Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103338 | ||
Baptism never was part of Paul's gospel 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . . In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.' ____________________ "...it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
2 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | deejhermit | 103365 | ||
Paul didn't preach to the Eunuch, Philip did, and he made it a part of the Gospel. Why did Paul baptize Stephanous if he wasn't sent to baptize? What is Paul talking about in Romans 6, I cor. 12: 13, Gal. 3: 26-27, and why was Paul himself baptized after Jesus appeared to him and told him to go and he would be told what to do???Ananias told him to be baptized. Why did peter talk about it I pet. 3: 21 when he writes about baptism? The point you were talking about in I cor. where paul says he was not sent to baptize... He is addressing division among the corinthians over who they follow. He is not negating the importance baptism, but showing them not to be think the person who baptizes them should be their Lord. Please stop taking verses out of the Bible and lifting them out of the Bible. How can you say christians needn't be baptized when Jesus says they should??? |
||||||
3 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Morant61 | 103368 | ||
Greetings Deejhermit! You asked: "How can you say christians needn't be baptized when Jesus says they should???" The answer is that no one on the forum has said this. We all believe that Christians should be baptized in obedience to the command of Christ. Where we differ is in the role that baptism plays in relation to salvation. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration propose the following: Faith plus baptism are necessary for salvation. We believe that the Biblical position is the following: Faith is all that is necessary for salvation. Baptism is done as a result of salvation, not to obtain it. Now, allow me to touch upon your individual questions and points: 1) Phillip and the Ethiopian: Certainly baptism is mentioned in Acts 8. However, nothing in the passage teaches that baptism is necessary to obtain salvation. It is reasonable to assume that the Ethiopian wanted to be baptized because he had already accepted Christ. 2) Paul and Stephanous: Paul expressly states that he did not baptize any except for Stephanous' household, and Cripus and Gaius. But, the number of people he actually baptized is not important. His statement in 1 Cor. 1:17 is very important though. He said: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." Now, if baptism is necessary for salvation and is an essential part of the gospel, how can Paul say that Christ did not send him to baptize? Clearly, baptism is something which is done after one responds to the gospel and is not essential for salvation. 3) Why was Paul baptized? Because, all Christians are commanded to be baptized. Just as all Christians are commanded to give, go to church, be witnesses, love one another, ect. Yet, none of these 'commands' are necessary for salvation. They are things that a Christian is to do because he is saved, not to get saved. 4) Rom. 6: Paul is using 'burial' as an example of how foolish it is too continue to sin when a person has 'died' with Christ. Nothing in this passage says that one must be baptized to be saved. 5) 1 Cor. 12:13: I don't believe that this verse has anything to do with water baptism at all. 6) Gal. 3:26-27: Same here! Both of these passage refer to the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in making us part of the one body, neither refer to water baptism at all. 7) 1 Pet. 3:21: This point has been discussed many times. Note what Peter says that baptism does not do. He says: "...not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" Now, Peter put this appositional statement immediately into the verse for a reason. He did not want anyone to think that by saying 'baptism saves' he meant that baptism actually cleanses us from sin. So, he immediately qualifies his statement by noting that baptism does not remove the dirt from the body. Salvation cleanses us from sin. So, why the qualification about baptism? If it were necessary for salvation (i.e. - necessary for cleaning for sin), then Peter's appositional statement would make no sense. However, Peter also goes on to stress what baptism is: "...but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" or, some translations say: "but the response of a good conscience toward God" This is fully in accord with what most on the forum believe about baptism. It is something we are all commanded to due in response to salvation. The most important thing my friend is all of the clear statements of Scripture which explicitly state that our works play no role whatsoever in salvation. Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 4, Gal. 2, ect.... All of these state over and over again that if we have to 'earn' salvation, then it would be by 'works', not by 'grace'. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | deejhermit | 103394 | ||
Ok, I want to get right down to the core of the matter. Is one who is disobidient saved? Can one not obey Jesus' commands and still be saved? Yes Jesus' blood is what saves us, but do you believe His blood will save those who are not obedient to His will??? And here are some scriptures I think you will want to look at before answering this question. James 2:14-26 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, " Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. 18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead NASU True our works are not what save us, but only the blood of Jesus saves. But our faith is dead if we are not obedient and do the good works we are commanded... And dead faith does not equal salvation |
||||||
5 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Morant61 | 103396 | ||
Greetings Deejhermit! As you correctly stated, works do not save us. Yet, would you then go on to say that works keep us saved? :-) This is the logical fallacy of the position known as baptismal regeneration. It teaches that, while works don't save, they somehow keep us saved. How can something which doesn't save, keep one saved? Christians ought to obey, this is a true statement. But, their salvation is not based upon, nor is it dependent upon that obedience. We are saved by grace, through faith, not by works. Now, what happens to a Chritian who does not obey God. There are many things which could result. 1) One could lose his testimony. 2) One could fail to grow spiritually. 3) One could even (depending upon one's theological position) have one's heart become so hardened by sin that one would reject Christ. But, our works or lack of works is not a basis of salvation. Now, you mentioned James 2. I have posted on this previously, so I won't dwell on it, but the issue in James 2 is not whether or not works are necessary for salvation. The issue is whether or not one has works which serve as the evidence of saving faith. James is not talking about someone who has faith one day, and then doesn't the next. One who works one day, and then doesn't the next. The 'objectors' in James 2 never had faith to begin with and it was evidenced by their lack of works. Even Paul, in Eph. 2:10, makes it clear that works will result from faith. But, 'works' are not the basis or condition of faith. To say this would mean that while we are saved by grace, we stay saved by our own effort. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||