate your doctrine.

Where is the evidence the thief was NEVER a disciple, NEVER baptized? There is none. Therefore one can only GUESS if he were ever baptized or not.

The proof is in the fruit. So you believe that that thief may have been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely) In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.



The thief may have already had some knowledge about Christ prior to getting crucified, word gets around, but also, he was hanging next to Christ. Do you think that Christ remained silent to him about these things while hanging on the cross?

The thief mocking Christ is no proof he was never a disciple. Again, Peter denied Christ. There were other disciples that turned their back on Christ Jn 6:66 to walk with Him never again.

There is no proof the thief was not of those of Judea that was baptized of Jn in Mk 1:4.

The knowledge the thief had of Christ was better than some of Christ's own disciples had, providing evidence the thief was not only taught about Christ but was a disciple himself once.



All you can do is cling to maybe about him previously being a disciple. I say highly unlikely.

Like I said, he may have already had some knowledge about Christ, but Christ was hanging next to him and could have easily spoken with him while hanging on the cross. It wouldn't take Jesus long as all to explain to the thief that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who has a kingdom that is not of this world and whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

So you are not certain how the thief ascertained the knowledge he had of Christ, you think Christ may have told him all those things while hanging there on the cross...even though the context does not say Christ taught the thief those things. It maybe the thief may have once been a disciple as to whey he had the knowledge of Christ that he did.

All you can do is grasp for possible. Luke 23:40 - "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." That does not sound like the words of a disciple of Jesus who repented, but a lost sinner repenting for the first time and receiving Christ through faith.

The thief sounds like one time disciple with all the knowledge he had of Christ, who then fell away into a life of crime and now repents.

Peter was a genuine disciple of Christ who had a weak moment because he was afraid, but after the Holy Spirit was given, he boldly confessed Christ (Acts 4:8-13). We know that prior to Peter's weak moment, he was a disciple of Christ who confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Where do we find the proof that prior to his crucifixion, the thief was a disciple of Christ?

Peter was a disciple that denied Christ. Yet Peter's denial in no way proves he was NEVER a disciple. So the thief could have once been a disciple that mocked Christ. Yet you want his mocking Christ as "proof" he was never a disciple....but you cannot have it both ways.

So what is the plan of salvation under the OT law vs. the NT law?

Under the OT law they did not have the shed blood of Christ, therefore must offer animal sacrifices for their sins. Under the NT law which does have the shed blood of Christ one is baptized to contact that shed blood for complete remission of sins. Under the OT law they had no complete justification without the blood of Christ which the NT has. This is just one of a mulititude of differences in the Ot law and NT law.

So how does this change that before the death of Christ and after the death of Christ, man is saved through believing in Him/faith in Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (John 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17,18; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc...). Notice that Luke 24:47 says and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Acts 3:19 says Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

The point I am making is the NT law would not come into effect until some point AFTER Christ died, Heb 9:16,17. Since Christ promised the thief paradise while BOTH were still alive then it is no way possible that thief is an example of NT salvation, he was not accountable to NT laws as Acts 2:38.

So what is the difference between John's message in Mark 1:4 - "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" and Peter's message in Acts 2:38 - "Repent and and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" Are both John and Peter teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation under the old law and the new law?

Johns' baptism was not "in the name of the Lord". John's baptism made one a disciple of John whereas Christ's baptism makes one a disciple of Christ, Jn 4:1,2.

The thief was saved the same way (THROUGH FAITH) while Christ was on earth as we are saved (THROUGH FAITH) though Christ is now in heaven.

Again, Christ is NOT on earth forgiving sins today as he did with the thief so no one today can be saved in the same way as the thief. Not a single person can say Christ came and talked to them personally and forgave their sins based upon faith only. Christ left earth leaving behind His gospel word as His authority as to how men are to be save today and that word requires belief, repentance confession and baptism.

Christ said to repent and believe the gospel (Mark 1:15). In (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Christ connects BELIEVING IN HIM with shall not perish, has everlasting life, is not condemned. Christ mentioned nothing about baptism here.
Your complete obsession with water baptism is absolutely ridiculous! It reminds me of the obsession that the Jews had with circumcision.

Some have an "obsession' with cherry-picking out verses that mention 'belief' while purposely ignoring verses as Lk 13:3,5 where Jesus made repentance necessary to salvation. Or Mt 10:32,33 making confession necessary to being saved or Mk 16;16 making baptism necessary to being saved. I do have an obsession with what Christ said to do but no obsession with cherry picking or man mad doctrines.

So you are saying the content of what is believed has changed? The thief believed that Jesus is the Son of God and that He would save him, but just didn't understand the whole story of how He would save him? Is that what you are saying?

