Baptism Essential to Salvation

[SeaBass]

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



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.

You have shown yourself to consistently ignore the "and" in Mk 16:16a. The "and" has the joining power in connecting 'believeth' to 'be baptized' and they CANNOT BE SEPARATED.

There is a difference in 1) explaining what a verse says/means and 2) changing the verse to fit a theological bias. You have demonstrated you have no interest in #1 but continue to follow #2.

It is easily proven you follow #2 by the fact it has been shown you numerous times that in Mk 16a Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism and baptism is a prerequisite to salvation. Since Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism that means the UNBELEIVER is unbaptized. So in Mk 16:16b when Jesus said "he that believeth not" the phrase "believeth not" ALREADY INCLUDES not being baptized since the unbeliever cannot be baptized.

Another proof you follow #2 is you continue to ignore the conjunction "and". That conjunction makes belief AND baptism of equal importance and both come BEFORE "saved". The "and" means if baptism does not save then neither does belief. You continue time and time and time again ignore this little connective conjunction for it gets in your way. So you have no other option but to try to separate the two because of a theological bias not because of any legitimate theological, grammatical argument. And you closed your eyes and ears to what these verses are saying and continue to offer up the same flawed arguments over and over and over.

 

[SeaBass]

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?


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).

Straw man argument.

You try to pass this off as a straw man when it is not.

You used flawed grammatical arguments on Acts 2:38 to change it to fit you personal bias, so what kind of grammatical gymnastics will you use to prove Jon's baptism is not for remission of sins? Christ's baptism replaced John's and if John's was for remission of sins so was Christ's, else you have John's baptism a necessity and not Christ's. The phrase "for (eis) the remission of sins" means 'in order to obtain, to procure'.

 

[newbirth]

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?

That is not a question it is an ultimatum....the teaching is
[SUP]5 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


[SUP]11 [/SUP]I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:.....

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.......

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;.....

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

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.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

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).

John 3:5 born of water and born of spirit...why would he mention water referring to spirit then say spirit again? So he is saying you must be born of spirit and of the spirit?
Ephesians 5:26....speaking of the Church as a body...
Titus 3:5 .....by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; baptismal regeneration,and spiritual renewing

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.

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life...... By baptism we are buried with him into death. Were you raised up out of the water like Christ was raised from the dead to walk in newness of life? that is born of the water....

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.

Where did you get the idea that living water is baptism...the baptism of repentance is for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...That is the promise...If God does it differently some places are you going to repremand him? Who are you to question God?
[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.

[SUP]7 [/SUP]And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
[SUP]9 [/SUP]But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
Now as a believer in Christ, Do you think the disciples just preached ...repent, repent, repent, or the gospel as they were taught?

 

[2Thewaters]

that is not biblical

show me a bible verse that says we should NOT get water baptized...

 

[2Thewaters]

The spirit is only to the obedientJesus
said follow me

Jesus was water baptized
even though John said he was one who need not be, Jesus said YES we must fulfill ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS


believe the bible

 

[2Thewaters]

Philip and the eunich

stopped and went down into the river

and got baptized.

simple

the gospel of repentance

to the whole world.

by water and the blood

 

[2Thewaters]

so much false Bible twisting to make people lost and following Men

Jesus said don't eat the apple
Satan said SO MUCH FALSE INFORMATION, YOU CAN EAT THE APPLE


same thing here.

You must be water baptized or you are not bible obedient.

 

[2Thewaters]

I follow Jesus
I follow him into the wter

you don't have to
everyone you teach not to follow Jesus you will be responsible for their lost soul


satan just changes one thing and a soul is lost

Jesus says keep the Sabbath
and satan says, no, another day is fine

who is your God?
the one you follow.

As for me and my house we will serve the word of God.

 

[Alligator]

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.

To my knowledge the post you refer to is the only one that I have not answered that you have sent to me dkrectly. So if it makes you feel better to accuse me of copping out, be my guest. I,will start off by saying that I will do something I have never seen you do, and that is admit there are some things I don't know. So part odd my responses will be my opinion, but based on my understanding of the scriptures. Of course you are well aware of this and I know what you are up to.

i believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit involves a complete overwhelming of the Spirit such as given to the apostles so that could perform miracles so that the unbelieving Jews might believe. If Holy Spirit baptism were available for us today, we could do like the apostles and heal the sick raise the dead etc. We all receive the Holy Spirit when we are converted, however, it is not in the same "measure"" that the apostles received.

In Acts 2:38, I believe the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit itself. Although this is Subject to speculation. The Holy Spirit, mentioned and Acts 10:45 is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that I have already mentiond.



