Faith is a work.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,475
13,419
113
58
But that is precisely arguing from silence. Jesus was speaking to the Jews then, and by the time he arrived in the scene, John the Baptist and his disciples have been baptizing or baptized many of the Jews already. There could be many possible reasons why baptism was not mentioned in those accounts, that we do not know.
It sounds to me like you are the one arguing from silence - "could be many possible reasons why baptism was not mentioned in those accounts."

The key is "We do not know", so you have to examine Mark 16:16 directly and what it says, not try to use other scripture to explain baptism away.
So instead, we use a few isolated verses to explain away multiple verses that clearly state that man is saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modification?" I don't think so. I will stick with properly harmonizing scripture with scripture.

Furthermore, Peter spent about 40 days with Jesus post resurrection when Jesus explained to them the Gospel of the Kingdom Acts 1:3.

When he finally uttered in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized, there is no reason for him to utter that in mistake. Remember he was baptized by the Holy Spirit before he began preaching. Hence every word he uttered should be counted as canonical scripture.
Was Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18 a mistake? *What happened to baptism there? Was this not spoken under inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
 

preston39

Senior Member
Dec 18, 2017
1,675
240
63
We can see here that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Water baptism is a work of righteousness and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done.. (Titus 3:5)

We have a command here from Jesus to make disciples of all nations, and baptize converts. However, it does not say here that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. The same command also includes the clause "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ has commanded them.

Once again: Mark 16:16 - He who 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 necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." *You never did answer my question -- If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses?* (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

Have you considered living water in John 3:5? Jesus said, "born of water and the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Scripture interprets itself. Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. *Did you see that? If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *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. *Water baptism is the picture or symbol of the new birth, but not the means of securing it.
A typical new age religion response. Of which non is supported by scripture.
Be blessed.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
It sounds to me like you are the one arguing from silence - "could be many possible reasons why baptism was not mentioned in those accounts."

So instead, we use a few isolated verses to explain away multiple verses that clearly state that man is saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modification?" I don't think so. I will stick with properly harmonizing scripture with scripture.

Was Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18 a mistake? *What happened to baptism there? Was this not spoken under inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
The gospel of grace came thru the apostle Paul, after Stephen was stoned, so after Acts 9, water baptism was phased out, as the Cornelius account in Acts 10 showed. But of course, every new dispensation has some form of transitional period, so Acts is a transitional book, as James in Acts 21 clearly still did not believe or accept that the dispensation has changed.

As for Acts 3:19, you are really arguing from silence there. If Luke did not record Paul saying the phrase "be baptized", there could be many reasons for that, the point is, you cannot and should not use Acts 3:19 to explain Acts 2:38.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Incidentally, since we are in this topic of "arguing from silence", I was always curious about Acts 21

One of the mysteries of the Bible that I always wanted to find out is, in Acts 21, did James and the elders in Jerusalem actually accepted the money that Paul raised for the "poor saints in Jerusalem"? I mean Paul talked so much about this raising of money in both Romans and 1 Cor, Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-4 :)

Luke was silent about this issue, and I suspect that James directed Paul to use the money to pay for the ceremonies of those Jews who were shaving their heads.

This is really one instance where I really wonder why Luke did not record for us the outcome of the money raised. Sigh, we have to wonder about this in silence, at least until we can ask Luke, James and Paul in heaven. :)
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,475
13,419
113
58
A typical new age religion response. Of which non is supported by scripture.
Be blessed.
A typical works-salvationist response from someone who has been indoctrinated. I thoroughly demonstrated that my arguments are supported by scripture and BTW you never did answer my question. WHERE DO YOU ATTEND CHURCH? Or are you ashamed to say?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
That is the main benefit of being a dispensationalist in my opinion. We can interpret Bible verses literally and still maintain our position that, under the current gospel of grace, salvation is indeed by faith alone. :)

Mark 16:16 is an example of a crystal clear verse to me. If you really respect the literal KJV phrasing, there is no way around the fact that it says you need to believe AND be baptized, in order to be saved.

By the way, do you agree with my last point to you that you are "arguing from silence"?
Salvation has been the same in all dispensations.

By grace through faith.

It has NEVER been by works. And never will be.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
A typical new age religion response. Of which non is supported by scripture.
Be blessed.
A typical response from someone who is unable to answer specific questions.

If you can not answer them, Attack them,

Did it make you feel better? Did it help you fool yourself into KNOWING you can not answer the questions or the response?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The gospel of grace came thru the apostle Paul, after Stephen was stoned, so after Acts 9, water baptism was phased out, as the Cornelius account in Acts 10 showed. But of course, every new dispensation has some form of transitional period, so Acts is a transitional book, as James in Acts 21 clearly still did not believe or accept that the dispensation has changed.

As for Acts 3:19, you are really arguing from silence there. If Luke did not record Paul saying the phrase "be baptized", there could be many reasons for that, the point is, you cannot and should not use Acts 3:19 to explain Acts 2:38.
Salvation has NEVER been by baptism

There are not different gospels for different people. No man has ever been able to earn their salvation, in any age!!
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Salvation has been the same in all dispensations.

By grace through faith.

It has NEVER been by works. And never will be.
As seen during the discussion about salvation during the Tribulation period, to me, it is amazing how people who insist on that doctrine have to include all kinds of additional conditions to the term "faith", until the expression "salvation by grace through faith alone" becomes meaningless.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-is-it-still-faith-only-for-salvation.185801/
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
As seen during the discussion about salvation during the Tribulation period, to me, it is amazing how people who insist on that doctrine have to include all kinds of additional conditions to the term "faith", until the expression "salvation by grace through faith alone" becomes meaningless.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-is-it-still-faith-only-for-salvation.185801/
Salvation during the tribulation will be no different than it is today. People (jew or gentile) will have to “call out on the name of the lord to be saved”

They will need to become the tax collector who got on their knees, And not like the pharisee, who thinks because he obeys the law. And is not like the sinner, he is ok.

The law did nto save anyone in the OT, it will not save anyone during the tribulation.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Salvation during the tribulation will be no different than it is today. People (jew or gentile) will have to “call out on the name of the lord to be saved”

They will need to become the tax collector who got on their knees, And not like the pharisee, who thinks because he obeys the law. And is not like the sinner, he is ok.

The law did nto save anyone in the OT, it will not save anyone during the tribulation.
Salvation during the tribulation will be no different than it is today. People (jew or gentile) will have to “call out on the name of the lord to be saved” AND NOT take the mark of the beast, throughout the Tribulation years.

I have corrected for you, as agreed by almost everybody in that discussion thread. :)
 

PS

Senior Member
Jan 11, 2013
5,399
695
113
A typical new age religion response. Of which non is supported by scripture.
Be blessed.
How much work did it take for you to believe in Santa Clause?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Salvation during the tribulation will be no different than it is today. People (jew or gentile) will have to “call out on the name of the lord to be saved” AND NOT take the mark of the beast, throughout the Tribulation years.

I have corrected for you, as agreed by almost everybody in that discussion thread. :)
You did not correct anything my friend.

You should stop thinking so highly of yourself.

Salvation will still be by grace. You assume a child of Gd would even be tempted to take The mark. You forget the HS who is in them
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
You did not correct anything my friend.

You should stop thinking so highly of yourself.

Salvation will still be by grace. You assume a child of Gd would even be tempted to take The mark. You forget the HS who is in them
I am simply saying that "not taking the mark" is a work, to be done by people who want to be saved during the Tribulation.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I am simply saying that "not taking the mark" is a work, to be done by people who want to be saved during the Tribulation.
No. They do not have to do that to be saved. Any more than they HAVE to be baptised in water, or HAVE to be circumcised.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
23,004
8,373
113
The gospel of grace came thru the apostle Paul, after Stephen was stoned, so after Acts 9, water baptism was phased out, as the Cornelius account in Acts 10 showed. But of course, every new dispensation has some form of transitional period, so Acts is a transitional book, as James in Acts 21 clearly still did not believe or accept that the dispensation has changed.

As for Acts 3:19, you are really arguing from silence there. If Luke did not record Paul saying the phrase "be baptized", there could be many reasons for that, the point is, you cannot and should not use Acts 3:19 to explain Acts 2:38.
"The gospel of grace came thru the apostle Paul, after Stephen was stoned, so after Acts 9, water baptism was phased out"

Thats crazy talk my friend.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
"The gospel of grace came thru the apostle Paul, after Stephen was stoned, so after Acts 9, water baptism was phased out"

Thats crazy talk my friend.
You don't understand the Cornelius account, that caught Peter and the rest of the Jewish believers by surprise, in Acts 10?
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
23,004
8,373
113
You don't understand the Cornelius account, that caught Peter and the rest of the Jewish believers by surprise, in Acts 10?
" Jewish believers"

aka Christians. As were the Samaritans in Acts 8 and the gentiles in Acts 10.
No difference between them whatsoever.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
" Jewish believers"

aka Christians. As were the Samaritans in Acts 8 and the gentiles in Acts 10.
No difference between them whatsoever.
So why do you think they, together with Peter, were astonished by what happened at Cornelius place?