PDA

View Full Version : Baptism with water AND spirit



Christian_lady
Sep 20th 2007, 04:19 PM
I was baptised with water before I was a Christian (as a baby). I asked the Lord to come into my heart and He did (about seven years ago, as an adult...)

Does that mean I have 'fulfilled' my baptism with the water AND the spirit?

CL

Matt14
Sep 20th 2007, 04:28 PM
I was baptised with water before I was a Christian (as a baby). I asked the Lord to come into my heart and He did (about seven years ago, as an adult...)

Does that mean I have 'fulfilled' my baptism with the water AND the spirit?

CL


Hi CL,

The Bible says that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). We also read that baptism is for a believer (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37). In order to be a believer in the Christ as the Son of God, one must hear the Word (Romans 10:17).

Therefore, baptism as an infant is not the baptism commanded by the Great Commission, because it does not involve knowledge of Him as the Son of God, nor does it involve choice to act in faith on the part of the candidate for baptism.

To be born of water and Spirit means to be baptized as a believer. In this process, you are buried with Christ, dying to self, and being raised into a new life (Romans 6:3-8). A believer must have faith that the act of being baptized for the remission of sins is the working of God (Col. 2:12).

In baptism, one is "putting on Christ" (Gal. 3:26-29) and being added to the church by Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 2:47).

There is no place in scripture that teaches we can "ask Jesus into our hearts" and be placed into a right relationship with God. There is no "book, chapter and verse" for a "sinner's prayer."

Hope this helps answer your question. God bless you!

Sold Out
Sep 20th 2007, 04:51 PM
I was baptised with water before I was a Christian (as a baby). I asked the Lord to come into my heart and He did (about seven years ago, as an adult...)

Does that mean I have 'fulfilled' my baptism with the water AND the spirit?

CL

Baptism in the spirit is when you are born again throught the spirit of God (saved).

"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" Luke 3:16

godsgirl
Sep 20th 2007, 04:55 PM
Baptism in the spirit is when you are born again throught the spirit of God (saved).

"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" Luke 3:16


No, baptism in the Spirit isn't the same as being born again. Being baptised in the Spirit is the Promise of the Father-it is the childrens bread-in other words-it is for Christians-remember Paul asked the Ephesian believers..."have you received the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed?' Acts 19

When one is baptised in the Spirit the initial evidence is speaking in tongues as the Spirit enables--Acts 2:4, Acts 19:6, Acts 10:46

Sold Out
Sep 20th 2007, 04:57 PM
There is no place in scripture that teaches we can "ask Jesus into our hearts" and be placed into a right relationship with God. There is no "book, chapter and verse" for a "sinner's prayer."

Hope this helps answer your question. God bless you!

You need to read the statement of faith for this Forum. No where does it state that baptism is necessary for salvation.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

Sold Out
Sep 20th 2007, 04:58 PM
No, baptism in the Spirit isn't the same as being born again. Being baptised in the Spirit is the Promise of the Father-it is the childrens bread-in other words-it is for Christians-remember Paul asked the Ephesian believers..."have you received the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed?' Acts 19

When one is baptised in the Spirit the initial evidence is speaking in tongues as the Spirit enables--Acts 2:4, Acts 19:6, Acts 10:46

I disagree...

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5

Matt14
Sep 20th 2007, 05:40 PM
You need to read the statement of faith for this Forum.

I'm sure I've read it. I've been here several years. :)


No where does it state that baptism is necessary for salvation.

I'm more interested in what the scriptures say. How about you?


"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

God bless, and good to meet you.

-

Sold Out
Sep 20th 2007, 05:54 PM
I'm sure I've read it. I've been here several years. :)
I'm more interested in what the scriptures say. How about you?
-

The statement of faith on this forum says baptism is not necessary for salvation. What you believe is out of scope with the accepted (and posted) view of salvation on this Forum.

Moderator - Please advise.

Matt14
Sep 20th 2007, 05:58 PM
The statement of faith on this forum says baptism is not necessary for salvation. What you believe is out of scope with the accepted (and posted) view of salvation on this Forum.

Moderator - Please advise.

I've only spoken what the scriptures say. Don't you want to talk about that, instead of a man-made creed? :hmm:

If you disagree with the scriptures posted above, why not tell me where and why you disagree?

Theophilus
Sep 20th 2007, 06:34 PM
Moderator - Please advise.
Scripture supported debated over the necessity of baptism for salvation is allowed. Do a search, and you'll see it's been discussed many times.

...and Matt14 is often right in the thick of it! ;)

Matt14
Sep 20th 2007, 06:37 PM
Scripture supported debated over the necessity of baptism for salvation is allowed. Do a search, and you'll see it's been discussed many times.

...and Matt14 is often right in the thick of it! ;)
Thanks, Theophilus. Good to see you again!

Matt14
Sep 20th 2007, 06:39 PM
The statement of faith on this forum says baptism is not necessary for salvation. What you believe is out of scope with the accepted (and posted) view of salvation on this Forum.

Moderator - Please advise.
Sold Out, I would love to discuss this matter with you further.

Whispering Grace
Sep 20th 2007, 06:39 PM
Moderator - Please advise.

Matt14 used to be an Administrator here at Bibleforums. And I don't think his beliefs have changed since then. ;)

By the way.....Howdy Matt! It's good to see you. :wave:

Matt14
Sep 20th 2007, 06:40 PM
Matt14 used to be an administrator here at Bibleforums. And I don't think his beliefs have changed since then. ;)

By the way.....Howdy Matt! It's good to see you. :wave:

Hey sis, now you aren't saying I'm hard-headed, are you? :lol:

I prefer the term, "thoroughly convinced!"

Good to see you!

Theophilus
Sep 20th 2007, 06:41 PM
Thanks, Theophilus. Good to see you again!
Back atcha.

You, too, WeeGee. :hug:

Whispering Grace
Sep 20th 2007, 06:41 PM
No, baptism in the Spirit isn't the same as being born again. Being baptised in the Spirit is the Promise of the Father-it is the childrens bread-in other words-it is for Christians-remember Paul asked the Ephesian believers..."have you received the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed?' Acts 19



I agree. Bapstism of the Holy Spirit is a separate event from being born again.

Whispering Grace
Sep 20th 2007, 06:42 PM
You, too, WeeGee. :hug:

Well if this isn't just a regular ol' reunion. :D

Sold Out
Sep 20th 2007, 08:23 PM
Sold Out, I would love to discuss this matter with you further.

Sure....can you explain Cornelius' conversion in Acts chapter 10?

Steven3
Sep 20th 2007, 10:07 PM
Hi Sold Out
You need to read the statement of faith for this Forum. No where does it state that baptism is necessary for salvation.Does it state that "whosoever believeth and is not baptised shall be saved"? (pace Mark 16:16)


"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

At what point in Timothy's life as a Christian did he do this:

1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Back to Pentecost

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’........ 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. .......47 And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

God bless
Steven

Matt14
Sep 20th 2007, 11:56 PM
Sure....can you explain Cornelius' conversion in Acts chapter 10?

I'll do my best. :)

Now, probably what you are getting at is, "Why did Cornelius and his family have the Holy Spirit poured out upon them if they were not already saved?"

An equally pointed question would be, "Why did Peter see the need to baptize them after he saw the miraculous signs come upon them?"

The simple fact of the matter is that the falling of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his family did not mark a point of conversion!

Why do I say this? First, let me ask you a question:

When were the twelve apostles saved?

God bless!

Steven3
Sep 21st 2007, 10:16 AM
Hi Matt
I'll do my best. :)

Now, probably what you are getting at is, "Why did Cornelius and his family have the Holy Spirit poured out upon them if they were not already saved?"

An equally pointed question would be, "Why did Peter see the need to baptize them after he saw the miraculous signs come upon them?"

The simple fact of the matter is that the falling of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his family did not mark a point of conversion!

Why do I say this? First, let me ask you a question:

When were the twelve apostles saved?

God bless!Good post

Can I interject with 3 points? :)

1. The 11 (one unsaved himself) is a bit of an exception isn't it? They were baptised by John 4 years before Christ breathed in the Holy Spirit in John 20:22.

2 .Cornelius is also an exception - he had to demonstrate intelligible tongues or the three brethren from Joppa would have prevented Peter baptising him. Peter just tore up, in their eyes, 2000 years of Jewish history, they weren't going to let him do it without a divine demonstration from heaven.

3. Generally I think water-and-spirit just means literal-and-figurative. BAPTISMA itself is a word that implies literal-and-figurative. It's an ism. A made up NT-word different from BAPTOS, water only.

God bless
Steven

Sold Out
Sep 21st 2007, 01:04 PM
I'll do my best. :)

Now, probably what you are getting at is, "Why did Cornelius and his family have the Holy Spirit poured out upon them if they were not already saved?"

An equally pointed question would be, "Why did Peter see the need to baptize them after he saw the miraculous signs come upon them?"

The simple fact of the matter is that the falling of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his family did not mark a point of conversion!

Why do I say this? First, let me ask you a question:

When were the twelve apostles saved?

God bless!

How can the Holy Spirit come into an unclean vessel (unsaved person)? Name one person that received the Holy Spirit that wasn't saved?

There is no way to pinpoint when each individual apostle was saved, as their individual conversions are not recorded for us in the scriptures. I don't understand the significance for this question.

Do you believe that there is only one Gospel?

Matt14
Sep 21st 2007, 02:05 PM
How can the Holy Spirit come into an unclean vessel (unsaved person)? Name one person that received the Holy Spirit that wasn't saved?

Saying the Spirit came "into" them, as in a personal indwelling at that point, would not be accurate. The Spirit "fell upon" them, and caused them to perform miraculous signs (speaking in tongues).

The Lord has caused many "unclean" people to do certain things. Remember Balaam's donkey (Num. 22)? Remember Caiaphas? He prophesied unknowingly prophesied that Jesus would die for the people. John said he did not say this on his own initiative, meaning God led him to say it (John 11:49-52).

So in the case of Cornelius, the Spirit had not "come into" him to take up residence, but rather seems to have been poured upon him as a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles were now acceptable to God under the New Covenant.

In fact, this outpouring COULD NOT have been the same baptism that Peter commands in Acts 2:38. There are two good reasons:


The baptism of Acts 2:38 is one commanded by men. The Holy Spirit baptism was a promise, not a command. People are instead commanded to submit to the baptism of Acts 2:38.
Only Jesus is said to perform the Holy Spirit baptism (Matt. 3:11, etc.). Men are not able to perform this baptism. Instead Christ commanded them to baptize in water.

So you see, Peter went on to command Cornelius and his family to be baptized in water (Acts 10:47) because this was the command of the Lord, and they had yet to receive the Holy Spirit as a gift (the indwelling, Acts 2:38).

The "falling" of the Spirit upon them and the "indwelling" are two different things.



There is no way to pinpoint when each individual apostle was saved, as their individual conversions are not recorded for us in the scriptures. I don't understand the significance for this question.

