False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[John146]

(Act 16:33) And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

My observation on Acts 16:33

If baptism is soooo important to salvation, then why didn't they do it immediately? They took care of Paul and Silas first by washing and cleaning them up, then the family was baptized. And why did they wash their stripes? These jailors? Because salvation had come to them. Then they were baptized.

 

[Lamar]

Your blindness to the gospel is holding you back. The primary hermeneutical pitfall in the church of Christ (Campbellism) is their rigid application of the principle that "the silence of Scripture always prohibits."

Blah, blah, blah.
This is nothing more than you attempting to muddy up the water with "Campbellism" and "the silence of Scripture".
Stick to the subject.

By confusing definitive commands with general principles, they often bind their biased church doctrine and miss out on the intended grace of the gospel.

What you consider "general principles" is your opinion and your opinion does not negate the definitive commands of Jesus Christ.

 

[DavidLamb]

My observation on Acts 16:33

If baptism is soooo important to salvation, then why didn't they do it immediately? They took care of Paul and Silas first by washing and cleaning them up, then the family was baptized. And why did they wash their stripes? These jailors? Because salvation had come to them. Then they were baptized.

But baptism isn't "soooo important to salvation." (Perhaps that's what you are saying too.) There is no scriptural command for baptism to take place immediately after conversion. From a practical point of view, Paul and Silas had been in a foul prison, nothing like the prisons of the West today. Before that, they had been fiercely beaten:

(Act 16:22) Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods.
(Act 16:23) And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely.

They would have been wounded, and in such a jail as they were in, their wounds would have become dirty. To prevent infection, the wounds needed cleaning. Once that was done, the baptisms took place.

 

[Lamar]

My observation on Acts 16:33

If baptism is soooo important to salvation, then why didn't they do it immediately? They took care of Paul and Silas first by washing and cleaning them up, then the family was baptized. And why did they wash their stripes? These jailors? Because salvation had come to them. Then they were baptized.

This is your observation of Acts 16:33??? Did you even read the verse?

Sounds rather important and "immediately" to me. They didn't even wait for the sun to come up!!!

CEB
Right then, in the middle of the night, the jailer welcomed them and washed their wounds. He and everyone in his household were immediately baptized.

DRA
And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

EASY
In the middle of the night, the man took care of them. He washed their bodies where the soldiers had hurt them. Immediately after this, Paul and Silas baptized the man and his whole family.

ASV
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.

LSB
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

 

[mailmandan]

Blah, blah, blah.
This is nothing more than you attempting to muddy up the water with "Campbellism" and "the silence of Scripture".
Stick to the subject.

What you consider "general principles" is your opinion and your opinion does not negate the definitive commands of Jesus Christ.

I at one time, had temporarily attended the church of christ, so I understand more than you think.

 

[Lamar]

There is no scriptural command for baptism to take place immediately after conversion.

That's because there is no conversion (remission of sins) before water baptism.

 

[DavidLamb]

That's because there is no conversion (remission of sins) before water baptism.

I don't agree with that. It's through the blood of Jesus Christ that our sins are forgiven:

(Eph 1:5) having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
(Eph 1:6) to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
(Eph 1:7) In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

 

[GWH]

Although I certainly don't believe that water baptism is a prerequisite of being saved, nor do I believe that it is an "optional extra" for people once they have been saved. We'll have to "agree to disagree" on that point.

Well, you disagree with yourself by saying:

1. WB is not required for salvation.
2. WB is not optional for salvation.

Which do you agree with?

 

[Lamar]

I at one time, had temporarily attended the church of christ, so I understand more than you think.

Again, you are simply mudding up the water with this non-issue.

Lots of churches accept the need for water baptism besides the church of Christ.

I at one time attended a Missionary Baptist Church but this has no bearing on the issue at hand.

 

[DavidLamb]

Well, you disagree with yourself by saying:

1. WB is not required for salvation.
2. WB is not optional for salvation.

Which do you agree with?

I think you have missed the fact that I said in my post, "nor do I believe that it is an "optional extra" for people once they have been saved.)

So I was talking about baptism not being an optional extra for people once they have been saved, not that baptism is not option for salvation.

 

[GWH]

This comment borders on stupidity. Did you think this out before posting? Please say no.

If there is no natural there can be no supernatural.

My insight is that there can be no natural unless it is created by the Supernatural.
Nature was created by God (Gen. 1:1, Rom. 1:20).

 

[Lamar]

Although I certainly don't believe that water baptism is a prerequisite of being saved, nor do I believe that it is an "optional extra" for people once they have been saved. We'll have to "agree to disagree" on that point.

What?

Water baptism is not needed for salvation.

and

Water baptism is not optional for those saved.

So do the saved without water baptism lose their salvation if they don't get water baptized?

 

[GWH]

I think you have missed the fact that I said in my post, "nor do I believe that it is an "optional extra" for people once they have been saved.)

So I was talking about baptism not being an optional extra for people once they have been saved, not that baptism is not option for salvation.

So, you believe people who get saved but do not get WB are _________?

 

[mailmandan]

Lots of churches accept the need for water baptism besides the church of Christ.

Lots of churches that teach salvation by works, including the Roman Catholic church and the Mormon church.

 

[Lamar]

My insight is that there can be no natural unless it is created by the Supernatural.
Nature was created by God (Gen. 1:1, Rom. 1:20).

God created the natural world we live in, He did not create the natural by supernatural means.

God simply set the natural in order. If He decides to act upon the natural order in a way that goes against the laws of natural then that is supernatural.

The "natural" does exist and is not supernatural, as opposed to your comment:

"natural laws are themselves supernatural/an ongoing miracle".

Just like there must be darkness for light to be understood so too there must be a natural for a supernatural to be understood.

 

[Lamar]

Lots of churches that teach salvation by works, including the Roman Catholic church and the Mormon church.

Then why not muddy up the water on this issue with them.

 

[DavidLamb]

What?

Water baptism is not needed for salvation.

and

Water baptism is not optional for those saved.

So do the saved without water baptism lose their salvation if they don't get water baptized?

I'll try again. Baptism is not a requirement for a sinner to be saved. Once a sinner has been saved, they should be baptized. As saved people, no Christian obeys God perfectly. So a person could be saved, yet for some reason, not baptized. They don't lose their salvation for that, just as they don't loose it for not obeying perfectly the summary of the Ten Commandments given by Jesus, which includes loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.

 

[mailmandan]

Then why not muddy up the water on this issue with them.

You see no red flag? You don't wonder why you are in agreement with multiple other churches (which some are considered to be false religions and cults) that teach salvation by water baptism?

 

[Lamar]

I'll try again. Baptism is not a requirement for a sinner to be saved. Once a sinner has been saved, they should be baptized. As saved people, no Christian obeys God perfectly. So a person could be saved, yet for some reason, not baptized. They don't lose their salvation for that, just as they don't loose it for not obeying perfectly the summary of the Ten Commandments given by Jesus, which includes loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.

So it is optional?

What else is optional?

Certain aspects of belief in Jesus?

Repentance?

Continued faithfulness?

 

[GWH]

God created the natural world we live in, He did not create the natural by supernatural means.

God simply set the natural in order. If He decides to act upon the natural order in a way that goes against the laws of natural then that is supernatural.

The "natural" does exist and is not supernatural, as opposed to your comment:

"natural laws are themselves supernatural/an ongoing miracle".

Just like there must be darkness for light to be understood so too there must be a natural for a supernatural to be understood.

Scripture?