Rather than quote something off the top of my head, I need to do a little research before I respond to the rest of your post. Now I'm sure you will consider that a copout.

 

[mailmandan]

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.

If John's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4) obtained the remission of sins directly through water baptism (dipped or condemned) then it does matter whether or not the thief was baptized (based on your water salvation argument). The thief died on the cross after receiving Christ through faith but was unable to get water baptized. You cannot prove that he ever was a baptized disciple of Christ before he was crucified and his rotten fruit prior to his confession of faith just before he died is heavily against it.

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.

I already showed you that being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus (which goes way beyond having a weak moment and temporarily denying that you know Jesus out of fear for your life) along with the chief priests and elders is not the fruit of repentance/faith. That is proof enough for me. I have that and you have nothing but speculation. Where does the Bible teach that whoever is not water baptized will not be saved? You seem to have more faith in baptism than you do in Christ.

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.

These verses prove more than simply might, maybe. This evidence proves that it's highly unlikely that he was a baptized disciple of Christ prior to his crucifixion. You shall know them by their fruit.

I produced verses (Mk 1:5, Lk 23:40) that "might", "maybe" "probably" prove the thief had been baptized.

Luke 23:40 only proves that thief finally repented and placed his faith in Christ AFTER he was crucified as a thief, blasphemed, mocked and shook his head at Jesus along with the chief priests and elders. The two thieves were in the same boat up until one thief repented and the other one did not. You don't have much of a maybe. You have highly unlikely.

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.

My highly likely trumps your highly unlikely. His rotten fruit prior to his repentance/faith is proof enough for me.

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

Hebrews 6 does not support your argument for the thief previously being a disciple of Christ, falling away, then repenting and getting saved all over again. Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance. I've heard three different interpretations for this passage of scripture, but this is a whole other thread.

Secondly, the thief was not saved by belief only for he was repentant so he cannot be used as proof believe only saves.

I don't teach that the thief was saved by belief only in that sense. Belief without repentance is not saving belief. We must first repent "change our mind" about our sinful position and any form of self-trust in works, religious tradition, etc. followed by a trusting in the finished work of Christ which alone has the power to save us. Repentance and belief in Christ for salvation are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. Since you merely define belief as "mental assent" and place repentance after belief and define it a self reformation, you remain confused on this subject. You are also confused about what James means by "faith only". James did not say what good is it if a man ACTUALLY HAS FAITH but has not produced any works yet. He said, what good is it if a man CLAIMS TO HAVE FAITH but he has NO works.

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?

The thief repented and believed in that order. Not in your reversed order.

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.

The thief had faith that Christ could save him. He trusted in Christ to save him. You sound like a dispensationalist here.

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.

Can we find Christ's NT gospel message in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26? What did Christ tell us to do to receive eternal life? Paul said the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16).

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.

Maybe not personally standing next to them in the flesh, but the thief was still saved through faith and we are still saved through faith. Whether Christ is standing next to us in the flesh when this happens or He is in heaven, WE ARE ALL STILL SAVED THROUGH FAITH.

 

[mailmandan]

You have shown yourself to consistently ignore the "and" in Mk 16:16a. The "and" has the joining power in connecting 'believeth' to 'be baptized' and they CANNOT BE SEPARATED.

You continue to ignore that Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned." He that believes and is baptized will be saved" (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." Where is this joining power with "and" in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6;29,40,47, 11:25,26. *Hermeneutics. The "and" actually makes a distinction between believing and getting baptized AFTERWARDS. They received the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17; 16:31). Believing in Him was accomplished BEFORE water baptism and what does John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 ALL say? What happened to baptism?

There is a difference in 1) explaining what a verse says/means and 2) changing the verse to fit a theological bias. You have demonstrated you have no interest in #1 but continue to follow #2.

I have no problem with #1, but Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Jesus said nothing about baptized or condemned. Your theological bias causes you to have no interest in #2 or John 3:15,16,18; 5:24, 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26.

It is easily proven you follow #2 by the fact it has been shown you numerous times that in Mk 16a Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism and baptism is a prerequisite to salvation.

The second half of Mark 16:16 does not make the lack of baptism a cause of condemnation so it also does not make baptism a prerequisite to salvation and neither does John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26.

Since Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism that means the UNBELEIVER is unbaptized.

General cases, but there are still UNBELIEVERS (who think they are believers) that get baptized anyway because that's what they are trusting in for salvation.

So in Mk 16:16b when Jesus said "he that believeth not" the phrase "believeth not" ALREADY INCLUDES not being baptized since the unbeliever cannot be baptized.

