Who is my "brother" in Christ?

[eis]

However, there are things we do to come into His saving grace and it is not complete until we are baptized into Him. Even belief is a work if not why did Jesus indicate such here.

Where do you read in scripture that baptism completes salvation?

I don't. But if you can't be saved without it and everything else is there then...

then ... you are reading into scripture that which is not there?

True. There's a lot of that to share here.

But look at Timothy 3:16-17 that I posted. All Scripture, meaning that we can't just land on ONE or a FEW Scriptures for doctrine. If your doctrine rests solely on Eph 2:8-9 or Acts 2:38 you need to consider this statement to Timothy.

[OneLight]

However, there are things we do to come into His saving grace and it is not complete until we are baptized into Him. Even belief is a work if not why did Jesus indicate such here.

Where do you read in scripture that baptism completes salvation?

I don't. But if you can't be saved without it and everything else is there then...

then ... you are reading into scripture that which is not there?

True. There's a lot of that to share here.

But look at Timothy 3:16-17 that I posted. All Scripture, meaning that we can't just land on ONE or a FEW Scriptures for doctrine. If your doctrine rests solely on Eph 2:8-9 or Acts 2:38 you need to consider this statement to Timothy.

You speak the truth about all scripture ... including that which does not include baptism with salvation, but just calling out to Christ. It is when people have a favorite verse, or a few verses, that their doctrine are created on, from both sides of the argument, that causes un-biblical doctrine. We need to look at all of scripture and take into account all that is said. This does not just happen with baptism, but the gifts, the rapture, and the like. Too many follow the teachings of man and not scripture.

[eis]

However, there are things we do to come into His saving grace and it is not complete until we are baptized into Him. Even belief is a work if not why did Jesus indicate such here.

Where do you read in scripture that baptism completes salvation?

I don't. But if you can't be saved without it and everything else is there then...

then ... you are reading into scripture that which is not there?

True. There's a lot of that to share here.

But look at Timothy 3:16-17 that I posted. All Scripture, meaning that we can't just land on ONE or a FEW Scriptures for doctrine. If your doctrine rests solely on Eph 2:8-9 or Acts 2:38 you need to consider this statement to Timothy.

You speak the truth about all scripture ... meaning that which does not include baptism, but just calling out to Christ. It is when people have a favorite verse, or a few verses, that their doctrine are created on, from both sides of the argument, that causes un-biblical doctrine. We need to look at all of scripture and take into account all that is said. This does not just happen with baptism, but the gifts, the rapture, and the like. Too many follow the teachings of man and not scripture.

I agree. However here we've been discussing "What must I do to be saved?" or in another way, "How does one come into grace?"

Edited April 12, 2010 by eis

[OneLight]

However, there are things we do to come into His saving grace and it is not complete until we are baptized into Him. Even belief is a work if not why did Jesus indicate such here.

Where do you read in scripture that baptism completes salvation?

I don't. But if you can't be saved without it and everything else is there then...

then ... you are reading into scripture that which is not there?

True. There's a lot of that to share here.

But look at Timothy 3:16-17 that I posted. All Scripture, meaning that we can't just land on ONE or a FEW Scriptures for doctrine. If your doctrine rests solely on Eph 2:8-9 or Acts 2:38 you need to consider this statement to Timothy.

You speak the truth about all scripture ... meaning that which does not include baptism, but just calling out to Christ. It is when people have a favorite verse, or a few verses, that their doctrine are created on, from both sides of the argument, that causes un-biblical doctrine. We need to look at all of scripture and take into account all that is said. This does not just happen with baptism, but the gifts, the rapture, and the like. Too many follow the teachings of man and not scripture.

I agree. However here we've been discussing "What must I do to be saved?" or in another way, "How does one come into grace?"

Then scripture that is the simplest is the best. The one with the least requirements. The simplest I have read in scripture is when Jesus told a woman that her faith saved her.

Luke 7:50

Then He said to the woman,

[eis]

Then scripture that is the simplest is the best. The one with the least requirements. The simplest I have read in scripture is when Jesus told a woman that her faith saved her.

Luke 7:50

Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”

If only it worked like that, but we both know that it doesn't. (using one Scripture)

Edited April 12, 2010 by eis

[OneLight]

Then scripture that is the simplest is the best. The one with the least requirements. The simplest I have read in scripture is when Jesus told a woman that her faith saved her.

Luke 7:50

Then He said to the woman,

[Slepsog4]

The Gospel Plan of Salvation under the New Covenant of Christ did not go into affect until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

Anyone who was "saved" prior to that as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John were covenant Jews who only needed to accept Jesus as their long awaited Messiah. They were not subject to New Testament baptism for it is into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (cp. 1 Cor. 15:1-4 with Romans 6:3-4).

Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins. He could and did so directly while functioning as the Prophet under the Old Testament system.

But when he ushered in the Great Commission he left the means by which we are to respond to his offer of salvation.

See:

Matthew 28:19-20

Mark 16:15-16

Luke 24:47

Acts 2:38

Acts 22:16

Galatians 3:27

1 Peter 3:21

[Guest shiloh357]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

KJV

I guess that means ALL Scripture is doctrinal.

Paul is making a general statement about Scripture, which is true. Not every Scripture is "doctrine." What it does not mean is that every verse fits every description Paul enumerates above. For example, the words of Satan are recorded in the Bible. Are you going to say that we can create Christian doctrine out of the verses of the Bible where Satan is speaking?

Doctrine? Regarding Satan, no, yet the lessons learned how Christ dealt with him is of importance in our response to the same Satan.

Aside for reproof & instruction in righteousness, it says " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine"...was Paul in error? Or are you saying the combination of the three is the use of "All Scripture" as part of the whole? If so how about "repent and be baptized" being part of the whole?

You are missing the point. Paul is making a general statement about the Bible as a whole. His point is not that every verse of every chapter meets the various descriptions provided in vv. 16 and 17 specifically: profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You are trying to use that passage to say that every verse of Scripture is doctrinal, and that is not what Paul is saying. We would not use the words of Satan as a foundation for Christian doctrine, even though they are included by inspiration in Scripture. The counsel of Job's three friends was rejected by God and God said that they did not speak any truth; so, we could not use their words as the basis for any Christian doctrine.

Tell me this... what Christian doctrines are taught in this passage:

[This] then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; [even] to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward [was] the uttermost part of the south coast.

And their south border was from the shore of the salt sea, from the bay that looketh southward:

And it went out to the south side to Maalehacrabbim, and passed along to Zin, and ascended up on the south side unto Kadeshbarnea, and passed along to Hezron, and went up to Adar, and fetched a compass to Karkaa:

[From thence] it passed toward Azmon, and went out unto the river of Egypt; and the goings out of that coast were at the sea: this shall be your south coast.

And the east border [was] the salt sea, [even] unto the end of Jordan. And [their] border in the north quarter [was] from the bay of the sea at the uttermost part of Jordan:

And the border went up to Bethhogla, and passed along by the north of Betharabah; and the border went up to the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben:

And the border went up toward Debir from the valley of Achor, and so northward, looking toward Gilgal, that [is] before the going up to Adummim, which [is] on the south side of the river: and the border passed toward the waters of Enshemesh, and the goings out thereof were at Enrogel:

And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same [is] Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that [lieth] before the valley of Hinnom westward, which [is] at the end of the valley of the giants northward:

And the border was drawn from the top of the hill unto the fountain of the water of Nephtoah, and went out to the cities of mount Ephron; and the border was drawn to Baalah, which [is] Kirjathjearim:

And the border compassed from Baalah westward unto mount Seir, and passed along unto the side of mount Jearim, which [is] Chesalon, on the north side, and went down to Bethshemesh, and passed on to Timnah:

And the border went out unto the side of Ekron northward: and the border was drawn to Shicron, and passed along to mount Baalah, and went out unto Jabneel; and the goings out of the border were at the sea.

And the west border [was] to the great sea, and the coast [thereof]. This [is] the coast of the children of Judah round about according to their families. (Josh. 15: 1-12)

Not every passage is meant to convey Christian doctrine. The above passage is valuable in its own right when approached from the proper heremeneutic perspective, but it conveys no doctrine.

"Doctrine" refers to the teachings of Scripture that provide a foundation for daily, practical Christian living. Not every verse in the Bible can be used for that purpose. Not all Scripture is meant to be doctrinal, but serve a number of purposes.

[eis]

Then scripture that is the simplest is the best. The one with the least requirements. The simplest I have read in scripture is when Jesus told a woman that her faith saved her.

Luke 7:50

Then He said to the woman,

[eis]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

KJV

I guess that means ALL Scripture is doctrinal.

Paul is making a general statement about Scripture, which is true. Not every Scripture is "doctrine." What it does not mean is that every verse fits every description Paul enumerates above. For example, the words of Satan are recorded in the Bible. Are you going to say that we can create Christian doctrine out of the verses of the Bible where Satan is speaking?

Doctrine? Regarding Satan, no, yet the lessons learned how Christ dealt with him is of importance in our response to the same Satan.

Aside for reproof & instruction in righteousness, it says " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine"...was Paul in error? Or are you saying the combination of the three is the use of "All Scripture" as part of the whole? If so how about "repent and be baptized" being part of the whole?

You are missing the point. Paul is making a general statement about the Bible as a whole. His point is not that every verse of every chapter meets the various descriptions provided in vv. 16 and 17 specifically: profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You are trying to use that passage to say that every verse of Scripture is doctrinal, and that is not what Paul is saying. We would not use the words of Satan as a foundation for Christian doctrine, even though they are included by inspiration in Scripture. The counsel of Job's three friends was rejected by God and God said that they did not speak any truth; so, we could not use their words as the basis for any Christian doctrine.

Tell me this... what Christian doctrines are taught in this passage:

[This] then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; [even] to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward [was] the uttermost part of the south coast.

And their south border was from the shore of the salt sea, from the bay that looketh southward:

And it went out to the south side to Maalehacrabbim, and passed along to Zin, and ascended up on the south side unto Kadeshbarnea, and passed along to Hezron, and went up to Adar, and fetched a compass to Karkaa:

[From thence] it passed toward Azmon, and went out unto the river of Egypt; and the goings out of that coast were at the sea: this shall be your south coast.

And the east border [was] the salt sea, [even] unto the end of Jordan. And [their] border in the north quarter [was] from the bay of the sea at the uttermost part of Jordan:

And the border went up to Bethhogla, and passed along by the north of Betharabah; and the border went up to the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben:

And the border went up toward Debir from the valley of Achor, and so northward, looking toward Gilgal, that [is] before the going up to Adummim, which [is] on the south side of the river: and the border passed toward the waters of Enshemesh, and the goings out thereof were at Enrogel:

And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same [is] Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that [lieth] before the valley of Hinnom westward, which [is] at the end of the valley of the giants northward:

And the border was drawn from the top of the hill unto the fountain of the water of Nephtoah, and went out to the cities of mount Ephron; and the border was drawn to Baalah, which [is] Kirjathjearim:

And the border compassed from Baalah westward unto mount Seir, and passed along unto the side of mount Jearim, which [is] Chesalon, on the north side, and went down to Bethshemesh, and passed on to Timnah:

And the border went out unto the side of Ekron northward: and the border was drawn to Shicron, and passed along to mount Baalah, and went out unto Jabneel; and the goings out of the border were at the sea.

And the west border [was] to the great sea, and the coast [thereof]. This [is] the coast of the children of Judah round about according to their families. (Josh. 15: 1-12)

Not every passage is meant to convey Christian doctrine. The above passage is valuable in its own right when approached from the proper heremeneutic perspective, but it conveys no doctrine.

"Doctrine" refers to the teachings of Scripture that provide a foundation for daily, practical Christian living. Not every verse in the Bible can be used for that purpose. Not all Scripture is meant to be doctrinal, but serve a number of purposes.

I think you know by now that I in no way would even say that every passage is a doctrinal passage. But doctrine is gleaned from a proper approach to Scripture. Sure, passages you gave do not indicate doctrine, they are illustrative of the borders of Judah. The point I am ultimately getting to is easily illustrated in our exchange. Some places you accept doctrine, other places I accept doctrine. Sometimes we agree on the same Scriptures as doctrine. You tell me where doctrine is neatly laid out. It is derived from the whole of Scripture, and as I am sure you have indicated not from a select few that prove only one view. Tie it all together, one place speaks of saving faith, another repentance and another baptism. Why throw out portions?