What Happens to an UNBAPTIZED believer?

[posthuman]

Re: What Happens to an UNBAPTIZED MAN WHO TRUSTS CHRIST AS SAVIOR?

if you don't act as though Jesus is Lord,
you either don't really 'believe' that He is, or you are a fool, yes?

So you don't agree with me that saving faith is trusting Christ as Savior, but you think saving faith is like the demons who believe that, believe certain facts? So those who believe that some creed is true are exercising saving faith, even if they don't trust Christ to save them?

no, i think i agree with you - that 'rote memorization of doctrine' is not 'belief' and belief that saves is belief that goes all the way down to the heart and moves us to action.

like this:
if someone is driving in their car, and sees the fuel gauge go to empty, but drives on passing gas station after gas station thinking that they will not run out of petrol,
then that person may 'agree' that the fuel gauge says empty -- but they do not believe that the car is almost out of gas, so they do not truly believe the message of the fuel gauge, even though they would not argue with what the dashboard says.
either this is not real 'belief' -- i.e. the 'dead faith' that James talks about,
or that person is a real fool!

i think that in all of us there is still understanding to be gained, knowledge to apprehend, and weakness in our flesh even when our spirit & mind know the truth - i know i can trust Him, and i know i should trust Him, but sometimes i find myself not doing so, and full of worry and doubt. that's why i say "i'm a fool!" and i don't think i'm that different from the rest of us.

people can be convinced in their mind, but not in their heart, and such 'belief' is not faith. it's double-mindedness, and only 'factual belief' -- if i agree that Jesus is the only One with power to save, but i don't trust Him to save me, and act as though it is true, i think that i don't believe He is Lord, in the way that i must believe in order to be saved - or i am ignorant of what i should do.

but like Paul i know the thing that i should do, and see that i don't do it, and i know what i should not do, and see myself doing the thing i hate -- what can i say? that i do not believe? then my heart would not convince me of sin - but it does, so i know i am a fool, and this is to the glory of Jesus, the Only Wise Son.

 

[SeaBass]

You keep defining belief as belief of facts, which is not the issue. The issue is trusting Christ as SAvior, not factual belief that something is true. You cannot quote one verse that says demons believe in Christ. Quote your verse, or retract.

All "belief only" is about is a mental acknowledgment of facts and nothing more. The devils, chief priests and Agrippa did not ACT upon those facts. Biblical belief taht saves is a work not a mere assent of the mind/acknowledgement of facts.

Mt 8:29 the devils know that Christ is the Son of God, that acknowledge that fact but DO NOTHING. Although they know that fact they will not obey Christ, Heb 5:9 will not do what Christ says to do, Lk 6:46 therefore their belief only in just the facts will not save them.

You posted " The issue is trusting Christ as SAvior..."

So is "trusting" Christ just an mental acknowledgement of facts or does trusting in the Lord mean one obediently obeys what the Lord said to do in repenting, confessing and submitting to baptism to be saved?

So is "trusting" in the Lord (1) doing no obedient works, just mental acknowledgement of facts or is "trusting" in the Lord (2) doing obedient works by doing what the Lord said to do, Lk 6:46? It's one or the other but cannot be both at the same time.

Do you contradict yourself? Didn't you say that believe includes water-baptism by synechdoche (nonsense)? You say "With belief only there in NO confession & No baptism. That is wrong, but where does the Bible say that what happens to those who believe and don't confess and are not baptized? Quote the verse.

It is YOU pushing the man-made teaching of belief only. The word "only" is an exclusionary word, it would exclude anything and everything else from being saved except for belief so it would exclude confession. I am simply pointing out that if "belief only" saves that means one can be saved without confessing Christ, that one can be saved while remaining in a state of denying Christ, which is not possible.

What is your proof that a man who trusts Christ as SAvior is in a state of denying Christ?
The question is What happens to a man who believes in Christ, but is not baptized. You are off track.

