Results 21 - 40 of 58
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: arrow1 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 113775 | ||
I would equate Titus 3:5 to John 3:5. Two elements, water and spirit, one birth. Water Baptism and "receiving" the Holy Spirit are two sides of the same coin, they are inseperable, (Acts 2:38). With your view, you have two distinct baptisms, in water and in holy spirit, which would seem to contradict Eph. 4:5. Don't confuse receiving the indwelling of the spirit and baptism in the spirit. Acts 8:14, they had accepted the word of God and had been baptized(water)in the name of the Lord Jesus. Surely those people in Samaria were saved Christians. Later the apostles went there, placed hands on them, and gave them some spiritual gifts(most likely the ability to speak in tongues) and then Simon, whom who note in verse 13 believed and was baptized, asked if he could buy the gifts he had seen them receive, (he probably heard them tongue speaking). Obviously my view is not that water in and of itself is some majical salvation agent. Saved by Grace through Faith at Baptism. God does all the "work" and the saving, I am simply responding to the gospel by repenting and being baptized in the Lord's name. It's all done as a one time act of faith, not a work of the law. Once saved I continue to work out my salvation with trembling and fear and stand firm to the end. I continue having faith. |
||||||
22 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 113806 | ||
In my response I did not say he was saved at baptism(although that is my view). I simply stated his sins were washed away at a later time after he met Ananias and after he regained his sight. I was simply refuting your claim he was saved back when he met Jesus. Again my question was "why did he need his sins washed away if he was already saved? That's all I wanted a response to. The challenge was to show someone who was saved beyond 1 hour of his baptism. Again my point was simply his sins were washed away when he arose and called on the name(if you want to say his baptism came later fine)it still happened in conjuntion with his rising and calling, not 3 days prior on the Damascus road, which is when you claimed is when he was saved. | ||||||
23 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 113847 | ||
Quite easily. Let's start in John 20:22. Jesus gives them the Holy Spirit. Now Acts 1:3 He spends 40 days teaching them. I submit the 12 Apostles are saved. Now go to Pentecost. They are filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. Did reception of the Spirit save them or was it to enable them to tongue speak. Obviously they were already saved, it simply gave them the ability to speak in tongues. Now go to Acts 11:4, notice the word "precisely". Now go to v.15, as he "began" to speak the Holy Spirit fell. Surely Cornelius was not saved before he heard the message and was able to repent and believe. Notice Peter said in v.15, the Spirit came on "them"(cornelius) the same way it came on "us"(12 apostles) at the beginning. Not the same way it came on the 3,000, or Phillip, or Simon, or the Samarians, or the Ethiopian, or any of the other thousands who were being saved. It came on Cornelius the same way the 12 Apostles received it at Pentecost. Not to save them but to get peoples attention and to give them the abililty to speak in tongues. The Holy Spirit coming on Cornelius's household was to show that God was opening up the Gospel to the Gentiles. That was the whole purpose of Peter's dream and this story. God was now granting the Gentiles the opportunity to hear the Gospel and repent. Preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles was a huge obstacle to overcome for the Jewish Christians, thus God did something miraculous. Just like at Pentecost, He was ushering in the new church with power. Notice they were required to respond to the Gospel by being baptized in Jesus name, the same way everyone else responded when they heard the message. |
||||||
24 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 113849 | ||
I found it interesting in Eph.1:12-13 the absence of "faith alone" and "repentance". I know trust can be interpreted as faith, but still you seem to be picking and choosing verses to "fit" your doctrine. If one can look at baptism as an act of faith and not a work of the law then the verses that speak of being baptized into Christ make more sense. Saved by Grace through Faith at Baptism. I take all the verses that mention faith, all that mention belief, all that mention repentance, all that mention baptism, and all that contain different combinations of any of those words and find great harmony. God does all the "work", He shows the grace and mercy, He bestows the forgiveness and gives us the Holy Spirit. Our part is simply responding to the message or rejecting it. |
||||||
25 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 113938 | ||
I've always disliked that word denomination. I grew up in a small town, in a Lutheran church, my grandfather was even a minister in another town nearby. After moving to Des Moines, IA. I attended a small nondenominational church. A few years later attended an Assembly of God church where I came forward at an "altar call", a couple of years later began attending an Evangelical Free church where I was baptized by immersion in front of 450 members on a Sunday morning. A couple of years later(being single one gets restless) attended a large Baptist church. A couple years later began attending an International Church of Christ where I was taught "baptism for the forgiveness of sins", and a few years later brings us to the present where I'm back at the Evangelical Free Church on Sundays and on Thursday evenings attend a rather large, rapidly growing, very evangelical Lutheran church. The Thursday service is for singles only(typically draws 300 plus)and has full communion with real bread and "real" wine. During all that I have visited Catholic, Christian Science, Traditional Church of Christ, been to a Benny Hinn crusade, and even studied with Mormons(they will never convert). As you can see I have alot of religious experience so I have a very different perspective on the Bible. One of the most interesting experiences was attending a seminar "Why be Catholic" by Scott Hahn. He was a presbyterian seminarian who studied the Bible so extensively he converted to Catholicism. The most fascinating books of I've read are those by David Bercot, he seems to be an expert on the early church. I've found there is no perfect church. I'm puzzled why there is no mention of an age of accountability or infant baptism, or baptism of children and/or teenagers of Christian parents in the Bible. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is so crystal clear to me, I'm not sure how people miss that one. It appears so many verses that mention baptism have to be picked apart, disected, third person plural pronouned to death in order to not conflict with "faith alone", a phrase which isn't even in the Bible. My biggest question on that(concerning baptism) is why wasn't any translation ever translated to say what it means in plain Ennglish, crystal clear, no interpretation necessary. I was hoping to hear back from morant61 on my post 113859, tues. 12:16 am. I thought I did a good job on that one. Also would love to find just one Christian writer from the very early church who held the faith alone view. Oh, to answer your question, Christian. |
||||||
26 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 113939 | ||
still waiting patiently for a response, thanx, arrow1 |
||||||
27 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 113950 | ||
Yes, and most of them have been answered with a well thought out response, which I appreciate. Wish I could say the same for yours............. |
||||||
28 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114038 | ||
So what you're saying is, Saul upon meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus was spiritually(washed and/or cleansed of sin internally by the Holy Spirit) baptized if you will, and then later after meeting Ananias, was water baptized by him as a symbol, making his public confession of faith. If that's what you mean that's okay, I just wanted to clarify your statement in my own mind. I'll respect your answer. Based on some other posts, I'll best not reply and give the baptism thing a rest for awhile. Thanks, arrow1 |
||||||
29 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114270 | ||
1)If baptism isn't part of the full gospel message, than what is it part of, and where in scripture is its specific purpose and function and meaning explained? 2) Study the book of Acts and the conversion experiences closely. In "every" conversion experience, they all had the exact same response upon hearing the gospel message. If they all had the same immediate response, what "must" have they all just been told to evoke such a response. Really, think about that for a minute. In each and every case, they were all baptized "immediately". Now, if you witnessed and shared your faith with someone, would they have the same response the new converts in the book of Acts did. I submit they would not, because they would here a slightly different story than did they converts in the specific examples in Acts. Now, why is that? thanks, arrow1 |
||||||
30 | arrow1, what is your demonination? | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114337 | ||
searcher56, not sure what you mean by ?withdrawn, missed answer.............?? |
||||||
31 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114339 | ||
You are incorrect. The ICOC does use musical instruments. There are many traditional churches of christ. Some use musical instruments, and there are also many that don't. That was one doctrine I never really agreed with. It seems like one of those minor disputable matters which Christians could agree to disagree on. It is a bit of a connundrum, Efree has infant dedication and Luth. baptizes infants, neither of which has scriptural examples. The two I attend happen to be the two fastest growing churches in Des Moines right now. 1)Catholics adhere to baptismal regeneration 2)Evangelicals have the sinners prayer and faith alone 3)and then there is adult repentance and baptism into Christ. To me those are three distintly different doctrines. It's hard to believe that they are all correct at the same time. If you pick one, it seems you're condemning the others all to hell. That makes hell pretty crowded. I have personal friends in all three camps. They are all equally dedicated to and in love with the Lord. I admit I do struggle with that. Maybe I'm still searching a little myself. sincerely, arrow1 |
||||||
32 | please respond? | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114340 | ||
Sorry, I was simply responding to morant61........ | ||||||
33 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114341 | ||
Yes we are all equal in that God loves us all equally, the gospel is to be preached to all, and we all have the right to accept or reject it. The whole point of that story is "mainly" that up until that time the gospel was only preached to the Jews and now it was open to Gentiles as well. Read the context of the entire story. The jewish christians were really "struggling" with allowing Gentiles into the church. It was a BIG deal. Hence Peter's dream and God doing something really miraculous just like at Pentecost. I asked the question before, did the Holy Spirit save the 12 apostles at Pentecost or were they already saved? Again, Gal. 3:26-27, they were "baptized into Christ". |
||||||
34 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114444 | ||
My view, which not all agree with is that it died out with the apostles. Speaking in tongues and prophecy were powerfull symbols and helped usher in the new church. Once the church was established and we had the teachings of the apostles which were handed down by word of mouth and by letter, those gifts were no longer needed(1 Corinth. 13:8-10). arrow1, but that's just my view, I'll agree it's a tough subject........... |
||||||
35 | Did you know Campbell was not baptized? | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114445 | ||
The gentlemen who wrote the Nicene Creed in 325 AD also believed in "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" as did all(as far as I can tell) of the early church fathers. One of the best books on this subject is "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up" by David Bercot. The sinner's prayer and altar calls are only 200 years old and were unknown prior to that time, which is why I question those beliefs. arrow1 ps I never said I was a member of COC or ICOC. |
||||||
36 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | arrow1 | 114450 | ||
I believe the reason was to show that the Gospel was now open to the Gentiles, of course they would decide for themselves whether to accept or reject it, as is everyone's perrogative. | ||||||
37 | Previous question | Acts 10:44 | arrow1 | 113396 | ||
Previous question on Acts 10:44, not 11:13. | ||||||
38 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | arrow1 | 113431 | ||
Hank, I notice the verse you just quoted shed his blood "for the forgiveness of sins", compare it to Acts 2:38, "baptized for the forgiveness of sins". They are exactly the same phrase in English and in Greek(look in a greek bible). Water in and of itself without faith and repentance is useless. However baptism in his name is our response to the gospel. It is not a work of the law where we are trying to earn something, but an act of faith whereby we will receive something, namely forgiveness and the holy spirit. 1 Peter 3:21, it is the pledge of a good concience, and is effective because of the ressurection of Christ. You just said "to introduce any saving act or work we perform is heresy, well I guess then belief is a work, repenting is a work, the sinners prayer is a work. We are all simply saved by his blood alone, nothing we can do, I guess everyone is automatically saved. Why is it so hard to understand the concept "saved by grace thru faith at baptism" A gift is still a gift, even if you have to meet a certain condition to recieve it. |
||||||
39 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | arrow1 | 113434 | ||
I love it when people quote the thief on the cross wasn't baptized in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit. Think about it, how could you require him to do something that wasn't even commanded yet(the great commission) and Jesus had not yet been resurrected yet. I suppose I could argue that Abraham, David and Moses were not saved because they did not recieve the holy spirit yet( John 8:39). The New Testament says you must receive the holy spirit to be saved. Everyone in the Old Test. was under the Old Covenant, hence the purpose of the New Covenant which we today are under. | ||||||
40 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | arrow1 | 113435 | ||
No my friend, it does not show baptism is a symbol. It clearly says baptism is a spiritual act of Christ, in baptism Christ is spiritually circumcising us. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |