OneLight Posted March 23, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.23 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2010 So, if salvation requires baptism, then Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 have to be a lie, wouldn't you say? No not a lie. It's just that it is incomplete on "calling on the name of the Lord" as belief only. I contend that it carries with it acts of obedience as in Paul's case above. No, it is not incomplete. God knows exactly what He means. Unless you feel you can tell God that His word is incomplete ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest agua Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 In a separate thread I managed to experience the ire of some on this board because I was bold enough to state a dividing line between what I read in the Scripture vs what some teach regarding salvation. To wit I was called a pinhead, judgmental and probably some other things. An Admin closed the topic, probably the best thing to do since it was heated. But I ask, why should one call another brother when he cannot agree with the other's teaching regarding how one is "saved"? Is it possible that one is right and the other is not if their teachings do not jive? If I feel that one is not saved until they have been obedient in baptism and cannot stay saved unless they continue in the faith, and another on this board feels that all you have to do is believe and you are forever saved, am I to just sit here and avoid the question? Many accuse those of us who teach that there is more required than belief to entering the family of God as being works oriented, thereby nullifying faith. I would say this is a complete misunderstanding. I would say that the Scripture teaches that many will believe, but many will not enter into heaven. If I teach one who has believed and has been baptized that they must remain faithful to the Lord to be saved is that any different than teaching that one who hears must believe and one who believes must repent? Confess? and be Baptized(immersed)? Teaching one what they "must do to be saved" depends on where they are. It is much like telling someone how to get to St Louis...it depends on where you are when you ask. So, if you teach faith only salvation and God's election and I don't agree, should I call you brother? Joh 13:34-35 MKJV (34) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another. (35) By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted March 23, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2010 Unsaved people don't receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, and yet.... Act 10:44-48 MKJV 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the Word. 45 And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 Can anyone forbid water that these, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we, should not be baptized? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they begged him to stay certain days. ... Cornelius and those around him, received the Holy Spirit (indicating salvation), and spoke in tongues, and LATER were baptised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scare Bear Posted March 24, 2010 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 88 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/27/1983 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) So, if salvation requires baptism, then Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 have to be a lie, wouldn't you say? If one takes that route then Mark 16:16 would be contradicting those two thus the whole Bible would be false. But, when you put them together you get the fuller picture. Romans 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. Edited March 24, 2010 by Scare Bear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scare Bear Posted March 24, 2010 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 88 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/27/1983 Share Posted March 24, 2010 In Luke chapter 23 one of the two malefactors who was crucified with Jesus, was promised paradise by Jesus, this is one example of someone who was saved and yet was not baptized. I do agree that baptism should follow salvation. Luke 23 39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. I can at least answer the first part here. Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Christ had not yet died at that time. Therefore the thief was still under Old Testament law. In which baptism wasn't needed because again, Christ had not fulfilled everything yet. If you get a chance, read over this article, Apologetics Press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John3;16 Posted March 24, 2010 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 274 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/16/1955 Share Posted March 24, 2010 scare bear Just a quick reply, I don't have the time to do the research tonight to give the details, but what I can recall from the story is that there was a famous preacher who would gather thousands, and preached a sermon to thousands just before the Chicago fire. At the end of the sermon he told the crowd to go home make a decision about recieving Christ as savior, then return next week and give your testomony. He regreted making that statement, because many were lost in the fire. so the point is what if someone is on their death bed and recieves Christ as Savior, but dies before they have a chance to be baptised?, or someone in a fox hole during war, someone who gets saved but killed in an auto accident, at work, or any number of ways, and does not have the chance to be baptised? through the past two centuries there must be countless numbers of people who recieve Christ but die before they have a chance to recieve baptism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Christ had not yet died at that time. Therefore the thief was still under Old Testament law. In which baptism wasn't needed because again, Christ had not fulfilled everything yet. That is wrong for three reasons. 1. The New Covenant was cut in the blood of Jesus that was shed before the thief died. 2. Jesus died BEFORE the thief died. So the thief died AFTER the New Covenant was cut. 3. Jesus told the thief, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise." Jesus promised the thief at that moment that in paradise he would be with Jesus. Both thieves were going to "paradise" (the holding place). But only ONE of the thieves was going to be with Jesus, which shows that salvation had been provided to the thief on the cross without the need to be baptized and the thief died under the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus that was shed. The other problem with making baptism necessary for salvation is that everything relative to the doctrine of salvation has an Old Testament counterpart. The death of Jesus on the cross can be seen in the sacrifices and the festivals. The innocence and sinlessness of Jesus is seen in various types and shadows, as is the high priesthood of Jesus, the ressurrection, grace through faith, Justification, sanctification, glorification, eternal life, etc. All of those things were previously indicated in the Old Testament in one form or another, but there is nothing in the Old Testament that can be shown to be an Old Testament counterpart to baptism as a redemptive act. It is the lack of any Old Testament counterpart to baptism as necessary for salvation in the Old Testament that torpedoes the notion that baptism is salvific in nature. To be sure, baptism is in the Old Testament, but it is never presented as a practice necessary for salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 So, if salvation requires baptism, then Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 have to be a lie, wouldn't you say? If one takes that route then Mark 16:16 would be contradicting those two thus the whole Bible would be false. But, when you put them together you get the fuller picture. Romans 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted March 24, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Well it just depends on who is decorating the tree and since we are all equal priests without agreed upon leaders or overseers or traditions, his explanation is every bit as good as yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Well it just depends on who is decorating the tree and since we are all equal priests without agreed upon leaders or overseers or traditions, his explanation is every bit as good as yours. Not hardly, especially not from a proper exegetical perspective. By the way, Lutherans sprinkle instead of immerse and according to his theology, YOU are not Christian by virture of not having been immersed by his church. Baptism does not bring about spiritual regeneration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts