Are gifts evidence of salvation?

  • 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.

Musicmaster

Active member
Feb 8, 2021
304
73
28
What you and your buddy are missing is that if Jesus was alive the NT had nor taken effect yet which is clear discussed on the Hebrew letter that I pointed out since it states that a testament is not in force until the death of the testator, Jesus.
I fully agree about the testaments.

In regards to baptism, it's a moot point, since the requirement of baptism as relates to salvation did not take effect likewise until after the death of Christ. You couldn't be baptized into Christ or his death if he were still living.
I understand what you're saying, but what I disagree with is the emphasis on "water" baptism. I was baptized with Holy Spirit and with fire, and so born again from above, so nobody can say that I was not baptized.

What this means, as relates to the forgiven thief, is that Jesus forgave him as he did others during his earthly ministry such as the adulterous woman. His forgiveness has nothing to do with OT law, it was simply done as Jesus determined it to be while the OT was in effect. Even if the thief was baptized, it would have been unto John's baptism which wasn't a one time event as being baptized into Christ is. John's baptism would have had to been repeated upon committing new sin, not so with baptism into Christ.
I hope you don't mind my pointing out that, to say that the thief was merely forgiven of his sins is an argument from silence. That context says nothing about forgiveness of any sins for that thief nor any relationship to the adulterous woman. The adulterous woman was forgiven of her sins before that Cup was passed to mankind.

The baptism of the Holy Ghost happened to the apostles on the day of Pentecost as promised to them by Jesus as part of the power from on high as recorded in Luke 24:49. That baptism was unique to them. Gifts of the Spirit were subsequently manifested by the laying on of the apostle's hands.
Except that when John spoke of Holy Spirit and fire batptism, he was not talking to the disciples, who had not yet even been approached by Christ and told to follow Him. He was speaking to the common folk whom he had baptized with water unto repentance.

Who was Matt 3:11 being addressed to? Go back to 3:7; the Sadducees and Pharisees, and John referred to them as a generation of vipers! So, what does Matt 3:11 really mean?
Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

When John pointed his finger of accusation at the scribes and Pharisees, he was speaking also expansively for the sake of all his hearers and for their benefit, when addressing the Pharisees as vipers and such. He never stopped speaking to and for the benefit of aLL the people standing about him, within earshot.

MM
 

Musicmaster

Active member
Feb 8, 2021
304
73
28
I also would like to emphasize, in relation to your pointing at testaments and testators, we also have this:

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

What Christ accomplished on the cross was retroactive. The issue was redemption from the transgressions that the first covenant of Law through Moses would not redeem one soul. The New Covenant accomplished and delivered from the Old Covenant what the former was unable to provide.

So, even if that thief had been water baptized, which I doubt he was, but, then, as you said, that's a moot point, he was promised Heaven that very day, long before baptism from Holy Spirit and fire came...again, as you pointed out. So, how is it that absent any baptism, he was still promised paradise? Mnay have argued this for centuries, with no commonly declared winner.

The one thing that matters to me is that the word of God is true, to which I'm sure we can both agree.

MM
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,336
714
113
Not really. "Tongues" and other so-called supernatural manifestations can be, and are, faked.
The testimony of believing in Jesus can also be faked.

Repentance from sin will be faked by many.

In fact, the acid test will probably be both the testimony of Jesus and that love of the brethren.

Faith and love, that is the evidence that Paul was always on the look-out for among the churches.
 

DJT_47

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2022
1,003
177
63
I fully agree about the testaments.



I understand what you're saying, but what I disagree with is the emphasis on "water" baptism. I was baptized with Holy Spirit and with fire, and so born again from above, so nobody can say that I was not baptized.



I hope you don't mind my pointing out that, to say that the thief was merely forgiven of his sins is an argument from silence. That context says nothing about forgiveness of any sins for that thief nor any relationship to the adulterous woman. The adulterous woman was forgiven of her sins before that Cup was passed to mankind.



Except that when John spoke of Holy Spirit and fire batptism, he was not talking to the disciples, who had not yet even been approached by Christ and told to follow Him. He was speaking to the common folk whom he had baptized with water unto repentance.



Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

When John pointed his finger of accusation at the scribes and Pharisees, he was speaking also expansively for the sake of all his hearers and for their benefit, when addressing the Pharisees as vipers and such. He never stopped speaking to and for the benefit of aLL the people standing about him, within earshot.

MM
I fully agree about the testaments.



I understand what you're saying, but what I disagree with is the emphasis on "water" baptism. I was baptized with Holy Spirit and with fire, and so born again from above, so nobody can say that I was not baptized.



I hope you don't mind my pointing out that, to say that the thief was merely forgiven of his sins is an argument from silence. That context says nothing about forgiveness of any sins for that thief nor any relationship to the adulterous woman. The adulterous woman was forgiven of her sins before that Cup was passed to mankind.



Except that when John spoke of Holy Spirit and fire batptism, he was not talking to the disciples, who had not yet even been approached by Christ and told to follow Him. He was speaking to the common folk whom he had baptized with water unto repentance.



Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

When John pointed his finger of accusation at the scribes and Pharisees, he was speaking also expansively for the sake of all his hearers and for their benefit, when addressing the Pharisees as vipers and such. He never stopped speaking to and for the benefit of aLL the people standing about him, within earshot.

MM
The point of the forgiveness of the thief is simply that. Jesus forgave him, unspecifically, but that says it all. He forgave him of everything, past sins included. If he was forgiven, he was thereby made righteous. Likewise Jesus forgave the adulterous woman of her sins. No difference other than the thief was about to die and was promised paradise. It was all done while Jesus was alive and all while the OT was in effect, not the NT. Baptism or non Baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with the thief on the cross and it's only by a total misunderstanding by many that it is erroneously raised, and always as a claim that he wasn't baptized nut saved, but so what? It's a total non issue and poor arguement predicated upon ignorance of the scriptures.

Here's the text below of Matthew 3:7-12 kjv.
Notice the specific words that relates explicitly to those he's talking to. Sadducees and Pharisees and "to THEM" in verse 7, "YOU to flee" in verse 7; "YOURSELVES" and "YOU" in verse 9 which is a continuation, and "YOU" in verse 11 also a continuation. Now look at verses 10 and 12. Verse 10 discusses those to be hewn down and thrown into the "fire" and verse 12 also discusses the unquenchable "fire".

The "fire" in these 2 verses, 10 and 12, IS the fire you are referring to (erroneously) as the baptism with fire, which is not that which occurred in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost with the "cloven tongues like as fire" (Acts 2:3), but rather the fires of hell, being inferred back to them as the generation of vipers, and relative fate of such as they were. Matthew 3:7-12 is one continuous dialog made with or addressed to Sadducees and Pharisees.

Matthew 3:7-12

"7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11I 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: 12Whose 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."
 

Inquisitor

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2022
2,336
714
113
Is possession of physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit evidence of a saved status?
Example: Does the ability to speak or translate tongues "prove" you are in a saved state?
You are referring to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the church, in the members of the church.

What is the evidence of being saved?

Matthew 7:17
So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

1 Corinthians 12:1-3
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be unaware. You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

The two primary signs that someone is saved, firstly, the confession of Jesus. Secondly, they must be bearing the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

The manifestation of the Holy Spirit in someone to an outside observer. Would be an unreliable guide to whether they are saved.
 
Aug 8, 2023
288
96
28
The first question anybody should ask themselves is- "Is my so-called 'gift' from God or from Satan?"..;)
Good question to ask oneself.
Yeah, Shakespeare's Macbeth was a classic example, he didn't have a 'gift' as such, but fell hook line and sinker for the guff the 3 witches were feeding him.
Here his pal warns him they might just be leading him down the garden path-

 
Aug 8, 2023
288
96
28
Various christian denominations believe they- and only they- have the gift of 'discernment' that allows them to see things in scripture that the rest of us poor slobs can't see, it's a vanity thing.
I'd better not go into details or it'd start a war in CC..;)
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
Questions that begin with, "What happens if" remind me of the Sadducees and their scenario question about the woman married to seven different brothers. You are smart, I will end it with that.
LOL My, you are clever aren't you.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
Various christian denominations believe they- and only they- have the gift of 'discernment' that allows them to see things in scripture that the rest of us poor slobs can't see, it's a vanity thing.
I'd better not go into details or it'd start a war in CC..;)
Church of Christ is one of the worst. They think they're the only ones who know how to correctly interpret the Bible. Unfortunately for them they can't see how idiotic some of their own interpretations really are. It's comical really.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,047
13,056
113
58
There is no need to present an argument until someone can prove that the thief was not baptized for the remission of sins. IOW, the question is moot. Claiming the promise given to the thief on the cross for yourself is like claiming the promise given to King Hezekiah (2nd Kings 20:5-6).

The promises of King Hezekiah and the thief on the cross were never given to us.

Their promises cannot be used to negate the promises given to us in Acts 2:38-39:

38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. 39 This promise belongs to you and to your children and to everyone who is far away. It belongs to everyone who worships the Lord our God.”
So, according to you the thief on the cross may have been converted, was water baptized, yet the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely) In Matthew 27:39-44, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests' scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. That's all the proof I need.

Now the question is not about promises given but about what is baptism 'FOR' in Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3 and Acts 2:38? See post #244 above.

I have already gone over Acts 2:38 with you. See post #456 from the link below:

Saved by faith alone? - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
 

DJT_47

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2022
1,003
177
63
Church of Christ is one of the worst. They think they're the only ones who know how to correctly interpret the Bible. Unfortunately for them they can't see how idiotic some of their own interpretations really are. It's comical really.
Like what EXACTLY? Name the "idiotic" and "comical" stuff.
 
Aug 8, 2023
288
96
28
I googled Church of Christ and at first they sounded like a sensible non-denominational bunch, but then I read they believe in baptism to be saved.
I haven't been baptised, so I suppose according to them I'm hellbound?..:)
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
I googled Church of Christ and at first they sounded like a sensible non-denominational bunch, but then I read they believe in baptism to be saved.
I haven't been baptised, so I suppose according to them I'm hellbound?..:)
We're saved by faith not baptism; but you should get baptized if you're a follower of Christ. That's what the New Testament teaches. I don't know why a true believer wouldn't be chomping at the bit to get baptized.
 

DJT_47

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2022
1,003
177
63
I have no interest in debating you. You're not a good loser.
I have no interest in debating you or anyone, I'm simply interested in citing the scriptures and letting them do the debating. You made a claim that can't be scripturally supported. I simply asked for specifics.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
7,594
3,179
113
I have no interest in debating you or anyone, I'm simply interested in citing the scriptures and letting them do the debating. You made a claim that can't be scripturally supported. I simply asked for specifics.
You have no interest in debating, LOL. That's rich.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,047
13,056
113
58

2ndTimeIsTheCharm

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2023
1,401
741
113
I googled Church of Christ and at first they sounded like a sensible non-denominational bunch, but then I read they believe in baptism to be saved.
I haven't been baptised, so I suppose according to them I'm hellbound?..:)
We're saved by faith not baptism; but you should get baptized if you're a follower of Christ. That's what the New Testament teaches. I don't know why a true believer wouldn't be chomping at the bit to get baptized.
Yeah, you don't get saved by being baptized, but baptism seems to mean a lot to God. I mean, Jesus chose to get baptized anyway even when John the Baptist said he didn't have to. And then God the Father and the Holy Spirit actually visibly showed up for the occasion. That rarely ever happens so this was something special to God!

So why not get baptized if it makes God happy even if it doesn't save you?

🌸
 

Musicmaster

Active member
Feb 8, 2021
304
73
28
The point of the forgiveness of the thief is simply that. Jesus forgave him, unspecifically, but that says it all. He forgave him of everything, past sins included. If he was forgiven, he was thereby made righteous.
Well said. In addition to that is the fact that the death of the Testator was not required for that release from the curse of the Law was already in effect before the death of Christ. If one is forgiven, then, logically, they are freed from the curse of the Law. Now, as a caveat to that, allow me to also observe one key difference between the two people...the forgiven woman was not promised to be in paradise with the Lord, but the thief was. The woman was told to sin no more, but the thief was not. We can agree about the difference between the eminence of death (seeming) difference between the two, but, then, is that really a basis for differentiation, with a full knowledge that the woman was still alive when Christ was on that cross? I'm not willing to make such a bet...since I'm not a gambler.

Likewise Jesus forgave the adulterous woman of her sins. No difference other than the thief was about to die and was promised paradise. It was all done while Jesus was alive and all while the OT was in effect, not the NT.
Yet the Testator forgave completely, freeing from the curse of that first covenant, the sins of those people while His earthly vessel was still breathing. That speaks to a mitigation to the overlap. His death seals as of no effect the doom for us all to the curse of that covenant of Law. It was a curse, given that no man could be justified by it.

Baptism or non Baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with the thief on the cross and it's only by a total misunderstanding by many that it is erroneously raised, and always as a claim that he wasn't baptized nut saved, but so what? It's a total non issue and poor arguement predicated upon ignorance of the scriptures.
I don't know that I would necessarily say that. We don't know what happened in the unseen realm inside that thief. There is so much for which all we can do is speculate, such as the seven thunders John was forbidden to write what they said, and yet not know the absolute truth of the matter, and had the Lord thought it necessary for us to know, He would have revealed it. What we DO know, after the point when He said, "It is finished," we now receive His baptism through Holy Spirit and in fire, both of which are unseen to the human eyes today.

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:

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Here's the text below of Matthew 3:7-12 kjv.
Notice the specific words that relates explicitly to those he's talking to. Sadducees and Pharisees and "to THEM" in verse 7, "YOU to flee" in verse 7; "YOURSELVES" and "YOU" in verse 9 which is a continuation, and "YOU" in verse 11 also a continuation. Now look at verses 10 and 12. Verse 10 discusses those to be hewn down and thrown into the "fire" and verse 12 also discusses the unquenchable "fire".
I somewhat agree, and I say that because what he directed at the religious leaders was also true of others standing about who were of the same mind and spirit at hose men. As a matter of fact, what he said to them also applies today to the "religious" elite. Anyone can be religious, as you know. I don't know if you've had contact with many of them, but there are those today entangled into what is called the Hebrew Roots movement going about teaching the requirement to live the Mosaic Law today in addition to the Blood of Christ...never minding that even THEY do not live the Mosaic Law because they pick and choose what elements of that Law are valid for today...absent any authorization from even one verse in the Bible that says they can do such! Nowhere does the word of God authorize any man to cast aside anything. When Christ fulfilled the Law in order for it to be written in our hearts, the curse that characterized that Law and its requirements was nailed to that cross.

The "fire" in these 2 verses, 10 and 12, IS the fire you are referring to (erroneously) as the baptism with fire, which is not that which occurred in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost with the "cloven tongues like as fire" (Acts 2:3), but rather the fires of hell, being inferred back to them as the generation of vipers, and relative fate of such as they were. Matthew 3:7-12 is one continuous dialog made with or addressed to Sadducees and Pharisees.
I haven't studied that particular element in depth, so I can't at this time attest to my agreement or disagreement with you on that.

MM
 

Musicmaster

Active member
Feb 8, 2021
304
73
28
Yeah, you don't get saved by being baptized, but baptism seems to mean a lot to God. I mean, Jesus chose to get baptized anyway even when John the Baptist said he didn't have to. And then God the Father and the Holy Spirit actually visibly showed up for the occasion. That rarely ever happens so this was something special to God!

So why not get baptized if it makes God happy even if it doesn't save you?

🌸
What in the world is THAT? Some woman in partial armor, proving something to someone? She's not even wearing the helmet, so how is that at all related to that verse in Ephesians...referring to that image in post 278?

MM