An old question I'm sure but:

I am looking for insight into the different opinions concerning Romans 10, 9 and 10. Just something to help me in my study. My interest in these verses is, (in your opinion) how they pertain to the method of salvation. I am not a scholar so it would help me in my study if you keep it simple. I have a very strong opinion about this and doubt that I will ever change but I do value your opinion. Also, I've read the books.

John W. / Sam L. / Dr. Jon / Lee. I have read most of your post and learned a lot. I would like to know your thoughts on this if you have time.

I do not mean to exclude anyone. All thoughts are appreciated.

If you prefer to email me please use, fsweet8@yahoo.com.

Faris A Sweet, csfas@eiu.edu

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Answers

I must underscore what my wife rightly stated.

The purpose of the book of Romans is not to show HOW to be saved.....it is to show WHO can be saved.

God makes no distinction. "WHOEVER" calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.

Now, if we want to see "HOW" to be saved.....we go to Acts 22:16 where Paul was told by Ananias HOW to be saved. He stated to Paul..."Arise be baptized CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD".

That's the HOW.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

You are right Barry!! You are beating a dead horse!!

It's called......Calvinism.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

Barry.....

One of your problems seems to be with the word baptize. Fine....throw it out and use the literal translation from the Greek...i.e., immerse.

How a person can then read Romans 6, using the word immerse and get anything other than water baptism not only goes against all linguistic scholarship....but it also goes against the majority of early church history. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that water immersion is what is meant in the passage.

But I'll take it a step futher. In light of your Calvinism (call it what you want....but that's what you are).....explain Acts 8 and the immersion of the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Take special note of verse 35...."And Philip opened his mouth and begnning from the Scripture he preached Jesus to him."

Now Barry....notice the very next question out of the Eunuch's mouth...."Look! Water! What prevents me from being immersed?"

He did not ask...."Hey....let's say the sinners prayer?" Or "Hey...can I invite Jesus in my heart?" Or "Hey....my heart feels warmed by the Holy Spirit."

He said...."What prevents me from being immersed?"

Therefore, the ONLY logical conclusion is that when Philip preached Jesus he preached the immersion commanded by Jesus.

My friend, you cannot deny water is what is spoken of here. The text is clear. They both "went down into the water" and both came up "out of the water."

What a waste of time if immersion had nothing to do with salvation. They should have simly rejoiced with the Eunuch's decision and kept on going to be "baptized as a symbol" later on.

Case #2....Acts 22:16.....Paul is told to "arise and be immersed washing away his sin."

Notice Paul was not told to pray to wash away his sin.....he was told to be immersed.

Barry, your view point is heavily tainted by Calvinism with a heavy dose of Augustinian Dualism....i.e, nothing good can come from any physical act.

I will agree with you.....baptism is a work!!! The qeustion is....who is doing the work??

The answer is.....God!! Colossians 2:11-12 points out that it is Christ doing the work (a circumcision of the old and the putting in of the new).

Immersion is not something we DO....it is something we SUBMIT to.

My friend, you are the one who has to do the dances. Those of us who see immersion as an extension of grace feel perfectly comfortable allowing language to perform its natural function.

I would pray that you would quit operating from a theological axe to grind and simply take the Scriptures at their word.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

And Barry.....

You only come up with the word "figure" one time in the whole N.T. and that is from an unfortunate bad translation of the King James.

Let's read it from the N.I.V....although the NASB does good too..."and the water symbolizes baptism that now saves you."

What "water" was he talking about?? The water that in essence saved Noah (vs. 20).

So the "figure" there (if you must use that word)....is not the water we are immersed with....the "figure" or "symbol" as clearly stated in the Scripture is the "water" that Noah was saved by passing through the ark on.

That water is a "symbol" of the water that we are immersed in leading to salvation, riding, if you will, the ark of salvation in Christ.

Barry, not only do you deny the simple meaning of the text, you completely ignore the first 1600 years of church history.

For in 1600 years.....NO ONE ever denied the necessity of water baptism in salvation. Beginning in the second century, they may have debated the mode......but never the need.

That is....it was never questioned until Luther, Calvin, et. al. That's a little late in the game for me.

Again Barry, I would pray that you would go back to the "faith once delivered" in the New Testament......and reject the Dualistic Augustianian Calvinism that clouds your view of Scripture.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Barry.....

Yes you are.....and it's a fine tap dance you do.

You can't have it both ways Barry....either baptism has nothing to do with salvation.....or all to do with salvation.

Baptism is as much the grace of God as repentance, confession, etc.

If God would tell us to sit under a tree for five hours in order to be saved.....that would still be grace because He doesn't have to tell us anything!!

Anything God lays out for the terms of salvation.....is grace.

Again, your Augustinian-Dualism simply does not allow you to see anything spiritual come from a physical act.

And to help you be clear....I DID NOT SAY....that Catholic history supported the biblical position.

I said.....ALL of church history through 1600 (from the N.T. right on through).....supports the biblical view.

I will say it again......without dissent (Catholic church included).....everyone agreed on the necessity of baptism until the 1600's. It was then that Martin Luther in his "overreaction" against the Catholic church and an insistance upon pure Augustinianism (i.e., a rejection of any works).....threw the baby out with the bath water (or should I say....baptistery water).

Again....there were arguments over the mode.....and the age of the candidate....but NEVER the necessity.

At least give me this peace of mind Barry....please tell me you are not a minister in the Christian Church.

That way....I can feel a little better about the brotherhood....and second....I will then be able to tell what denominational bias you are operating from.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Connie....

Unity not based upon Scriptural truth is not unity....it is sentimental nonsense.

The thief on the cross was not immersed for two reasons....1) He lived under the old covenant; 2) Jesus Himself issued the declaration of forgiveness.

Put it to you this way. If I hand you a million dollars, it's yours....noone can take that away. However, once I die, my will takes over.

Same principle applies to the Bible....We have the Old Covenant (aka..the Old Testament....and the New Covenant....aka The New Testament).

Once Jesus died and ascended into heaven He left His instructions to the apostles as to the terms of the New Covenant. Therefore, you have Peter, on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:37-38, giving the terms of the New Covenant.

In vs. 37, the people asked, "What shall we do??" Notice Connie, unlike what Barry says, the people felt they had to DO something.

In vs. 38 notice what Peter DOES NOT say......He does not say.....

"Bow with me now and repeat the sinners prayer." "Bow with me now and raise your hand if you accept Jesus into your heart." "Pray with me now and hope that you are one of the elect." "Pray now and make arrangements for a baptism next Sunday." "Come forward and pray through at the alter."

NO.....here is what he DOES SAY.......

"Repent and be immersed everyone of you in the name of Jesus."

Then.....notice what He says the result will be.....

"For the forgiveness of your sin." (By the way, the Green word "for" there.....is always "forward looking"....i.e., baptized in ORDER TO receive the forgivenss of your sins.)

"And you will receive the Holy Spirit".....the indwelling presence which Paul says in Ephesians serves as the "seal" of our being in the possession of God.

See....no dances involved....just let the text say what the text does.

And....as you read through the rest of the book of Acts....EVERY SINGLE CONVERSION includes an immediate immersion.....not when it was convienent. Therefore, it must have been crucial in importance.

Connie a person can speak the truth in love all day....but unless one has the courage to accept the truth....it will make little difference.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

Connie,

Two more things.....1600 years of church is heavy evidence that cannot simply be brushed aside. I'm leary of any doctrine...i.e. "faith only"....that did not show up until 1600 years after Jesus established His church.

Finally, the words of a wise man I once knew.......

"Unity that sets aside doctrine is not the answer to the prayer of Jesus......it is the rejection of His authority."

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

Connie....

Your objections one by one.....

1)You said..."Being right is not the #1 goal is it?"

Jesus said...."The TRUTH will set you free." So yes...in my opinion....being "right" or "wrong"....is the difference between...life and death.

2)You asked, "Why was Jesus baptized?"

Good question....Barry's answer is..."As a symbol." Nice, but that's not what Jesus said.

Jesus Himself said, "It fulfills all righteousness." He didn't say a word about it being a symbol. He didn't say a thing about it being an example for me to follow. (Think about it.....Jesus did a lot of things....were theyall symbols or examples for us to follow?)

No....Jesus said it "fulfilled all righteousness." We are baptized for the same reason...i.e., obedience.

3) You mentioned Paul not baptizing. If you would read that passage in context (which many do not)...you would see that the issue was the division in the church at Corinth over WHO baptized them. That is, some in the church were claiming superiority because Peter baptized them, Apollos baptized them, or one of the other Apostles.

What Paul is saying is that he is glad he can't be involved in that division because he only baptized one household. He's glad of it, otherwise people would be claiming they were superior because "Paul baptized me."

To use that passage to support "non baptism" is a misuse of that text. That text is an argument against division in the church over non-doctrinal issues.

4) You claim my "tone" is judgmental against Barry.

How can you determine a person's tone from a computer post?? Do not mistake confidence and scholarship with judgmental tone. It is a serious error.

5)You are right about the 1st and 2nd greatest commandment.

But notice the greatest commandment...."To Love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength."

To love the Lord with all my mind involves that I love His truth. This is the greatest commandment making it more important than loving my neighbor. If I love my neighbor and, yet, reject God's truth....what good is that??

6) You are right....let's not forget 1 Corinthians 13. Let me quote specifically verse 6.....

"Love rejoices with the TRUTH."

7) Your interpretation of Philippians 2:12 is simply incorrect.

Verse 12...."Work out your salvation with fear and trembling"......needs to be interpreted in light of verse 13...."for it is God who is at work in you."

His point being, the same God who created the world with the power of His words, and the same God who came down on Mt. Sinai and caused the people to fear and tremble....is at work in us!!! What an awesome, and trembling, thought.

Therefore, we are to take our Christian walk seriously and with a reverant understanding of who is at work in us.

8) You said, "I hope I have not offended you."

Not a chance. You see, I have not bought the spirit of this age which teaches "tolerance" as the highest form of good.

I use as my theme verse Jude 3. "Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered."

Notice two things about that verse Connie.....

a) The Greek word for "contend" literally means "brawl." It was used in ancient times to describe the boxing that went on in a rank, sweaty, gym. In other words, the Christian faith is worth fighting for.....and sometimes that involves a serious battle for the truth. Issues of what one must do be saved are the most serious of battles.

b) Notice also, the faith was delivered ONCE. Not through various denominations throughout the years....which is why I'm a part of an "undenominational church."

No creeds or ecumenical theologies to protect.

I appreciate your interest in the topic.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

Barry.....

You said it all with this statement...."The many examples you all point to in Acts as "proof" only go to show the fervency of the first century church to follow the commandments of God."

Observations......

1) You agree then that the first century church saw baptism as a commandment of God??

2) You agree then that the church today would do well to have the fervency of the N.T. church??

3) You agree then that the N.T. church was correct??

Well....we in the Christian Church (a.k.a., The Restoration Movement) believe the same thing.

We have as our goal to push aside the doctrines of men that have added to, or taken away (as you have), the same gospel that was preached and "fervently" practiced in the New Testament.

It is my prayer that one day all churches will push aside their creeds, their man made doctrines, and "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered"....i.e., in the New Testament Church.

By the way......Barry the words "faith only" are only used one time in the whole of the Bible. The one place is in James 2:24 where it reads...."You see that a person is justified by what he does and NOT BY FAITH ONLY."

Also Barry, those who study logic will tell you that once you resort to name calling as you have done (i.e., the use of the term cult)...it is a sign of a weak argument.

In all the posts I have read where people discussed with you, not one time did I see anyone resort to personally attacking you.

And.....as best I can tell, you are the only one who has made judgments about who is or who is not a Christian.

These two facts to not bide well for your credibility.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2000

Benjamin....

A couple responses to your post.....

1) You say, "I sometimes wonder if salvation is a process."

I never thought there was a doubt about that. In fact, A. Campbell compared salvation to a four legged stool....believe, confess, repent, and immersion being the four legs.....take away any one of the legs and the stool is worthless.

2)In light of the Greek in Acts 2:38 (which is forward looking) and in light of Acts 22:16 (just to name a few), the only logical conclusion (if words mean anything) is that salvation occurs after baptism....(unless one is "saved" without having their sins washed away).

Salvation is by faith, in Christ, through baptism. It seems so very simple to me.

3) You say, "You do not hang much on Mark 16:16."

Why not?? While it is true that it is a "spurious" passage edited in by a scribe later on....the interesting thing is....it was allowed to remain in the text because.....it did not conflict with biblical teaching.

As I'm sure you are aware, there are a number of spurious passages in the N.T. The basis for allowing them to remain in the text was...."Do they conflict with other biblical teachings?" If they did not, they were allowed to remain.

At the very least, we can say that Mark 16:16 reflects the thinking of the church at the time the text was inserted. Another point in favor of the historicity of the essentiality of baptism.

4) As far as those who are believers but are not immersed (or what I have heard called "the pious unimmersed")....I would agree with A. Campbell when he was questioned about the possibility of their salvation. He simply responded...."It's possible."

Your response is mine exactly. I cannot, neither can Scripture, give the assurance of salvation to someone who willingly refuses to be immersed.

I tell you what I do see in this thread. And that's a lot of what I call the "Yes...but...Hermeneutic."

That is...."I know that's what the Bible says, but I really believe."

This is unacceptable.

I believe when it comes to biblical truth....the thrill is not always in the hunt. We can know truth....and we can stand firm.

We do not need to sway with modern day religion of tolerance that says everyone's views, whether right or wrong, has equal footing.

Our Restoration fathers (I know some hate that phrase) gave their lives to gaining biblical ground on these important soteriological issues.

I for one will not give up that ground.

Sometime today I'm going to post under another thread something Jack Cottrell said about truth. I hope everyone reads it.

Benjamin.....do not misconstrue my post as being in disagreement with anything you said. If anything, it was an extension....and my thinking out loud.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

The key to this passage, as well as any other passage, is context. This passage is in Romans, a letter written to those already committed to Christ. Paul was not trying to explain in detail how one comes to God, nor what it means in detail to trust God for one's salvation. So this is "shorthand" for the process. To use these passages to determine a process of salvation is dangerous -- they are not there for that purpose. This passage does seem to indicate just an intellectual acceptance. Some will tell you (and perhaps you believe) that this is an indication that we are just to "pray Jesus into our hearts". But it doesn't say that, does it? If we want to extract out "the path to salvation" (hmm, that phrase makes it sound like a work or series of works, which it is meant to), we need to go to passages which either
1) give us concrete examples/stories of those accepting Christ and/or
2) give us explicit teachings on the point. For that, look to the Acts of the Apostles (examples and Peter's answer to the question "what shall we do?" (Acts 2:38ff)) and the gospels (Jesus' instructions).

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Maybe some individual might not be able to change your view on this passage but hopefully you're open to the Word of God changing your view if you see it in conflict with the whole cousnel of Scripture. I think a healthy and worthwhile exercise concerning this passage is to find out just exactly what it means to "call on the name of the Lord" as Romans 10:13 says, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Is this kind of like the, "Hey Culligan man!" approach to salvation? Or is there something intrinsically related to confession Christ as Lord and calling on the name of the Lord and how exactly is it related to salvation?

Look at passages in the book of Acts where we see individuals "calling on the name of the Lord," and you will find one common thread --- baptism. We separate and compartmentalize the salvation process, but Scripture does not. My having said this may make you write me off and not investigate my claims...but I hope not. The connections are there and more than that, if we take this text at face value, confession and belief are all that is necessary to be saved, but the passage speaks none of repentance. What shall we do then, no longer repent. May it never be, we shall seek the whole cousel of truth.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Faris, In addition to what the guys above said....Paul wrote to the church in Rome because there was a problem there. The Jewish Christians were claiming to be God's chosen people and the Gentile Christians were saying ..no you blew it, we are God's chosen people. So you had a group of Christians, Jews and Gentiles, not getting along, with one thinking they were better than the other. This book is not on how to be saved but who can be saved. Anyone, Jew or Gentile, who calls upon the name of the Lord. We just finished studying this book at church. What a great study on the concept of grace!

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Opps, I said "which it is meant to" when I meant "which it isn't meant to".

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Faris:

Not much wrong with any of the above posts (thru Jenny's, anyway; that's the last one I see as I write this).

I would take Mark's concept of the context a bit further. I think that to get exactly what Paul is saying in 10:9-10, you have to go back and start at (at least as far back as) Chapter 9, verse 30. If you go back that far, and take it through (at least) chapter 10, verse 13, I think you'll see that that whole section (9:30 thru 10:13) is one complete thought, and if you rip verses 9 and 10 out of it, you'll not see any more than a faint shadow of what Paul is saying.

In fact, all of chapters 9, 10 and 11 may really belong in a big set of parentheses. It's kinda like he completely diverges, for three chapters, from his line of thought through the first half of the book, and then uses this sidelight thoughtline to slide back into the main point at the beginning of chapter 12. He spends these three chapters almost working through a logic problem -- How will God, who is supposed to be faithful and true, keep his promise of salvation to Israel when they have at best ignored and at worst turned against his salvation as revealed in Jesus?

Anyway, back to 10:9-10. Looking at the context of the whole passage (as I mentioned), Paul's thoughts can be summed up in this way: "The Gentiles have received salvation and Israel has not, because Israel took their eyes off of God and turned their eyes to the Law. They thought that their righteous works under the Law would save them. And they missed it. It is not what you do with your body that leads you to find salvation, but what you do with your heart and will. Israel put their faith in the name of the Law, and died. The Gentiles have put their faith in the name of Jesus, and they live."

These verses are not a step-by-step primer on the details of salvation. They are the apex of a contrast between Israel's faith in the Law, and what God really wants from His people -- a heart, mind and will surrendered to the sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Hmmm... this reminds me of the verse which says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believeth on Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

OK... if I use JUST that verse, apart from the rest of scripture, "belief" is the only requirement. No baptism required, eh?

Then I remember where Jesus said, "unless you repent, you will likewise perish" This verse, taken alone, would suggest that "repentance" is the only requirement. What about belief?

Another verse would suggest that there are TWO requirements. "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved." No repentance needed?

Another verse suggests belief and confession. "...if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth..."

Is it that God cannot make up His mind? Or are some people picking and choosing the verses that fit their theology?

Well, how about if we ADD all of the commands, and leave them in a package? Believe, Repent, Confess, Be Baptized, Remain Faithful until death.

Why is it people have such a hard time with complete obedience?

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Don't forget about the rest of the book of Romans itself. Notice what Paul says in chapter 6. For example, vss. 3-4 (NIV): "Don't you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order tha, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

I suppose I should not waste my time beating a dead horse, however, not knowing Faris I have supposed that it may be worth contributing to the conversation.

Many of the same old arguments resurface immediately, Romans was written to Christians (as was the whole new testament!). Romans is not about HOW, but about WHO, except in the context of chapter 10 we see Paul is talking to Christians about the lost nation of Israel coming to salvation which does lend itself to Paul instructions on HOW to be born again. Salvation is a process that we must work out Believe, Repent, Confess, Be Baptized, and Obedience, except Ephesians 2:8,9 specifically states that it is by grace we are saved through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God not of works.

If we were to believe conditions in addition to the "in"sufficient work of Christ's atoning death don't forget; selling everything you own and giving it to the poor, leaving your wife, children, mother, father and family, not laying up treasures for yourself on earth, and not taking a single thought for tomorrow. Why stop at Believe, Repent, Confess, Be Baptized? There are so many other commandments of Christ to be followed that indeed no one could be saved until first they met every requirement for discipleship.

Let's get real. Jesus paid it all, it is a done deal, nothing left to do. By grace through faith, it is a gift of God. When we tamper with the Gospel we have become no different than the Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim, everyone attempting to reach God on their effort. It becomes quite a different gospel than what Paul preached.

God did not say if you are not water baptized you will go to hell. He said you must go through Jesus, because Jesus is the only way to God. How do we get into Christ? Colossians 1:9-21. In fact the letter to Colossians is an awesome explanation on being "in Christ". 1:14 is a favorite of mine, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." It is an operation of God, not the operation of a man that produces the work that translates us into the body of Christ (2:12).

Every work we perform occurs AFTER salvation. It is an obvious result of our salvation, not vice versa. Salvation is never produced by our own works of obedience, it was produced by Jesus' works of obedience on our behalf, that was the whole purpose of Christ coming to earth.

Getting back to Romans 10:9,10 most definitely Paul is explaining the plan of salvation as is in harmony with the whole of Scripture. It is by grace through faith.

Simply,

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

After reminding us that "[God] said you must go through Jesus, because Jesus is the only way to God." Barry Hanson then asks, "How do we get into Christ?" And he answers his own question with "Colossians 1:9-21."

That's a good passage and true (as is all of the Bible), but let's not forget Gal. 3:26-29: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for ALL OF YOU WHO WERE BAPTISED INTO CHRIST have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."

There we see faith, as the primary thing that makes us sons of God, but we also see baptism as the expression of our faith and the initiatory act by which we "put on" or "clothe ourselves" with Christ.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

I am familiar with Calvinism. The problem with that statement is that I am Pentecostal and lean more towards the Arminean viewpoint.

And the dead horse I am beating is legalism.

Finally, the fine reference that Ben mentions, Gal. 3:26-29 never mentions WATER baptism. Ben if you wouldn't mind rereading this verse without any denominational bias and point out to me where the word "WATER" is mentioned. If you are unable to do so perhaps you may allow the words of Holy writ to mean what they say.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for ALL OF YOU WHO WERE BAPTISED INTO CHRIST have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."

Does it say we were baptized into water or into Christ?

To help you out, it says Christ.

Is Christ water?

Again, to help you out. NO.

Water baptism is a figure of our the actual baptism into Christ that occurs at conversion via the operation of God, Col.2:12.

Very Simply,

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Barry,

This idea that in Gal. 3:27, being "baptised into Christ" means that our baptism is NOT in water but in Christ is a new one to me and I'll have to think about it, but here are some quick reactions.

1) You suggested that I am reading water into the passage because of "denominational bias". I think, for several reasons, that the normal understanding of the passage would be that it is water baptism that is meant, and that it is only "denominational bias" that forces one to look for an alternative explanation.

2) Your explanation would make being "baptised into Christ" virtually equivalent to having "clothed yourselves with Christ", whereas what the passage seems to be saying is that the one precedes or is a prerequisite for the other, that the former is a choice they have made and probably something visible, while the other is something invisible but that they should know if they have done the former (something like Paul's argument in Romans 6.) What he seems (to me) to be saying is something like this, "If you did this (were baptised [in water] into Christ), then the result was this (you clothed yourself with Christ)."

3) Most passages that mention baptism seem (to me) to clearly refer to water, and are understood that way by most people, scholars and "laymen" alike. There is also the historic fact that water baptism was a rite that dates from the earliest days of the church. Therefore the normal understanding of a passage like this would, it seems to me, be water baptism, unless there is a much clearer indication (than there seems to me to be) that the meaning is figurative.

4) I'm not a great Greek scholar. I did take 3 years of Greek in Bible college, but that was nearly 30 years ago. However, I did a quick check of a few passages. The ones I found where water is specified either use the preposition EN (in) or the instrumental case (HUDATI) of the word HUDOR, -ATOS (water). Where the preposition EIS (into) is used, it is when it is "into" a person (as here), into a name (e.g. Acts 19:5), into a purpose (e.g. Acts 2:38), etc. There may be exceptions on either or both sides, but this SEEMS to be the general rule. In Matt. 3:11, John the Baptiser is quoted as saying, "I baptise you with (EN) water for (EIS) repentance."

BTW, Barry, you said, "Water baptism is a figure of our the actual baptism into Christ that occurs at conversion via the operation of God, Col.2:12." Funny, but that sounds an awful lot like Calvinism to me.

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Thank you for responding to my message.

Please forgive me if I seem a little short. I am used to direct confrontation when I begin to challenge such false teaching (in my opinion). If you have never heard of such a thing as being in Christ, read the Scriptures they are replete with this reality. In your previous message you make reference to my stating the theme of Colossians as being "in Christ". How do we gain entrance into Christ? Through the operation of God, Col.2:12, NOT the operation/obedience of man - water baptism.

Water baptism is a figure of our the actual baptism into Christ that occurs at conversion via the operation of God, Col.2:12.

I was water baptized, this was an awesome figure of the actual transformation that had already taken place in my life. A translation from the power of darkness into the Body of Christ. I has baptized into Christ at age 6, I was baptized into water at age 8 and I was baptized into the Holy Spirit at age 11.

You mention Romans 6 as well, again, there is no mention of baptism into water only our baptism into Christ. Unless Christ is water (?) no where in the entire chapter of Romans 6 does it even mention the word water.

Again baptism into water is a figure of our baptism into Christ. Christ is the reality, water is the figure, see 1 Peter 3:21.

Simply,

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Danny,

Good thoughts! Thank you for something worth copying and repeating elsewhere! Keep up the good work bro...

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

As I stated before, I suppose I should not waste my time beating a dead horse (legalism), however, not knowing Faris I have supposed that it may be worth contributing to the conversation.

You point to some references from which you derive an opinion, because it is not explicitly stated, "Philip preached water baptism". I could counter with many arguments upon the same carnal reasoning but will refrain. I have noticed the couple examples always pointed out by this works message is built upon implicit statements.

Paul explicitly stated that his ministry was not to water baptize. Please do not bring up the example of Jesus before His death and resurrection, not the same. If one can only be save by being water baptized Paul was a heretic according to your gospel.

Acts 22:16, I noticed you left out the part about calling on the name of the Lord, this is a very understandable oversight on your part.

Col.2:11-12 show me where it mentions immersion into water and I will give you some exegetical credit, if not please stop insulting my intelligence. It specifically states immersion into Christ, that is what it says and I know you cannot simply believe that, but that is what it says.

Tell me: Is Christ water?

Any of these verses? Rom.6:1-10, 1 Cor.12:13, Gal.3:27, Eph.4:5, Col.2:10-13.

There is no mention of immersion into water only immersion into Christ by God's Spirit Col.2:12.

I take the Word of God as it is stated you impose the word water, who is doing the dancing?

No axe to grind, just Preaching the same Gospel Paul preached! If you wish to add the word water to these verses you may feel comfortable, I am obligated to God and my congregation to teach what the Word says, not what I want it to say.

We are immersed into Christ at conversion, our immersion into water is but a figure 1 Peter 3:21.

Simply,

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Barry, it is quite a dance you do. When you were last on this, I asked about Eph 4 where there is but one baptism. You waltz right around it by implying that it was only one for the Ephesians but that there were actually several baptisms. I suppose several other Lords, and Faiths and hopes.

And, btw, you still have I Peter 3:21 backwards. Ears to hear my friend.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Do you read your Bible?

One body - Jn.2:21 (Jesus), 1 Cor.15:44 (natural, spiritual), Rom.6:6 (body of sin), Jude 9 (Moses) One Spirit - Lk.4:18 (of the Lord), Lk.8:29 (unclean), Lk.13:11 (of infirmity), Acts 16:16 (of divination) Rom.8:15 (of bondage) One Hope - Eph.2:12 (no), 2 Thes.2:16 (good), Ti.2:13 (blessed), Heb.7:19 (better) One Lord - 1 Cor.8:4-6 (many lords), 1 Tim.6:15, Rev.19:16 (Lord of lords) One Faith - Mt.6:30; 14:31 (little), Mk.4:40 (no), Lk.7:9 (great), Rom.14:1 (weak), Phil.3:9 (of Christ), Col.1:4 (your faith), Heb.10:39 (saving). One Baptism - Mt.28:19 (water), Acts 1:5 (Holy Spirit), Acts 19:4 (of repentance), Rom.6:3 (into Christ), Mt. 20:22 (into suffering).

Because this verse specifies one body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, or Faith, does this mean all others fail to exist? No. Because this verse specifies one baptism, does this mean all other baptisms fail to exist? No.

The one baptism that Ephesians 4:5 is referring to, is the Baptism into Christ, the one baptism that saves.

It is not referring to John's baptism of repentance, the Holy Spirit baptism, water baptism or the baptism into suffering.

It amuses me how I am accused of "dancing" around Holy Scripture when I am the only one simply stating what it says.

Is Christ water? The Holy Scriptures say, "into Christ".

Next, Danny,

Before I respond I just want to get a clear understanding.

Are you pointing to the history of the Roman Catholic Church as evidence for the necessity of water baptism for salvation?

Also, I do not know if you intentionally phrased your statement as you have or if it was just an unfortunate oversight on your part.

[For in 1600 years.....NO ONE ever denied the necessity of water baptism in salvation. Beginning in the second century, they may have debated the mode......but never the need.]

I do not deny the necessity of water baptism IN salvation, I am a great proponent of the necessity for obedience and works resulting from our faith. I, however, deny vehemently the necessity of water baptism FOR conversion.

Major theological and Biblical distinction.

For by grace are we saved through faith, it is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

Finally,

[So the "figure" there (if you must use that word)....is not the water we are immersed with....the "figure" or "symbol" as clearly stated in the Scripture is the "water" that Noah was saved by passing through the ark on.]

And I am the one who is dancing???? LOL

Simply,

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Danny,

[threw the baby out with the bath water (or should I say....baptistery water).]

Ha, that was a good one, LOL J

Your peace of mind should not be contingent upon where I Pastor.

If your asking if our congregation is Christian the answer is YES, if the question your asking is if that is the name of our local congregation the answer is NO. We call our local congregation Open Bible, because we believe that the Holy Scriptures are the standard and rule to live by. We don't add or take away, just as it is written is how it stands, we believe that an Almighty God is capable of preserving His Eternal Word so that the Bible we read today is infallible. I realize this is simple, but that is ok, Jesus said we should come to Him as little children and we are convinced that is what He meant.

Again I don't disagree with the necessity for water baptism as a result of conversion, faith without works is dead!

My salvation is not contingent upon water baptism, no work necessary on my part, I am saved by grace through faith.

Jesus completed the work, His death was sufficient, God simply says, "do you believe?"

If the answer is YES, I am born again, if NO, I am not born again.

Again, simple.

There is nothing to add to the sufficiency of Christ's death and work, just believe.

Simply,

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Barry,

I notice that you still haven't answered the points I made in my message of a few days ago (which I wrote in response to the first one in which you put forward the view that the immersion mentioned in Gal. 3:27 is NOT in water but in Christ). Your only answer so far to that message was to accuse me of promoting false doctrine, and to re-iterate, as you've done several times since then, that "water" is not specified in this verse, or in Romans 6, and therefore, the immersion that is mentioned CANNOT be immersion in water.

I doubt if that fact is really relevant. No-one defines every word they use every time they use it. If "immerse" and "immersion" normally meant immersion in water, there would be no need to specify the medium unless there was some reason in the context to do so, or unless the medium was a different one to the normal.

I believe that these words usually meant immersion in water (therefore making it unnecessary in most circumstances to mention water specifically) because:

1) All lexicographical evidence I have found in the quick survey I've done indicates that these Greek words (like their English equivalents) normally meant immersion in a fluid unless there was a compelling reason to understand the meaning as figurative.

2) Most places where the words are used in the New Testament either plainly indicate immersion in water, or can be (and usually are) understood to mean immersion in water.

3) Historically, this is the way these passages have been normally understood (including Gal. 3 and Rom. 6), from the earliest days until now. (Not just until the Protestant Reformation, but even until now.)

4) Even today, most commentators (in fact ALL that I have read) understand these passages to mean immersion in water. Even most others who feel as you do that immersion in water is not really necessary for salvation -- that it is only an "outward sign of an inward grace" that is already accomplished -- still seem to agree that immersion in water is what is discussed here. They just try to find other ways to dismiss the plain meaning of the text and to make it figurative.

No doubt you will want to latch onto what I said above -- "unless the medium was [specified to be] a different one" -- to say that in Gal. 3 (possibly even Romans 6, though it seems to be really stretching things to find it there) a different medium IS specified, i.e. Jesus Christ. But the context doesn't require that interpretation. The normal interpretation that this is immersion in water makes perfect sense in this passage. I don't think your interpretation does. In fact, for both contextual and grammatical reasons (reasons I already put forward in my earlier posting), I don't think your interpretation is possible.

As I said previously, I'm not really an expert in Koine Greek. Is there someone who is who would care to comment on the use of the different prepositions EN ("in" or "with") and EIS ("into") with BAPTIZO? I still haven't done exhaustive research, but I notice that when a different medium for immersion IS CLEARLY specified, e.g. the Holy Spirit and fire, Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5, the preposition is EN, while EIS is normally used when the baptism (even when specified to be in water) is "with reference to", or "for the purpose of", rather than "in the medium of."

Incidentally, Barry, if you want a passage where water IS specified, how about Eph. 3:26? Eph. 3:25-27 (NIV) reads: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, cleansing her by the washing of water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."

Will you now tell us that even when water IS specified, it is always only figurative?

With the exception of strict Calvinists, who believe that even the choice of who is saved and who is not is up to God alone, all other schools of thought that I have encountered do accept at least some degree of free will, which requires that the person make his/her own decision as to whether or not to put faith in Christ. Almost all then go on to tell the person to do SOMETHING as an indication, confirmation, and perhaps a "finalising" of that faith. Now, what is the difference between being immersed and praying the "sinner's prayer" (which most "faith only" tracts and evangelistic plans tell you to do) except that (1) one is found in Scripture and one is not? (Guess which is which.) And (2) one requires greater humility than the other?

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Barry,

"Again I don't disagree with the necessity for water baptism as a result of conversion, faith without works is dead!"

Are you saying you believe the context of James statements on works includes immersion? It is interesting that you bring up a thought from James, for it was James who said that even the demons believed, and shuddered because of that belief. There is no doubt that the demons believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God! They know beyond a doubt who Jesus is. And yes, James equates Christian belief with the works that "show" a person to be a Christian, the fruit they bear.

Just looking for some clarification.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

You said:

"There is nothing to add to the sufficiency of Christ's death and work, just believe."

Now if it is true that there is nothing to add to the sufficiency of Christ death and work, then why do you follow those words by adding to Christ death and work the admonition "just believe"? Can you not see that this belief that you add to the "sufficiency of Christ death and word" is an addition to it. For our faith is not a part of Christ death and work. Believe is something that God requires man to do it is not something that God does for us. It is our choice to believe. Therefore Christ death and work is sufficient to save only those who believe. (John 1:12; 3:16). SO even when you tell us "just believe" you are adding something to the "sufficiency of Christ death and work" as did the apostles. But they added all obedience that is included in and resulting from that belief in Christ, not "just believe". They add repentance (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38) confession of Christ (Romans 10:9,10) and Baptism in water (Acts 8:25-40). The writer of the book of Hebrews tells us that Christ is the "author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY him". (Heb. 5:8,9) not those who merely believe in the sense of offering mental assent to facts about him. Jesus himself said, "Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:23). He also asked the question, "why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). James most certainly did not share your idea of "faith only" as being sufficient to justification. " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only". (James 2:24). Now James is not talking about "works" of merit whereby one could expect that God owes him anything because he has, by being obedient to God, in some way earned the right to demand justification. Rather he is talking about action that is the natural result of genuine faith and trust in the Lord. You can say that you believe it is safe to go bunji cord jumping off of high bridges but until you actually take the plunge you cannot really say you have any confidence or faith in the saftey of such a bunji cord. In like manner one can claim that they believe in Christ but until that belief causes them to actually obey his commands and confess their faith (Matthew 10:32,33; Rom 10:9,10) and repent of their sins (Acts 3:19; 2:38) and take the plunge into total surrender in being obedient to the Lord's command to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matthew 28:19,20; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:25-30; Acts 2:38; Romans 6; 3-6; Gal. 3:26,27; Hebrews 10:22; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:3-5; John 3:3-5; 1 Peter3: 21) he cannot genuinely lay any serious claim to genuine faith in the sight of God. Even then Peter tells us to add the Christian virtues to our faith, which is something you are telling us not to do because you have said "just believe" and nothing else. But Peter said, " ADD TO YOUR FAITH, virtue, and to your virtue knowledge, and to your knowledge patience, For he that lacketh these things is BLIND, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins. Wherefore brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: For if you do these things ye shall never stumble: For thus shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ." (2Peter 5:-11). It seems that there is quite a bit more to add to the "sufficiency of the death and work of Christ" than your single addition of "Just believe". Yes we must take all of God's word not merely the passages that suit our favorite and most desirable beliefs. The scriptures tell us that "the sum of thy word is truth". So we must always see the scriptures as a whole that is connected perfectly throughout and this constant desire and effort of men to find just ONE thing that will do it all for us will always mislead us from the truth. If This one thing was all we needed then God's word could have all been delivered in less than ten minutes instead of the 1600 years that God spent in preparing the world to receive it. I submit to you and our readers that this one word "believe" entails and includes all that is found in the word "obey". Just read John 3:36 where these two words are used interchangeably as if they have the same meaning, "He that believeth on the son hath eternal life; he that obeyeth not the son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him". (John 3:36).

I pray that all will diligently study the word of God to see His truth.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Lee,

This is simple, Romans 12:3 God has given every person the measure of faith. That faith, given by God, is expressed by us when God imparts His grace to us.

He calls we believe.

Again, very simple.

I understand the human logic behind having to contribute ones own effort towards something. There is a sense of having to do things yourself. The carnal man is at enmity against God. He says only believe, we must complicate it and appease our own sense of pride that nothing was given to me, I earned it. This, however, is not the Gospel.

Finally, this works message continually confuses conversion with the life of a disciple. Once I am born again I will produce works, no doubt about it. To expect works from a child of the devil is absurd. Only after becoming a child of God would any type of work produce any fruit unto righteousness.

I am sorry I cannot post a message to rival yours in length, it just isn't that complicated to me.

By grace I have been saved through faith.

I believe.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of friendship.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Darrell,

I recognize the thoughts in James to have been the subject of much discussion.

I believe the exact point you made goes to augment my opinion in Eph.4. Paul says that there is ONE faith and yet we see that devils have faith. Therefore there must be different kinds of faith! Faith for salvation and faith as only an acknowledgement of truth.

I work with a fellow who will acknowledge that God exists but he is not born again. I acknowledge that God exists but I am born again. What is the difference?

I believe it is 2 fold. 1. My declaration of faith is in the Lordship of Jesus Christ in my life (intensely personal), not just an acknowledgement that He exists (intensely impersonal). 2. After my declaration, works of righteousness are produced.

To further bolster this position, I have heard folks in your own ranks state that one can "go down a dry sinner and come up a wet sinner". This is because the work does not save! There must be an alive faith, and this faith is alive before any work.

Finally, any ultimately only God and the individual knows!

Sincerely,

Barry

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Barry,

There is only one Body of Christ, it is the Church. There is only one hope, all others are false. There is only one Lord, all others are false. There is only one Faith, all others are false. There is only one baptism, all others are false. Johns baptism was relevant before the New Covenant, but not after ( see Acts 19). You have yet to demonstrate where the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred more than twice, and that leaves the one baptism that brings men into a covenant relationship with Christ  through the water of baptism into Christ.

I found this in a debate between a Baptist and Christian which I think is relevent. Mr. Cockrell is the Baptist. The whole debate can be found at: http://www.ptc.dcs.edu/Teacherpages/TThrasher/Don-Coc.htm

Does Salvation Come AT THE POINT of Faith? After finishing up his seven arguments, Mr. Cockrell states that Christ "repeatedly declared that the believer in Him is saved at the point of faith." Mr. Cockrell, this is the crux of the proposition. Where does Jesus state that salvation is AT THE POINT OF FAITH? We agree that salvation is by faith. But saying that salvation is by faith, and saying that salvation is at the point of faith are two very different things. The proof is Heb 11:30: "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days." Did you notice that the walls fell down by faith, but they didn't fall down at the point of faith, they fell down only after the Israelites met God's conditions by faith? Similarly, we are the children of God by faith after we meet God's condition of baptism (Gal 3:26-27). The question is not, "are we saved by faith?" The question is, "when are we saved by faith?"

After answering Mr. Cockrell's arguments in defense of his proposition, I will now present three arguments that prove conclusively that salvation does NOT come at the point of faith, but that instead, comes afterwards. These arguments deny any argument that says that passages like Jn 3:36 and Jn 6:47, for example, show that salvation occurs at the point of faith, thereby excluding baptism.

Rom 10:13 undeniably teaches that salvation is conditioned upon calling on the name of the Lord, which, according to v.14, clearly comes after the belief spoken of in the context. Since a person must "call on the name of the Lord" to be saved, and since calling on the name of the Lord comes after believing in Jesus, then salvation comes after a person believes in Jesus.

Rom 10:10 teaches that salvation is conditioned upon a "confession" with the "mouth" ("with the mouth confession is made unto salvation") which, of course, comes after the belief of the context. Again, salvation comes after belief.

Notice also that Acts 9:5-6 shows that Saul believed on the road to Damascus (something I don't think Mr. Cockrell will deny), but Acts 22:16 ("... and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ...") clearly shows that Saul was still in his sins at least three days later (Acts 9:9). This again shows that a person's sins are not washed away the moment he believes. In this case, the forgiveness of sins occurred at least three days after Saul believed in Jesus.

Besides teaching that the washing away of Saul's sins occurred after he believed, Acts 22:16 also teaches that the washing away of sins occurred when Saul was baptized, and not before. Indeed, this passage teaches that if any alien sinner wants his sins washed away, he must be baptized.

I Corinthians 1:12-13 Another passage that proves that baptism is necessary for salvation is I Cor 1:12-13. Paul teaches in vs.12-13 that for a person to be "of Paul," Paul would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Paul. This implies that for a person to be "of Christ" (that is, to be a Christian), Christ would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ. There is no way around this. I Cor 1:12-13 proves that to be of Christ, to be saved, one would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ.

Conclusion The Bible clearly teaches that salvation does not come at the point of faith, but that instead, it comes when one is baptized. The question becomes, are we willing to accept the plain import of the Bible passages?

Answers to Mr. Cockrell's Questions 1. The Bible does not instruct us to rebaptize one who is in sin, but who is already born again; instead it instructs the erring Christian to repent and pray (Acts 8:22). We are only born again once, and "water" baptism is connected with that process (Jn 3:5). 2. You don't "unbaptize" a Christian when he sins, but his sin does cause him to be separated from God (Is 59:1-2, Rom 6:23), that is, to fall from grace (Gal 5:4). 3. A person who is already born again can be forgiven without baptism (Acts 8:22, I Jn 1:9), so the answer is "yes" to your question if you mean "a man" who has already been born again. But the answer to your question is "no," if you mean by "a man," one who has not already been born again.