The thief was not required to have the type of belief the NT requires in Rom 10:9,10 for the thief is not an example of NT salvation. NT belief requires one to believe in thine heart that God hath raised (past tense) him from the dead, thou shalt be saved

So the thief could not believe in his heart that God hath raised Christ from the dead for Christ had not yet died much less be raised from the dead when Christ promised him paradise.

 

[SeaBass]

I see that you have no answers to my challenging questions. Only ironic statements.

Challenging in your own mind.

What is "challenging" about when you consistently ignore the power of the connective conjunction "and" In Mk 16:16 and Acts 2:38 to rewrite and change God's word to the way you had wished they had been written?

 

[SeaBass]

So what is the difference between John's message in Mark 1:4

"baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" and Peter's message in Acts 2:38 - "Repent and and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" Are both John and Peter teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation under the old law and the new law?

You deny that Acts 2:38 teaches baptism is FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. So are you denying John's baptism is FOR THE REMISSION of sins also?

How could John's baptism be for remission of sins yet Christ's is not when Christ's baptism replaced John's baptism?

Did John's baptism have more power, more importance than Christ's baptism since John's baptism could remit sins and Christ's (according to you) cannot remit sins?

 

[mailmandan]

Answer your challenging questions? Your questions have been answered by me or someone else over and over. The bottom line is I don't deal with people who have a "I know it all" attitude

Really? I asked you in post #811 to Please explain to us the difference between receiving the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Holy Spirit/Spirit baptism.

Also explain to us the difference between ..the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 and ..the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:45.

I received NO answer from you. I asked you and Seabass multiple times in Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3 (still under the old law) if "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" means that baptism obtains the remission of sins or this baptism is done in regards to/on the basis of the remission of sins received upon repentance? and I also asked in Matthew 3:11 if, "I baptized you with water FOR repentance" means I baptize you with water "in order to obtain" repentance or "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Over and over again I received NO answers.

I personally think that refusing to deal with me because you think that I am a know it all is a cop out. At least I answer questions that you present to me and I harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusions on doctrine.

 

[4enlightment]

When the Holy spirit comes upon us, it will get rid of the dirt over certain time period, and by cleansing us with the word and which give us a clear understanding of it. By him cleansing us, we will for sure know about the truth of God, and we wouldn't see things the way we once has seen them, because our minds will be different and our old self will be banished away.

 

[mailmandan]

this was in my response guess you did not see it...
Is John baptism from God or not? Was it a lie, was there no remission of sins at baptism? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I have already answered these questions in post #840 and elsewhere. By what authority did John administer water baptism? Who sent him to preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins? Did he receive his authority from heaven, or from man? That is, from God or man? From God of course. The remission of sins is at repentance and is signified, but not procured at baptism.

You never did answer my questions. Does "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" mean that water baptism is FOR "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or FOR "in regards to/on the basis of" the remission of sins received upon repentance? In Matthew 3:11, John said "I baptize you with water FOR repentance.." Is this baptism FOR "in order to obtain" repentance or FOR "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Do you believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation before the cross (under the old law) and after the cross? The church of Christ (who SeaBass and Alligator represent) teaches that under the old law (in which Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3 - "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" is under the old law, before the cross), baptism was not necessary for salvation but under the new law (Acts 2:38, after the cross), baptism is necessary for salvation. Do you agree with that?

I already explained John 3:5 numerous times. Jesus referred not to baptismal regeneration here but to the need for "cleansing." Spiritual washing or purification of the soul is accomplished through living water (not plain H20) by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (John 3:5; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5).

Jesus said, "born of water and the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Scripture interprets itself. Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. *Did you see that? If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. In John 7:37, Jesus said, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive..

Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. See how this all fits together? *Hermeneutics.

 

[mailmandan]

What you have explained is God's grace ...you have not gone through faith yet...

I have already received Christ by grace through faith several years ago. For by grace you have been saved through faith.. (Ephesians 2:8). You are not qualified to judge my faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Saving faith is belief, trust, reliance in Christ for salvation. Obedience which follows is works. Good works are the fruit of faith, not the essence of faith, and not the means of our salvation. You continue to confuse faith with works.

 

[mailmandan]

Where is the evidence the thief was NEVER a disciple, NEVER baptized? There is none. Therefore one can only GUESS if he were ever baptized or not.

Where is the evidence that thief WAS a disciple, WAS baptized? There is none. The burden of proof is on you. Therefore you can only GUESS if he was ever baptized or not. Being crucified as a thief and blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus is NOT the fruit of repentance/faith/being a disciple. The evidence that he was not a disciple stands heavily in my favor.

The thief mocking Christ is no proof he was never a disciple.

He not only mocked Christ, but also blasphemed, and shook his head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. He was in the same boat with the chief priests and scribes, who were certainly not disciples of Christ!

Again, Peter denied Christ.

There is a difference between having a temporary weak moment and denying that you know Christ out of fear, and mocking, blaspheming, and shaking your head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. Peter wasn't the only disciple to desert Christ when He was arrested. After Peter had his weak moment and denied Christ, he went out and wept bitterly. He did not turn to a life of crime. Your argument is weak.

There were other disciples that turned their back on Christ Jn 6:66 to walk with Him never again.

And what did Jesus say about these so called disciples? But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him (John 6:64). Not everyone who sets out to follow Jesus and claims to be His disciple really is. There are false disciples just as there are false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4) who are temporarily thrown into the mix.

There is no proof the thief was not of those of Judea that was baptized of Jn in Mk 1:4.

There is no proof that he was. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Up until the thief repented and placed his faith in Christ toward the very end, all we have is rotten fruit!

The knowledge the thief had of Christ was better than some of Christ's own disciples had, providing evidence the thief was not only taught about Christ but was a disciple himself once.

Pure speculation! It's easy to acquire knowledge about someone, but where is heart submission to this knowledge? Being crucified as a criminal, mocking, blaspheming and shaking your head at Jesus is not the fruit of being His disciple. Period. Your desperate attempt to prove otherwise in not convincing at all.

So you are not certain how the thief ascertained the knowledge he had of Christ, you think Christ may have told him all those things while hanging there on the cross...even though the context does not say Christ taught the thief those things. It maybe the thief may have once been a disciple as to whey he had the knowledge of Christ that he did.

You don't have to be a disciple of Christ in order to acquire knowledge about Christ. Many people have heard the gospel and simply shrugged it off over and over again. It doesn't matter how the thief acquired the knowledge he had of Christ. What matters is when did he have a heart submission to this knowledge? Not until he repented from mocking, blaspheming and shaking his head at Jesus to defending Jesus' innocence and acknowledging his guilt and need for Jesus then placing his faith in Jesus at the end. Your argument is weak at best.

The thief sounds like one time disciple with all the knowledge he had of Christ, who then fell away into a life of crime and now repents.

No evidence supports that, but I understand your desperate need to accommodate your theology so that's the best you can do.

Peter was a disciple that denied Christ. Yet Peter's denial in no way proves he was NEVER a disciple. So the thief could have once been a disciple that mocked Christ. Yet you want his mocking Christ as "proof" he was never a disciple....but you cannot have it both ways.

Again, There is a huge difference between having a temporary weak moment and denying that you know Christ out of fear, and mocking, blaspheming, and shaking your head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. After Peter had his weak moment and denied Christ, he went out and wept bitterly. He did not turn to a life of crime. You cannot have it both ways. Your proof remains weak at best that the thief was previously a disciple of Christ.

Under the OT law they did not have the shed blood of Christ, therefore must offer animal sacrifices for their sins. Under the NT law which does have the shed blood of Christ one is baptized to contact that shed blood for complete remission of sins.

One is baptized to "contact" the shed blood? "Through His blood" (Colossians 1:14) is a reference not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we contact it in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16). We do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the water and Roman Catholics do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the wine.

Under the OT law they had no complete justification without the blood of Christ which the NT has. This is just one of a mulititude of differences in the Ot law and NT law. The point I am making is the NT law would not come into effect until some point AFTER Christ died, Heb 9:16,17. Since Christ promised the thief paradise while BOTH were still alive then it is no way possible that thief is an example of NT salvation, he was not accountable to NT laws as Acts 2:38.

The point that I am making is if Acts 2:38 teaches that water baptism obtains the remission of sins but under the old law, baptism was not necessary for salvation (as the church of Christ teaches in order to get around the thief on the cross), then what does "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" mean in Mark 1:4 under the old law? See the contradiction?

Johns' baptism was not "in the name of the Lord". John's baptism made one a disciple of John whereas Christ's baptism makes one a disciple of Christ, Jn 4:1,2.

So prior to Acts 2:38, everyone was a disciple of John and not Christ? What was John's baptism in the name of? Was Peter a disciple of John or Christ prior to Acts 2:38? John 4:1 - Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples).

Again, Christ is NOT on earth forgiving sins today as he did with the thief so no one today can be saved in the same way as the thief.

The thief was not saved through faith? We are not saved through faith?

Not a single person can say Christ came and talked to them personally and forgave their sins based upon faith only. Christ left earth leaving behind His gospel word as His authority as to how men are to be save today and that word requires belief, repentance confession and baptism.

Your 4 step out of order plan of salvation is the result of poor semantics and flawed hermeneutics. That is not the gospel of Christ, but the gospel of Campbellism. What did Jesus say in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26?

Some have an "obsession' with cherry-picking out verses that mention 'belief' while purposely ignoring verses as Lk 13:3,5 where Jesus made repentance necessary to salvation.

I don't ignore Luke 13:3,5 but I understand that repentance precedes believing in Christ for salvation. Matthew 21:32 - For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. Mark 1:15 - Repent and believe the gospel. Acts 20:21 - Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. You reverse the order and reduce faith to mere "mental assent" belief in Christ (no different than the belief of demons) and reduce repentance to self reformation. Belief and confession are not two separate steps to salvation but chronologically together (Romans 10:8-10). Water baptism follows faith and conversion (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18).

Or Mt 10:32,33 making confession necessary to being saved or Mk 16;16 making baptism necessary to being saved. I do have an obsession with what Christ said to do but no obsession with cherry picking or man mad doctrines.

I already explained Matthew 10:32-33 in context to you and Mark 16:16. You continue to ignore the second half of Mark 16:16 and (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) in favor of your watered down gospel. Only the Lord can open your eyes to the truth.

The thief was not required to have the type of belief the NT requires in Rom 10:9,10 for the thief is not an example of NT salvation. NT belief requires one to believe in thine heart that God hath raised (past tense) him from the dead, thou shalt be saved

So the thief could not believe in his heart that God hath raised Christ from the dead for Christ had not yet died much less be raised from the dead when Christ promised him paradise.

Did the thief BELIEVE in Him (Christ) to receive salvation? (John 3:16) Do we BELIEVE in Him (Christ) to receive salvation (Acts 16:31). YES.

 

[mailmandan]

Challenging in your own mind.

The truth is not hard to understand, just hard for you to ACCEPT.

What is "challenging" about when you consistently ignore the power of the connective conjunction "and" In Mk 16:16 and Acts 2:38 to rewrite and change God's word to the way you had wished they had been written?

What is "challenging" is when you consistently ignore the second half of Mark 16:16, which is in harmony with John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. Your water gospel is not. In Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned," so condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism, so salvation rests on belief, as Jesus repeatedly said in John, but you only hear what you want to hear. You consistently ignore Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18 in favor of your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38, which is out of harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31. You have rewritten and changed God's word to make it fit the theology of your church. So have Roman Catholics and Mormons.

 

[mailmandan]

You deny that Acts 2:38 teaches baptism is FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. So are you denying John's baptism is FOR THE REMISSION of sins also?

Are you saying that both baptisms (under the old law and under the new law) are for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins in contradiction to the teach of your church that baptism was not necessary for salvation under the old law, which John's baptism fell under, but is necessary under the new law?

How could John's baptism be for remission of sins yet Christ's is not when Christ's baptism replaced John's baptism?

I never said that John's baptism was in order to obtain remission of sins and Christ's is not. I believe that the remission of sins is signified, but not procured in both baptisms. The remission of sins is received through repentance/faith (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31).

Did John's baptism have more power, more importance than Christ's baptism since John's baptism could remit sins and Christ's (according to you) cannot remit sins?

Straw man argument.

 

[SeaBass]

Where is the evidence that thief WAS a disciple, WAS baptized? There is none. The burden of proof is on you. Therefore you can only GUESS if he was ever baptized or not. Being crucified as a thief and blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus is NOT the fruit of repentance/faith/being a disciple. The evidence that he was not a disciple stands heavily in my favor.



He not only mocked Christ, but also blasphemed, and shook his head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. He was in the same boat with the chief priests and scribes, who were certainly not disciples of Christ!



There is a difference between having a temporary weak moment and denying that you know Christ out of fear, and mocking, blaspheming, and shaking your head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. Peter wasn't the only disciple to desert Christ when He was arrested. After Peter had his weak moment and denied Christ, he went out and wept bitterly. He did not turn to a life of crime. Your argument is weak.



And what did Jesus say about these so called disciples? But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him (John 6:64). Not everyone who sets out to follow Jesus and claims to be His disciple really is. There are false disciples just as there are false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4) who are temporarily thrown into the mix.



There is no proof that he was. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Up until the thief repented and placed his faith in Christ toward the very end, all we have is rotten fruit!



Pure speculation! It's easy to acquire knowledge about someone, but where is heart submission to this knowledge? Being crucified as a criminal, mocking, blaspheming and shaking your head at Jesus is not the fruit of being His disciple. Period. Your desperate attempt to prove otherwise in not convincing at all.



You don't have to be a disciple of Christ in order to acquire knowledge about Christ. Many people have heard the gospel and simply shrugged it off over and over again. It doesn't matter how the thief acquired the knowledge he had of Christ. What matters is when did he have a heart submission to this knowledge? Not until he repented from mocking, blaspheming and shaking his head at Jesus to defending Jesus' innocence and acknowledging his guilt and need for Jesus then placing his faith in Jesus at the end. Your argument is weak at best.



No evidence supports that, but I understand your desperate need to accommodate your theology so that's the best you can do.



Again, There is a huge difference between having a temporary weak moment and denying that you know Christ out of fear, and mocking, blaspheming, and shaking your head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. After Peter had his weak moment and denied Christ, he went out and wept bitterly. He did not turn to a life of crime. You cannot have it both ways. Your proof remains weak at best that the thief was previously a disciple of Christ.



One is baptized to "contact" the shed blood? "Through His blood" (Colossians 1:14) is a reference not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we contact it in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16). We do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the water and Roman Catholics do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the wine.



The point that I am making is if Acts 2:38 teaches that water baptism obtains the remission of sins but under the old law, baptism was not necessary for salvation (as the church of Christ teaches in order to get around the thief on the cross), then what does "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" mean in Mark 1:4 under the old law? See the contradiction?



So prior to Acts 2:38, everyone was a disciple of John and not Christ? What was John's baptism in the name of? Was Peter a disciple of John or Christ prior to Acts 2:38? John 4:1 - Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples).



The thief was not saved through faith? We are not saved through faith?



Your 4 step out of order plan of salvation is the result of poor semantics and flawed hermeneutics. That is not the gospel of Christ, but the gospel of Campbellism. What did Jesus say in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26?



I don't ignore Luke 13:3,5 but I understand that repentance precedes believing in Christ for salvation. Matthew 21:32 - For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. Mark 1:15 - Repent and believe the gospel. Acts 20:21 - Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. You reverse the order and reduce faith to mere "mental assent" belief in Christ (no different than the belief of demons) and reduce repentance to self reformation. Belief and confession are not two separate steps to salvation but chronologically together (Romans 10:8-10). Water baptism follows faith and conversion (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18).



I already explained Matthew 10:32-33 in context to you and Mark 16:16. You continue to ignore the second half of Mark 16:16 and (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) in favor of your watered down gospel. Only the Lord can open your eyes to the truth.



Did the thief BELIEVE in Him (Christ) to receive salvation? (John 3:16) Do we BELIEVE in Him (Christ) to receive salvation (Acts 16:31). YES.

You fail to understand there is NO burden of proof upon me. I am NOT using the thief to prove baptism is or is not necessary to salvation. The thief is NOT an example of NT salvation therefore it does not matter to me if he was baptized or not.

Since yourself and others ARE trying to use the thief as "proof" baptism is not essential to salvation then ALL the burden of proof is upon you all to prove the thief had never been baptized. So far NO ONE has produced a single verse that definitively, unambiguously states "the thief was never baptized" for such a verse does not exist, except in the minds of those with a theological bias against the bible teaching the necessity of water baptism.

The most you have been able to do so far is quote one or two verses and then CLAIM, nothing but CLAIM those verses "might", "maybe" "probably" prove the thief was never baptized. I produced verses (Mk 1:5, Lk 23:40) that "might", "maybe" "probably" prove the thief had been baptized. So the only argument you can now make is that your "mights", "maybes" and "probablys" trump mine when they do not. So you have no argument with the thief for you will never produce that definitive verse stating the thief was never baptized.


Heb 6 speaks of those that were Christians that fall away into a state where the continuously crucify and put to shame Christ. THeir continued crucify and putting to shame Christ does not in any way prove they were never Christians/baptized. Peter's denial of Christ does not prove he was never a disciple

Secondly, the thief was not saved by belief only for he was repentant so he cannot be used as proof believe only saves. Above you said you do not ignore Lk 13:3,5 and say one repents and believes. So did the theif repent and believe or have belief only?

Thirdly the thief did not, could not have the faith Rom 10:9,10 requires. The thief did not believe in his heart Christ hath been raised from the dead for Christ had not yet even died much less been raised from the dead.

Fourth, as shown many times already, Heb 9:16,17 shows the thief was NOT saved under Christ's NT gospel therefore is not an example of NT gospel salvation.

Fifth, when will one come forward and claim that Christ was on earth and personally forgave them of their sins as He did with the thief? The fact is no one can come forward and make this false claim for no one today is saved in the same manner as thief.