The question is significant because the point at which the Spirit fell upon the apostles at Pentencost was not necessarily the point at which they became saved. You see, the falling of the Spirit was a sign, not a mark of the point of salvation.

So just as we cannot gauge the apostles' point of salvation by this miraculous sign performed by God, neither can we gauge the point of salvation for Cornelius. To be consistent with scripture, they had to have been saved at the same point everyone else in the New Testament was: upon belief (John 8:24), a confession of faith (Matt. 10:32-33), repentance (Acts 17:30), and baptism into Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:27).


Do you believe that there is only one Gospel?

Of course! And since there is one gospel, God would not require different things of different people in order for one to become saved. Therefore, since no one exhibits the types of miracles seen in the NT, are we to conclude that no one is saved? No! Instead, we are to conclude that the miraculous signs do not necessarily mean a person is saved, but rather faith complying with God's terms for the New Covenant make one saved. Coming into the blood of Christ by accepting His terms!

Let me ask you a question: If you were going to tell a person how to "receive" Christ and become a child of God this very moment, what would you say?

Thanks, and God bless!

tgallison
Sep 21st 2007, 02:30 PM
You need to read the statement of faith for this Forum. No where does it state that baptism is necessary for salvation.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13


Sold out I hope I don't get kicked off the forum but if I wasn't baptized into Jesus, the living water, by the Holy Spirit, then I wouldn't be saved. Granted it is a spirtual baptism, but it is a baptism of water. One Lord, One Faith,
One Baptism. (Living Water)

I do believe that we ought to be baptized by the earthly water, not out of commandment, but out of love for God.
To show that we are not ashamed of our Lord.

Sold Out
Sep 21st 2007, 05:52 PM
Of course! And since there is one gospel, God would not require different things of different people in order for one to become saved.


Great! We can agree that that there is only one Gospel. Paul said in Romans 1:16:

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."

If Paul said the Gospel is what saves us, then it is imperative that we know what it is!
The Gospel is defined in I Corinthians 15:1-4 as the death, burial & resurrection of Christ, plus nothing, minus nothing:

"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"

Paul said again in I Corinthians 1:17,

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"

According to I Cor 15:1-4, the gospel is the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul said that only the gospel saves and he was sent to preach the Gospel -not baptize, which means baptism is not a part of the saving Gospel.


Now lets look at Galatians 3:6-8

"Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

This verse proves that baptism is not a part of the saving Gospel, since there was no baptism during Abraham's day (Old Testament). Abraham was saved the same as us (via the Gospel), without baptism. Since you and I agree that there is only one Gospel, baptism cannot be a part of salvation.

Matt14
Sep 21st 2007, 06:36 PM
Great! We can agree that that there is only one Gospel. Paul said in Romans 1:16:

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."

If Paul said the Gospel is what saves us, then it is imperative that we know what it is!
The Gospel is defined in I Corinthians 15:1-4 as the death, burial & resurrection of Christ, plus nothing, minus nothing:

"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"

Sure, this is a definition of the gospel. But notice that Paul does not outline in this passage is the response men are to have to the gospel. Belief, repentance, confession of Christ publicly and baptism for the remission of sins are all responses to that gospel. Paul teaches them all:


Faith -- Eph. 2:8
Repentance -- 2 Cor. 7:10
Confession of Christ -- Romans 10:9,10
Baptism -- Romans 6:3-8; Gal. 3:26-29, etc.


Keep this in mind as we continue.


Paul said again in I Corinthians 1:17,

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel"

According to I Cor 15:1-4, the gospel is the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul said that only the gospel saves and he was sent to preach the Gospel -not baptize, which means baptism is not a part of the saving Gospel.

If you say baptism is not necessary because it is not mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, then you will also have to throw out faith, repentance, and public confession of Christ as the Son of the Living God, because they are absent from this passage as well.

Paul made the statement that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" to say that he was not sent to do the actual hands-on work of baptism so much as to mainly to preach the gospel. He obviously DID baptize, though, because he says:

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
1Co 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

Paul DID baptize, that just wasn't his main work. Likely his helpers performed baptisms, much like Jesus Christ:

Joh 4:1 Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
Joh 4:2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),

So you see, that passage really does not mean Paul didn't teach baptism.


Now lets look at Galatians 3:6-8

"Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

This verse proves that baptism is not a part of the saving Gospel, since there was no baptism during Abraham's day (Old Testament). Abraham was saved the same as us (via the Gospel), without baptism. Since you and I agree that there is only one Gospel, baptism cannot be a part of salvation.

The requirement for faith has not changed, but the requirement for expression of faith has. We must obey what is given us to obey under our respective covenant.

How do we become part of the seed promise? Keep reading in Galatians, and you'll see it!

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Those who are of faith, and are baptized into Christ have become "Abraham's descendants!"

Thanks for discussing this with me, and God bless!

Steven3
Sep 21st 2007, 06:56 PM
Those who are of faith, and are baptized into Christ have become "Abraham's descendants!"Excellent set of verses Matt,

Sold Out,
I can't quite understand - if baptism is so bad, why did Jesus suffer himself to be baptised? :confused

Yours, curiously,
Steven

Adam
Sep 21st 2007, 07:10 PM
Excellent set of verses Matt,

Sold Out,
I can't quite understand - if baptism is so bad, why did Jesus suffer himself to be baptised? :confused

Yours, curiously,
Steven

Nobody is saying that baptism "is so bad"; the point is rather whether it is necessary for salvation.

Steven3
Sep 21st 2007, 07:42 PM
Hi Adam
Nobody is saying that baptism "is so bad"; the point is rather whether it is necessary for salvation.Hmm, okay, I was getting the impression that some people really don't want to do it.

So, someone is going to be a Christian. It's an easy job to arrange to be baptised. Most places theres one or two local pastors who will do it without even demanding you attend their church if that's not everyone's taste. And we have all these NT verses saying do it.

So what's the reason, what's the drawback, about just doing it? Where's the problem?? :dunno:

Surely if God said "wear a clown suit" we'd do it. Why not get baptised?
Steven

Sold Out
Sep 21st 2007, 08:03 PM
Sure, this is a definition of the gospel. But notice that Paul does not outline in this passage is the response men are to have to the gospel. Belief, repentance, confession of Christ publicly and baptism for the remission of sins are all responses to that gospel. Paul teaches them all:

Faith -- Eph. 2:8
Repentance -- 2 Cor. 7:10
Confession of Christ -- Romans 10:9,10
Baptism -- Romans 6:3-8; Gal. 3:26-29, etc.The Gospel is what saves, regardless of the response, and baptism is not a part of the saving Gospel. Salvation is already accomplished by the Gospel (Christ's death, burial & resurrection). All we must do is trust that - by believing, like Abraham did (who was NEVER baptized in order to be saved)

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit," Ephesians 1:13

Believing the gospel is what saves, and has always saved, Old Testament (Abraham, Moses, etc) & New Testament. The gospel clearly does not include baptism.





The requirement for faith has not changed, but the requirement for expression of faith has. We must obey what is given us to obey under our respective covenant.


You yourself said all men are saved the same, now you say they are not?


and since there is one gospel, God would not require different things of different people in order for one to become saved.

Matt14
Sep 21st 2007, 08:26 PM
The Gospel is what saves, regardless of the response, and baptism is not a part of the saving Gospel. Salvation is already accomplished by the Gospel (Christ's death, burial & resurrection). All we must do is trust that - by believing, like Abraham did (who was NEVER baptized in order to be saved)

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit," Ephesians 1:13

Believing the gospel is what saves, and has always saved, Old Testament (Abraham, Moses, etc) & New Testament. The gospel clearly does not include baptism.




You yourself said all men are saved the same, now you say they are not?

God has always required the same things: faith expressing itself in obedience.

Abraham was saved because he was faithful and obeyed.

So are men today. The same things, faith and obedience, are required by God.

Under different covenants, the specifics may vary. In order to be an Israelite, under the old covenant, one had to be circumcised. Obedience was necessary, even then.

And it still is now. Abraham was never commanded to be baptized. But he obeyed what he WAS commanded.

Moses was never commanded to be baptized. He was under a different convenant.

Noah was never commanded to be baptized, but he was faithful because he obeyed.

But you have been commanded to be baptized. So have I, and all men and women who desire to die to self and be raised to walk in newness of life, Christ having added them Himself to His church.

Try reading this article: http://the7ones.com/2007/09/21/baptism-doth-also-now-save-us/

Steven3
Sep 21st 2007, 11:40 PM
Hi Sold Out
I still don't see why you're against people doing what Christ himself did? :dunno:

The Gospel is what saves, regardless of the response

So if someone says "I heard it, I understand it, but I'm not going to do it" they are saved?

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”

2 Thessalonians 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Colossians 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation

Again, as Matt14 pointed out, baptism is only a sign of obedience. Obeying the Gospel (as above) saves, obedience (as below) saves.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Disobedience does not save.

God bless
Steven

Sold Out
Sep 24th 2007, 05:00 PM
God has always required the same things: faith expressing itself in obedience.

Abraham was saved because he was faithful and obeyed.

So are men today. The same things, faith and obedience, are required by God.

Under different covenants, the specifics may vary. In order to be an Israelite, under the old covenant, one had to be circumcised. Obedience was necessary, even then.

And it still is now. Abraham was never commanded to be baptized. But he obeyed what he WAS commanded.

Moses was never commanded to be baptized. He was under a different convenant.

Noah was never commanded to be baptized, but he was faithful because he obeyed.

But you have been commanded to be baptized. So have I, and all men and women who desire to die to self and be raised to walk in newness of life, Christ having added them Himself to His church.

Try reading this article: http://the7ones.com/2007/09/21/baptism-doth-also-now-save-us/

You are missing the point....the bible says the GOSPEL saves, which you agreed to. So unless there is another Gospel, it does not include baptism. Abraham believed the Gospel and was saved. There was no baptism in the Old Testament....

So can you tell me how those in the Old Testament were saved? Use scripture to back up your answer.

Matt14
Sep 24th 2007, 06:14 PM
You are missing the point....the bible says the GOSPEL saves, which you agreed to. So unless there is another Gospel, it does not include baptism. Abraham believed the Gospel and was saved. There was no baptism in the Old Testament....

Sold Out, I have not missed the point. But I think you are not considering the point I made in return.

You see, the passage that tells you that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation does not tell you what man's response should. Romans 1:16 and ! Cor. 15:1-4 do not mention anything about faith. With the line of reasoning you are using, ALL MEN would be saved regardless of their response (faith, obedience, rejection, apathy, etc.) Since faith and obedience are both responses to the gospel, and not the gospel themselves, then the argument you make about baptism would also apply to faith (belief).

There is one gospel. Man's response to that gospel has always been commanded by God to be faith acting in obedience.

I was thinking today about the quality of patience. If someone says they have patience, and yet they are continually impatient with people in their lives, they don't really have patience, do they?

The man that behaves in that manner may tell his wife, "I do have patience, I just don't show it! But God knows I have patience!" Is this man telling the truth? Patience, you see, isn't a quality that can be held internally. It is a quality that only exists in tandem with action!

In the same way, a man that says "I have faith, I don't act on it, but God knows" is lying to himself. Faith and action have always been in tandem, and without action there is no faith! James, of course says this well in his second chapter.

That is why baptism is necessary. It is the first act of faith, and faith is dead until it acts.


So can you tell me how those in the Old Testament were saved? Use scripture to back up your answer.

You and I will not disagree with how those in the Old Testament were saved. They were saved by faith in God's promise plan (the death, burial and resurrection of Christ). Their faith looked forward to Messiah.

Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. This reference to the OT is found three times in the NT:

Rom 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Gal 3:5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:6 just as Abraham "BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Gal 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS." And he was called the friend of God.
Jas 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

I want you to notice that the Romans passage mentions not being saved by "works." In the Galatians passage, Paul clarifies the same thought by saying "works of the Law." So the works in view by which a man cannot be saved are works of the Law of Moses.

James says that Abraham's faith was made complete because it was mixed with works.

Surely no one in the Old Testament was saved by their works, but by faith. But the kind of faith that saved was one that was obedient to the commands of God under whatever covenant one lived at the time.

Abraham lived under the partriarchal dispensation. He was indeed called a friend of God, and his belief in God was counted to him for righteousness. But would he have been counted righteous had his belief not caused him to leave his homeland and strike out for territories unknown, because God told him to go?

Under the Christian dispensation, men are commanded to believe in Jesus as the Son of the Living God, that He lived, died on the cross and rose again, later ascending to the right hand of God. Jesus commanded repentance (Luke 13:3) as did His apostles (Acts 17:30; Acts 2:38). Jesus commanded public confession of Him as Savior and God in the flesh (Matt. 10:32-33). He commanded belief and baptism in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). These are the commands obedience to which our faith should manifest itself.

And as the Hebrew writer says in reference to Jesus Christ:

Heb 5:9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

That's probably not the short answer you may have hoped for. :lol:

God bless!

Sold Out
Sep 24th 2007, 06:25 PM
There are only two covenants....the one God made with Israel (the nation that would birth the Messiah) and the one Christ made upon the finished work of the cross.

People were not saved differently in Patriarchal covenant, Mosaic Covenant, New Testament covenant, etc. God's plan for salvation has never changed...only his program. Up until Jesus' birth, the program was the nation of Israel. After Jesus established the church, the program is now the Jewish-Gentile church. The means of salvation have always been the same - faith in the Messiah apart from works.

So how do you explain the thief on the cross? He was never baptized, yet was promised heaven, even though the command to be 'born again of water & spirit' had been given by Jesus in John 3?

Steven3
Sep 24th 2007, 06:53 PM
Hi SoldOut
Just a comment
There are only two covenants....the one God made with Israel (the nation that would birth the Messiah) and the one Christ made upon the finished work of the cross.Genesis 6:18 But I will establish my covenant (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H01285&Version=kjv) with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.


People were not saved differently in Patriarchal covenant, Mosaic Covenant, New Testament covenant, etc. God's plan for salvation has never changed...only his program.Right, the plan is faith and obedience, and the program changes - first sacrifice-but-no-circumcision, then circumcision-and-sacrifice, then baptism-and-no-sacrifice. The details we don't need to go into. But the plan (faith and a response/obedience - see James' comments about Abraham) doesn't change.

You're, apparently, arguing for salvation by disobedience. Sorry don't mean to say anything bad but I can't see in your posts where the idea of response/obedience is coming up.


So how do you explain the thief on the cross? He was never baptized, yet was promised heaven, even though the command to be 'born again of water & spirit' had been given by Jesus in John 3?Given that he asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus "came in his kingdom" and since he didn't ask to go to heaven, that suggests he had a good understanding of the Bible, which suggests he was a Jew, and therefore circumcised. But even if he hadn't been, being nailed to a cross is a pretty good excuse don't you think :). A bit of a better excuse than "I'm scared I'd look silly in a bathrobe" or "people who do what Jesus asks have no understanding of grace" (no one on this forum, a hypothetical example)

Of the thousands of Christians today who refuse to bow to baptism, how many people have the thief's excuse?
God bless :)
Steven

Matt14
Sep 24th 2007, 07:02 PM
There are only two covenants....the one God made with Israel (the nation that would birth the Messiah) and the one Christ made upon the finished work of the cross.

People were not saved differently in Patriarchal covenant, Mosaic Covenant, New Testament covenant, etc. God's plan for salvation has never changed...only his program. Up until Jesus' birth, the program was the nation of Israel. After Jesus established the church, the program is now the Jewish-Gentile church. The means of salvation have always been the same - faith in the Messiah apart from works.

No, people have never been saved differently. It has always been by obedient faith!

Abraham was commanded things we do not have to comply with because he lived under a different dispensation. Do you agree, or disagree?


So how do you explain the thief on the cross? He was never baptized, yet was promised heaven, even though the command to be 'born again of water & spirit' had been given by Jesus in John 3?

How do you know he had never been baptized?

Mat 3:5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him
Mat 3:6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

But more importantly, baptized or not, Jesus told the man he would be with Him in paradise, and I believe Him. Jesus forgave many people of their sins while He was walking the earth.

But, after His death, a different covenant began:

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

The New Covenant was not in force while Jesus lived on earth. It was not in effect when Jesus made this promise to the thief. After His death, though, it was in effect.

So regardless of the thief's status in regard to baptism, once the New Covenant was in effect, man is bound by what God commands in connection with that New Covenant:


Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

uric3
Sep 25th 2007, 11:58 AM
The New Covenant was not in force while Jesus lived on earth. It was not in effect when Jesus made this promise to the thief. After His death, though, it was in effect.

So regardless of the thief's status in regard to baptism, once the New Covenant was in effect, man is bound by what God commands in connection with that New Covenant:

Just wanted to insert a comment here in case you anyone is wondering how we know the NT wasn't in effect while Christ was alive on earth you can find that in Heb 9:15-17

"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. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

Just wanted to point that out also another thing to note is while Christ was upon earth he could forgive sins Mark 2:9-10

"Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

So now that Christ is on the right hand of God how do we we are to obey to have them washed away as show to us in Acts 22:16

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Anyway hope that sheds a little more light on some points made.

Sold Out
Sep 25th 2007, 12:54 PM
[quote=Steven3;1391658]

Right, the plan is faith and obedience, and the program changes - first sacrifice-but-no-circumcision, then circumcision-and-sacrifice, then baptism-and-no-sacrifice. The details we don't need to go into. But the plan (faith and a response/obedience - see James' comments about Abraham) doesn't change.


So you are saying it's different works? (sacrifice, circumcision, baptism)



Given that he asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus "came in his kingdom" and since he didn't ask to go to heaven, that suggests he had a good understanding of the Bible, which suggests he was a Jew, and therefore circumcised.
Steven

Wow, that's quite an assumption. No where in all the scriptures does it say this man was a Jew or knew the scriptures. He was obviously quite the criminal, having found himself being punished in the most degrading and cruel fashion. The ONLY thing we know about him is that Jesus told him he would be with Him in paradise THAT DAY - and he was NEVER baptized. Again, this proves baptism is not necessary to be saved.

Steven3
Sep 25th 2007, 01:37 PM
Hi Sold Out
[quote] So you are saying it's different works? (sacrifice, circumcision, baptism)No, I'm saying it's obedience. Obedience isn't "works".
No where in all the scriptures does it say this man was a Jew or knew the scriptures. The fact that he didn't ask to go to paradise "that day" proves his Bible knowledge was better than most modern Christians for a start... :( but whatever, if he wasn't circumcised or baptised then his excuse isn't an excuse anyone today has, is it?

Why do you feel so strongly that obedience to baptism is wrong?
Steven

Sold Out
Sep 25th 2007, 01:45 PM
[quote=Steven3;1392382]No, I'm saying it's obedience. Obedience isn't "works".

Obedience is works. If you believe you have to do something to have salvation, then it's works.


The fact that he didn't ask to go to paradise "that day" proves his Bible knowledge was better than most modern Christians for a start... :( but whatever, if he wasn't circumcised or baptised then his excuse isn't an excuse anyone today has, is it?

First off, I'm not against baptism. I believe baptism is the first step of obedience AFTER a person is saved. I do not believe baptism is necessary to BE SAVED.

You are stepping out on quite a limb concerning the thief on the cross. You are making assumptions to prove your point, which actually prove nothing. The BIBLE says that Jesus told him he would be with Him in paradise...regardless of whether or not the man asked to go that day. Your argument is very weak, and I suspect you have backed yourself into a corner by trying to find a 'way out' for the thief not being baptized. Now remember, if Jesus was speaking of baptism in John 3, then it was already commanded to be done, which would apply to the thief on the cross.

Steven3
Sep 25th 2007, 02:18 PM
Hi Sold Out :)
[quote]Obedience is works. If you believe you have to do something to have salvation, then it's works.Why is it? It might be "faith working through love".

Acts 6:7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. ........17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,


First off, I'm not against baptism.Well you had me fooled :spin: So you have been baptised then. Sounds almost as if, (sorry because it probably isn't at all what it's meant to sound like), as if when some folk get baptised it it isn't works but when other folk do it is?

Isn't that a bit judgmental? How do any of us know the motives of people who choose to be baptised?


1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


The BIBLE says that Jesus told him he would be with Him in paradiseHe will, when paradise happens. But again my point was that a man being crucified by the Romans in 1st Century Judea who expresses belief in the Messiah and faith that he can be "remembered" when the Messiah comes "in his kingdom" then he might well be either a Jew or a Samaritan. You're assuming he was a Gentile, then arguing from this assumption as if it was a proven fact. Besides, even if he was a Gentile, so what, that doesn't change this:

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Cheers
Steven

uric3
Sep 25th 2007, 02:48 PM
[quote]

Obedience is works. If you believe you have to do something to have salvation, then it's works.



First off, I'm not against baptism. I believe baptism is the first step of obedience AFTER a person is saved. I do not believe baptism is necessary to BE SAVED.

You are stepping out on quite a limb concerning the thief on the cross. You are making assumptions to prove your point, which actually prove nothing. The BIBLE says that Jesus told him he would be with Him in paradise...regardless of whether or not the man asked to go that day. Your argument is very weak, and I suspect you have backed yourself into a corner by trying to find a 'way out' for the thief not being baptized. Now remember, if Jesus was speaking of baptism in John 3, then it was already commanded to be done, which would apply to the thief on the cross..

I will address the thief further. The reason he didn't have to be baptized is due to the fact that he wasn't under the NT due to Christ not being dead. As I stated earlier in an earlier post the testament is not in affect until the death of the testator. Heb 9:15-17

The apostles didn't know to baptize in the name of father son and holy spirit at this time either. They didn't know that was to be done until after Christ was raised thats when he gave the commission until then. Up until that point the only baptism was Johns. Was that good enough after Christ death? Nope because we see in Acts 19:1-7 that those who had it had to be re-baptized into Christ.

So due to the baptism we are commanded to do in Christ commission to his apostles wasn't in affect yet the thief didn't have to follow it because that didn't occur until after Christ was raised from the dead...

Also as mentioned before in my earlier post Christ had the ability to forgive sins while on earth Mark 2:9-10 but now we get our sins washed away during baptism according to Acts 22:16.

Steven3
Sep 25th 2007, 02:55 PM
Hi Uric3, thanks, back on track :)
I will address the thief further. The reason he didn't have to be baptized is due to the fact that he wasn't under the NT due to Christ not being dead. As I stated earlier in an earlier post the testament is not in affect until the death of the testator. Heb 9:15-17You're right of course. To be honest the thief is a total red herring. What's more relevant under the Old Covenant were the Ninevites who will be raised and saved Matt12:41 despite not being circumcised or baptised. But again, it's OT. There's no evidence of anyone after Mark16:16 willfully refusing submitting to baptism and being saved despite their refusal.

The reality - and I've seen this, is that introducing (false) red herrings like the thief on the cross can disuade someone from making that visible, no going back, confession and committment to Christ that the rite of water rebirth marks off. With the result that they never really take the more difficult steps of living a new life. And then aged 55, suddenly getting health worries, a whole life of sitting-on-the-fence half-life in Christ has already gone by and old habits and pride are very difficult to change.
That's the concern.
Steven

Friend of I AM
Sep 25th 2007, 03:02 PM
Hi Uric3, thanks, back on track :)You're right of course. To be honest the thief is a total red herring. What's more relevant under the Old Covenant were the Ninevites who will be raised and saved Matt12:41 despite not being circumcised or baptised. But again, it's OT. There's no evidence of anyone after Mark16:16 willfully refusing submitting to baptism and being saved despite their refusal.

The reality - and I've seen this, is that introducing (false) red herrings like the thief on the cross can disuade someone from making that visible, no going back, confession and committment to Christ that the rite of water rebirth marks off. With the result that they never really take the more difficult steps of living a new life. And then aged 55, suddenly getting health worries, a whole life of sitting-on-the-fence half-life in Christ has already gone by and old habits and pride are very difficult to change.
That's the concern.
Steven

Hey Stephen,

And to throw in another red herring...

Luke 17:33
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

So does this now mean that all of those who attempted to save their lives through baptism will be saved or unsaved? :confused

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 03:18 PM
Hey Stephen,

And to throw in another red herring...

Luke 17:33
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

So does this now mean that all of those who attempted to save their lives through baptism will be saved or unsaved? :confused
What about those who attempt to save their lives through belief? And repentance? And confession?

Sold Out
Sep 25th 2007, 03:25 PM
Hi Sold Out :) Why is it? It might be "faith working through love".

Romans 11:6, "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."

Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,"

Eph 2:8,9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast"

[quote]Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.


This is not speaking of water baptism, but rather baptism of the Holy Spirit.

"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:" Matt 3:11


Well you had me fooled :spin: So you have been baptised then. Sounds almost as if, (sorry because it probably isn't at all what it's meant to sound like), as if when some folk get baptised it it isn't works but when other folk do it is?

The difference is that I was saved LONG before I was baptized. Baptism had nothing to do with me being born again into God's family.


1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

If you look in the original greek, the word 'corresponds' (or like figure in KJV) is antitupos, which means a symbol. Baptism is a SYMBOL of salvation - identifying us with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not what saves us, it a symbol or representation of what saves us, like a picture. This same greek word is used in Hebrews 9:24,

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures (antitupos) of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"

This verse tells us that the temple & furnishings were only SYMBOLS of Christ, not the actual Christ. In the same way baptism is just a symbol of what Christ did, not salvation itself.



He will, when paradise happens.

When paradise happens? Are you saying he was not with Christ in heaven upon his death? Jesus promised he would be THAT DAY, not in the future.


But again my point was that a man being crucified by the Romans in 1st Century Judea who expresses belief in the Messiah and faith that he can be "remembered" when the Messiah comes "in his kingdom" then he might well be either a Jew or a Samaritan. You're assuming he was a Gentile, then arguing from this assumption as if it was a proven fact. Besides, even if he was a Gentile, so what, that doesn't change this

Again, you are making assumptions not based on any scriptural fact. I'm not assuming anything...I'm only showing you what the bible says. The thief was on his way to heaven without being baptized, regardless if he was a Jew or Gentile.

[QUOTE]Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Notice here that only the failure to BELIEVE brings condemnation, not the failure to believe & be baptized.

An analogy...



“He that gets on the train (i.e., believes) and sits down (i.e., is baptized) gets to Chicago (i.e., is saved), but he that does not get on the train (i.e., believes not) does not get to his desired destination called Chicago (i.e., is condemned).”

Friend of I AM
Sep 25th 2007, 03:29 PM
What about those who attempt to save their lives through belief? And repentance? And confession?

Good question. This is what the Word says.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 03:57 PM
Good question. This is what the Word says.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).
So, do you think a man can be saved without belief, repentance and confession of Christ publicly?

Friend of I AM
Sep 25th 2007, 04:09 PM
So, do you think a man can be saved without belief, repentance and confession of Christ publicly?

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

1 Samuel 16:7
7But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

So it's a matter of where one's heart is during belief, repentance, and confession to God. It can be done in public or in private - but it always has to be before almighty God, as only He can solely forgive/not forgive.

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 04:37 PM
Sold Out, I've put a lot of time and effort into several responses to you on the last page. I was wondering if perhaps you have overlooked them. It is hard to respond to everything on a message board, but I wrote those specifically in response to your posts to me. Can you give them a look? Thanks!

Also, we really need to look at what you are saying below:


If you look in the original greek, the word 'corresponds' (or like figure in KJV) is antitupos, which means a symbol.

In Greek, usually the tupos is the symbol, and the antitupon is the thing sybolized, or the ACTUAL thing, the reality.

We know this is the case by looking at Romans 5:14:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type (tupos) of Him who was to come.

Here we see that Adam was a tupos of Christ. That means Adam was the tupos, and Christ is the antitupon.

Tupos and antitupon are sometimes a little ambiguous, though. So, it is not entirely accurate to say the antitupon is the symbol. It is instead the thing symbolized, in most cases.

Peter is saying that Noah's salvation in the ark is the symbol, and spiritual salvation through being born of water and Spirit is the ACTUAL thing, the reality.

See here:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=331141&postcount=6

for an article by me on this site and here:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/a_study_of_biblical_typology

for an external study on typology.


Baptism is a SYMBOL of salvation - identifying us with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not what saves us, it a symbol or representation of what saves us, like a picture. This same greek word is used in Hebrews 9:24,

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the [COLOR=black]figures[/I] (antitupos) [I]of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"

This verse tells us that the temple & furnishings were only SYMBOLS of Christ, not the actual Christ. In the same way baptism is just a symbol of what Christ did, not salvation itself.

Hebrews 9:24 is one of the few ambiguous uses of antitupon in the NT. Scholar Leon Morris has this to say about this usage in the Expositor's Bible Commentary on Hebrews:

"The word tupos (type) is ambiguous and may mean the original or the copy [this would depend on context -- Matt14]. Thus antitupos, "corresponding to the typos," is also ambiguous. It may mean the fulfillment of what is foreshadowed in the type, as in 1 Peter 3:20-21, where the Flood is no more than a foreshadowing and baptism the antitupos, the significant thing."

So you see, while some see the use of antitupos in Heb. 9:24 as ambiguous, most see no ambiguity in the context of 1 Peter 3:20-21, just as they do not see any ambiguity in Romans 5:14. And BTW, Leon Morris does not believe, as far as I know, that baptism is necessary for salvation. He does see the relationship in 1 Peter 3:20-21 as the flood being the symbol, and baptism being the thing symbolized, the reality.

The majority of scholarly opinion agrees with this view of the passage. What it means that "baptism saves" is where they will differ.

God bless!

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 04:40 PM
Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

1 Samuel 16:7
7But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

So it's a matter of where one's heart is during belief, repentance, and confession to God. It can be done in public or in private - but it always has to be before almighty God, as only He can solely forgive/not forgive.

Jesus seems to say it must be public:

Mat 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

What do you think about this passage?

Friend of I AM
Sep 25th 2007, 05:02 PM
Jesus seems to say it must be public:

Mat 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

What do you think about this passage?

Matthew 6:5
"When you pray, don't be like hypocrites. They like to stand in synagogues and on street corners to pray so that everyone can see them. I can guarantee this truth: That will be their only reward.

Matthew 6:6
When you pray, go to your room and close the door. Pray privately to your Father who is with you. Your Father sees what you do in private. He will reward you.

We both know that the Lord doesn't contradict himself, so again I think it can be an either/or thing. It's mostly dependant upon where one's heart is as mentioned in 1 Samuel 16:7. The bottom line is we shouldn't let any selfish motivation lead us to confess Christ, whether one decides they are going to pray/confess in public or in private.

Sold Out
Sep 25th 2007, 06:19 PM
[quote=Sold Out;1392394].

I will address the thief further. The reason he didn't have to be baptized is due to the fact that he wasn't under the NT due to Christ not being dead. As I stated earlier in an earlier post the testament is not in affect until the death of the testator. Heb 9:15-17

The apostles didn't know to baptize in the name of father son and holy spirit at this time either. They didn't know that was to be done until after Christ was raised thats when he gave the commission until then. Up until that point the only baptism was Johns. Was that good enough after Christ death? Nope because we see in Acts 19:1-7 that those who had it had to be re-baptized into Christ.

So due to the baptism we are commanded to do in Christ commission to his apostles wasn't in affect yet the thief didn't have to follow it because that didn't occur until after Christ was raised from the dead...

Also as mentioned before in my earlier post Christ had the ability to forgive sins while on earth Mark 2:9-10 but now we get our sins washed away during baptism according to Acts 22:16.

You guys have done a loopdie-loo and now are at works for salvation.

1)Before the law - Circumcision (doesn't explain how the GIRLS were saved)

2)After the law - sacrifice

3)After Christ's resurrection - Baptism

Don't you see....IT'S ALL WORKS! You are saying that in each respective 'covenant', those folks had to DO something to be saved, whether it be circumcision, sacrifice, or baptism.

You have yourself in a corner...I KNOW for a fact that you will point to John 3 to support your view of baptism for salvation. If John 3 means what YOU say it means, then baptism was in effect for Nicodemus, the apostles, AND the thief on the cross. There's no way out.

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 07:04 PM
Matthew 6:5
"When you pray, don't be like hypocrites. They like to stand in synagogues and on street corners to pray so that everyone can see them. I can guarantee this truth: That will be their only reward.

Matthew 6:6
When you pray, go to your room and close the door. Pray privately to your Father who is with you. Your Father sees what you do in private. He will reward you.

We both know that the Lord doesn't contradict himself, so again I think it can be an either/or thing. It's mostly dependant upon where one's heart is as mentioned in 1 Samuel 16:7. The bottom line is we shouldn't let any selfish motivation lead us to confess Christ, whether one decides they are going to pray/confess in public or in private.

No, the Lord does not contradict Himself. The passages you quote above are in reference to prayer. The Bible does not tell people to "pray" to be saved. The "sinner's prayer" is an invention of man.

The confession that Jesus is talking about that is necessary for salvation (Matt. 10:32-33) is the same one Peter made in Matt. 16:

Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

This was not a prayer, but a public profession of faith. Like the one Timothy is said to have made:

1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

It's the same one Paul talks about as necessary for salvation in Romans 10:9-10:

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

How can public confession of Him as Savior be "optional?"

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 07:11 PM
You have yourself in a corner...I KNOW for a fact that you will point to John 3 to support your view of baptism for salvation. If John 3 means what YOU say it means, then baptism was in effect for Nicodemus, the apostles, AND the thief on the cross. There's no way out.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Compare that with:

Luk 23:42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."

The kingdom that Jesus came and instituted started officially at the first Pentecost after His resurrection. In some sense the kingdom was in operation when Jesus was walking the earth, but the terms of entry into the kingdom had not been "officially" preached. No doubt Nicodemus was given a foretaste, but He didn't fully understand. The veil was lifted completely with the preaching of the terms of entry into the kingdom for the first time in Acts 2 by Peter and the other apostles.

Even the thief realized that Jesus' kingdom had not officially began!

uric3
Sep 25th 2007, 07:20 PM
[quote=uric3;1392457]

You guys have done a loopdie-loo and now are at works for salvation.

1)Before the law - Circumcision (doesn't explain how the GIRLS were saved)

2)After the law - sacrifice

3)After Christ's resurrection - Baptism

Don't you see....IT'S ALL WORKS! You are saying that in each respective 'covenant', those folks had to DO something to be saved, whether it be circumcision, sacrifice, or baptism.

You have yourself in a corner...I KNOW for a fact that you will point to John 3 to support your view of baptism for salvation. If John 3 means what YOU say it means, then baptism was in effect for Nicodemus, the apostles, AND the thief on the cross. There's no way out.

Actually it doesn't all work we find this when the Jews tried to bring parts of the OT back into affect and Paul told them if you do this you are a debtor to the whole law and Christ will profit you nothing. We are not to take anything from the OT other than studying it to learn from their examples. All of our commands and how we live today is dictated via the NT. Read Gal 5:2-3

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. "

So it did change...

However you also mention about the apostles John 3 etc...

Christ at that time endorsed the baptism of John because his baptism hadn't come into affect due to him not putting the testament in affect yet. Because he ask the Jews why they wasn't baptized via John. It wasn't until after he was raised that people where baptized into Christ. Note Acts 19:1-7 etc...

Also note find one example in the NT where someone isn't baptized on the spot. Honestly today we have people waiting a month or two months etc to do so however when one obeys the gospel in the NT its urgent done within the hour on the side of a road where ever they could get to water. Show me one example of someone in the NT after Christ died that prayed the sinners prayer or ask Christ to come into their heart? Read acts 2:37-38 when they ask what they must do Peter told them what to do. This would be a perfect oppurtunity for him to say pray or accept Christ etc... but he doesn't he clearly tells them to repent and be what... be baptized. once you do this he tells them they will get the gift of the holy spirit etc.. Acts 22:16 wash away your sins... was his sins washed before no... if so Paul was the saddest convert I know... when did he eat and was ok? Once he obeyed thats when he knew he was saved not on the road. I have example after example please show me one.

Sold Out
Sep 25th 2007, 07:43 PM
=Matt14;1392756]Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Compare that with:

Luk 23:42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."

The kingdom that Jesus came and instituted started officially at the first Pentecost after His resurrection. In some sense the kingdom was in operation when Jesus was walking the earth, but the terms of entry into the kingdom had not been "officially" preached. No doubt Nicodemus was given a foretaste, but He didn't fully understand. The veil was lifted completely with the preaching of the terms of entry into the kingdom for the first time in Acts 2 by Peter and the other apostles.


What?!!?? Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36


Even the thief realized that Jesus' kingdom had not officially began!

Where's the scripture to back this up? Again, you can't explain why the thief could go to heaven and not be baptized.

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 10:30 PM
What?!!?? Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said He would build (future) His church. He goes on to say that He would give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (16:19). Jesus is using "kingdom" and "church" interchangeably.

In some sense His kingdom was present during His earthly ministry. But in another sense, it was not fully come until the church was established at Pentecost.

And yes, His kingdom is not of this world. It is a spiritual kingdom. Nothing Jesus says in John 18 contradicts all this.


Where's the scripture to back this up? Again, you can't explain why the thief could go to heaven and not be baptized.

The very scripture we are discussing! The thief said, "Remember me when you COME INTO YOUR KINGDOM."

Baptism for the remission of sins was not commanded until Pentecost, 33 AD. That's why the thief could go to heaven without NT baptism.

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 08:47 AM
Hi Sold Out :)
Yes Romans 11:6, "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace." but obedience to grace is still grace. One way or another grace must produce fruit, you say baptism is a work not a fruit but what Paul means by works are the works of the law. Likewise Eph 2:8,9, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" --- but I think you need to look at all the NT grace verses, about "grace in vain" and "grace" being active in Paul. I think you'd agree that we don't want to be 'grace potatos', idle smug do-nothing Christians? If we're going to respond to Christ's grace in fruit why can we not respond by some obedience as well?


Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,"

This is not speaking of water baptism, but rather baptism of the Holy Spirit.You're missing that Titus 3:5, like John 3:5 contains both symbol and substance, both rite and reality. Of course the water is symbolic, but if there is no water it isn't a symbol.

washing of rebirth = water symbol of John 3:3-5, burial in water Col.2 followed by a change in life Col.3
renewal by the Holy Spirit = per John 20:22, reenactment of Genesis, new life, new creation

Which is why Matt 3:11 has "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:"



The difference is that I was saved LONG before I was baptized. Baptism had nothing to do with me being born again into God's family.I am going to say something which I hope will not offend you, but it is what I believe the Bible teaches. That is bad advice for anyone who might light on it. Let us say that there was a 5 year gap ("LONG") between you believing in Christ and obedience to baptism. If anyone else told me during that LONG period "I am saved, I will get baptised later if and when I feel the need", my answer would be "You are not saved, because you haven't yet learnt to humble yourself like Naaman". I don't believe we can for ourselves decide "I'm saved", that's Christ's perogative. In the meantime we can decide to do what he says, and what he did or not.


If you look in the original greek, the word 'corresponds' (or like figure in KJV) is antitupos, which means a symbol. Baptism is a SYMBOL of salvation - identifying us with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not what saves us, it a symbol or representation of what saves us, like a picture. This same greek word is used in Hebrews 9:24,

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures (antitupos) of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"

This verse tells us that the temple & furnishings were only SYMBOLS of Christ, not the actual Christ. In the same way baptism is just a symbol of what Christ did, not salvation itself.As I said above, if a symbol isn't actually done it can't be symbolic can it? ;)


Again, you are making assumptions not based on any scriptural fact. I'm not assuming anything...I'm only showing you what the bible says. The thief was on his way to heaven without being baptized, regardless if he was a Jew or Gentile. He was promised resurrection and entry into paradise when paradise comes (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100272&highlight=paradise+septuagint), when Christ returns on one of these 4 bases:
A. a circumcised Jew or Samaritan
B. a Gentile under the Old Covenant like the Ninevites
C. an exception because he couldn't get down of the cross.
D. someone baptised by John

None of those, ABCD, has the slightest relevance to the modern Christian perfectly able to be baptised who refuses because he or she has defined obedience to baptism as if it was "works" such as tithing or not eating pork.

I'm afraid I feel you're being, forgive me, a slight tad legalistic about this. If we need an excuse to delay baptism we should find one better than the example of someone before the end of the OT covenant, someone nailed to a cross, someone who almost certainly was circumcised and someone who may well have been baptised, and using him as an excuse for a "LONG" delay between belief and committment in the symbolic rite commanded by Christ, submitted to by Christ, commanded by Peter and Paul, submitted to and performed by Peter and Paul.




When paradise happens? Are you saying he was not with Christ in heaven upon his death? Jesus promised he would be THAT DAY, not in the future.As I said, the understanding of the thief about "come in your kingdom" was much better than many modern Christians ;)




Mark 16:16 Notice here that only the failure to BELIEVE brings condemnation, not the failure to believe & be baptized.You don't think the fact that Jesus doesn't say anything about "those who believe but delay baptism for a LONG time" might perhaps be an indicator that Christ doesn't consider believe-and-refuse/delay-to-do-what-he-commanded as belief? :dunno:


An analogy...




“He that gets on the train (i.e., believes) and sits down (i.e., is baptized) gets to Chicago (i.e., is saved), but he that does not get on the train (i.e., believes not) does not get to his desired destination called Chicago (i.e., is condemned).”


But your analogy above was get on the train (believe) get down at Chicago (you said "saved a LONG time before baptism") and then gets down at Chicago without having been baptised, and Christ is the ticket gate checking tickets that finds that someone got on the train without a ticket?

Sounds like a false analogy. The ticket is water-and-spirit in John 3:5, so I prefer to stick with what Jesus told Nicodemus - you must be born again of water and spirit.
God bless :)
Steven

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 08:49 AM
Hi Matt14
Baptism for the remission of sins was not commanded until Pentecost, 33 AD. That's why the thief could go to heaven without NT baptism.Couple of minor points - The HS was given the same day Christ rose (John 20:22), baptism was commanded in 27AD (to Nicodemus John 3:3-5), the thief didn't go anywhere that day except the grave (John 20:17), and "paradise (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100272&highlight=paradise+septuagint)" will be on earth not in heaven (Gen 2:8=Rev 2:17). Otherwise fully agree with all the main points in your posts :)

Sold Out
Sep 26th 2007, 12:48 PM
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Compare that with:

Luk 23:42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."

The kingdom that Jesus came and instituted started officially at the first Pentecost after His resurrection. In some sense the kingdom was in operation when Jesus was walking the earth, but the terms of entry into the kingdom had not been "officially" preached. No doubt Nicodemus was given a foretaste, but He didn't fully understand. The veil was lifted completely with the preaching of the terms of entry into the kingdom for the first time in Acts 2 by Peter and the other apostles.

Even the thief realized that Jesus' kingdom had not officially began!


Wrong...you are again making another assumption based on no scriptural fact. You totally ignored Jesus' own words when He said His kingdom was not of this world.

Bottom line - You can't reconcile how the thief could be saved and on his way to heaven without being baptized. You have danced all the way around the room on this and can't give a clear cut answer. First you start out saying we are saved by faith, and now it's turned into obedience/works (sacrifice, circumcision, baptism). Be honest and admit you can't reconcile this issue.

Matt14
Sep 26th 2007, 03:21 PM
Hi Matt14Couple of minor points - The HS was given the same day Christ rose (John 20:22), baptism was commanded in 27AD (to Nicodemus John 3:3-5), the thief didn't go anywhere that day except the grave (John 20:17), and "paradise (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100272&highlight=paradise+septuagint)" will be on earth not in heaven (Gen 2:8=Rev 2:17). Otherwise fully agree with all the main points in your posts :)
Yeah, we'll have to discuss those another day in another thread, since we do not agree on those last two for sure. ;)

God bless!