Questions for Mr. Cockrell 1. Why does Jn 5:25 not prove that all an alien sinner must do in order to be saved is "hear" the gospel? 2. Do Acts 2:21 ("And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved") and Rom 10:13 teach that it is necessary for a sinner to "call upon the name of the Lord" to be saved, that is, to become a Christian? __ Yes __ No 3. Does Rom 10:9-10 teach that a sinner must "confess" Christ to be saved, that is, to become a Christian? __ Yes __ No

I do not know either Mr. Donohue or Mr. Cockrell, but the debate makes for some good reading.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Barry:

I appreciate your response. You tell us that this is so simple that Romans 12:3 indicates that God gives faith. By this you seem to mean that God is the one that is doing the believing. Those God forces believe upon us because we cannot choose of our own will to believe. Now all one need do is read Romans 12:1,2 to see that we have things that we must do and God does not do them for us. The idea that we cannot do anything to save ourselves is completely contrary to the word of God. For one the day of Pentecost, when the gospel was first preached and the audience asked the question, "men and Brethren what shall we do"? Peter told them, "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. Peter did not tell them what you would have told them. You would have said to them, " there is nothing you CAN do to be SAVED. You must wait for God to give you faith for you are so depraved that you cannot do it. God will save you but you cannot do anything whatsoever to save yourself." But Peter continued, "and with many other words he testified and exhorted them, ' SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS UNTOWARD GENERATION". ( Acts 2:40). Now if you had been preaching instead of Peter who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, you would not have said these words that Peter said. You would not have exhorted these people to save themselves because you do not believe that they could do anything to save themselves. You would not have told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins because (1) you do not believe that is possible for them to repent. You believe that God has to do the repenting for them because they are too depraved to do it. (2). You would not have said these words because you do not believe that baptism has anything to do with the remission of their sins. But thanks be to God that Peter through the inspiration of the Holy spirit was there and he told them to "repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). And Thanks be to God that he exhorted them saying, "save yourselves from this untoward generation" (Acts 2:40). And Praise God that, " as many as received his words were baptized and there were added to them in that day 3,000 souls". (Acts 2:41). All who receive his words today will repent and be baptized and be added to the number of the saved for we are told, " And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved". (Acts 2:47). Now none of this is difficult or complicated, Barry. It is all quite simple and easy to understand. The idea is plain. We must believe and obey (John 3:36; Hebrews 5:8,9). There are things that we can and must do to "save ourselves from this untoward generation". These are not works of merit but rather works of faith. Faith does not come by some irresistible force from God. It comes as Romans 10:17 tells us that it comes, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." We purify our souls through obedience to the truth. "Seeing ye have purified your souls IN YOUR OBEDIENCE TO THE TRUTH unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently:" (1Peter 1:22).

Then you say:

"He calls we believe."

Yes, Barry, but God Calls us by the gospel, "Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2Thess. 2:14). "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Cor. 4:15). There for we must obey the Gospel or be eternally lost "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"(1Peter 4:17). "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" (2Thess. 1:8).

Now all of this is not human reason, Barry. It is the plain and simple teaching of God's word. And with this phrase "He Calls we believe" you indicate that belief is something that WE DO. Yes it is in fact something that we must do not something that God does for us.

Then you seem to overly concerned about some imagined rivalry with these words:

"I am sorry I cannot post a message to rival yours in length, it just isn't that complicated to me."

Now, Barry, we Are all adults here and there is no rivalry. You have no need to compare the length of my responses to yours. I do my best to answer the arguments that anyone makes and not ignore any of them. If that means I have to write a lot then I do so. If I do not have time to answer all of their arguments I at least acknowledge that they made them and I have not answered them. Now it is fine to be brief if that is what you must do but at least admit that you completely ignore the majority of the arguments that I presented. Now your implication that the length of my post indicates that this matter is complicated. No, Barry, it is not complicated. But those who teach contrary to the truth can say their false teaching in very short sentences but the answer to it may take some effort. For example, and atheist could come in here and deny the resurrection of Christ in one sentence but for me to respond with an answer that is sincerely directed at proving that Christ raised from the dead would take far more than one sentence to respond. This does not mean that it is complicated it only means that all the evidence must be presented.

Then you say, "By grace I have been saved through faith." Yes we are saved by grace through faith. That is in fact the gospel of Christ. We are not saved by grace through faith only! That is the gospel according to Barry Hanson.

Then you tell us that you believe. I am happy to hear you say that you believe and hope that you know that Christ is "the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY Him" (Heb. 5:8,9). For it is clear that faith alone is dead and cannot save anyone. (James 2:14-24).

I pray that our Lord will bless you with eternal life through your faith and in obedience to the gospel of Christ our Lord.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Scott Sheridan and E. Lee Saffold:

I believe you (again) have the order of things all confused. God of his free grace elects those whome He will save, and by the Holy Spirit moves in them to respond to the gospel in faith. Because the election unto salvation is sure, the other steps are also sure. Believers are commanded to be baptized, and to make a public profession of their faith in Christ for the remission of their sins, but the can't do that unless they are already believers and their salvation is sure. Before and after baptism, believers are required to live a Christian life, out of gratitude and service to God who saved them. That can never be done perfectly, and we sin in many ways every day but primarilly in our inability to keep Christ head of every part of our lives every moment of every day in a world that has not yet been renewed. Our works don't save us, and our sins don't result in condemnation if we are in Christ; because his sacrifice is sufficient for all our sins. That does not mean sin does not matter, but that the law becomes a guide for the Christian life for the redeemed, rather than the source of condemnation as it is for those who are not.

I will give you this question to respond to: The Bible gives examples of those who were acceptable to God going back to Genisis, even before circumcision was established for the Jews. Baptism replaced circumcision, but the Bible also states that there is enough in nature so that man is without excuse. So, what is the minimum that is required by God to be saved? Why did God choose to love Able and not Cain? Why Noah and not the rest? Why Abram? You seemed to be saying that those who are not baptized can not possibly be saved, but through most of human history baptism was not used; and we believe in one God and one salvation through Christ.

I will give you my answer. The normal means of grace include membership in a church, the preaching of the Word of God, baptism, etc.; but I believe God can bring anyone to a saving faith that He may choose for his own, and will bring about the circumstnces that will make that happen. I don't know what that minimum is that would be acceptable to God, but based on the old testiment examples it did not even include a knowledge of Christ as we know of Him. It does require a knowledge of the office, or the purpose, or the need for Christ; however. Can someone in a remote tribe be saved who does not know the Bible, but who comes to a belief in an almighty God, Creator of the universe; who knows he is a sinner who is in need of forgiveness and reconciliation before such an awesome God; and is given the grace to know that nothing he is able to do will save him except to ask God for the forgiveness of his sins; and then to trust in God for that forgiveness and live as good a life as he knows how? I believe that is unlikely to occur, but not impossible for God.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

I don't know if Faris got her question answered, but I am interested in the discussion between Barry and Danny. I'm sure Arminius an Calvin would be delighted!

I think we need to differentiate between salvation and everything else.

In many different places in the N.T. salvation is by grace only. Several verses have already been mentioned, and another one is Titus 3: 5 - - 'Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according His mercy, He saved us.' Also, 'Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.'

The thief on the cross was not baptized, but he was with Christ in Paradise that day.

I thought Paul WAS baptized,(but he only baptized one person, he said) and I KNOW Jesus was. Did Jesus need to be baptized to be saved? No, He was baptized to set an example for us: a public declaration.

From what I can deduce, each of you is a Christian pastor. When we disagree with one another, can't we do so in a respectful way, and not start hurling insults? 'Speak the truth in love.'

Someone mentioned the Koine Greek words. 'Baptize' is, I believe, a TRANSLITERATION of the Greek word, which was 'Baptizo' - - to dip or to dye. 'Immersion' is the English TRANSLATION. Only adults were baptized and in the nearest body of water. But there are other forms of baptism, and they have been enumerated - - in Christ, in the Holy Spirit, etc. Even the reference Benjamin used, Eph. 3: 25-27, although it mentions water, is figurative. It's the 'washing of water through the word'. It is referring to 'the Church' the Body of Christ - - all of the believers.

I hope this doesn't cause 'discord among the brethren' - - we don't need any more of that! ;-) ;-)

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

Hi, Danny,

We have the right to disagree with each other, but I believe we need to do it in a sprit of love. Being right is not the highest goal, is it?

I believe the goal is to come to the truth, for the purpose of edifying, and sometimes we do our own positions harm by our own attitudes. Have you ever changed your mind because someone put you down and ridiculed your views? I doubt it.

Why was Jesus baptized? Why did Paul resist baptizing? If anyone would want to be sure that every ordinance was appropriately done, it was Paul.

I believe that the Holy Spirit, as the Father's agent, draws us to Himself, and God initiates this drawing. I recall 'The Hound of Heaven' by, I think, C.S. Lewis, which stated that God pursues us until we give in and accept Him.

Because God is omniscient, He's known since the foundation of the world, when we were written in the Lamb's Book of Life, who would accept His gift and who would not. This is one of those things which 'we see through a glass darkly, but then and face-to-face'.

The predestination/free will argument is not solvable until we are in His presence, I believe (and I COULD be wrong). Faith/works is in this category. It's a mystery - - paradoxical, but with God all things are possible.

From the tone of your response, it seems as though you do not believe that Barry is a Christian. The ways we know if others are Christians are if they confess with their mouths that Jesus is the propitiation for their sins, and believe in their hearts that God has raised Him from the dead; also by their fruit - - as in Galatians 5 - - the fruit of the Spirit:[22] "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness,(kindness), goodness, faith, (faithfulness),[23] meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

[25]: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit".

I don't believe we should just agree with others to be agreeable, either, but the control of the tongue is quite important to God.

Also, the chief commandments are to love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself. The whole Law is bound up in these two commandments, since Christ fulfilled the Law.

And can we forget I Corinthians 13: 1 - 13? I don't think so. Love is more important than being correct about anything. If the Brethren are in error, we are to 'come out from among them and be separate, and touch not the unclean thing'. Quietly. We are not to cause discord among the Brethren.

As for belonging to a particular church to be saved, no. We are members of the church by virtue of our accepting Christ's gift - - members of the universal Body of Christ. THEN we need to obey and carry out various works, which will not save us, but which will make evident our salvation. This is the meaning of 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling...'.

I don't get this from my church's teaching, but from the Scripture's teaching.

We are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, that's true, and I would never join a group such as the World Council of Churches, nor agree with another JUST to keep the peace, but I would try not to insult the other person nor his motives. After all, 'a brother offended is harder to be won'.

If my motivation is the other person's salvation, (after all, why are we presenting the Gospel?) don't I need to speak with extreme care?

I believe that various denominations make errors in trying to maintain their traditions, which I believe just encourages the Holy Spirit to leave that group quietly, and people don't even know He's left.

I don't want to say this to be right, I don't think, but that is why we belong to an Inter-Denominatinal, Bible-believing, local, indigenous church.

I come from a Baptist background (wasn't a Christian, but believed in free will, if nothing else; but I've read Calvin's 'Institutes' - - predestination); the thing that I am really thankful for, besides Christ's atoning work on the cross - - 'stauros'? - - doesn't matter to me) are the Scriptures.

We are not to conform to the image of this world, which many people in the churches today do.

I hope I have not offended you, as I want what I say to be offered in a spirit of love.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

Also:

'You tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, (minor things - - and legalisms), and forget the weightier matters of the Law: judgement, mercy and faith; these ought you to have done, without leaving the other undone...' (tithing). Faith/works - - paradox, but both do- able, if we are obedient, which is preferred by God over sacrifice.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

As I said at the beginning, this was a waste of my time, unfortunately. The same old arguments that lead nowhere, and seeing I am outnumbered in this particular message board I will bow out. I have other boards that are much more agreeable to discussion although the temper here has calmed a bit since my last round with you all : )

Indeed, I hope you all are really born again, I cannot tell. It definitely is contrary to the good news I have heard and now proclaim to the lost. Come as you are and Christ will set you free! I would hate to have to proclaim the message, You cannot come as you are, you must be baptized for the grace of God to set you free, oh, and you must repent of your sins as well (I've wondered, what if you forget about one? Did that void out the salvation you thought you had? Do you have to go back and get rebaptized after you re-repented?) The confusion and complexity goes on and on.

If you would like I can continue to babble as a point that anyone can come up with a message that can take several paragraphs to type and waste several minutes of every ones time and really not provide much content.

The point I had made earlier was that the truth is very simple and I am one that desires to present it in a simple manner. I am not sure what type of people you minister to, if any at all, I am not sure. It would seem to me that you probably have a handful of people that are steeped in your theology and have little to no effect on the lost at all. I am engaged in a church plant, there are only 4 Christians, most of the people I deal with on a weekly basis are completely secular and have no use for the gospel. If I do not present a living and powerful gospel these people will laugh in my face. I am content to minister as Paul, not with fancy words and complicated theology or to even baptize! I go in the power and demonstration of the Spirit that their faith will not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Thank him for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit! Acts 1:8, after which I received the power of God to be a witness in my Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the rest of the world!

The faith that the Lord has given me, I express back to him in response to His grace. This is not a work! An acknowledgement of His Lordship in my life came at no personal ability, it came from God. This does not make me a follower of Calvin's teaching, in fact I do not believe in unlimited atonement I also am at odds with his rendering of predestination. I believe one can forfeit their salvation and that one can resist the grace of God. I do not conform to any one else's theological rendition. I have a God given brain and I use it when I study the Holy Scriptures. It is apparent to me that many of you confuse many scriptural references with the act of being born again and the subsequent life of a disciple. Indeed I agree with much of your disciplines for the Christian life, I wholeheartedly disagree with the means by which we are born again.

Throughout your messages you continually place faith in your obedience to the gospel message. Faith is to be placed only in Jesus and all that He did to procure our salvation, not in our own response to that work. This is a very subtle difference but as you all are so apt to point out it is either right or wrong. And in light of your very own confession I must state that you are wrong. Just as the early Christians fought over the necessity of circumcision some fight over the necessity of water baptism. Knowing that a man is not justified by works, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works, for by works shall no flesh be justified. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. The Holy Scriptures continually point to grace by faith and that water baptism is but a figure of that actual baptism into Christ Himself. I was translated into the kingdom of God years before I stepped into the waters of baptism as a testimony and act of obedience to the life of Christ already alive in me. The many examples you all point to in Acts as "proof" only go to show the fervency of the first century church to follow the commandments of God. Obedience is a quality of an already born again believer in that an unbeliever is not concerned with obeying any of God's commandments. This is again simple but appears to escape many.

I do not project any denominational bias seeing that I only joined the association I am apart of after I knew the truth. I happened to find an outstanding organization called Open Bible Standard Churches whose dedication to the Word of God is unparalleled. It is great to find an entire organization that will trust the Word of God explicitly. What it says is how it is. My confidence is not in my own ability to follow every command of Christ without question, my confidence is in Christ and His grace at work in my life!

Jesus' water baptism fulfills all righteousness and I am to follow that example! Since Jesus did not need to be born again and He was still water baptized, water baptism must not pertain to my being born again! It must be a means of fulfilling all righteousness! I am clothed with the righteousness of Christ, after my conversion I continue to walk in that righteousness, one of the ways this happens is by my following the example of Jesus, another way is by keeping His commandments. My conversion or born again experience did not occur because I was water baptized as evidenced by Jesus' example.

Matt.28 is a great scripture, Jesus taught us to make disciples and to baptized them. Notice He did not say to baptized sinners. Baptizing sinners is one of the silliest things I have heard. I would do as much for the kingdom of God if I went down to the lake and skipped rocks! Sinners have not placed faith in Jesus, therefore, it is nonsensical to baptize a sinner. This would be the reason to baptize disciples, or, believers, people who have already placed faith in Christ and have been born again. Once again I must reiterate the simplicity of this truth, but since it matters not the length of the message in consideration for others and the time constraints they may be under we should just continue on with the message.

The unity issue is another pet peeve I have noticed with the "salvation by works" message. I probably agree with you on that one, (HA), we will never be unified as to whether we are saved by grace through faith or by works. I do not frustrate the grace of Christ for if righteousness comes by the law (works), Christ is dead in vain. I need not contribute to the sacrifice of Christ's death and atonement, I believe it is sufficient to save. It reminds me of the illustration in the Old Testament when Moses made the golden serpent and everyone who looked at the serpent was healed. The serpent was a type of Christ, no one had to jump in the water, make a golden snake of their own, say a prayer, do jump n jacks, or any other exhibition of self justification, simply look at the snake. I look to Christ for my salvation, no work involved, just believe! And by His grace through faith I am born again. Once again, seeing that even in the simplest of messages this truth is distorted, I might as well repeat it again at least for the third time. Never have and never will proclaim that salvation is by faith alone. It is by grace through faith. By grace through faith. First grace, second faith. Grace, faith. This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I tremble when I see another Gospel being preached, which Paul strictly warned us against. Paul in his desire for unity refrained from baptizing! Imagine (withholding salvation as you folks would claim) because he want to maintain unity. For all your many, many words it appears as if you and the Apostle Paul himself would have been on opposite sides. I dear say that being the case you would have had issues with Jesus Himself.

Hopefully I have provided a message long enough so that it cannot be said, that in my attempt to communicate simply and within reasonable lengths considering peoples time restraints, I belong to a cult. The fact is the many, many times I deal with cults their message is so lengthy that they continually muddy the point, wander off the subject, attempt to confuse people with their many words and appear as if they really understand the baloney they have bored us all with. The truth is many people have thanked me time and again for speaking so plainly (another example of Jesus) that any body could understand what He was saying except for the self righteous hypocrites who couldn't see beyond their denomination bias. I prefer simplicity and communicating in such a way. It is funny a lot of the time to see the faces of people when they find I hold a degree in theology. They say I am the first person that made any sense to them. Working with secular people all the time has helped me refine my skills in presentation and I have found that it is very appreciated. Although I am not sure if this message is yet long enough to meet with acceptable standards of authenticity, I feel as though I must go on.

I hesitate to ask any questions because I believe that this will probably be the last message from me on this particular issue, I know you will all be sad to see me go : ). But of the examples I see in Scripture where is it that the 120 in Acts 2 were water baptized? In John 20:22 these received the Holy Spirit, were born again, without being water baptized. It is apparent to me as well as many others that water baptism is not a necessity for conversion otherwise Jesus would have said, go baptize yourselves, you are now part of this New Covenant and until you are water baptized you are not born again. Furthermore, Acts 2 records the Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit, subsequent to their already receiving the Holy Spirit, only this time they speak with tongues! Which is demonstrated throughout the book of Acts. We see three different baptisms, hence the doctrine of baptisms that the author of Hebrews describes in his book (Heb.6:1,2) written approximately 6-8 years AFTER Ephesians 4:5. Making the Baptism into Christ the baptism that Paul is referring to not the baptism in water, seeing multiple baptisms existed well past the writing of Ephesians. Only one faith for salvation, only one hope for salvation, only one Lord for salvation, only one God for salvation, and only one baptism for salvation. That means the Baptism into the Holy Ghost does not save, the Baptism into suffering does not save and the Baptism into water does not save! The only Baptism for salvation is the Baptism into Christ as expressly stated in Rom.6:1-10, 1 Cor.12:13, Gal.3:27, Eph.4:5 and Col.2:10-13.

Well, if you cannot respond to each and every point I have made here, I guess it is because you must be part of a cult and wish to hide from my messages. Even if you are under time constraints and only wish to answer in brevity, it must be a sign that something is wrong, seeing this is the logic you prescribe. Undoubtedly, I have made my point, and hopefully in the future you will provide a little more understanding and possibly consider that others, who don't believe your gospel, have put as much thought and time into following the commandments and word of God as you yourself. I am sure you may have some redeeming qualities about you and would probably get along if I actually knew you. But the arrogance that comes across on this message board is really overbearing. Or is that confidence? Although I don't know how much confidence you can have in works? My confidence is in Christ and not my ability to carry out His commandments. So I guess a confidence in Christ would far outweigh any confidence you may have in yourself. Oh well, it is getting late and really, I have other things to do.

Farewell,

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2000

This thread is really getting L-O-N-G !!! I wonder is it's time for someone to start a new thread on the "How does baptism fit in?" question, since we seem to have gotten away from Romans 10 specifically.

Connie, in your response to my earlier posting, you argue that the "water" in Eph. 5:26 ("cleansing her by the washing with water with the word") is only figurative. I think most people do take it that way, including most on "my" side, but I wonder ON WHAT BASIS you say that. All you said in your posting is that it is because this is talking about the whole church (rather than individuals?). But if immersion in water is a pre-requisite for being in the church, wouldn't "cleansing by the water of immersion" apply to the whole church as much as to individuals? To me this verse is a good description of three of the elements required in receiving salvation. Christ is the one who does it ("Christ .... cleansing her"), but he does it when we submit to him in immersion in water ("by the water"), and all of this only comes about because we have heard and responded to his word ("through the word"). By the way, this last point does get us back to Romans 10! "How shall they believe unless they have heard?"

If you still want to take the water in this verse as figurative, that's fine. My views on the matter don't rest on this verse alone. I could more easily accept that this reference is figurative than I can accept that there is no water involved in Gal. 3:27. Even though "water" is not specified there, there has to be an immersion in something in order to "clothe yourselves with" Christ, and it just doesn't make grammatical or logical sense here for the "medium" of this immersion to be "Christ". (BTW, I notice that no one yet has attempted a response to the earlier points I made about this.)

Danny, you missed an opportunity. You agree with those who point out that the greatest commandment is to Love God, and then go on to say that we must love God's truth. Good point! But another thing to point out is that Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15).

As this forum gets increasingly heated, I think we are in danger of forgetting that most of the respondents -- ON BOTH SIDES -- are agreed on this point, that obedience is required, including obedience to the commandment to be baptised. I haven't read any response yet from anyone who did not agree that we cannot save ourselves but are rather saved by God's grace, together with our faith. There do seem to be a few strict Calvinists who believe that it is impossible to even believe without God implanting that faith in us. But most seem, implicitly at least, to agree that we have a choice whether to believe or not. All, even the strict Calvinists, seem to agree that obedience is expected. Some denominations do hold pedo-baptist and/or sacramental views of baptism, and some denominations do practice other "forms of baptism" apart from immersion, but I haven't noticed those views argued in this thread so far.

So the only real point of disagreement seems to be with regard to whether we are already saved at the moment we believe, or if this does not occur until we are immersed.

I sometimes wonder if salvation may not be a process. The Bible does seem very clear (1) that we cannot save ourselves, and the only way we can be saved is through God's GRACE, given to us through the atoning death of Jesus Christ, (2) that our part of this is not "works", but FAITH, and (3) that true faith will be expressed in many ways, including repentance, baptism, growth in our Christian walk, showing forth the fruit of the spirit, etc. Most of these are accomplished AFTER we are saved, and I don't think anyone here would say that a person is not saved until he has achieved perfect patience in his life.

But there seems also to be an abundance of evidence in the Bible that SOMETHING DECISIVE happens at the time of immersion in water. If you and I are both immersed, but I believe that I was saved at that moment, while you believe you were already saved prior to that moment, does that mean one of us really is saved and one of us really is not? I doubt it. So it's irrelevant for us. But it could be of immense significance if someone decides that because he is already saved he doesn't need to be immersed, and isn't!

I don't "hang" too much on Mark 16:16, because I know there is some dispute over whether or not it was part of the original inspired text of Mark. But it does raise an interesting question. "He who believes AND IS immersed will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned." There's no other verse that puts it quite that way, but this fits with what I find elsewhere. For those who believe AND are immersed, there is a promise of salvation. For those who do not believe, they are clearly lost. But what about those who believe, but are not immersed? I always stress Eph. 1:8-9, because I don't want to mislead people into a sacramental view of baptism whereby they put their faith in their baptism rather than in Christ, but I also cannot promise them salvation unless their faith is followed up by immersion in water. I cannot promise that because I don't think Scripture promises that.

Finally, on a personal note -- my Great-Grandfather was the town drunk in a town in Mid-Wales (U.K.), until he wandered into a Salvation Army meeting, sobered up on the spot, and never touched another drink the rest of his life. For the next couple of generations, the family were "Salvationists". My father started out in the Salvation Army. Then the family became Wesleyan Methodist when the Salvation Army pulled out of their town, and finally United Church of Canada when they emigrated to Canada. As a young adult, however, my Dad attended a revival meeting run by the Churches of Christ, became convinced of his need to be immersed, and was immersed. At that time and subsequently, several other members of the family also were immersed and went into the Church of Christ. Most of the family didn't. The Salvation Army does not "baptise" by any method. Were the ones who were never immersed lost? My father always feared so. Yet would he have turned out as he did -- would I have ended up as I have -- if his grandfather had not joined the Salvation Army? I don't feel I have a sure promise I can hold onto, but I do have a HOPE that I will see my grandparents and great-grandparents in heaven. But I also can't allow this HOPE to stop me from telling un-immersed believers the same thing that Ananias told Paul, "And now, why do you wait? Rise and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling on his name?" (Acts 22:16)

Incidentally, I know this doesn't PROVE anything, but there is something further of interest about my family background. Of those who were immersed and "joined" the Church of Christ (though it is really Christ who adds people to His church), there is a high proportion of Christian missionaries and Christian ministers, Bible college professors, etc. Of those who were not -- none. And of those who were not, and their children, grandchildren, etc., most are now leading rather worldly lives, though mostly still very "moral" in the ways the world looks at these things, e.g. no crime, they drink, but don't get drunk, no divorces, etc. It is almost as though the decision not to be immersed, when this choice was presented to them, also closed the door on drawing closer to Christ in other ways as well.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2000

Danny Gabbard:

{realize you may not still be reading this thread, but in case you are, I would like to respond to something you addressed to me.

You say 1600 years of church....etc.,:

'Call no man 'Father' upon the earth, for there is one father in Heaven,' etc.

'Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron;

FORBIDDING TO MARRY and COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.'

I Timothy 4: 2 - 4

There is a church which has done this, and here we are - - 2000!

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Benjamin:

I haven't read your prior posts again, and I'm too tired to find it this A.M. My server was down for 24 hours and I'm trying to quickly get caught up.

I like your reasoned position and the fact that you think someone who disagrees with you might be correct!

Unlike others who shall remain nameless.

Please know that I have been baptised TWICE!! IMMERSED!!

Does that make me an Anabaptist? ;-) ;-)

Let me explain. Before becoming a Christian, I was baptized at about the age of 12, as is the custom of American Baptists. I was not a Christian. Then, at age 25, I became a Christian, as did my husband.

I wanted to be re-immersed, but he didn't, because he had been sprinkled in a Mission Covenant Church as a child. Then after attending an Evangelical Free Church for a couple of years, he came under conviction about this, did a study on baptism and decided to be immersed. This was almost three years after becoming Christians.

You cannot tell me we were not Christians because we weren't immersed immediately after believing. 'His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God'. Just as my immersion the first time did not save me, the delay the second time did not indicate that I was NOT a Christian from the minute I believed.

And, by the way, Jesus IS water - - the 'Living Water'.

There are different baptisms mentioned, among them the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I BELIEVE that we should be immersed as a step of obedience. But my husband's and my waiting to be baptized I do not in any way consider sinful or disobedient. We were baby Christians and when we grew a little, we obeyed.

I'll address your other points tomorrow, IF THE LORD IS WILLING.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Hi, Danny,

What about what me? I didn't - - and don't - - consider myself 'the pious unimmersed' (at that time almost 30 years ago, before I was re- immersed). Where do you place me? I was a believer, but an immature one just getting a foothold in what the Scriptures taught.

When you baptize, do you make sure you're only baptizing believers?

When we became Christians, we had had a very life-changing experience. It was not a question of not obeying God, it was a matter of asking: "What does God want me to do? - - I'll DO it!"

Among the changes that were made were that we started going to a Bible-teaching church. My husband, who had smoked for 10 years, quit because he didn't want to offend Christian brothers, (who benefited? - - our whole family!); we never drank much, but we quit drinking. (We now, at ages 71 and 66, each drink one glass of red wine daily).

(A contemporary Christian friend of the time said the alcohol made a really good drain pipe cleaner, so we used it for that. We never bought hard alcohol, but had been given an expensive gift of something, and wondered what we should do with it.)

We had attended a Conservative Baptist church for a few months after I recovered from an illness, and that church elected my husband an elder, contingent upon his immersion! This is absolutely contrary to Scripture, because he was a baby Christian, but sadly DID know more of what the Scriptures said than many people there who had been Christians most of their lives.

Then we started going to an Evangelical Free church after my husband met (on the El) a man who taught at Moody Bible Institute (Chicago) who observed my husband reading the Amplified Bible (a gift from a Christian friend) every day for a period before introducing himself, and asking: "What is that you're reading?" (He knew). They developed a wonderful friendship and talked on the 'El' daily for several years.

We were baptized in that church, but it was merely a matter of obedience to the Scripture after our study, not because anyone was unduly pressuring us to do so, as in the Conservative Baptist church.

I believe that the Holy Spirit's job is to teach us the way we should go, not some pre-conceived idea on someone else's part. He says He's written His commandments in our hearts.

As to the life-changing aspects of our conversions, we also, as soon as we could, sent all five of our children to a Christian school.

And I didn't even mention that I was encouraging my husband to tithe, even though we couldn't afford it. He didn't want to, because we couldn't afford it, but a couple of years later, when he was mature, our Free Church elected him to the Board, and he said: "We're going to tithe - - they need it!" Immediately he got an unexpected raise, which covered the tithe plus much more. There were several faith- building episodes of that nature.

Never in all these changes did we discuss what we 'should' do with our new-found brethren. We studied, prayed, fellowshipped, and served. I am thankful to God for every tremendous servant-pastor and friend he placed in our lives.

Also, I think I may have erroneously attributed Barry's comments to you. Sorry! Forgive me? ;-) ;-) I know you are very serious, as I was as a young Christian (still am) but I also know that a 'Merry heart does good like a medicine'.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Regarding,""I sometimes wonder if salvation is a process." ...

I hope I am not cast out of the forum as a heretic for this, but my view is this:

First, I am a trichotomist, meaning I believe that we are made up of three separate parts, the body, soul (mind, emotions, will), and spirit. (How this relates will become clear in a moment.)

Now I notice throughout scripture that it is taught that we "have been" saved (Romans 8:24, Ephesians 2:8, 2 Timothy 1:9 et. al.), we "are being" saved (Romans 10:10, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Hebrews 10:39 et. al.), and we "will be" saved (Matthew 24:13, Philippians 1:28 et.al.) Now this can only mean that salvation is some sort of a process, and here is how I have reasoned it out:

When we come to faith in Christ, we "have been" saved, that is, our spirit, which was dead, is regenerated. This is what the Scriptures call "Justification." As we walk in Christ and remain faithful, we "are being" saved as we bring every thought under control and are transformed by the renewing of our minds (our souls). This the Scriptures call the process of "Sanctification." When the resurrection comes, we "will be" saved, as we will shed these jars of clay and receive glorified bodies, the third part of the process, which the Scriptures call "Glorification."

If I am wrong in this, I am sure someone will let me know. =)

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Dbvz:

Your post, which is addressed to Brother Scott Sheridan and me, is filled with some very fine and interesting assertions. The problem with most of them however is that they are just that, mere assertions without the slightest evidence from the word of God to support them as being the truth.

For example you say the following:

"God of his free grace elects those whome He will save, and by the Holy Spirit moves in them to respond to the gospel in faith."

Now I see that you make this assertion but I do not see any scriptural support for it.

Then you assert:

"Believers are commanded to be baptized, and to make a public profession of their faith in Christ for the remission of their sins, but the can't do that unless they are already believers and their salvation is sure."

Now here we have a strange assertion that believers are commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins but that they cannot do that unless they are "already believers and their salvation is sure". It is true that none but believers are to be baptized. (Mark 16:16). But is not true that their salvation can and must be "sure" before they can be baptized for the remission of sins". Now of this statement you offer nothing but your assertion. You offer absolutely no proof from the word of God that this is a fact. You expect us to believe it even though it makes no sense and is even contrary to the plain teaching of God's word simply because you assert it to be true.

Now if they are baptized to obtain the remission of sins, as you have stated, and their salvation is sure before being baptized then they are saved from their sins before and without those sins being forgiven or remitted. In other words you have them being saved while yet in their sins and then afterward being baptized for the remission of their sins. But the scriptures tell us, " The Lord's hand is not shortened that it cannot save neither is His ear heavy that he cannot hear but sins have separated between you and your God and your iniquities have hid his face from you so that he will not hear". (Isa. 59:1,2). Sin separates us from God and He therefore will not allow us to be reconciled to Him until those sins are remitted, removed or forgiven. Now your statement is completely contrary to the teaching of the word of God in Acts 2:38. In fact Paul was told to "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling upon the name of the Lord" Acts 22:16. Jesus himself said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:" (Mark 16:16). But you say that "they cannot do that (that is be baptized) unless their salvation is sure before they are baptized. Jesus did not say he that believeth shall be saved and then he should be baptized. He said "He that believeth AND is baptized SHALL be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16). Now it does appear dbzd, that you are the one that has things "out of order". Now you make this assertion without offering any scriptural proof whatsoever that it is true. That statement is in fact contrary to the scriptures but you want us to think that we have everything "out of order". Now I will happily accept your correction but mere assertions without proof from the word of God is not sufficient to my correction. (Tim.3: 15,16).

Then you tell us the following:

"Baptism replaced circumcision, but the Bible also states that there is enough in nature so that man is without excuse."

Now you, again, merely assert something without PROOF. Nowhere does the bible teach that "baptism replaced circumcision". You want us to believe that it does but the scriptures do not teach such a thing. We are expected to believe it just because you say it is so. For if baptism merely replaced circumcision them no woman could be baptized because circumcision was for men only! If " Baptism replaced circumcision" as you would have us to believe it would be a work. But the scriptures nowhere teach that baptism is a "work". In fact, baptism is the one place where we are completely passive. Peter said, "repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. You say if God has elected you and has sent his Holy Spirit to give you faith to obey the gospel, Christ will make your salvation sure while they are yet in their sins and then they can be baptized for the remission of sins. You have the Holy Spirit coming before baptism but Peter has the gift of the Holy Spirit coming after baptism. You have salvation coming while one is yet in their sins before baptism and the remission of sins but Peter has it coming after baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). You have salvation coming before baptism but Christ has it coming after baptism (Mark 16:16). So the scriptural order is very different from the order that you merely assert but do not prove. In fact it does appear, absent any proof of your assertions from the scriptures, that it is you that has " the order of things confused".

Then as to your assertion, without proof, people can be saved without even any knowledge of Christ, by which you seem to mean that they are able to call upon the Lord and be saved without hearing the gospel. It would be good for you to read what Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who does lead us to faith, describes just how we are made able to call upon the name of the Lord.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people." (Romans 10:13-21).

Without HEARING the word of God no one can have faith. " Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". (Romans 10:17). We are saved "by Grace through Faith" (Eph. 2: 8). If I cannot have faith I cannot be saved but I cannot have faith without hearing the word of God. As Paul says none can hear without a preacher and that there will not be any preachers unless they be sent. So Paul's reason for preaching the gospel is because it will save those who are lost.

Hear Paul's inspired word in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

It pleased God by the "foolishness of preaching to save them that believe". (1 Cor. 1:18-21).

But you have asserted that people can be saved apart from the preaching of the gospel. You have even asserted, again without proof that we can be saved without any knowledge of Christ.

"but based on the old testiment examples it did not even include a knowledge of Christ as we know of Him."

Then in the very next sentence you contradict yourself with a diametrically opposite statement to the one we have just quoted. Hear are your words:

"It does require a knowledge of the office, or the purpose, or the need for Christ; however."

Well, dbvz, isn't that also the same as the knowledge that we also have of Christ? So in one place you say that "knowledge of Christ as we know of him" is not required for salvation, of which you offer no proof and then you say that knowledge of his "office, or the purpose or the need for Christ is required". Now which way is it dbvz? For you cannot have it both ways. All men are required and are clearly told in the preaching of the gospel the "office, purpose and need of Christ". So if that is required, as you say, then they must hear the "preaching of the gospel (1Cor. 1:18) in order to be saved. For it is the gospel that tells us these things about Christ. If that is true your earlier statement that, " it does not even include a knowledge of Christ" is completely false! You have your choice. But both of them, since they are diametrically opposed to each other, cannot be true at the same time. This kind of self- contradiction comes upon us when we try to reason about God separate from proving what we say by the word of God.

No, dbvz, it does appear that your self-contradictory assertions, which you offer to us, with no evidence from the word of God to substantiate them, are to be rejected. Not only because they are self-contradictory but also because they contradict God who has taught us the very opposite of your assertions in His Holy Word.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

I just noticed something. A few pwople in this thread are contending that baptism is a "work." But baptism is not something you go out and do to yourself. I have never seen someone baptize themself. You have someone else do it to you. You just lie there and simply trust (another interesting picture within the baptismal act!) How then is it a work?

This reminds me of the job I had a few years ago at a Jewish-run hospital. In order to accomodate the Orthodox Jews, they had certain elevators that would run up and down all day on Saturdays, stopping and opening at each floor. This was so that the Orthodox Jew would not have to push the call button, because that would be doing "work" on the Sabbath.

It would seem that the Jews are not the only ones who would go to great lengths of silliness to define "work."

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

John Wilson:

Your post on being a 'trichotomist' reminds me of an Interim Pastor we had at the Free Church who was from England. He had been in the Church of England and then became a missionary to China. He was imprisoned for a year when the Chinese communists took over, but had been released and at that time (to which I am referring) was attending Wheaton College, getting a higher degree. His wife was from a Pentecostal Church, but also a devout Christian, who also had been a missionary in China. They were older - - in their 40s, when we were in our 30s.

He was a tremendous pastor and so well versed in the Scriptures. And he sounded like Alan Redpath! Anyone remember him?

He always said that we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. You kindly gave the verses.

Lest anyone reject what he said, he was the one who told us that when they were in China and his wife wanted him to be immersed, he demurred and put it off, figuring he had been baptized, as a baby.

He said they had a break during the hot season, and they went to the mountains to rest for a period of three months. He chose to use the time to study the Scriptures on the subject of baptism, and came out of the study convinced that only adult believers were baptized - - by immersion. He was very influential in my husband's deciding to be immersed.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Barry,

I hope you were not including me among those you say practice a "Yes...but...Hermeneutic" and say, "I know that's what the Bible says, but I really believe"! At first glance I though you were attributing this to me, since the first part of your posting is addressed to me. In re-reading it I see that comment is more general and not pointed at one person. But I still hope you don't think I am one with that kind of position, because it is unacceptable to me too!

In response to some of your other points:

What do I mean when I say I do not want to "hang too much" on Mark 16:16, and why do I say it? I have two reasons for saying this. The second clarifies what I mean by it. (1) I have been in all kinds of discussions that have gotten side-tracked over matters like this. "Mark 16:16 says, ...." "What, you mean you are basing doctrines on a passage like that? Don't you know it was not part of the original text? That's the trouble with people like you ...." (2) Personally, I do not feel safe basing any important beliefs primarily on passages that are "spurious", as you put it. If the doctrine is already clearly stated in other places, the "spurious" passage provides additional support and confirmation. But I wouldn't want to accept something ONLY on the basis of a disputed passage, and therefore I also wouldn't want to give the impression in discussions I participate in that that is my sole or even a main support for a position.

I think what you mean by saying that "salvation is a process" and what I meant when I said I WONDERED if it MIGHT be, may not quite be identical.

I'd like to recommend -- to those on ALL sides of this discussion -- a book that I found a few years ago and found interesting and thought-provoking. I do not agree with ALL of the author's views. In fact, I'm not sure how far I agree even with the basic premise, but it does give food for thought. Anyway, if any of you respond, keep in mind that the my views are NOT necessarily the same as the author's, and also that I am only giving a brief summary of his views. So don't attack me for his views, since I may not agree myself with the aspect you are attacking, and don't attack him without reading what he says himself.

The author is David Pawson, a British writer. I don't know his theological background, since I am not familiar with the churches mentioned in the blurb on the cover. The book is called, "The Normal Christian Birth" (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1989).

His contention is that the Bible describes 4 "spiritual doors" that seem to be involved in the conversions described in the New Testament. These are: Repentance, Belief, Baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit. But he argues that these are not necessarily always in the same order. He cites the case of Cornelius and family as one when receiving the Holy Spirit preceded baptism and possibly even the other two steps. His contention, arising out of this, is that "the normal Christian birth" includes all 4 of these parts or "doors", but that it is not necessarily relevant which order they occur in, or how far apart they occur.

I see some problems with this, but won't take time or space to point them out exhaustively. If others think they these problems are sufficiently relevant to this thread, I'm sure they will do so themselves. But it did open my mind to some interesting possibilities.

My father used to have a model staircase that he used to illustrate the "Plan of Salvation". The first step is to hear. From there you go up another step to believe, on to repent, then confess, and then to be immersed. At this point, you are "saved", but you still continue upward (as Christian did, in "Pilgrim's Progress" after his burden was rolled away at the cross) by "growing in grace". All of these are described in the New Testament as necessary for salvation, and this order or progression is logical, but there is NO PLACE in the New Testament where you have all of these steps given together, and no place that tells you what order they have to be in. We are told plainly that we are saved by faith and not by "works". Yet we are also told that the demons "believe" (same word in Greek as what we are to do). We are told that to be saved we must repent. We are told that at immersion our sins are washed away and we "put on" Christ. There seems to be SOMETHING DECISIVE that occurs at each of these three points -- deciding to believe, repenting, and being immersed. So HOW MUCH DOES IT MATTER which order these three come in? To ALL of us (on both sides of this issue) it SEEMS to matter a great deal. (From the "side" I'm not, as I said previously, I don't think the Bible gives any basis for confidence that we will have our sins washed away if we do not submit to immersion in water.) But remember that God has foreknowledge and knows what each person will do in the future. Is it possible that God grants "full salvation" to each one who believes, repents and is immersed, AT THE POINT OF TAKING THE FIRST STEP, whichever it may be, BECAUSE HE KNOWS that the person will follow through with the other two? There are many examples in the Bible where God commends people for very imperfect obedience because they have the faith and follow through with the obedience at the point when they understand what it is they need to do.

I think one problem is that some feel that people must be immersed "for the right reason" before their immersion is valid. I think there is some truth in this. No one will be saved because they are part of a diving team! But when Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be immersed ... for the forgiveness of sins", is "for the forgiveness of sins" something that must be our (primary?) reason for being immersed, or is it mainly just a description of the results that will follow? For those who are interested, there is a very good article about this subject at .

I also have some things I was going to say in response to what Connie had to say about my earlier postings, but this is already long, so I will save them for another time and maybe post them on the other thread she has started.

In Christian Brotherhood,

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

SORRY! That last posting from me was answering things "DANNY" had said, not "Barry". I should have proof-read it better before sending it.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Yet another follow-up to the message I sent a few minutes ago. I tried to include the "address" for an article I had found on the internet on "Rebaptism for 'The Right Purpose'", but it doesn't show up in the message as posted. I wonder if the server has some automatic way of removing other website addresses from the postings. Anyway, here is another attempt to send it. (I'm writing it three different ways, just in case. If the "greenspun" server removes the first one or two, maybe there will be enough left in the second or third to still use it.) http://www.freedomsring.org/rebaptis.html OR www.freedomsring.org/rebaptis.html OR freedomsring.org/rebaptis.html

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Thank to each of you for your response. I feel that I now have a deeper understanding of both views.You have helped me to grow. This thread also causes me to rethink, do I exhibit the fruits of the spirit. Would you put me on your prayer list for a time that I do grow and indeed display those fruits more fully in my life.

Again, thanks to all.

Faris A. Sweet

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Faris, you are sweet!

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000