False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[Journey_man]

Why did you feel the need to place membership with this church if you knew your fate by election was not in question?

Would staying in the Roman Catholic Church have effected your election?

I didn't choose to become a Christian and I didn't choose to leave the Roman Catholic Church to become a member of a Protestant Church. I have come to realise that God was drawing me to Himself through His Holy Spirit who led me to the Church.

I was reluctant to attend that first Church service, I struggled and tried to resist the calling but I felt overpowered and went against my will. The sermon was very confronting and I felt convicted. The message was the opposite of what I'd heard in the RCC.

The RCC preaches that we are all like little gods, we are born with a measure of autonomy whereby we can choose to do good or evil and God will judge us accordingly. The Protestant Minister preached the opposite, he said were are all born dead in our sin and we can't choose to do any good at all.
I'm not going to list all the main points of contention, as I'm sure you're already well aware of them.

God saves His chosen/elect people, regardless of what tribe, tongue, nationality, denomination they're from. I'm sure He leaves some in their current denomination and He leads others out, as He did in my case. I can't speak on Gods behalf, sine He doesn't need or want me to give you my unqualified opinion about why He does what he does.

 

[GWH]

No I'm not implying that. I take the verse as meaning that those who believe should then be baptized. (We have examples such as the Ethiopian, and the Philippian jailer, who believed, and then were baptized.) Those who do not believe are condemned.

Those who believe ARE baptized by the HS, but the issue is whether they MUST be baptized by water.
I view the verses you cited as indicating the correct harmonization is that believers SHOULD be WB,
but only SB is a MUST.
I just realized that this situation is comparable to Paul telling folks they should NOT offend those
who believe it is a sin not to follow traditions (including WB?, cf. 1Cor. 10:23-32).
Thanks!

 

[Lamar]

(We have examples such as the Ethiopian, and the Philippian jailer, who believed, and then were baptized.)

Of course there are examples of people who believed and were baptized? What would you expect, people being baptized and then believing?

Those who do not believe are condemned.

Of course those who do not believe are condemned, are you being obtuse?

BTW, your response in post# 463 in regards to post# 462 is rather childish.

 

[DavidLamb]

Of course there are examples of people who believed and were baptized? What would you expect, people being baptized and then believing? do.

No, I would not expect that, although some, such as those who believe it is right to baptise little babies,

Of course those who do not believe are condemned, are you being obtuse?

No, my point has always been that we are not told that those who believe, but are not baptized, are condemned.

BTW, your response in post# 463 in regards to post# 462 is rather childish.

What is childish about saying what the phrase "double negative" means?

 

[TrustandObey]

I didn't choose to become a Christian

I struggled and tried to resist the calling but I felt overpowered and went against my will.

Do you have any words of comfort for those who are not forced to become Christians.

 

[Lamar]

No, my point has always been that we are not told that those who believe, but are not baptized, are condemned.

You are fooling no one.

Those who are not saved by default are condemned.

And who did Jesus say are saved?

Those who believe and are baptized.

Your are rather shifty in your writing.

 

[Journey_man]

Those who believe ARE baptized by the HS, but the issue is whether they MUST be baptized by water.
I view the verses you cited as indicating the correct harmonization is that believers SHOULD be WB,
but only SB is a MUST.
I just realized that this situation is comparable to Paul telling folks they should NOT offend those
who believe it is a sin not to follow traditions (including WB?, cf. 1Cor. 10:23-32).
Thanks!

That's wrong, water baptism is not optional. The Lord Jesus commanded His followers in Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

So baptism is a command according to the Lord Jesus, you may not agree but it is written.

 

[Journey_man]

Do you have any words of comfort for those who are not forced to become Christians.

What words, could possibly comfort those who are going to spend eternity in a sinners hell. If you Doctor diagnosed you with terminal cancer, but then withheld that information and told you that everything is OK. Would you respect such a Physician

 

[GWH]

That's wrong, water baptism is not optional. The Lord Jesus commanded His followers in Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

So baptism is a command according to the Lord Jesus, you may not agree but it is written.

You illustrate the need to harmonize Scriptures in order to synthesize the most correct understanding of a doctrine.
Jesus also spoke through Paul, who did NOT teach that WB is necessary for salvation.
Synthesis: WB was commanded until the church was established, but SB is eternal (Rom. 5:5, Eph. 4:6, 1Cor. 13:13).
Like PC (Acts 15:5-11), WB is still permitted (Col. 2:8-17), but not required (Acts 16:31, Rom. 8:9).

 

[rewriter]

You illustrate the need to harmonize Scriptures in order to synthesize the most correct understanding of a doctrine.
Jesus also spoke through Paul, who did NOT teach that WB is necessary for salvation.
Synthesis: WB was commanded until the church was established, but SB is eternal (Rom. 5:5, Eph. 4:6, 1Cor. 13:13).
Like PC (Acts 15:5-11), WB is still permitted (Col. 2:8-17), but not required (Acts 16:31, Rom. 8:9).

It is dangerous to decree what Paul did or did not preach. We only know what issues he responded to in his letters, not what was not questioned. Paul admits to having baptized a few people but makes no clear statement about the need for water baptism one way or the other.

To my mind the bigger problem is, how does one verify that they have the proper understanding of what scripture says? To say "sola scriptura" sounds good, but different people can interpret the same verse in very different ways, so how can one determine which is correct, or does it just depend on who can claim the loudest that they have received the proper insights? How can it be determined what is historical and what is metaphorical? When different scriptural texts five different readings, how does one determine which one to trust (there are numerous examples available)? When scripture does not make a clear statement, how does one determine what is correct?

 

[GWH]

It is dangerous to decree what Paul did or did not preach. We only know what issues he responded to in his letters, not what was not questioned. Paul admits to having baptized a few people but makes no clear statement about the need for water baptism one way or the other.

To my mind the bigger problem is, how does one verify that they have the proper understanding of what scripture says? To say "sola scriptura" sounds good, but different people can interpret the same verse in very different ways, so how can one determine which is correct, or does it just depend on who can claim the loudest that they have received the proper insights? How can it be determined what is historical and what is metaphorical? When different scriptural texts five different readings, how does one determine which one to trust (there are numerous examples available)? When scripture does not make a clear statement, how does one determine what is correct?

No, it is problematic to ignore the teaching of Paul.
Paul clearly stated what was needed for salvation.

Yes, interpreting Scripture correctly is important. Consider the following reasoning:

Suppose that we have God’s original Scripture. We fallible folks could not know absolutely that it was inerrant? We walk by faith.
We would need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (Isa. 55:10f, 1Pet. 1:10-12, Heb. 11:2-12:2).

Right?

 

[rewriter]

No, it is problematic to ignore the teaching of Paul.
Paul clearly stated what was needed for salvation.

Yes, interpreting Scripture correctly is important. Consider the following reasoning:

Suppose that we have God’s original Scripture. We fallible folks could not know absolutely that it was inerrant? We walk by faith.
We would need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (Isa. 55:10f, 1Pet. 1:10-12, Heb. 11:2-12:2).

Right?

I would not simply ignore the teaching of Paul, but the problem I see is much like a situation where it is known what the budget is for some project, therefore while multiple options might be suggested, any options that are outside the budget are not mentioned. That does not mean that people were unaware of them, just that they were not worth mentioning. If no one questioned water baptism, why would Paul mention it?

But to follow your image of a river, rivers can pass through swamps where there are many passages that lead deeper into the swamp, but end in dead ends or loop back on themselves, but quite possibly only one that leads all the way through, so how does one find that single passage as opposed to following established routes that do not go through?

 

[GWH]

I would not simply ignore the teaching of Paul, but the problem I see is much like a situation where it is known what the budget is for some project, therefore while multiple options might be suggested, any options that are outside the budget are not mentioned. That does not mean that people were unaware of them, just that they were not worth mentioning. If no one questioned water baptism, why would Paul mention it?

But to follow your image of a river, rivers can pass through swamps where there are many passages that lead deeper into the swamp, but end in dead ends or loop back on themselves, but quite possibly only one that leads all the way through, so how does one find that single passage as opposed to following established routes that do not go through?

Paul would mention WB many times if it were important, as he did SB.
Souls who love/seek truth are on the right path and will find the way through the maze if they persevere (2Thes. 2:10, Matt. 7:7).
God loves everyone and does not hide how to be saved (1Tim. 2:3-4, Rom. 1:20, Matt. 7:12, Rom. 5:6-8, John 3:16).

 

[TrustandObey]

Paul would mention WB many times if it were important, as he did SB.

"Many times"?

How many times does the Bible have to mention water baptism for you to accept its purpose for the removal of sins?

Do you need a certain count, percentage or comparison?

Paul simply needed one.

Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Paul saw no need to question Ananias or cross reference the command.

Are the very words of Jesus not enough? "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16

 

[dkontner]

Matthew 3​

11 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:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

You must be born again. Jesus says this is ONLY baptimism that matters. That said, water baptism is something we should do. But it's Jesus who saves. He said... John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 3​

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
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.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 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.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[TrustandObey]

You must be born again. Jesus says this is ONLY baptimism that matters.

Here is the passage:
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.

The earthly ministry of both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ was one of water baptism for the remission of sins.

This is clearly stated in the same chapter:

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized. (This was before John was put in prison.) An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

Also in chapter 4:1-2 Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

The he is Jesus.

Jesus and His disciples were also baptizing for the remission of sins.

The fact that Peter in Acts 2:38 promised the gift of the Holy Spirit after the remission of sins in water baptism does not negate the need for water baptism or repentance.

Jesus never said that water baptism does not matter. On the contrary, He proclaimed the following:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn’t believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

 

[GWH]

"Many times"?

How many times does the Bible have to mention water baptism for you to accept its purpose for the removal of sins?

Do you need a certain count, percentage or comparison?

Paul simply needed one.

Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Paul saw no need to question Ananias or cross reference the command.

Are the very words of Jesus not enough? "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16

A heresy infecting Christian churches that has been debated on CC is called Judaizing, which includes the doctrine of what might be called "Actsism". Actsists believe that the history of the early church in Acts 1-10 (and Mark 16:16-17, which is poorly attested) makes water baptism (WB) and speaking in tongues (SIT) mandatory for Christians from Pentecost until the end.

The teaching of Paul is that folks need to stop worshipping the physical symbols and focus on what they represent (Rom. 2:28-29). Like physical circumcision (PC), the outward work of WB is appropriate, but optional (Acts 15).

It is saving faith by which we receive the Holy Spirit (HS) that is required and manifested by loving fruit. God’s Word (GW) enters His people’s hearts when they repent of heresy including tulipism and seek divine truth (2Thes. 2:10), which culminates by acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord incarnate, at which point of conversion (being reborn per John 3:3-7) He indwells believers as the Holy Spirit (Rev. 3:20, Rom. 5:5).

Moral law summarized as "love everyone" (Matt. 22:37-40) describes what “living/walking in the Spirit” looks like, but having the HS is what is essential or required for salvation (Rom. 8:9), not performing rites.

 

[rewriter]

A heresy infecting Christian churches that has been debated on CC is called Judaizing, which includes the doctrine of what might be called "Actsism". Actsists believe that the history of the early church in Acts 1-10 (and Mark 16:16-17, which is poorly attested) makes water baptism (WB) and speaking in tongues (SIT) mandatory for Christians from Pentecost until the end.

The teaching of Paul is that folks need to stop worshipping the physical symbols and focus on what they represent (Rom. 2:28-29). Like physical circumcision (PC), the outward work of WB is appropriate, but optional (Acts 15).

It is saving faith by which we receive the Holy Spirit (HS) that is required and manifested by loving fruit. God’s Word (GW) enters His people’s hearts when they repent of heresy including tulipism and seek divine truth (2Thes. 2:10), which culminates by acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord incarnate, at which point of conversion (being reborn per John 3:3-7) He indwells believers as the Holy Spirit (Rev. 3:20, Rom. 5:5).

Moral law summarized as "love everyone" (Matt. 22:37-40) describes what “living/walking in the Spirit” looks like, but having the HS is what is essential or required for salvation (Rom. 8:9), not performing rites.

Or our 21st century minds could be missing something that 1st century Jews would have caught immediately.

 

[GWH]

Or our 21st century minds could be missing something that 1st century Jews would have caught immediately.

Actually, the reverse seems to have been the case: the Jews missed what our post-Pauline minds know,
which is that sinners are saved via faith in the atonement of Christ the Lord incarnate, whose loving HS indwells believers
(Rom. 3:21-5:5, 8:9).

 

[rewriter]

Actually, the reverse seems to have been the case: the Jews missed what our post-Pauline minds know,
which is that sinners are saved via faith in the atonement of Christ the Lord incarnate, whose loving HS indwells believers
(Rom. 3:21-5:5, 8:9).

This might be true if one ignores some obscure historical data.

And you have tried to qualify my statement. I did not say non-believing 1st century Jews, there were many believing Jews who had access to the same knowledge that we have only with serious digging. I trust that you are aware that the obscure data implies that Joseph Caiaphas, Antipas and Pilate were all believers, and that Tiberius knew of the resurrection and investigated it before he accepted it as a real event.