FALSE. This is your biased opinion to support your biased theology. There are unbelievers who still get baptized. I was an unbeliever the first time that I was baptized several years ago. Didn't realize it then (I didn't know any better at the time), but I sure realize it now!

Another proof you follow #2 is you continue to ignore the conjunction "and". That conjunction makes belief AND baptism of equal importance and both come BEFORE "saved".

Again, (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief, as Jesus said in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 that you continue to ignore. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

The "and" means if baptism does not save then neither does belief.

If you ignore the second half of the verse. What does the "and" mean in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26? OOPS! There is no "and" or baptism. Now what? Try to "shoe horn" baptism into those verses? That would be flawed hermeneutics.

You continue time and time and time again ignore this little connective conjunction for it gets in your way.

It doesn't get in my way at all, but the second half of Mark 16:16 and John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 gets in your way so you continue to ignore them.

So you have no other option but to try to separate the two because of a theological bias not because of any legitimate theological, grammatical argument. And you closed your eyes and ears to what these verses are saying and continue to offer up the same flawed arguments over and over and over.

That statement is the EPITOME of irony! When will you BELIEVE? (John 3:16,18; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 4:5; 1 Corinthians 1:21).

 

[mailmandan]

Where did you get the idea that living water is baptism

When did I say that living water is baptism? I said that living water is not water baptism in post #895. It truly amazes me to see how everything that I explained to you in that post just went right over your head!

[SUP]13 [/SUP]And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
Now as a believer in Christ, Do you think the disciples just preached ...repent, repent, repent, or the gospel as they were taught?

It's repent and believe the gospel. They did not preach salvation by works. I already explained those other verses in other posts on baptism that continue to trip you up but I can see that what I said went right over your head as well.

 

[mailmandan]

To my knowledge the post you refer to is the only one that I have not answered that you have sent to me dkrectly. So if it makes you feel better to accuse me of copping out, be my guest. I will start off by saying that I will do something I have never seen you do, and that is admit there are some things I don't know. So part odd my responses will be my opinion, but based on my understanding of the scriptures. Of course you are well aware of this and I know what you are up to.

Thank you for your honesty. I never claimed to know everything about everything (know it all).

i believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit involves a complete overwhelming of the Spirit such as given to the apostles so that could perform miracles so that the unbelieving Jews might believe. If Holy Spirit baptism were available for us today, we could do like the apostles and heal the sick raise the dead etc. We all receive the Holy Spirit when we are converted, however, it is not in the same "measure"" that the apostles received.

Now I see where the confusion is. You call receiving the ability to perform miracles and heal the sick the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." I call it being filled with the Spirit and receiving the gift of miracles and healing from the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:4 - Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit ; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues ;to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

These are all gifts from the Holy Spirit, not the gift of the Holy Spirit Himself (Acts 2:38; 10:45). In 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul said that by one Spirit we were ALL baptized into one body...the body of Christ. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Paul also said, 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? The answer is NO, but all who are in the body of Christ have been baptized by one Spirit into one body.

In Acts 2:38, I believe the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit itself.

Amen!

Although this is Subject to speculation. The Holy Spirit, mentioned and Acts 10:45 is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that I have already mentiond.

Thank you for your honesty. I believe the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Spirit Himself in Acts 2:38 AND Acts 10:45. Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit for those who have received the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). As I have shown you above, there is a difference between receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit Himself (baptized by one Spirit into one body) and a gift from the Holy Spirit.

Rather than quote something off the top of my head, I need to do a little research before I respond to the rest of your post. Now I'm sure you will consider that a copout.

That was not a copout at all! I commend you for your honesty and for answering my question. What do you know, you and I have a civilized conversation!

 

[newbirth]

When did I say that living water is baptism? I said that living water is not water baptism in post #895. It truly amazes me to see how everything that I explained to you in that post just went right over your head!

I am not saying you said it ...but the way you put it as if it is something I believe

It's repent and believe the gospel. They did not preach salvation by works. I already explained those other verses in other posts on baptism that continue to trip you up but I can see that what I said went right over your head as well

Here it is again you are implying I believe salvation is by works...I keep telling you we are saved by grace through faith (that is continuing) and faith without works is dead. When you are saved you are created unto good works. No good works? Still saved? unto what? Good believing?
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

[SUP]19 [/SUP]Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


.

salvation is a process that starts when we are born again and ends when we die or Christ returns...While we are alive we are urged unto holiness. We can do nothing after we die. But when Christ returns he is coming for a church without spot or wrinkle. So as the scripture says we have to make our calling and election sure...
2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

 

[notuptome]

salvation is a process that starts when we are born again and ends when we die or Christ returns...While we are alive we are urged unto holiness. We can do nothing after we die. But when Christ returns he is coming for a church without spot or wrinkle. So as the scripture says we have to make our calling and election sure...
2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Salvation is not a process but an event. It is taking that which is dead in trespasses and sin and imparting new life, Spiritual life, that was lost when sin entered. Salvation does not end at death or the return of Christ. Salvation is eternal, eternal life. It might appear that you confuse sanctification with salvation but sanctification while a process is completed at death or the return of Christ but it does not end any more than salvation ever ends. No wonder you are mixed up in your doctrine. I can see from your incorrect perspective how water baptism could be more important than it is from a biblical perspective.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

You have shown yourself to consistently ignore the "and" in Mk 16:16a. The "and" has the joining power in connecting 'believeth' to 'be baptized' and they CANNOT BE SEPARATED.

There is a difference in 1) explaining what a verse says/means and 2) changing the verse to fit a theological bias. You have demonstrated you have no interest in #1 but continue to follow #2.

It is easily proven you follow #2 by the fact it has been shown you numerous times that in Mk 16a Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism and baptism is a prerequisite to salvation. Since Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism that means the UNBELEIVER is unbaptized. So in Mk 16:16b when Jesus said "he that believeth not" the phrase "believeth not" ALREADY INCLUDES not being baptized since the unbeliever cannot be baptized.

Another proof you follow #2 is you continue to ignore the conjunction "and". That conjunction makes belief AND baptism of equal importance and both come BEFORE "saved". The "and" means if baptism does not save then neither does belief. You continue time and time and time again ignore this little connective conjunction for it gets in your way. So you have no other option but to try to separate the two because of a theological bias not because of any legitimate theological, grammatical argument. And you closed your eyes and ears to what these verses are saying and continue to offer up the same flawed arguments over and over and over.

The long ending of Mark has long been discounted by serious bible scholars as an errant addition by a zealous scribe. Doctrines that rely on this passage are at best dubious. No more trustworthy than drinking deadly poisons or handling vipers.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[SeaBass]

The long ending of Mark has long been discounted by serious bible scholars as an errant addition by a zealous scribe. Doctrines that rely on this passage are at best dubious. No more trustworthy than drinking deadly poisons or handling vipers.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The ending of Mark is just as genuine as the rest of the NT:

Apologetics Press - Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?

 

[SeaBass]

You continue to ignore that Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned." He that believes and is baptized will be saved" (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." Where is this joining power with "and" in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6;29,40,47, 11:25,26. *Hermeneutics. The "and" actually makes a distinction between believing and getting baptized AFTERWARDS. They received the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17; 16:31). Believing in Him was accomplished BEFORE water baptism and what does John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 ALL say? What happened to baptism?



I have no problem with #1, but Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Jesus said nothing about baptized or condemned. Your theological bias causes you to have no interest in #2 or John 3:15,16,18; 5:24, 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26.



The second half of Mark 16:16 does not make the lack of baptism a cause of condemnation so it also does not make baptism a prerequisite to salvation and neither does John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26.



General cases, but there are still UNBELIEVERS (who think they are believers) that get baptized anyway because that's what they are trusting in for salvation.



FALSE. This is your biased opinion to support your biased theology. There are unbelievers who still get baptized. I was an unbeliever the first time that I was baptized several years ago. Didn't realize it then (I didn't know any better at the time), but I sure realize it now!



Again, (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief, as Jesus said in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 that you continue to ignore. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."



If you ignore the second half of the verse. What does the "and" mean in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26? OOPS! There is no "and" or baptism. Now what? Try to "shoe horn" baptism into those verses? That would be flawed hermeneutics.



It doesn't get in my way at all, but the second half of Mark 16:16 and John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 gets in your way so you continue to ignore them.



That statement is the EPITOME of irony! When will you BELIEVE? (John 3:16,18; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 4:5; 1 Corinthians 1:21).

The subject of first clause has nothing to do with the subject of second clause.

The first clause deals with the subject of salvation and it is given two requirements: belief and baptism.

The second clause deals with the different subject of condemnation and has only one requirement: unbelief.

No one can mix and match requirements for two the different subjects. Therefore unbelief is the only requirement necessary to be met to be condemned. And since Jesus made belief a PREREQUISITE to baptism that automatically means the unbeliever is unbaptized. Therefore in the Mk 16;16b, since the phrase "he that believeth not" ALREADY AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDES the unbaptized then it would be pointless and redundant for Jesus to say "he that believeth not and is not baptized due to his unbelief is condemned".

Therefore there is no such thing as a baptized unbeliever. An unbeliever can be dipped in water and get all wet, but he is still lost and unbaptized according to Christ's own words. Infants can be dipped but they are just getting wet for baptism does not do anything for an unbelieving infant - (which has no sins to be remitted anyway)

You are STILL are ignoring the power of connective conjunction "and" that ties belief to baptism. You argument fails on many levels but fails here in your continued attempt to separate the two. Since the "and" joins the two making them BOTH of EQUAL IMPORTANCE AND NECESSITY Therefore if one need not be baptized to be saved then one need not believe either. Again, trying to mix or match qualification of the two different subjects cannot be done and cannot get rid of the "and".

Your argument is Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism.

Again unbelief = unbaptized. You may have been dipped in water as an unbeliever but you were never biblically baptized as an unbeliever per Christ's own words.

 

[SeaBass]

If John's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4) obtained the remission of sins directly through water baptism (dipped or condemned) then it does matter whether or not the thief was baptized (based on your water salvation argument). The thief died on the cross after receiving Christ through faith but was unable to get water baptized. You cannot prove that he ever was a baptized disciple of Christ before he was crucified and his rotten fruit prior to his confession of faith just before he died is heavily against it.



I already showed you that being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus (which goes way beyond having a weak moment and temporarily denying that you know Jesus out of fear for your life) along with the chief priests and elders is not the fruit of repentance/faith. That is proof enough for me. I have that and you have nothing but speculation. Where does the Bible teach that whoever is not water baptized will not be saved? You seem to have more faith in baptism than you do in Christ.



These verses prove more than simply might, maybe. This evidence proves that it's highly unlikely that he was a baptized disciple of Christ prior to his crucifixion. You shall know them by their fruit.



Luke 23:40 only proves that thief finally repented and placed his faith in Christ AFTER he was crucified as a thief, blasphemed, mocked and shook his head at Jesus along with the chief priests and elders. The two thieves were in the same boat up until one thief repented and the other one did not. You don't have much of a maybe. You have highly unlikely.



My highly likely trumps your highly unlikely. His rotten fruit prior to his repentance/faith is proof enough for me.



Hebrews 6 does not support your argument for the thief previously being a disciple of Christ, falling away, then repenting and getting saved all over again. Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance. I've heard three different interpretations for this passage of scripture, but this is a whole other thread.



I don't teach that the thief was saved by belief only in that sense. Belief without repentance is not saving belief. We must first repent "change our mind" about our sinful position and any form of self-trust in works, religious tradition, etc. followed by a trusting in the finished work of Christ which alone has the power to save us. Repentance and belief in Christ for salvation are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. Since you merely define belief as "mental assent" and place repentance after belief and define it a self reformation, you remain confused on this subject. You are also confused about what James means by "faith only". James did not say what good is it if a man ACTUALLY HAS FAITH but has not produced any works yet. He said, what good is it if a man CLAIMS TO HAVE FAITH but he has NO works.



The thief repented and believed in that order. Not in your reversed order.



The thief had faith that Christ could save him. He trusted in Christ to save him. You sound like a dispensationalist here.



Can we find Christ's NT gospel message in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26? What did Christ tell us to do to receive eternal life? Paul said the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16).



Maybe not personally standing next to them in the flesh, but the thief was still saved through faith and we are still saved through faith. Whether Christ is standing next to us in the flesh when this happens or He is in heaven, WE ARE ALL STILL SAVED THROUGH FAITH.

...and in this long post you never presented me with the verse that definitively says the "thief was never baptized". You can still only offer "possibly" or "maybe" and CLAIM your "maybes" and "possiblys" are "proof"


Heb 6 and Peter denying Christ is NO DIFFERENT than your argument about the thief mocking Christ. The thief mocking CHrist cannot "prove" he was never a disciple no more than Peter denying Christ or those fallen Christians crucifying and putting to shame Christ proves they were never disciples.


So far you have given your OPINION on whether the thief was baptized or not, no proof at all. Your opinion is not proof no how much you claim it is.

 

[notuptome]

The ending of Mark is just as genuine as the rest of the NT:

Apologetics Press - Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?

Given the source I continue to suspect the genuine ending has been lost to posterity. The earliest manuscripts do not have the long ending and there are stylistic concerns evident as well. No scripture may be seen as conflicting with other scriptures. It all must fit together in precise order to be of God. I understand that you must have it to support your baptismal regeneration ideas but salvation is by grace and not by water baptism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger