Baptisms

[notuptome]

What part of my statement is untrue? The fact that the Corinthians were indeed baptized, or that 15:1-4 does not exclude water baptism, or that the words baptism, confession, and repentance are not mentioned in this text?

Come on professor. The gospel is the good news regarding salvation is come to the world in the promised Messiah Jesus Christ. It is a fulfillment of God's promise to provide a Redeemer it is not a given set of rites and ceremonies that man must fulfill.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Don't fall for the "baiting" and avoid them....

Here, I fixed it for ya...

Don't f̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶"̶b̶a̶i̶t̶i̶n̶g̶"̶ try to answer questions that we can't answer, which would expose the fallacy of our position, and avoid them...

 

[oldhermit]

Come on professor. The gospel is the good news regarding salvation is come to the world in the promised Messiah Jesus Christ. It is a fulfillment of God's promise to provide a Redeemer it is not a given set of rites and ceremonies that man must fulfill.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You accused me of saying something that was untrue when I made this statement - "The fact is, that these had all been baptized. All you have to do to determine this is read chapter one. Chapter fifteen does not exclude water baptism any more than it excludes faith, confession, or repentance which it also does not mention."

What part of my statement is untrue? The fact that the Corinthians were indeed baptized, or that 15:1-4 does not exclude water baptism, or that the words baptism, confession, and repentance are not mentioned in this text? If what I said is untrue, then what part of this is untrue?

Incidentally, I am not, not have I ever been a professor.

 

[Grace777x70]

This scriptures applies to all "baiting" from proven people that spread strife and divisions by their falsehood.

Titus 3:9-11 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

[SUP]10 [/SUP] Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,

[SUP]11 [/SUP] knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I think the argument over baptism is about one main thing, justification by faith alone.

If a person includes baptism as a condition or requirement of salvation, then something other than faith saves us.

Is baptism a command? Yes. Does it add to salvation, in the sense that an unbaptized person isn't saved? No. Is there any reason why a healthy believer who has the opportunity should not be baptized? No. Will a bedridden person who places their faith in Jesus Christ, without being baptized, be saved? Yes.

Did I receive the Holy Spirit when I placed my faith in Christ, 4 months before I was baptized, despite the false baptismal regeneration view my church held? Yes. Do I think those who are rebelling against the command to be baptized are immature or possibly unsaved? Yes. But, new believers by definition are immature and need to grow up in the Lord.

The bolded above is based on a fallacy of equivocation. Abraham was justified by his faith (Romans 4:9), but he was justified by his work (James 2:21).

 

[garee]

The bolded above is based on a fallacy of equivocation. Abraham was justified by his faith (Romans 4:9), but he was justified by his faith (James 2:21).

The faith in that verse is in respect to the faith of Christ, the anointing Holy Spirit of God who worked in Abraham to both will and do the good pleasure of God making His work of faith that worked in Abram perfect/complete. It why it is called imputed, not of Abraham

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.Jam 2:22

The other kind of faith is something we work towards him it provides no grace and is consdiered dead . A person can slash water on themselves all day(baptism) and at the most it shows is once is not enogh .They would fall into the boat where men crucify Christ over and over subjecting him to public shame as if one work of His faith as a labor of his love was not enough to satisfy the just law of God . Christ is both the just and justifier.

H2o justifies nothing as a dead ceremonial law pertaining to the flesh, as the scriptures inform us we must move on from there.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.And this will we do, if God permit. Heb 6:1

Amen?

 

[mailmandan]

The bolded above is based on a fallacy of equivocation. Abraham was justified by his faith (Romans 4:9), but he was justified by his work (James 2:21).

James is not using the word "justified" to mean "accounted as righteous" but is "shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3).

 

[Chuckt]

The faith in that verse is in respect to the faith of Christ, the anointing Holy Spirit of God who worked in Abraham to both will and do the good pleasure of God making His work of faith that worked in Abram perfect/complete. It why it is called imputed, not of Abraham

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.Jam 2:22

The other kind of faith is something we work towards him it provides no grace and is consdiered dead . A person can slash water on themselves all day(baptism) and at the most it shows is once is not enogh .They would fall into the boat where men crucify Christ over and over subjecting him to public shame as if one work of His faith as a labor of his love was not enough to satisfy the just law of God . Christ is both the just and justifier.

H2o justifies nothing as a dead ceremonial law pertaining to the flesh, as the scriptures inform us we must move on from there.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.And this will we do, if God permit. Heb 6:1

Amen?

Abraham also sinned and said his wife was his sister.
Abraham also had a lack of faith and had Ismael with his handmaid instead of his wife.

So basically by the same legalistic theology, they don't know what makes someone righteous.

 

[Grace777x70]

James is not using the word "justified" to mean "accounted as righteous" but is "shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3).

Amen...and how many times now is it that you have said this?...and yet...they want to stick to creating their own D.I.Y self/righteousness/holiness instead of relying and believing on what Christ has already done for them.

Why do they continually refuse to believe in Him and received His grace by faith alone? This is in effect anti-Christ behavior.

Works-based salvationists need to be "doing" something in order to achieve their salvation. You can't have a relationship with a doctrine.

Their "doctrine" of self-effort and working for salvation is all they have. It replaces a real relationship with the Lord and hinders them from growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus and our good, loving Father.

 

[20]

Basicaly by the Word of God, they not inherit the Kingdom of God.KJV.Galatians5;19-21,19.Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication,uncleanness, lasciviousness,20.Idolatry,witchcraft,hatred,variance,emulations,wrath, strife,seditions, heresies,,21.Envyings, murders,drunkenness,revellings,and such like; of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past,that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.Of course,they're sinners.

 

[mailmandan]

Amen...and how many times now is it that you have said this?...and yet...they want to stick to creating their own D.I.Y self/righteousness/holiness instead of relying and believing on what Christ has already done for them.

Why do they continually refuse to believe in Him and received His grace by faith alone? This is in effect anti-Christ behavior.

Works-based salvationists need to be "doing" something in order to achieve their salvation. You can't have a relationship with a doctrine.

Their "doctrine" of self-effort and working for salvation is all they have. It replaces a real relationship with the Lord and hinders them from growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus and our good, loving Father.

Amen brother! Very well said!

 

[notuptome]

You accused me of saying something that was untrue when I made this statement - "The fact is, that these had all been baptized. All you have to do to determine this is read chapter one. Chapter fifteen does not exclude water baptism any more than it excludes faith, confession, or repentance which it also does not mention."

What part of my statement is untrue? The fact that the Corinthians were indeed baptized, or that 15:1-4 does not exclude water baptism, or that the words baptism, confession, and repentance are not mentioned in this text? If what I said is untrue, then what part of this is untrue?

Incidentally, I am not, not have I ever been a professor.

The fact is that you are necessarily obtuse about which baptism you are referring to in you statement. Water baptism is never part of the requirements to be saved. It is always and only the Holy Spirit that stirs across the heart to bring the heart from dead in sin to new life in Christ.

To imply that water baptism is part of the gospel is just plain misleading and adding to the word of God something that is not there. If the text does not include it then saying that it doesn't exclude it is an attempt to include it through the back door.

I shudder every time you reference your teaching in a class room setting. Your attempts to nuance the scriptures to achieve your doctrinal ends is discomforting.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[oldhermit]

The fact is that you are necessarily obtuse about which baptism you are referring to in you statement. Water baptism is never part of the requirements to be saved. It is always and only the Holy Spirit that stirs across the heart to bring the heart from dead in sin to new life in Christ.

To imply that water baptism is part of the gospel is just plain misleading and adding to the word of God something that is not there. If the text does not include it then saying that it doesn't exclude it is an attempt to include it through the back door.

I shudder every time you reference your teaching in a class room setting. Your attempts to nuance the scriptures to achieve your doctrinal ends is discomforting.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Well friend, it is obvious we are not going to agree. I have addressed repeatedly every point you mentioned in this post and have provided a preponderance of evidence from scripture, apparently to no avail. I really see no point in continuing this.

 

[notuptome]

Well friend, it is obvious we are not going to agree. I have addressed repeatedly every point you mentioned in this post and have provided a preponderance of evidence from scripture, apparently to no avail. I really see no point in continuing this.

That is hardly news. It would seem that no one is able to help you to see that your doctrine is far from scripturally sound.

For the cause of Christ
Roger