I am waiting for you to define what "trust" means. As I just posted above:

So is "trusting" Christ just an mental acknowledgement of facts or does trusting in the Lord mean one obediently obeys what the Lord said to do in repenting, confessing and submitting to baptism to be saved?

So is "trusting" in the Lord (1) doing no obedient works, just mental acknowledgement of facts or is "trusting" in the Lord (2) doing obedient works by doing what the Lord said to do, Lk 6:46? It's one or the other but cannot be both at the same time.

Where does the Bible say that? Quote a verse to that effect or retract.



Mt 10:32,33 "32 - Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33-But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven"

[

Your verse does not say "not confessing Christ is denying Christ." Right here you deny that Christ is only & sufficient Savior. You add human works.

And again, note that your scripture says nothing about persons who believe but are not baptized. It is off topic.

Mt 10:32,33 and Rom 10:9,10 if one does not confess Christ he is lost. Those that do not confess Christ, Christ will in turn deny them back, Mt 10:32,33. Therefore not confessing Christ = denying Christ.

Your SO word is not in the text. And it is an illogical conclusion. You have not proven that it is possible not to confess & also not to deny at the same time. And also, it is off topic. You have a passage which says nothing about believers in Christ who do not get baptized. I knew a guy working for Campus Crusade who went about confessing all the time, but was never baptized.

Are you going to try and argue that one who is NOT confessing Christ is actually accepting Christ and not denying Him? That NOT confessing Christ is NOT actually denying Him but is actually accepting Him???

Your theology blinds you to the simplest of things.

You distort the text. It doesn't say Agrippa was almost a Christian. It says Paul almost persuaded him. And the Acts passage says absolutely nothing about baptism, nor believing in Jesus. The topic is believers in Christ who do not get baptized. Agrippa II was not a believer in Christ in the text. Kindly stop adding to the text and twisting it. It seems obvious that you don't know what it means to believe in Jesus. The topic is not about persons who believe things about Jesus, but those who trust Him as SAvior.

Did Paul teachChrist to Agrippa? Yes. Paul said to Agrippa "I know thou believest". And how could Agrippa say "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" without believing in Christ? Can one become a Christian without belief in Christ? No.

So what? The word necessary does not occur in the text.
It says: 16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned."

The word "glue" doesn't occur in the text either.

The passages says:
If A & B, then C follows.
It also says, if no A, then not C.

It does not say, if not B, then not C.
It is simple logical fallacy to assert "if B, then not C.

Given: He who works hard will be rich. (he who believes will be saved).
Given: He who works hard & brushes his teeth will be rich. (He who believes & is baptized will be saved.)
Given: He who does not work hard will be poor (He who believes not will be damned).
False illogical conclusion: He who does not brush his teeth will be poor (He who is not baptized will be damned).

Again, the topic is, what happens to the man who trusts the Lord Jesus as SAvior, but does not get baptized?
Mk 16 does not say what happens to such a man. It does say what happens to the unbeliever.

The word "necessary" is not in Mk 16:16 but Jesus made BOTH belief and baptism necessary to salvation by putting both BEFORE salvation making them both conditions that must to be met to be saved.

I never said the word 'glue" was in the verse but did say the conjunction "and" acts as glue in tying belief to baptism making the two inseparable. That means if one does not have to be baptized to be saved then neither does he have to believe.

So Mark 16:16 remains a proof text that proves the unbaptized believer is lost.


You logic fails by trying to argue what Mk 16:16 does NOT say.

The stated premise is (1) belief + (2) baptism = (3) salvation then logically (1) does not equal (3). So the verse does not have to explicitly state "1 does not eqaul 3" for the premise (1+2=3) already proves 1 does not equal 3.

You may as well argue that demons & King Agrippa were baptized.

I am demonstrating the devils and Agrippa are examples of "belief only".

You pettifog. Your passage in Acts says absolutely nothing about unbaptized believers, which is the topic.