Matt14
Sep 26th 2007, 03:27 PM
Wrong...you are again making another assumption based on no scriptural fact. You totally ignored Jesus' own words when He said His kingdom was not of this world.

Bottom line - You can't reconcile how the thief could be saved and on his way to heaven without being baptized. You have danced all the way around the room on this and can't give a clear cut answer. First you start out saying we are saved by faith, and now it's turned into obedience/works (sacrifice, circumcision, baptism). Be honest and admit you can't reconcile this issue.

Sold Out, it's interesting that you have chosen not to address the scriptures I presented, but instead have simply asserted that I'm wrong.

Nothing in my posts would constitute "dancing around" any issues. Any view of faith, if it does not include obedience, is incomplete. Our perspectives on faith differ. Without action, faith is dead, James says. Jesus Himself says, "Why do you call Me "Lord, Lord," and do not do the things I say?" (Luke 6:46). You see, faith without action is dead.

The Bible mentions "faith only" one time, and it is to say that a man is NOT justified by faith only, James 2:24.

If you will read and address my past posts to you that you ignored and the scriptures that they contain, maybe you could gain a little respect for what I see as the biblical position, even if you do not agree.

But if you cannot or will not address the scriptures, please cease with the assertions, because assertions are merely opinions.

I hope we can continue discussing the scriptures. But if not, may God bless you in all things according to His will.

Matt

Sold Out
Sep 26th 2007, 04:19 PM
This word (paradise) is the Greek word “paradeisw” (paradeiso) and is found only three times in the entire New Testament:

Luke 23:43, II Corinthians 12:2-4, and Revelation 2:7.

In all three cases the word paradise refers to Heaven, not some side compartment connected to Hell (as some would suggest). Although two of the three ancient creeds (The Apostles Creed and The Athanasian Creed - 8th century) state that Christ descended into Hell sometime between His death on Good Friday and His resurrection on Easter Sunday, the Nicene Creed (c. A.D. 390) did not.


According to the Bible, as well as Jewish thought, “paradise” (i.e., Abraham’s bosom - Lk 16:22) was simply another name for Heaven, not some side compartment in Hell.

II Cor 12:2-4, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. "

Clearly here we see HEAVEN & PARADISE are the same thing.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Rev 2:7

Let's recap.....

1) If John 3:3-5 is referring to baptism - according to Jesus, the thief on the cross would need to be baptized to go to heaven, along with any other OT saint, since Jesus told Nicodemus that being born again was NOT A NEW DOCTRINE. (vss 7,10).

Steven3
Sep 26th 2007, 07:15 PM
Hello Sold Out
If you don't mind the most I'm going to do is register agreement or disagreement - because this thread is already meandering off topic :) and this is not the place for these subjects.
Luke 23:43, II Corinthians 12:2-4, and Revelation 2:7. In all three cases the word paradise refers to HeavenNo.
not some side compartment connected to Hell (as some would suggest). Although two of the three ancient creeds (The Apostles Creed and The Athanasian Creed - 8th century) state that Christ descended into Hell sometime between His death on Good Friday and His resurrection on Easter Sunday, the Nicene Creed (c. A.D. 390) did not.Acts 2:31 "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."
According to the Bible, as well as Jewish thought, “paradise” (i.e., Abraham’s bosom - Lk 16:22) was simply another name for Heaven, not some side compartment in Hell.No.
II Cor 12:2-4, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. "

Clearly here we see HEAVEN & PARADISE are the same thing.Paradise and the Third Heaven are related, yes.
"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Rev 2:7Same word as Gen 2:8 LXX



Let's recap.....

1) If John 3:3-5 is referring to baptism - according to Jesus, the thief on the cross would need to be baptized to go to heaven, along with any other OT saint, since Jesus told Nicodemus that being born again was NOT A NEW DOCTRINE. (vss 7,10).
This seems to be a very convoluted way of avoiding that "water" means water.
S.

Matt14
Sep 26th 2007, 07:37 PM
This word (paradise) is the Greek word “paradeisw” (paradeiso) and is found only three times in the entire New Testament:

Luke 23:43, II Corinthians 12:2-4, and Revelation 2:7.

In all three cases the word paradise refers to Heaven, not some side compartment connected to Hell (as some would suggest). Although two of the three ancient creeds (The Apostles Creed and The Athanasian Creed - 8th century) state that Christ descended into Hell sometime between His death on Good Friday and His resurrection on Easter Sunday, the Nicene Creed (c. A.D. 390) did not.


According to the Bible, as well as Jewish thought, “paradise” (i.e., Abraham’s bosom - Lk 16:22) was simply another name for Heaven, not some side compartment in Hell.

II Cor 12:2-4, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. "

Clearly here we see HEAVEN & PARADISE are the same thing.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Rev 2:7


Not sure what you are getting at with this study of paradise. Are you saying that if being born again includes baptism then it would be impossible for someone who wasn't baptized to enter heaven, even under the Old Covenant?

If this is what you mean, you are again missing the point. We are under a different convenant than the thief, a NEW covenant:

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—
Heb 8:9 NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
Heb 8:10 FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN THEIR MIND AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Heb 8:11 NONE OF THEM SHALL TEACH HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST OF THEM TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
Heb 8:12 FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

All those after Jesus' death are under a New Covenant. Both based on faith, but the expression of the faith during the OT times has gone. Now the expression of faith in the New Covenant is "faith working through love."




Let's recap.....

1) If John 3:3-5 is referring to baptism - according to Jesus, the thief on the cross would need to be baptized to go to heaven, along with any other OT saint, since Jesus told Nicodemus that being born again was NOT A NEW DOCTRINE. (vss 7,10).


The phenomenon of being "born again" was alluded to in OT scripture, but that doesn't mean it was in effect. A "teacher of Israel" should have remembered:

Eze 11:19 Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,

Eze 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

So you see, Nicodemus should have known about being born again, at least to the extent of the prophecies of the OT, because this gift of being given a new spirit was looked for by whole of Israel, looking forward to Messiah.

But because Nicodemus should have KNOWN about the prophecies does not mean that they were in complete effect at the time. All these prophecies are looking forward to the coming of the Messiah. They did not contain commands for all time. Instead, they spoke of what it would be like when God created this New Covenant with the people.

When did the New Covenant begin? Jesus said at the "last supper," while blessing the fruit of the vine, that "this is the New Covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20). When would the covenant be instituted? When His blood was shed:

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

You see, the New Covenant did not begin until His sacrificial death. Therefore, the requirements of the New Covenant for salvation were not in effect until this time. That is what was so startling about Peter's words at Pentecost:

Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

They asked Peter what MUST we do?

Peter gave them the terms of reconciliation under the New Covenant of Christ: Repent and be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins.

Peter never veered from this teaching. 1 Peter was written around 62 AD, nearly 30 years after the events of Acts 2, and still he maintained:

1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

What God has commanded for the remission of sins, let not man demote to some "testimony before men" of an "already existing salvation."

God bless!

Sold Out
Sep 26th 2007, 08:54 PM
Not sure what you are getting at with this study of paradise.

You keep referring to paradise as something different from heaven...to somehow prove it was a future event that had nothing to do with the salvation of the thief on the cross.



Are you saying that if being born again includes baptism then it would be impossible for someone who wasn't baptized to enter heaven, even under the Old Covenant?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.



If this is what you mean, you are again missing the point. We are under a different convenant than the thief, a NEW covenant:

Salvation is the same for OT & NT....faith in the Messiah. The only difference is that they looked forward to the cross and we look back. No where in all of scripture will you find that OT saints were saved by any work, whether it be sacrifices or circumcision.

"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:" Hebrews 10:11

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham (who lived before the law) believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David (who lived after the law was given) also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" Romans 4:1-11




Now the expression of faith in the New Covenant is "faith working through love."

Faith WORKING thru love???....this contradicts scripture that says we are saved by faith apart from any work.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph 2:8,9

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," II Tim1:9









The phenomenon of being "born again" was alluded to in OT scripture, but that doesn't mean it was in effect. A "teacher of Israel" should have remembered:

Again, this goes back to the fact that being born again was not a new doctrine, so it had to be in effect for OT saints. Abraham receiving the Gospel proves it's the same way for them as it is for us - faith in the Messiah's atoning work.




So you see, Nicodemus should have known about being born again, at least to the extent of the prophecies of the OT, because this gift of being given a new spirit was looked for by whole of Israel, looking forward to Messiah.

He had absolute access to the knowledge of being born again. Remember the rich man & Lazarus? The rich man was being tormented in hell and asked that someone be sent to warn his family about hell...and what does the scripture say?

"For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Luke 16:28-29


But because Nicodemus should have KNOWN about the prophecies does not mean that they were in complete effect at the time.

Salvation by faith in the Messiah has been 'in effect' since time began.

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev 13:5

"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." Heb 4:3


[QUOTE]What God has commanded for the remission of sins, let not man demote to some "testimony before men" of an "already existing salvation."

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22

Matt14
Sep 27th 2007, 03:17 PM
You keep referring to paradise as something different from heaven...to somehow prove it was a future event that had nothing to do with the salvation of the thief on the cross.

The point I have been trying to make it that it does not matter whether paradise if heaven or not. What matters is the biblical truth that the thief lived and was saved before the New Covenant in Christ's blood was instituted.


Salvation is the same for OT & NT....faith in the Messiah. The only difference is that they looked forward to the cross and we look back. No where in all of scripture will you find that OT saints were saved by any work, whether it be sacrifices or circumcision.

You can go back to the beginning and see that God has always required a working faith. Remember Abel?

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

If he had not sacrificed to God by faith, he would not have been considered righteous.


"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:" Hebrews 10:11

Could not take them away, of course. The Hebrew writer's point is that the priests had to continually make sacrifices for sin, never fuly taking it away, but keeping them right with God under the Law of Moses:

Heb 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.

As Albert Barnes comments on verse 3:

Heb 10:3 -
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year - The reference here is to the sacrifices made on the great day of atonement. This occurred once in a year. Of course as often as a sacrifice was offered, it was an acknowledgment of guilt on the part of those for whom it was made. As these sacrifices continued to be offered every year, they who made the offering were reminded of their guilt and their desert of punishment. All the efficacy which could be pretended to belong those sacrifices, was that they made expiation for the past year. Their efficacy did not extend into the future, nor did it embrace any but those who were engaged in offering them. These sacrifices, therefore, could not make the atonement which man needed. They could not make the conscience easy; they could not be regarded as a sufficient expiation for the time to come, so that the sinner at any time could plead an offering which was already made as a ground of pardon, and they could not meet the wants of all people in all lands and at all times. These things are to be found only in that great sacrifice made by the Redeemer on the cross.


"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham (who lived before the law) believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David (who lived after the law was given) also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" Romans 4:1-11

Paul's argument in Romans is that the Law of Moses is no longer necessary to be justified before God. He makes this point throughout, especially the first several chapters. Paul points out that Abraham was saved BEFORE the Law, therefore it should be easy to see that salvation apart from the works of the Law is possible. But what works is Paul talking about?

Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Here Paul points out that the reason the Jews could not obtain righteousness is because they sought to do it through the works of the Law, minus faith! Merely complying with the outward rituals of the Law without the inner spiritual repentance and faith the is required is fruitless.

In the same way, complying with the command to be baptized into Christ is fruitless without faith!

Paul is not arguing in Romans that man is never under any law, but rather that faith must be the active element out of which obedience grows.

Jesus would agree. Notice what He tells the Pharisees and scribes:

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

Notice He did not tell them, "don't comply with the Law." Instead, He tells them they should practice justice, faith and mercy without leaving the requirements of the Law of Moses undone.

In the same way, Jesus Christ would not tell a man to forget about compliance with His commands to be baptized, in preference to justice, faith and mercy alone. Instead, He would say be in compliance in all areas.


Faith WORKING thru love???....this contradicts scripture that says we are saved by faith apart from any work.

Have you not read:

Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

And also:

Jas 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?


Again, this goes back to the fact that being born again was not a new doctrine, so it had to be in effect for OT saints.

The OT writers all looked forward to the time when those prophecies would be fulfilled. To say that they were already in effect is in complete contradiction of the Old Testament writings.


Abraham receiving the Gospel proves it's the same way for them as it is for us - faith in the Messiah's atoning work.

Abraham believed God in what He had revealed to Him. Do you really think Abraham had complete knowledge of the Messiah and the New Covenant?

This is what Abraham knew:

Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

Abraham knew that in him all nations would be blessed.

Remember, there is a point in history called the "fullness of time" when the faith would come.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

The faith was not revealed until Christ came. Don't forget:


2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.


He had absolute access to the knowledge of being born again. Remember the rich man & Lazarus? The rich man was being tormented in hell and asked that someone be sent to warn his family about hell...and what does the scripture say?

"For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Luke 16:28-29

Why, then, do we need the New Testament? Your argument undermines the cohesiveness of scriptures.

Peter said that in the knowledge of Christ Jesus, God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, 2 Peter 1:3.

You said yourself earlier that you believe Romans 1:16 tells the truth, that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Since the gospel was not fully revealed until Christ, how could you make such a claim?

-

Sold Out
Sep 27th 2007, 06:16 PM
[quote=Matt14;1394708]The point I have been trying to make it that it does not matter whether paradise if heaven or not. What matters is the biblical truth that the thief lived and was saved before the New Covenant in Christ's blood was instituted.

Nope...back up. If John 3:3-5 refers to baptism, then that would have required that the thief be baptized. You still haven't reconciled this.





You can go back to the beginning and see that God has always required a working faith. Remember Abel?

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.


Do you know the significance behind this? Abel's accepted offering was a lamb (picture of Christ/Jn 1:29) - Cain's rejected offering was the fruit of the ground (his own works). Abel's was accepted because he did nothing to earn the acceptance of God...he just slit the throat of the lamb, which pictured Christ. Something innocent had to die for the sins of the guilty. Cain was trying to 'work' his way into God's favor, which is why his offering was rejected. This totally blows your point out of the water.



Could not take them away, of course. The Hebrew writer's point is that the priests had to continually make sacrifices for sin, never fuly taking it away, but keeping them right with God under the Law of Moses:

So what's the difference between 'making someone right' (righteous) & taking away sins? NOTHING! Righteousness MEANS we are made right with God and are no longer under the penalty for our sin. You are trying to separate the two. Abraham was declared righteous BEFORE circumcision, and only by faith. Faith in what? In the coming Messiah. We know he received the Gospel, according to Gal 3:6-8 and Jesus Himself even said that Abraham SAW HIS DAY and was glad. (John 8:56). You cannot say that Abraham was saved by circumcision, because the scriptures clearly state he was saved BEFORE, and that circumcision was only a sign, just as baptism is only a sign.




Paul's argument in Romans is that the Law of Moses is no longer necessary to be justified before God. He makes this point throughout, especially the first several chapters. Paul points out that Abraham was saved BEFORE the Law, therefore it should be easy to see that salvation apart from the works of the Law is possible. But what works is Paul talking about?

I clearly pointed out that Paul is careful to mention Abraham (before the law) and David (after the law) - both saved apart from works.




Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Here Paul points out that the reason the Jews could not obtain righteousness is because they sought to do it through the works of the Law, minus faith! Merely complying with the outward rituals of the Law without the inner spiritual repentance and faith the is required is fruitless.
Where in the bible does it say they were saved by having faith IN THE LAW?





Paul is not arguing in Romans that man is never under any law, but rather that faith must be the active element out of which obedience grows.

Jesus would agree. Notice what He tells the Pharisees and scribes:

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

Notice He did not tell them, "don't comply with the Law." Instead, He tells them they should practice justice, faith and mercy without leaving the requirements of the Law of Moses undone.


Jesus is reaming them out for claiming to keep the law, but in fact they weren't. In order to be saved by keeping the law, they would have had to keep the entire law and never stumble. This, is of course, is impossible. Jesus points this out in Mark 10:17-27:

"And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible."

So this man asks Jesus how he can get to heaven, and Jesus tells him to keep the commandments. Jesus is like, "Oh, you want to get to heaven on your terms, huh?" The rich man claims to have kept them all, but Jesus finds his sin...love of money. He had broken the 1st & 2nd commandments...his money was his idol and his god. The disciples scratch their heads, wondering how ANYBODY could get to heaven? Jesus said it is impossible with men...we can't work our way to heaven in any shape form or fashion, whether it be keeping the law or baptism or any other work. It's NEVER works - ever.




Have you not read:

Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.


Paul is addressing CHRISTIANS here, and includes himself in the admonition (WE). These people are already saved and on their way to heaven, and Paul is pointing out that the law + faith cannot save...it's faith only. The entire book of Galatians is Paul's condemnation on the Galatian church for allowing the Judaizers to convince them they had to keep the law after getting saved. Please read this in context.



And also:
Jas 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
Jas 2:22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?


James is talking to CHRISTIANS here...not the unsaved. Back up to the beginning of the chapter. Works are the RESULT of salvation, not the CAUSE. We have already established that Abraham was saved apart from works.




The OT writers all looked forward to the time when those prophecies would be fulfilled. To say that they were already in effect is in complete contradiction of the Old Testament writings.

Nope, wrong...God does not wear a wristwatch - He is ETERNAL. Christ's sacrifice was already accomplished from the foundation of the world. (Heb 4:3, Rev 13:8)




Abraham believed God in what He had revealed to Him. Do you really think Abraham had complete knowledge of the Messiah and the New Covenant?

Jesus told us what Abraham knew....

"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." John 8:56

Are you disagreeing with Jesus?




You said yourself earlier that you believe Romans 1:16 tells the truth, that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Since the gospel was not fully revealed until Christ, how could you make such a claim?

Again, I've already established that Abraham had FULL KNOWLEGE of the Gospel, just as Jesus said. Here's more proof, from Jesus' own lips:

"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:25-27



You have effectively lost your argument. Those in the OT had full knowledge of the coming Messiah and trusted in what He would do. Since God is eternal, Christ's sacrifice was accomplished from the foundation of world. God is a God of His word (Psalm 138:2).




Old Testament - Saved by faith in the coming Messiah apart from works

New Testament - Saved by faith in the Messiah that came, apart from works.



Now you have a problem...since OT & NT are saved the same....baptism cannot be a part of salvation.

Matt14
Sep 27th 2007, 09:10 PM
Sold Out, you've made a lot of assertions above that will take time to track them all down. Lord willing, I will have time to respond to your post in the morning.

But for now, I want you to focus on answering this simple question, which was the main thrust of much of my post:

Can a man be saved without the New Testament?

According to what you have written above, you seem to hold the idea that perhaps everything we need to know about the gospel is contained in the Old Testament writings. Please answer this question, so I can respond properly to your post tomorrow.

God bless!

Hburgpreacher
Sep 28th 2007, 03:57 AM
You need to read the statement of faith for this Forum. No where does it state that baptism is necessary for salvation.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

With all due respect, I don't mean this to be rude, but I feel compelled to respectfully disagree. Regardless of what the statement of faith for this forum may say, the Bible says in Acts 2:38 to repent AND be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness." The conversions we read about in the New Testament were followed immediately by baptism. It is the new covenant counterpart to circumcision in the Old Testament. It is the act by which we identify ourselves with our Lord in His death, burial, and resurrection.

1 Peter 3: 21, "And this waer symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."

Sold Out
Sep 28th 2007, 01:04 PM
[quote=Hburgpreacher;1395335]With all due respect, I don't mean this to be rude, but I feel compelled to respectfully disagree. Regardless of what the statement of faith for this forum may say, the Bible says in Acts 2:38 to repent AND be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. quote]

If you read Acts 2:38 in it's original language (greek) you will find it does not mean what you believe it means.

The word 'for' is the greek word 'eis' which means pointing to, not in order that. So the verse can be understood as saying:

"Repent and be baptized pointing to the fact that your sins have been remitted."

Consider this analogy - A man is put in jail FOR murder. Is he put in jail TO murder, or because he ALREADY murdered? Because he ALREADY murdered!!!!

In the same way, we are baptized because we are ALREADY saved, not TO BE saved. Baptism points to the fact that we are already saved.

I already addressed I Pet 3 in a previous post. Again, you have to go back to the original greek for full understanding of the scripture.

Sold Out
Sep 28th 2007, 01:31 PM
But for now, I want you to focus on answering this simple question, which was the main thrust of much of my post:

Can a man be saved without the New Testament?
God bless!

Yes, because OLD TESTAMENT saints were saved w/o it.

Not only that, the New Testament canon of scripture was not finished until 96ad, and eventully canonized in the early 300's. Nobody walked around with a 'bible' tucked under their arm!

More proof that OT was saved by faith in Christ:

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." II Tim 3:15

I Timothy was written around 63 ad, two years before Luke wrote Acts in 65 ad. So what scriptures is Paul referring to here? THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES, of course! No New Testament bible existed at this time!!

Matt14
Sep 28th 2007, 04:31 PM
Yes, because OLD TESTAMENT saints were saved w/o it.

Not only that, the New Testament canon of scripture was not finished until 96ad, and eventully canonized in the early 300's. Nobody walked around with a 'bible' tucked under their arm!

More proof that OT was saved by faith in Christ:

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." II Tim 3:15

I Timothy was written around 63 ad, two years before Luke wrote Acts in 65 ad. So what scriptures is Paul referring to here? THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES, of course! No New Testament bible existed at this time!!

So, in essence, would you say the New Testament is unnecessary?

And, if it IS necessary, what is it necessary for?

(I will be posting a message dealing with the idea that Abraham new the gospel just as well as we did in just a few moments. Responding piecemeal to your last post will have to wait until Monday, though, as I have much to accomplish before the Lord's day.)

God bless!

Matt14
Sep 28th 2007, 04:39 PM
Nope...back up. If John 3:3-5 refers to baptism, then that would have required that the thief be baptized. You still haven't reconciled this.

I do want to briefly comment here, though. If John 3:3,5 refers to baptism, it does not necessarily follow that the thief had to be baptized in order to be saved.

As we've already shown, the kingdom of God, the church, was instituted on earth in Acts 2. It is at this time the requirements for admission were valid, as per Hebrews 9:15-17, mentioned in the post you are replying to.

Abraham and so many others were found faithful because their faith manifested itself in obedience to God's will. They were found faithful because they were faithfully obedient to whatever God's will was for them at the time.

In the same way, we are found faithful today when our faith manifests itself in obedience to God's will, which includes baptism.

The point is that the New Birth refers to the prophecies I mentioned earlier from Ezekiel. To say that this New Birth was available before Christ suffered, died and rose again, is to say one can be a Christian without knowing Christ!

Now, again, whether paradise and heaven are the same thing or not really does not matter. It is a side point. The real point is that in every age, man has been liable to have obedient faith in response to whatever information God has given them.

As the next post will show, Abraham DID NOT KNOW about the church and how things would play out, as you have stated in previous posts.

Look for my post on Abraham's knowledge very soon. Thanks!

Sold Out
Sep 28th 2007, 04:55 PM
And, if it IS necessary, what is it necessary for?

God bless!

What is the purpose of that question? I feel like you are trying to bait me.

You still haven't answered as to how the thief on the cross went to heaven without being baptized.

Sold Out
Sep 28th 2007, 05:12 PM
[quote=Matt14;1395747]
I do want to briefly comment here, though. If John 3:3,5 refers to baptism, it does not necessarily follow that the thief had to be baptized in order to be saved.

As we've already shown, the kingdom of God, the church, was instituted on earth in Acts 2. It is at this time the requirements for admission were valid, as per Hebrews 9:15-17, mentioned in the post you are replying to.


I've already established that Jesus said HIS KINGDOM was not of this world (John 18:36). Why are we still talking about this???


Abraham and so many others were found faithful because their faith manifested itself in obedience to God's will. They were found faithful because they were faithfully obedient to whatever God's will was for them at the time.

AGAIN....Romans 4 CLEARLY shows Abraham was declared righteous (saved) apart from works. We've already established this too.


In the same way, we are found faithful today when our faith manifests itself in obedience to God's will, which includes baptism.

Works do not save, whether or not you 'combine' it with faith. Works & grace are like oil & water - they don't mix. See Rom 11:6.


The point is that the New Birth refers to the prophecies I mentioned earlier from Ezekiel. To say that this New Birth was available before Christ suffered, died and rose again, is to say one can be a Christian without knowing Christ!

But they DID know Christ, and I've shown you NUMEROUS scriptures to prove they did!!!!!

"By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward." Hebrews 11:25-26

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." John 8:56


Now, again, whether paradise and heaven are the same thing or not really does not matter. It is a side point. The real point is that in every age, man has been liable to have obedient faith in response to whatever information God has given them.

Works have NEVER saved, and you can't produce one single scripture to substantiate that OT saints were saved by works. And the New Testament is CRYSTAL clear that we are saved by faith apart from works (Eph 2:8,9; Titus 3:5)


As the next post will show, Abraham DID NOT KNOW about the church and how things would play out, as you have stated in previous posts.

You've got to be kidding me? Are you reading my posts? JESUS HIMSELF said Abraham saw HIS DAY.

Theophilus
Sep 28th 2007, 05:27 PM
Remain calm. I'm beginning to see all caps, and multiple punctuation marks...and I'm worried emotions might start to bubble up, and cloud a thread that has proved, thus far, to be quite a little learning experience.

Folks...breathe deeply, and let your truth be spoken in love, and in calmness.

:)

Sold Out
Sep 28th 2007, 06:24 PM
Remain calm. I'm beginning to see all caps, and multiple punctuation marks...and I'm worried emotions might start to bubble up, and cloud a thread that has proved, thus far, to be quite a little learning experience.

Folks...breathe deeply, and let your truth be spoken in love, and in calmness.

:)

Well to be honest, you can close this thread if you want. I'm tired of arguing with Matt14 and it is quite obvious we are not going to come to an agreement. Our points have been made.

Theophilus
Sep 28th 2007, 06:34 PM
Well to be honest, you can close this thread if you want. I'm tired of arguing with Matt14 and it is quite obvious we are not going to come to an agreement. Our points have been made.

:lol:

Ooookay.

Anyone else care to weigh in? Going once...

Matt14
Oct 4th 2007, 03:00 PM
Hello, everyone. Please accept my apologies for abandoning this thread. The ministry is very unpredictable, and we've had a lot going on here with funerals, illnesses and a special class I am teaching. But, I'm back! I've got a post from a while back I need to respond to, and I'll post it momentarily.

Matt14
Oct 4th 2007, 03:03 PM
What is the purpose of that question? I feel like you are trying to bait me.

Bait you? I don't think so. You claimed that men could be saved today just like Abraham, and I'm just wondering what you see as the New Testament role in salvation.


You still haven't answered as to how the thief on the cross went to heaven without being baptized.

Yes, I have, actually, Over and over! :)

But, I'll say it one more time:

The thief did not live under the New Covenant in Christ's blood. This covenant was not in effect until after Christ's death, as per Hebrews 9:15-17. The thief was forgiven, and thus saved, before Christ's death. Therefore, he did not have to be baptized.

Thanks!

Matt14
Oct 4th 2007, 03:08 PM
Sold Out has claimed previously that Abraham had a complete knowledge of the gospel. He uses John 8:56 to support this idea. Below is a post addressing this idea.

Sorry for the length, lots of scripture. ;)

Thanks!

-------------------------------------------------------

What did Abraham know about Christ?
It has been alleged in this thread that since Abraham was “saved by faith alone” that baptism cannot be necessary as part of the New Testament covenant, since Abraham was not baptized. It has further, and more importantly, been asserted that Abraham had a complete knowledge of the gospel in its entirety, and thus the New Testament is not necessary for the modern man in order to be saved. In this post, I would specifically like to deal with the idea that Abraham had a complete knowledge of the gospel.

First of all, let’s look at this passage that was presented by Sold Out:

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Sold Out suggests that this passage means Abraham had complete knowledge. On the outset, allow me to post some scholarly opinion on this passage.

Albert Barnes
He saw it – See Heb_11:13; “These all died in faith, not having received (obtained the fulfillment of) the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them,” etc. Though Abraham was not permitted to live to see the times of the Messiah, yet he was permitted to have a prophetic view of him, and also of the design of his coming; for,
1. God foretold his advent clearly to him, Gen_12:3; Gen_18:18. Compare Gal_3:16; “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.”
2. Abraham was permitted to have a view of the death of the Messiah as a sacrifice for sin, represented by the command to offer Isaac, Gen_22:1-13. Compare Heb_11:19. The death of the Messiah as a sacrifice for the sins of men was that which characterized his work - which distinguished his times and his advent, and this was represented to Abraham clearly by the command to offer his son. From this arose the proverb among the Jews Gen_22:14, “In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen,” or it shall be provided for; a proverb evidently referring to the offering of the Messiah on the mount for the sins of men. By this event Abraham was impressively told that a parent would not be required to offer in sacrifice his sons for the sins of his soul - a thing which has often been done by pagan; but that God would provide a victim, and in due time an offering would be made for the world.

Although Abraham saw the day and rejoiced, he did not see the fulfillment of the promises, as the Hebrew writer says. Therefore, although he had knowledge of the basic concepts of the sacrificial death of the Messiah, he certainly did not see the fulfillment of it!

Additionally, Paul says:

Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

In this passage, in context, notice that it is the idea of the Gentiles being added in that was preached to Abraham, specifically citing the passage that “in thee shall all nations be blessed.” Paul’s point throughout Galatians is that salvation is not in the Law of Moses, and that the seed promise came before the Law, and that the Law was a temporary measure. In no way is Paul denying that with the death of Christ there was a change in covenants.

Additionally, Paul tells us that the New Covenant was a mystery until the time of Christ! Notice:

Rom 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
Rom 16:26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith—
Rom 16:27 to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.


Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
Eph 1:8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
Eph 1:9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
Eph 1:10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.

Eph 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—
Eph 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
Eph 3:4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),
Eph 3:5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:

You see, there is a facet to the gospel that Abraham did not know. Paul says that the mystery of the gospel was not given to men to know!

Additionally, there is more:

Eph 3:8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
Eph 3:9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
Eph 3:10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places,

This mystery was to be made known by the church, something that Abraham DID NOT have in his day, because Jesus said:


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus said He would build (future tense) His church. Since the church was the instrument through which the mystery of Christ would be revealed, it would be patently impossible for Abraham to have had a perfect knowledge of the gospel of Christ.

Jesus Himself said the kingdom of God was a mystery, which He hid to all but the disciples by speaking in parables:

Mar 4:11 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables,
Mar 4:12 so that 'SEEING THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND HEARING THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND; LEST THEY SHOULD TURN, AND THEIR SINS BE FORGIVEN THEM.' "

He was waiting, of course, for the “fullness of time” when He would be fully revealed, and the promise plan would have its full climax.

This mystery has been hidden in generations past, which would include Abraham, and is know revealed to the saints (Christians):

Col 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,
Col 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,
Col 1:26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.

So, in conclusion, according to Paul Abraham saw a prefiguring of the gospel, and understood that all nations would be blessed through his seed, and certainly had a concept of the sacrificial death of the Messiah in the future, but he could not have known the complete “manifold wisdom of God” which would be revealed later by the church.

Sold Out
Oct 10th 2007, 01:11 PM
Don't use extra-biblical resources to prove your point. Jesus clearly said Abraham saw His day (which WAS THE PROMISE), along with all the other OT saints:

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Hebrews 11:13

"By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a eason; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward." Hebrews 11:24-26



The MYSTERY was not the facts of the Gospel or Christ, but that the Gentiles would share in the same salvation as the Jews:

"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" Ephesians 3:1-6

Matt14
Oct 11th 2007, 01:53 PM
Don't use extra-biblical resources to prove your point. Jesus clearly said Abraham saw His day (which WAS THE PROMISE), along with all the other OT saints:

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Hebrews 11:13

"By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a eason; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward." Hebrews 11:24-26

Persuaded of things to come, Sold Out. Things to come.


The MYSTERY was not the facts of the Gospel or Christ, but that the Gentiles would share in the same salvation as the Jews:

"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" Ephesians 3:1-6

That's one passage. Romans, written to Jews and Gentiles both, speaks of the mystery as well. The mystery has to do with the body of Christ, the church. None of this had been revealed.

You still haven't answered this question:

If the complete gospel had been revealed in the OT, why do we need the NT?

You've accused me of "baiting" you with this question, but I'm sure all who are reading this wonder why you will not answer.