I don't have to argue anything to your tortuous claims, but just point out to you that the passage says nothing about unbaptized believers, which is the topic you are off of.

Again:
Again, then you must argue either:

1) those that "believed" in v44 are the ones that rejected Peter's word and rejected baptism. (not possible)
or
2) try and argue that those that "believed" in v44 accepted Peter's words but rejected baptism ( which is not possible for Peter's words COMMANDED baptism so they could not accept his words while rejecting baptism.)

I reaffirm the biblical position that one who has not been baptized is one who is rejecting the gospel message.

The topic is not the "gospel word."
The topic is what happens to unbaptized believers, but there are none in the passage & nothing said on that subject in the passage.

As shown from the bible unbaptized believers are lost, the unbaptized are the ones who are rejecting the gospel message.

An unbaptized believer is lost just as an impenitent, non-confessing, lost in his unforgivnen sins believer is lost.

Your tortuous arguments are off the subject. Neither of those verses mentioned above says one thing about unbaptized believers or what happens to them.



There is no onus on me. The onus is on the one who makes a claim about what happens to unbaptized believers. You can pettifog all day off topic, but you haven't quoted one verse about what happens to unbaptized believers. The topic is not about impenitents or deniers of Christ, nor unforgiven sins. The question is
What happens to unbaptized men who believe in Christ.



Again your word SO is illogical and not supported by the next.
Neither does "falls short" occur in the passage.
The passage says, If A & B, then C follows.
Thus if A & B, then the man goes to Heaven. (no mention of any other things in a list).
It says if not A, then not C.
It says nothing about what if A, but not B.

But plenty of other scriptures say, if A then C, with nothing about B.

Believe on the Lord Jesus & you shall be saved. this is a MUST I DO.
Salvation is guaranteed to the believer solely for believing. Thus nothing else is essential.

But the topic is, what happens to the believer who is not baptized.
Mk 16 says nothing about that. Neither do any of the rest of your passages.

You can say what you will, but you haven't show from scripture a thing about the unbaptized believer.



He was not baptized immediately he believed. He heard the offer:
Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved.
Now the question is, what would have happened to him if he had died before water-baptized?

You can dance & pettifog on this all day, but you have not quoted one verse that addresses that topic.

I gave you three examples of unbaptized believers, the devils, the chief preists and Agrippa. That settles the issue of the topic of this thread.


Was the jailer in Acts 16 baptized? Yes he was so there goes your belief only out the window. You have no valid argument from the bible.

 

[SeaBass]

There are no "unbaptized believers" for all believers when they confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead - they are baptized with holy Spirit.

No verse says anyone today is baptized with the Holy Spirit.

 

[posthuman]

No verse says anyone today is baptized with the Holy Spirit.

the word "baptize" is not translated in English. it's transliterated. the Greek word, as i understand it, literally means "to submerge or immerse" and is associated contextually with a very common practice among the Jews of purely ceremonial washing with water.

so what do we have when the John talks about 'walking in the spirit' ?

when Peter was explaining what had happened at the house of Cornelius (Acts 11), he spoke as though he understood what had happened to those that heard & believed was baptism by the Spirit, by Christ, who baptizes with spirit. so Peter did not understand Christ to mean that He only baptized the apostles, or only baptized those at pentecost this way - but all those who believe on the name of Jesus - not only Jews, but Gentiles also, and that justification, by God, not men, took place before they obediently took part in the physical custom of initiation and declaration of water baptism. in fact, before Peter even spoke with them, the scripture even calls these believers "disciples" - which is what the 'commission' so often quoted instructed the apostles to 'make' out of people from every nation.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

where is that promise?...the promise is....

Acts 2:38-39King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]38 [/SUP]Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


Acts 8:12-13King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP]But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he [God] that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. John 1:29-34

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38,39

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13

 

[Atwood]

What scripture do you base this off of ?

1 Cor 12:

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body [The Church universal], whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

 

[notuptome]

Since a man is saved by grace why would water baptism make any difference? Scripture does not say we are saved by water baptism. The Holy Spirit quickens us Ephesians 2 but water can only wash the outside and that is temporary.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Atwood]

All "belief only" is about is a mental acknowledgment of facts and nothing more.

That is a falsehood. Anyone can read the Opening of the Thread to see that you speak falsehood.

The devils, chief priests and Agrippa did not ACT upon those facts. Biblical belief taht saves is a work not a mere assent of the mind/acknowledgement of facts.

Wrong. Bible faith is resting in the Lord Jesus, & is contrasted with works (he who works not but believes). Not of works lest anyone should boast. Faith is the polar opposite of works.

Mt 8:29 the devils know that Christ is the Son of God, that acknowledge that fact but DO NOTHING. [/quote]

There is no question of salvation for demons, since Christ did not become a demon & die for demons. The so-called faith they have is belief that something is so. Saving faith is trusting the Savior. It is not doing something. It is polar opposite of works: "through faith . . . not of works."

You posted "The issue is trusting Christ as SAvior..."

So is "trusting" Christ just an mental acknowledgement of facts or does trusting in the Lord mean one obediently obeys what the Lord said to do in repenting, confessing and submitting to baptism to be saved?

It is neither. Trusting the SAvior needs no further definition. We all know what it is to trust someone. It has nothing to do with works, but is the opposite of works. Trust is what pisteuo means. It needs no definition.

It is YOU pushing the man-made teaching of belief only.

It is you who are off subject. The question is, what happens to believers who are unbaptized. The question is an embarrassment to heretics who can't find a verse of scripture that says an unbaptized believer is damned.

I am waiting for you to define what "trust" means.

Could it be that the Lord is waiting for you to trust Him -- or has He given up you & judicially hardened you?

I asked: "Where does the Bible say that? Quote a verse to that effect or retract."

And SeaBass cannot quote a verse that says to not confess = to deny.

Mt 10:32,33 and Rom 10:9,10 Do not days that not to confess = to deny. Anyone can read any see that. You tend to use words like SO & THEREFORE when you have not given a cogent argument.

Did Paul teach Christ to Agrippa? Yes. Paul said to Agrippa "I know thou believest". And how could Agrippa say "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" without believing in Christ? Can one become a Christian without belief in Christ? No.

Baloney. Paul asked Agrippa if he believed the prophets, "I know you believe." So what? Believing that the prophets spoke from God does not mean a person believes in the Son of God as SAvior. Agrippa is not an example of an unbaptized believer in Christ. Neither does "baptize" occur in the passage.

The word "necessary" is not in Mk 16:16 but Jesus made BOTH belief and baptism necessary to salvation by putting both BEFORE salvation making them both conditions that must to be met to be saved.

As pointed out before, this is a simple logical blunder. To say if A & B, then C & if not A, then not C; does not imply if not B, then not C.

I never said the word 'glue" was in the verse but did say the conjunction "and" acts as glue in tying belief to baptism making the two inseparable.

So then you argue for Spirit baptism!

But you speak, nonsense, "and" does not imply inseparable. "John and Mary got married." That doesn't prove they can't be separated. If you speak of water baptism, then there is definitely a separation in time. And if you insist they are inseparable, then you make it Spirit baptism, since only Spirit baptism happens at the same time as belief.

So Mark 16:16 remains a proof text that proves the unbaptized believer is lost.

The passage says that the unbeliever will be damned. But it does not say that of the unbaptized. It is no proof text. It says, IF A & B, THEN C. FROM THAT IT IS ILLOGICAL TO CONCLUDE, IF NOT B, THEN NOT C. Logic 101.

The stated premise is (1) belief + (2) baptism = (3) salvation then logically (1) does not equal (3). So the verse does not have to explicitly state "1 does not eqaul 3" for the premise (1+2=3) already proves 1 does not equal 3.

The = mark in not in the passage. You invent things. If 1 & 2, then 3. Logically that does not disprove that if 1 then 3. If a man eats beef & fish, he gets protein. That does not imply that if he only eats beef he will not get protein.
Your argument is illogical.
If a man eats beef & drinks sugar, he gets protein.
That does not imply that if he fails to drink sugar, he gets no protein.
Logic 101.

So if you say
If a man eats beef & drinks sugar, he gets protein.
But if a man does not eat beef, he gets no protein.
That does not imply that if a man does not drink sugar, he gets not protein.

Simple Logic 101.

"I reaffirm the biblical position that one who has not been baptized is one who is rejecting the gospel message."

I reject the weasel expression "gospel message." We are talking about what happens to unbaptized believers. Believing brings salvation (with nothing else added) over & over in the Bible. We are not talking about all the duties Christians have.

The issue is not rejecting the gospel message, the issue is what happens to the one who believes but does not get baptized. It is no use to go on about Acts 2, since Acts 2 has no such persons.

As shown from the bible unbaptized believers are lost/quote]

We still wait for a Bible verse that says that. You haven't given it.

An unbaptized believer is lost just as an impenitent, non-confessing, lost in his unforgivnen sins believer is lost.

So when a man trusts Christ as SAvior on Monday, he is lost until he gets dunked in the water on Saturday. Where does the Bible ever say such a thing? Nowhere.

I gave you three examples of unbaptized believers, the devils, the chief preists and Agrippa. That settles the issue of the topic of this thread.

Those are not examples of unbaptized persons who trusted Christ as SAvior. And I don't recall any verse about priest being unbaptized, yet trusted Christ, then went to Hell. When you cite devils, you immediately show that your argument is absurd.

Was the jailer in Acts 16 baptized? Yes he was so there goes your belief only out the window. You have no valid argument from the bible.

I didn't start this thread to argue anything, just to challenge people like you to prove that an unbaptized believer is damned -- which you cannot and have not.

The jailer in Acts 16 was given the answer to "what must I do to be saved" as Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved." Nothing about baptism was said in response to that question in the text. Nothing is out the window, except your illogic. Your claim would be that had the jailer died before he got dunked, he would have gone to Hell; then at the pearly gates we can see the jailer arguing: But the prophet said Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved." St Pete: "Tough luck. we had this extra condition on water baptism." Jailer: "But that is false advertising. I asked a straight question & got the answer to believe and be saved. I believed."

ou keep defining belief as belief of facts, which is not the issue. The issue is trusting Christ as SAvior, not factual belief that something is true. You cannot quote one verse that says demons believe in Christ. Quote your verse, or retract.


With belief only there is NO confession and No baptism.


Do you contradict yourself? Didn't you say that believe includes water-baptism by synechdoche (nonsense)? You say "With belief only there in NO confession & No baptism. That is wrong, but where does the Bible say that what happens to those who believe and don't confess and are not baptized? Quote the verse.


So can one with belief only be saved while in a state of denying Christ? No.


What is your proof that a man who trusts Christ as SAvior is in a state of denying Christ?
The question is What happens to a man who believes in Christ, but is not baptized. You are off track.


So the belief only person is lost without confession as he is without baptism.


Where does the Bible say that? Quote a verse to that effect or retract.

One either confesses Christ or he does not. Not confessing Christ is denying Christ:

Mt 10:32,33 "32 - Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33-But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven"

Your verse does not say "not confessing Christ is denying Christ." Right here you deny that Christ is only & sufficient Savior. You add human works.

And again, note that your scripture says nothing about persons who believe but are not baptized. It is off topic.


Confessing Christ in v32 is contrasted to denying Christ in v33. So not confessing = denying Christ. Those that will not confess Christ, Christ will deny them.


Your SO word is not in the text. And it is an illogical conclusion. You have not proven that it is possible not to confess & also not to deny at the same time. And also, it is off topic. You have a passage which says nothing about believers in Christ who do not get baptized. I knew a guy working for Campus Crusade who went about confessing all the time, but was never baptized.


Acts 26, Paul sermon to Agrippa included preaching Jesus Christ, verse 15-20. Agrippa response to Paul's sermon was "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Agrippa could not almost be a Christian without a knowledge of, belief in Jesus Christ. So Agrippa's 'belief only" in Christ left him to fall short of being a Christian....no repentance/no confession/no baptism




You distort the text. It doesn't say Agrippa was almost a Christian. It says Paul almost persuaded him. And the Acts passage says absolutely nothing about baptism, nor believing in Jesus. The topic is believers in Christ who do not get baptized.Agrippa II was not a believer in Christ in the text. Kindly stop adding to the text and twisting it. It seems obvious that you don't know what it means to believe in Jesus. The topic is not about persons who believe things about Jesus, but those who trust Him as SAvior.


Mk 16:16 does not allow salvation for an unbaptized believer.

Jesus made BOTH conditions of belief and baptism necessary to be saved. Jesus did not say he that believeth only is saved and baptism is optional.

It's not a claim but grammatical fact that the conjunction "and" is a connective conjunction:


So what? The word necessary does not occur in the text.
It says: 16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned."

The word "glue" doesn't occur in the text either.

The passages says:
If A & B, then C follows.
It also says, if no A, then not C.

It does not say, if not B, then not C.
It is simple logical fallacy to assert "if B, then not C.

Given: He who works hard will be rich. (he who believes will be saved).
Given: He who works hard & brushes his teeth will be rich. (He who believes & is baptized will be saved.)
Given: He who does not work hard will be poor (He who believes not will be damned).
False illogical conclusion: He who does not brush his teeth will be poor (He who is not baptized will be damned).

Again, the topic is, what happens to the man who trusts the Lord Jesus as SAvior, but does not get baptized?
Mk 16 does not say what happens to such a man. It does say what happens to the unbeliever.



Again, from the context of Acts 2:41-44, who were the ones that are said to have "believed" in verse 44?

1) the ones that accepted Peters words and were baptized?
2) the ones that rejected Peter's words and were not baptized?

You will not answer #1 for it is the obvious answer that proves that "believed" of v44 INCLUDESbeing baptized. You have yet to prove otherwise. You only have left to argue that those that rejected Peter's words and rejected baptism are the ones that believed which is truly fallacious. Or are you willing to argue those that rejected baptism accepted His words when his words COMMANDED baptism? If they rejected his words that commanded baptism then they obviously rejected baptism along with rejecting his words.


You may as well argue that demons & King Agrippa were baptized.

You pettifog. Your passage in Acts says absolutely nothing about unbaptized believers, which is the topic.



Again, then you must argue either:

1) those that "believed" in v44 are the ones that rejected Peter's word and rejected baptism. (not possible)
or
2) try and argue that those that "believed" in v44 accepted Peter's words but rejected baptism ( which is not possible for Peter's words COMMANDED baptism so they could not accept his words while rejecting baptism.)


I don't have to argue anything to your tortuous claims, but just point out to you that the passage says nothing about unbaptized believers, which is the topic you are off of.


Since #1 and #2 are impossible, then the only biblical explanation is rejecting baptism is rejecting the gospel word.




The topic is not the "gospel word."
The topic is what happens to unbaptized believers, but there are none in the passage & nothing said on that subject in the passage.


As seen from Acts 2:41,44 saving belief includes baptism. Since the bible also teaches repentance and confession saves, Acts 2:38; Rom 10:9,10 then a saving belief would also include repentance and confession.


Your tortuous arguments are off the subject. Neither of those verses mentioned above says one thing about unbaptized believers or what happens to them.


It is BELIEF ONLY that EXCLUDES repentance, confession and baptism so the onus is upon you to try and explain the impossible, that being, the impossibility in getting an impenitent, denier of Christ in his unremitted/unforgiven sins saved by belief only.


There is no onus on me. The onus is on the one who makes a claim about what happens to unbaptized believers. You can pettifog all day off topic, but you haven't quoted one verse about what happens to unbaptized believers. The topic is not about impenitents or deniers of Christ, nor unforgiven sins. The question is
What happens to unbaptized men who believe in Christ.


Mark 16:16. Jesus put BOTH belief AND baptism BEFORE salvation. So belief without baptism falls short of "saved"


Again your word SO is illogical and not supported by the next.
Neither does "falls short" occur in the passage.
The passage says, If A & B, then C follows.
Thus if A & B, then the man goes to Heaven. (no mention of any other things in a list).
It says if not A, then not C.
It says nothing about what if A, but not B.

But plenty of other scriptures say, if A then C, with nothing about B.

Believe on the Lord Jesus & you shall be saved. this is a MUST I DO.
Salvation is guaranteed to the believer solely for believing. Thus nothing else is essential.

But the topic is, what happens to the believer who is not baptized.
Mk 16 says nothing about that. Neither do any of the rest of your passages.

You can say what you will, but you haven't show from scripture a thing about the unbaptized believer.


Was the jailer in Acts 16 baptized?


He was not baptized immediately he believed. He heard the offer:
Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved.
Now the question is, what would have happened to him if he had died before water-baptized?

You can dance & pettifog on this all day, but you have not quoted one verse that addresses that topic.

 

[Atwood]

Since a man is saved by grace why would water baptism make any difference? Scripture does not say we are saved by water baptism. The Holy Spirit quickens us Ephesians 2 but water can only wash the outside and that is temporary.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

So you say the Bible does not say we are saved by water baptism.

A mere minor point; don't confuse them with the facts.

 

[notuptome]

No verse says anyone today is baptized with the Holy Spirit.

This is a serious error and cause me to question how anyone who makes such a statement could consider themselves saved. This is a cardinal doctrine of Christianity.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Atwood]

No verse says anyone today is baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Cor is written to all believers in every place, including 21st Century. It is paradigmatic for today:

This passage is relevant to today. We are still in the Church age:


For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body. 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased him.

 

[notuptome]

So you say the Bible does not say we are saved by water baptism.

A mere minor point; don't confuse them with the facts.

Yep saved first then water baptized. Philip and the eunuch in Acts. There are more important issues to address. No Holy Spirit baptism is a major concern.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[JesusIsAll]

This is a serious error and cause me to question how anyone who makes such a statement could consider themselves saved. This is a cardinal doctrine of Christianity.

Makes you want to take a break, check that you're still on planet earth.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

[Atwood]

Re: What Happens to an UNBAPTIZED MAN WHO TRUSTS CHRIST AS SAVIOR?

belief that saves is belief that goes all the way down to the heart and moves us to action.

It is easy to prove that saving faith is non-works. So "action" is a dubious word here. Saving faith is resting in the Savior, resting from one's works. Faith (no works) > Salvation > Works /actions follow. If works/actions don't follow, there was no faith, but faith is not works.

 

[newbirth]

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he [God] that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. John 1:29-34

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38,39

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13

very nice verses but none states what you claim
There are no "unbaptized believers" for all believers when they confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead - they are baptized with holy Spirit.

Acts 19:4-6King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[SUP]6 [/SUP]And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

very nice verses but none states what you claim
There are no "unbaptized believers" for all believers when they confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead - they are baptized with holy Spirit.

Acts 19:4-6King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[SUP]6 [/SUP]And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

So this is supposed to negate the scriptures I posted? It actually verifies - "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance" = water.

Acts 19:2-6 He [Paul] said unto them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? [Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit - He expected that they had or he wouldn't have asked] . . .
2b) And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. [They had not been taught concerning the Holy Spirit]. Now wonder what Paul did since they had not so much as heard about the Holy Spirit? Maybe he taught them?????
3) Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [What was John's baptism? Water
In that little section - Paul seems to indicate that there is another baptism.]
4) Then he says - John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance - [which would have been water baptism] and he told them that they must believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus -
5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
In those verses Paul is making a distinction - Unto what baptism? John's baptism - water - told them they must believe on him which should come after him [John] - who was coming after John? and who would baptize with Holy Spirit? Christ Jesus.
6) Paul laid his hands on them - probably prayed for them to have understanding and the Holy Spirit came upon them. The Holy Spirit did not come from God's hands but these men now had a fuller understanding of the Holy Spirit and received it into manifestation.

Just like in the record in Acts 18:24-26
24) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
What do you think they taught him? I believe they taught him regarding the baptism of the holy Spirit - why else would this section point out that he only knew the baptism of John?

People can only go as far as they are taught.

 

[Mac4Yuma]

Glad to see that someone understands the truth of the resurrections!

Thanks and back at you on the subject. I have been checking out things here and I do not seem to fit in yet forums like this are getting hard to find so I have been here longer then expected. I loved the old AOL and I run it as off-line to read all the old forums to bring back the old days. Delphi is dieing when it comes to Bible forums that are any good so I am shopping on the Internet for one that I can fit into.

Take Care
Mac

 

[Atwood]

Finally the Definitive Devil Doctrine!

OK, so now we have gotten the definitive declaration on unbaptized believers (believers defined as those who believe in Christ as Savior, trust Christ as Savior:

The # 1 example given by theological genius is devils;
Why anyone can see that these are unbaptized believers!
So what happens to them defines the doctrine. It is so obvious that devils trust Christ as Savior, but don't get water baptized!

(Hold on there, do we ignore the possibility that they get baptized to relieve the flames; & we know how they love water from the parable about the cast out devil who didn't like waterless places!).

I would ROFL from absurdity, if this were not so tragic!

 

[newbirth]

So this is supposed to negate the scriptures I posted? It actually verifies - "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance" = water.

it is to negate your opinion

Acts 19:2-6 He [Paul] said unto them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? [Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit - He expected that they had or he wouldn't have asked] . . .

that is why he then asked

Unto what then were ye baptized?....we must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ when we believe....to receive the HS

2b) And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. [They had not been taught concerning the Holy Spirit]. Now wonder what Paul did since they had not so much as heard about the Holy Spirit? Maybe he taught them?????
3) Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [What was John's baptism? Water
In that little section - Paul seems to indicate that there is another baptism.]
4) Then he says - John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance - [which would have been water baptism] and he told them that they must believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus -
5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

well the scripture tells us what happen here in vs 5 do you suppose they were baptised in the name of out Lord Jesus in something other than water???????

In those verses Paul is making a distinction - Unto what baptism? John's baptism - water - told them they must believe on him which should come after him [John] - who was coming after John? and who would baptize with Holy Spirit? Christ Jesus.
6) Paul laid his hands on them - probably prayed for them to have understanding and the Holy Spirit came upon them. The Holy Spirit did not come from God's hands but these men now had a fuller understanding of the Holy Spirit and received it into manifestation.

It refers back to Peter in Acts 2:38-39.......that is the promise.....

Just like in the record in Acts 18:24-26
24) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
What do you think they taught him? I believe they taught him regarding the baptism of the holy Spirit - why else would this section point out that he only knew the baptism of John?

It is for us to know we must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ...to receive the HS

People can only go as far as they are taught.

I agree .....but some are comfortable where whey are...so they will never grow....

If someone is comfortable with their doctrine of man and feel safe in it and they reject the truth their blood is on their hands....

 

[peacefulbeliever]

If someone is comfortable with their doctrine of man and feel safe in it and they reject the truth their blood is on their hands....

Yes that is true.

And some are comfortable with the washing of water by men and not in the living water by Christ Jesus which He promised he would baptize with . . . . . with the coming of the greater [mightier] the lesser is done away.

There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized you with water: BUT he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit. Mark 1:7,8