I CORINTHIANS 13:1-13

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love,

I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned , and have not love, it profits me nothing.

Love suffers long, and is kind;

Love envies not; Love vaunts not itself, is not puffed up, does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, takes no account of evil;

Rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;

Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood like a child, I thought as a child;

But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then but then I shall know, even as I am known.

And now abides Faith, Hope, and Love, these three;

But the greatest of these is Love.

-----Original Message----- From: Connie Iversen To: Connie Iversen Date: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:56 PM Subject: RE: Faith/Works/Baptism

Part of what has held me up in responding to Lee is my trying to decide which version to use in putting these verses, which everyone has read a hundred (a million?) times, into a cohesive statement of my position.

Because it has every possible meaning of the words, and leaves it to the Holy Spirit to do the teaching, for the most part I am going to use the Amplified. Of course every version needs the Holy Spirit as teacher, so this is no different. And as several have stated, doctrinal positions are virtually the same in all, except those with a special agenda.

I have been called Satanic, a liar, bitter, an unbeliever ~ all lies, plus ridiculed for repeating a couple of 'funnies' in re: the Apostle Paul/KJV joke and the 'brick fence in heaven'joke. BUT I FORGIVE THE ONE WHO HAS SAID THIS. And I say: "Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he does."

Of course one has to have a sense of humor to appreciate those, and I suppose they have been repeated ad infinitum in the professional Christian world, so they are not funny anymore. My apologies.

I was concerned that getting deeply into Acts would perhaps shake my faith ~ not in the Lord Jesus, but in my position on baptism, but so far it has just strengthened it.

***************************************************

/PROLOGUE:\

***************************************************

Habakkuk 2:1-4: NAS [New American Standard]

1. I will stand on my guard post and station myself on the rampart; And I will keep watch to see what He will speak to me, and how I may reply when I am reproved.

2. Then the Lord answered me and said: "Record the vision and inscribe it on the tablets, that the one who reads it may run.

3. For the vision is yet for the appointed time; it hastens toward the goal, and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay.

4. Behold, as for the proud one, his soul is not right within him; but righteous will live by his faith.

**************************************

Luke 7: 39-50: [Amplified]

39: Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw it, he said to himself: "If this man were a prophet, he would surely know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a notorious sinner ~ a social outcast, devoted to sin.

40: And Jesus replying said to him: "Simon, I have something to say to you". And he answered: "Teacher, say it".

41: "A certain lender of money at interest had two debtors; one owed him five hundred denarii, and the other, fifty.'

42: "When they had no means of paying, he freely forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?"

43: Simon answered: "The one, I take it, for whom he forgave and canceled more." And Jesus said to him: "You have answered correctly."

44: Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon: "Do you see this woman? When I came into your house, you gave me no water for My feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair."

45: "You gave Me no kiss, but she from the moment I came in has not ceased (intermittantly) to kiss My feet tenderly and caressingly.

46: You did not anoint My head with [cheap, ordinary] oil, but she has anointed My feet with [costly, rare] perfume."

47: "Therefore I tell you, her sins, many [as they are], are fogiven her, because she has loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.

48: "And He said to her: "Your sins are forgiven!"

49: "Then those who were at table with Him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, Who even forgives sins?"

*************************************************

50: But Jesus said to the woman: "Your faith has saved you; go (enter) into peace -- in freedom from all the distresses that are experienced as the result of sin."

NAV: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace".

*********************************************

NOTE: NO MENTION OF BAPTISM.

*********************************************

Acts 1:5 & 8 [Ampl.]

5: For John baptized with water, but not many days from now you will be baptized with -- placed in, introduced to -- the Holy Spirit.

********************************************

This is in the Holy Spirit, not water; they were already baptized into John's baptism, (for repentance) but this was before Pentecost.

Sequence: They believed.....John's baptism.....Holy Spirit

Unless I'm wrong, they have not been baptized in water for the remission of sins yet. Are they not forgiven? They are already submitting to His will.

**************************************

8: But you shall receive power -- ability, efficiency, and might -- when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and and all Judea and Samaria and to the ends -- the very bounds -- of the earth.

Acts 2:21:

And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord -- that is, invoking, adoring, and worshipping the Lord (Christ) -- shall be saved.

*******************************************

NO BAPTISM

*******************************************

Acts 2:38:

And Peter answered them, Repent -- change your views, and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves instead of rejecting it -- and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of and release from your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Sequence: Repent

Baptism in the Name of Christ for the forgiveness of sins

Gift of Holy Spirit

********************************************* BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS: GIFT: HOLY SPIRIT, NOT SALVATION.

********************************************

This one is a difficult one, which in no way negates the ones with the positive statements that only mention belief or repentance. This is one that is SEEMINGLY paradoxical but which we can all ask the Lord about when we see Him. It all hinges on the difference in meaning of 'forgiveness of sin' and 'salvation'. They are not the same thing.

*************************************

Forgiveness: To excuse for a fault or offense; to pardon; to renounce anger or resentment against.

Salvation: The deliverance of man or his soul (includes women) from the power or penalty of sin; redemption.

*******************************************

CONNIE'S PREDICTION: One group will come down on one side of this issue and the other group will come down on the other side. (No claim to being a prophetess.)

****************************************

Acts 2: 40, 41:

40: ........Be saved from this crooked, (perverse, wicked, unjust) generation.

41: Therefore, those who accepted and welcomed his message were baptized , and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

********************************************

Sequence:

Believed

Were baptized

I have no problem with this. It's the sequence I accept. I probably would have done it just this way, had I known baptism was a step of obedience. This in no way says:

Baptism = Salvation

********************************************

Acts 3: 19: So repent -- change your mind and heart and purpose; turn around and return [to God ], that your sins may be erased (blotted out, wiped clean), that times of refreshing -- of recovering from the effects of heat, of reviving with fresh air -- may come from the presence of the Lord;...

**************************************

NO BAPTISM; ONLY REPENTANCE

**************************************

Acts 4: 4:

But many of those who heard the message believed -- adhered to and trusted in and relied on Jesus [the Christ]. And their number grew and came to about five thousand.

******************************************

NO BAPTISM, ONLY THOSE WHO BELIEVED

************************************

I'm going to have to stop now, but I've only gotten part of the way. I'm sure this much will engender some response.

In Him,



-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Answers

BVD's.....

I presume as a pure Calvinist you accept the "P" part of T-U-L-I- P??...i.e., preservation of the saints??

Just curious.....you have probably answered this already.....in light of Calvinism.....what does Jesus means by "whosoever will....may come??"

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Nelta....shut up!!! I can't remember asking your opinion.

Sorry....guys...I repent....but I've finally figured out who Connie is.

Anyway....John and Sam......

I agree with everything you said. My view, which appears to be identical to yours is...."Once saved, always saved....as long as we trust."

But....I didn't ask you guys. LOL!!!

Get well soon DBVZ!!!! We need a token Calvinist around here to keep us on our toes (at least till we can convert ya).

Hope you are better soon!

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

My beautiful, organized formatting fizzled. Oh, well. {Connie... I worked on it a little... Duane}

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Connie:

You characterize your post as a response to Lee as follows:

"Part of what has held me up in responding to Lee is my trying to decide which version to use in putting these verses, which everyone has read a hundred (a million? times, into a cohesive statement of my position."

But you have not in all that you have said responded to any of the arguments that I have made nor any of the questions that I have asked. I might also add that all that you have said is anything but coherent.

Nevertheless I will return when I have more time to deal with this so- call "response". I see that you have deliberately chosen a version of the scriptures that is not at all a genuine translation because it merely uses words that you favor but you cannot find any support for this translation in the original language. But you need someone to help you "pervert the word of God" so you go to the so- called "amplified version". The reason you run to this version is because reputable and reasonably accurate translations do not support your false doctrine, now do they Connie?

I will come back to respond but I recommend that everyone read the other threads again and notice the numerous questions that I have asked Connie that she has deliberately ignored. Also notice the many arguments that have been made against her postion that she does not even mention! It is a very TELLING experience to notice the things she is afraid to deal with and has been deliberately avoiding even up to this very time when she claims to be responding to "Lee".

Connie, the word respond would mean that you actually are responding to my words and arguments and questions that I have put to you for an answer. Your ignoring them means that you are not responding to "Lee" but rather restating arguments that Lee has already answered with arguments that you continue to ignore!

I will return later. It is late and I must get some rest.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Lee:

It is appalling to me that you have such a lack of wisdom and understanding, especially since it sounds as though you preach.

You have missed the entire message of the 'Good news' of the New Testament: That Jesus died for our sins and that we have to do NOTHING ELSE to be saved. To be obedient, yes, we are to be obedient.

It makes me use this analogy: He gives the 'box' of salvation as a gift, but when we open it up, we find the different other items that are inside. And we may not see them immediately.

Early on in our discussions, I felt that we were wasting time with unedifying matters. I was wrong. This is basic to the Faith/Works issue.

It has honed my position for my own use, in my case.

In any case, let me state what I believe in regard to baptism:

Matthew 28:16-19: [AMPLIFIED]

16: Now the eleven disciples went to Galillee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.

17: And when they saw Him they fell down and worshipped Him, but some doubted.

18: Jesus approached and breaking the silence said to them: "All authority -- all power of rule -- in Heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19: Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;

20: Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you all the days -- perpetually, uniformly and on every occasion -- to the [very] close and consummation of the age.

Amen -- so let it be. {Connie's note: The last four words are italicized}. (Also, it says 'Nations' here, but we all presume that it means the individuals of the nations, do we not?

I can still remember my baptizer's words: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".

He was the missionary to China, and was imprisoned for a year by the Chinese communists for preaching the Gospel. He went up into the hills for a break from his work where it was cooler, and made a three month study of baptism.

His wife, who was Pentecostal (they met in China where she also was a missionary) wanted him to be immersed. He was from the Anglican Church, but had been a Christian for many years and had been sprinkled when he was a baby. (By the way, while I think of it again have you read anything by Watchman Nee?)

Both of them came out of their respective churches because of the error they saw there. He was the one who counseled my husband on the necessity of immersion. My husband had also been sprinkled in a Mission Covenant Church, but had not been a believer when that happened.

They were loving mentors to both of us, he to my husband, and she to me. Their names were Frank and Eunice Harris, and being from England, he sounded like Alan Redpath of Moody BI Radio. She was American.

The Holy Spirit was now nudging my husband (and he was willing to be obedient) to be immersed. I waited to be re-immersed, praying all the while that my husband would see its necessity for obedience. He eventually did, and three years after our conversions, we were immersed. In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So it is ironic that you would think that I would consider baptism to unimportant.

The sequence in this account (Matthew 28:17-20) are what I have always understood them to be:

Believe Be baptized.

I believe you have an incomplete knowledge of the New Testament, Lee, and I say that with no animosity. My concern is not just for you, but for those whom you are teaching.

I also am concerned for a church whose pastor and many congregants come to church armed with anything other than the word of God. My Sunday School moderator (he's not really a teacher ~ he leaves that to people with more Bible training than he has ~ although he has a lot) is a policeman who just got back from some training with the FBI in Washington, DC., and I never thought about it, but he may be armed, also.

It never entered my mind that there might be people at church who are armed, but I suppose it's possible.

I will be praying for you, Lee, and others on this forum. I have no animosity in what I say, and am not angry. I never let the sun go down on my anger, and I would never let the root of bitterness spring up in my heart, giving Satan a playground.

In the complete, substitutionary death and shedding of blood of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for my sins ~ PRAISE GOD!:

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

It is appalling to me that you have such a lack of wisdom and understanding, especially since it sounds as though you preach.

Now Connie, I do not now not have I ever claimed to be a wise sage. I have no fear however for I will ask God for wisdom, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it will be given to me. (James 1:5). Now does that help you feel better about my lack of wisdom? Or were you just trying to insult me? Ha! Now I do understand enough of the scriptures to be able to plainly see that one who says, as you do Connie:

BAPTISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR SALVATION

When Christ says:

HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTISED SHALL BE SAVED: Mark 16:16.

Is in Direct and deliberate conflict with Christ our Lord and savior and they should be ashamed and repent for such rebellion against Christ.

Now you say, "it sounds as though I preach". Now I do not know why you keep saying this when I have told you now twice, and you could not have forgotten it, that I work in the TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY. I am not a preacher as you insist that I am. Now why do you ignore what I have told you? Now I consider it a compliment that you think I am a preacher but I do not deal in lies, Connie, and I have now told you enough that I am not a preacher. Now that is the truth. If you insist on believing a lie about this then enjoy your lies but I am not a preacher of any congregation as you imply. I would like to do such good works that my brethren who are preachers are doing but I earn my living in the TELECOMMUNICATION BUSINESS. Now I know that you knew that I was not a preacher because you even asked me once to help you figure out how to cut and paste sense I was in the telecommunication business that I would understand about computers etc. If I must cut and paste your comments to prove that you knew that I worked in the telecommunication business I will. Then you come in here and pretend that you think I am a preacher when YOU KNEW BETTER ALL ALONG! This is the kind of thing Connie that makes your words so unbelievable. You knew I was not a preacher but imply that you think I am one. What is your problem? It seems to me that your integrity is severely lacking in this matter as well as others where you pretend to want to hear our position on something as if you had never heard it when there is a full thread almost entirely filled with explanations to you concerning our position on the very matter that you pretentiously acted as if you had never heard. Yes indeed, Connie, your integrity is as about as lacking as is my wisdom. Wisdom I can ask God for but integrity cannot be gained simply for the asking. It must come from a love of and a commitment to the truth not only as revealed in the word of God but also as is spoken by our lips and written by our pens. So your commitment to the truth in what you say is just not there, Connie, and therefore your integrity is severely lacking. I would pray about that for you but Prayer is not where integrity is obtained. It comes from you and your commitment to always speak to truth. The only thing I can do is pray that God will help you see the need to be truthful. I will do that for you, Connie.

You have missed the entire message of the 'Good news' of the New Testament: That Jesus died for our sins and that we have to do NOTHING ELSE to be saved. To be obedient, yes, we are to be obedient.

Yes and if we are not obedient we will not be saved. Obeddience is something "else" that we must do to be saved. Though he we a son yet learned he obedience through the things which he suffered and being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him Hebrew 5:8,9. Christ is not the savior of those who are disobedient to him. Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46). Christ is not Lord to those who do not the things which he says do. Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord Shall enter the kingdom of heaven but HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN. MATTHEW 7:21

So Connie, he does not save those who are not obedient to Christ. Jesus said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Mark 16:16. Therefore those who have not been baptized are, even according to your own admission, disobedient to him since baptism, even according to you, is essential to obedience. So according to you baptism is necessary to obedience". According to Hebrews 5:8,9 obedience to Christ is essential to salvation therefore baptism is essential to salvation since Christ Commanded it and baptism is essential to being obedient to which even you agree. But you act as if obedience is not essential to salvation but the above verses prove that it is. So to summarize, Baptism is essential to obedience to which we both agree and obedience is essential to salvation (Heb. 5:8,9; Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46) therefore baptism is essential to salvation. The conclusion is unavoidable unless you want to claim that obedience to Christ is not essential to salvation, which would be in direct conflict to the verses that I quote above. But that is nothing new to you Connie. You have no aversion to speaking the direct opposite of what Christ said. But doing such is defiantly an open rebellion against the Lord Jesus Christ. Now that is not WISE Connie.

You then say:

Early on in our discussions, I felt that we were wasting time with unedifying matters. I was wrong. This is basic to the Faith/Works issue." Yes Connie you were wrong earlier on in our discussions about many things and you are wrong now. This is basic to salvation according to Christ. For he said, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: Mark 16:16. He did not mean by saying these words that we are saved by works of righteousness which we have done. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9) that is, a faith that is living and active as James describes when he says, ye see then how that by works (Acts prompted by faith and Produced by it) a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY. James 2:24. But you were wrong about this from the very beginning for you taught falsely we are saved by grace through FAITH ALONE. But James by inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, Faith if it hath not works (Acts prompted by faith and proceeding from it) is DEAD being ALONE. James 2:26. But your obvious contradiction to these Scriptures including the words of Christ in Mark 16:16 does not bother you in the least.

You say of our discussion:

It has honed my position for my own use, in my case.

No, Connie it has not honed your position it has completely shown your position to be entirely in direct conflict with Christ our Lord and you have therefore hardened your heart against the truth. So your position has not been honed instead your heart has been hardened against Christ. The same heat that melts butter hardens clay, Connie. What the heat of the truth does to a person depends entirely the "material" of which they are made. If they love the truth the gospel will melt their hearts. If they do not love the truth it will harden their hearts against Christ. You have demonstrated a severe lack of love for the truth, Connie, so I am not suprised to see the hardness of your heart against the very words of Christ our Lord. You have shown that you are stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears and you continue to resist the Holy Spirit who told us through His word that we must be obedient to Christ in order to be saved. (Mark 16:16; Heb 5:8,9; Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46). He inspired Mark to write the words of Christ, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: Mark 16:16 and you resist the Holy Spirit who inspired those words by saying that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation and therefore you have hardened your heart and become stiff necked and resistant to the very Holy Spirit that you falsely claim is leading you in some special way apart from the word of God. Now resisting the Holy Spirit in this way is not wise, Connie. In fact, when Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit they both fell down dead at the apostles feet. (Acts 5:1). But you lie about the Holy Spirits words. Now this is not wise Connie.

Then you say:

In any case, let me state what I believe in regard to baptism:

Matthew 28:16-19: [AMPLIFIED] 16: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17: And when they saw Him they fell down and worshipped Him, but some doubted. 18: Jesus approached and breaking the silence said to them: "All authority -- all power of rule -- in Heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19: Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; 20: Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you all the days -- perpetually, uniformly and on every occasion -- to the [very] close and consummation of the age. Amen -- so let it be. {Connie's note: The last four words are italicized}. (Also, it says 'Nations' here, but we all presume that it means the individuals of the nations, do we not? I can still remember my baptizer's words: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".

Now just here Connie you fail to notice that the occasion of this event given by Matthew by inspiration of the Holy Spirit is also recorded by Mark in Mark 16:114-16. Christ said all that is attributed to Him in both accounts. And if we take them both together we have the full picture, which you fail completely to even attempt to see. So lets read both accounts in their entirety together from a good version of the scriptures that is not filled with the insertions of the opinions of men. I will quote from the KJV, which so many despise but which happens to be a very accurate translation of these two passages.

 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain away where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him they worshipped Him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: And lo I am with you always even to the end of the world. Matthew 28:16-20.

 But go your way, tell His disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: There he shall see you as he said unto you. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and ubraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned. Mark 16:7,14-16.

Now when you put these two accounts together we have a complete picture. Jesus commanded the preaching of the gospel or the teaching of all men and he commanded the baptizing of all men and he clearly stated that this baptism combined with faith in him would save those who were so baptized. The very last words of our Lord to His disciples before he was taken up into heaven and seated at the right hand of God was to teach the whole world and to baptize them (that is the whole world with no exceptions) and that those in all creation who believe and are baptized shall be saved. Now that is the entire picture Connie. But you go around teaching everyone one that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. You claim that your baptism had nothing to do with your salvation therefore your baptism was not the one that Jesus commanded because he commanded a baptism that is inseparably connected to faith because it proceeds from faith in the savior and is inseparably connected by Christ to salvation. Now that is the baptism that was commanded in this place but it is not the baptism that you experienced because you say even to this day that the baptism that you experienced had nothing to do with salvation. Well that is not the baptism that Christ commanded before he left this earth as both of the accounts when taken together make abundantly clear.

Now you have already told us what you believe about baptism". You have said that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation" but it is in conflict with what Jesus said on the occasion that your refer us to from the scriptures where he not only told everyone to be taught and baptized but he also plainly said, HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTISED SHALL BE SAVED: Mark 16:16. So these verses do not at all support your true belief, which is, that "baptism has nothing to do with salvation". The very passage that you quote do not say what you have been telling us from the beginning was your belief concerning baptism. For your belief concerning baptism is that Baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. But this verse that you quote does not say, baptism has nothing to do with our salvation, now does it Connie. If you are going to tell the truth about what you believe about baptism you need to find your doctrine in the Scriptures. But you cannot find any place in the scriptures that teaches, Baptism has nothing to do with salvation not one. But that is what you believe. You do not even believe what this verse teaches. It commands the apostles to baptize and commands them to teach others to be baptized so that all who would become Christians MUST BE BAPTIZED and none can become a Christian according to the command here given that has not been baptized. He said go, teach and baptize the entire world. The baptism taught in the scriptures is very different from the one you believe in and submitted to Connie. Also notice that Christ told his disciples to baptize in the name of the father, Son and Holy Spirit. This means by the authority of the father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You cannot do something by one's authority that has not been authorized by them. For example, when I say, stop in the name of the Law, I can only stop you for reasons that the law allows me to stop you. If I am stopping you for reasons not authorized by the law I am violating the law myself because I am not doing it by the authority of the law" for the law did not authorize me to stop you for the reason that I ordered you to stop. Likewise, to baptize you in the name of the father, Son and Holy Spirit means that I can only baptize you by their authority. Nowhere have they authorized anyone to baptize you just in order to obey God and with a deliberate rejection of baptism's connection to salvation. If I baptized you in the name of the Son I must do it for His reason that are authorized not reasons that I MAKE UP FOR MYSELF. It is your idea, not Christs, that you should be baptized to obey God which has nothing to do with your salvation. Christ does not authorize such a baptism. So when you were baptized, though someone said the words they did not actually baptize you by the authority of the father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit because the Son only authorizes a baptism that is clearly connected to salvation. For He said, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16:16. And he inspired Paul to tell us that in His authorized baptism he would remove our sins by the circumcision of Christ that only takes place in baptism. (Col.2:11,12). Any one therefore that is not submitting to the circumcision of Christ when they are baptized are not being baptized by the authority or in the name of the father, the Son or the Holy Spirit because the Godhead has not authorized a baptism of a person in any other way for any other reason. Instead Paul makes it abundantly clear that we must obey from the heart that form of doctrine (Romans 6:17). Therefore Connie just because someone uttered the words over you at your baptism that they were baptizing you in the name of the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit does not mean that the father and the son and the Holy Spirit really authorized such a baptism which according to you had no intention of having any connection whatsoever with salvation which you had been falsely taught that you already had and therefore you were merely being baptized to please your friend and he was being baptized to please his wife but neither of you were being baptized in the name of the father, Son, and the Holy Spirit because they do not authorize any such baptism any where in the word of God. For the baptism authorized by Christ is necessary to salvation and is as much for the remission of sins as is repentance. TO do either of them without seeking to obtain forgiveness from God cannot be done in the name of the father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The baptism authorized by the son, or done in His name, is, when combined with faith, for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) it is a submission to the circumcision of Christ wherein our sins are removed by the blood of Christ ( Col2:11,12 and it is a baptism that SAVES us (Mark 16:16; Acts2: 38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; Gal. 3:26,27; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Heb. 10:22; Acts 8:35-40; Romans 6:3-5; Col. 2:11,12; Matthew 28; 19,20.)

Then you say:

So it is ironic that you would think that I would consider baptism to unimportant.

The sequence in this account (Matthew 28:17-20) are what I have always understood them to be:

Believe Be baptized.

Now Connie you say that it is Ironic that I would think that you would consider baptism to be unimportant. I did not say you did not consider baptism to be important. I have demonstrated that you do not consider baptism to be as important as the Lord Jesus Christ considered it.

You say: Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Christ says: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: Mark 16:16. The sequence here is very different from the way you have understood them to be. For you have said the sequence is: "Believe, be baptized" But the Lord's sequence is "Believe, bebatised, shall be saved". And he said this on the exact same occassion that he said Matthew 28:16- 20. So you have deliverately left off a part of the sequence mention by the Lord in the same place and time that he spoke those words of Matthew 28:16-20. Now you cannot just take the parts of the word of GOd that you like Cnnie and cut out the rest. "For the sum of thy word is truth" not just part of it, Connie, you must take it all or have nothing.

So Christ considered baptism to be important to salvation but Connie says it has NOTHING to do with salvation so you are in direct conflict with Christ our Lord concerning the importance of baptism. You claim to believe that baptism is important to obedience but that obedience is not important to salvation. But the Christ says that obedience is essential to salvation. (Matthew 7:21).

And the Holy Spirit, whom you continue to deliberately resist, says through the inspired writer of Hebrews that obedience to Christ is essential to salvation. Heb 5:8,9, Though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered and being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him. Therefore Christ is not the savior of those who do not obey Him.

But Connie says baptism is "essential to obedience though obedience is not essential to salvation". So the problem Connie is that you consider baptism to be far less important than Christ our Lord and the very Holy Spirit of God considers it to be. That is the issue. No one has denied your contention that baptism is important to obedience. We have show that obedience is essential to salvation therefore baptism is also essential to salvation because, as you have said, it is essential to obedience.

The rest of what you say in your post is just idle talk about your experinces with a missionary and questions of whether I have read any of watchman Nee's work etc. For which I have little time or interest.

Your Christian friend, E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2000

Lee:

Do you ever sin? Do you call that disobedience? Do you lose your salvation when you are disobedient?

Well, I sometimes sin. I call that disobedience. I DO NOT lose my salvation.

Sorry if you do. Sorry your God isn't as loving, forgiving, providing of the propitiation for my sins as your God. I wish you knew my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Sorry you don't.

I am going to post my information as I assemble it. Obviously it is too late to do that now, and I will be gone most of tomorrow.

It is not to respond to anything you say. I have shaken the dust from my feet where you are concerned, Lee. May God have mercy on your soul.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

I can't there is all this debate over baptism.

Of course there is baptism today.

Ephesians 4:5, 6 says this: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Just as there is one God, one Lord, one faith, there is one baptism. So of course there is baptism today.

The real question is: which baptism? Because the bible speaks of two baptisms.

"John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." - Acts 1:5

So is it water or spirit? Can't be both because Paul says there is only one baptism.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

Connie:

You have asked:

Lee:

Do you ever sin? Do you call that disobedience? Do you lose your salvation when you are disobedient?

Connie the scriptures teach that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Romans 3:23. So it is plain ignorant to ask if I sin for the scriptures plainly teach that all, including me, have sinned. That is the problem, Connie, for the scriptures also teach that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord Romans 6:23. Because of sin man lost his salvation, now didnt he? Because of your sins you are lost and until your sins are forgiven you will remain lost, Connie. We are not talking, in our discussion of baptism, about you losing your salvation, Connie. For you cannot LOSE THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT FRIST POSSESS. You have never obtained the salvation from your sins through obedience to the gospel (1Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess 1: 9-11; Romans 6:3-5). Therefore I am not concerned about you losing a salvation that you never had. I am concern about your obtaining that salvation that comes when you Believe in Christ (John 3:16) repent of your sins (Acts 3:19) confess Christ (Romans 10:9,10) and are baptized for the remission of your sins that you may undergo the circumcision of Christ wherein he removes your sins from your soul and you are thereby saved from them. (Acts 2:38; Col2:11,12; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16; Gal. 3:26,27; Acts 8:35-40; Romans 6:3-6; Romans 6:17; Eph5;26; Heb. 10:22). When you have obeyed Christ in these things he becomes the author of your eternal salvation.  Though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered and being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM. (Heb. 5:8,9). He then gives the Holy Spirit to those who have obeyed him in all of these things (Acts 2:38,39; Acts 5:32).  And we are witnesses of these things and so also is the Holy Spirit WHOM GOD HATH GIVEN TO THEM THAT OBEY HIM. (Acts 5:32). Therefore Connie since you have not obeyed Christ in all that he teaches for you to do in order to obtain the forgiveness of your sins you are yet in your sins. This means that you do not have the salvation from your sins that comes from obeying Christ in baptism (Mark 16:16). For you have not been baptized for the remission of your sins and you do not have the Holy Spirit that was promised to those who obey him by being baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38; Acts 5:32).

Then you say:

Sorry if you do. Sorry your God isn't as loving, forgiving, providing of the propitiation for my sins as your God. I wish you knew my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Sorry you don't.

What kind of nonsense is this? Why would you apologize that God is not loving, or forgiving. There is only one God Connie! You talk as if there are two! There is only one God, Connie. There is not one God for you and a different God for me. There is one God to which all of us will be held accountable at the last day. He has revealed himself in his word and we must obey him or be eternally lost (Heb. 5:8,9; 2 Thess. 1:9-11).

Then you say that you wish I new your Lord. Connie there is only one Lord (Eph. 4:4,5). He does not belong to you like some household pet. He is the savior of ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM (Heb 5:8,9). It is curious that you claim that He is your Lord but you refuse to believe what he says when he says, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16) and you refuse to do what he says in Acts 2:38. Jesus said, why call ye me lord, lord and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46). Now Connie, you call Christ Lord but you refuse to believe His words and obey His will. No Connie, Christ is not LORD to you. He is merely someone you call Lord. He is not one that you OBEY as you would a Lord and master. Therefore he is not your savior because he is the savior of those who obey and submit to Him as Lord. (Heb. 5:8,9; Luke 6:46; Matthew 7:21- 23).

Then you say the following:

I am going to post my information as I assemble it. Obviously it is too late to do that now, and I will be gone most of tomorrow. It is not to respond to anything you say. I have shaken the dust from my feet where you are concerned, Lee. May God have mercy on your soul.

It is not new Connie that you will not respond to anything that I say for you have not responded to most of my arguments. Then you pray that God will have mercy on my soul. No need to worry, Connie. According to your own teaching, He has already had mercy on my soul because I believe in him. And, according to your own teaching, there is not the slightest chance that I could lose my salvation! Ha! Connie, you do not even believe that nonsense do you? You say that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. Well Connie at least I have faith so according to your I am saved, and even if I have sinned in arguing with you, according to your teaching such a sin would not cause me to LOSE MY SALVATION! So why are you so concerned that you hope that God will have mercy on my soul? If you believed your own false doctrine you would have to admit that there is no doubt that he has already had mercy on my soul and that I cannot do anything to lose that mercy! Yes, Connie, your words only prove that even YOU do not believe the nonsense that you are teaching in this forum! I can only shake my head at such absurd thinking. Especially when it is going to cost you your eternal soul. I pray that you will submit to Christ as Lord that he may become your savior. For you are yet in your sins and have never obtained the salvation that is only in Christ Jesus who is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him. (Heb. 5:8,9).

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2000

H-m-m-m-m!!!!

THAT must be why I have the Holy Spirit! I've obeyed Him!

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Connie:

You Said:

"H-m-m-m-m!!!! THAT must be why I have the Holy Spirit! I've obeyed Him!"

Not really, Connie. THe reason we know that you do not have the Holy Spirit is because you have not obeyed HIM. He told you to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."Acts 2:38. You have not done that. Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:" Mark 16:16. You say that he that believeth ONLY shall be saved therfore you have not obeyed by being baptized in the name of or by the authority of Christ. You have been baptized contrary to the teachings and authority of Christ. Since you have not been baptized with a baptism that Christ commanned to be for the remission of sins and for salvation you have never obeyed Him and you continue to resist the teaching of the Holy Spirit on this matter. You have been baptized with a baptism that by your own design, and contrary to the design of Christ, has nothing to do with salvation therefore you have been deliberately disobedient to the doctrine of Christ having failed to "obey from the heart that form of teaching that delivers you" ( Romans 6:17).

By virtue of your deliberate disobedience we can know that you do not have the Holy Spirit.

Now that is the truth Connie. Only Christians have the Holy Spirit and you are not a Christian.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Titus 3:5,6: [AMPLIFIED]

5. He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing (bath ) of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

6. Which He poured out [so] richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.

**********************************************************************

NO WATER BAPTISM; THIS IS THE WASHING OF REGENERATION (NEW BIRTH) AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. SINGULAR STATEMENT OF FACT.

**********************************************************************

I am praying for you, Lee, and all on this forum.

In Him, by the work of the Holy Spirit in my life.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Brett:

I believe that the above verse also answers your question.

The one baptism is the baptism into Christ by the washing of the regeneration which He poured out so richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.

Perhaps this is where the groups who pour get their position. But the more I read, the more I think that the form of baptism (and I am a firm baptizo-er [;-)])really doesn't matter; the 'when' does, in that it should occur after repentance, as a proclamation and figure (figurative?) that we have passed from death unto life.

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

Connie:

You quote Titus 3:3-6 with comments as follows:

Titus 3:5,6: [AMPLIFIED]

5. He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing (bath ) of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

6. Which He poured out [so] richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior

NO WATER BAPTISM; THIS IS THE WASHING OF REGENERATION (NEW BIRTH) AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. SINGULAR STATEMENT OF FACT.

Then you say to Bret:

The one baptism is the baptism into Christ by the washing of the regeneration which He poured out so richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.

Now Connie, I know that you do not like the truth that these passages teach and are doing your best to avoid them because you just absolutely refuse to be obedient to God. But all of what you have said is nothing more than assertion without any proof. You say there is no water baptism connected with this washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Now the fact that you are completely at variance with all of the reputable scholars who ever discussed this passage does not seem to affect you. That is fine, however, if you are going to interpret a passage of Scripture in a way that it has not been interpreted by most reputable scholars you should at least PROVE your assertions instead of merely making them. Now what proof do you have that this passage is not talking about "water baptism" when it uses the phrase washing of regeneration.

Now that Christ cleanses us with water cannot be doubted because we are told by the inspired apostle Paul,  Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the WASHING OF WATER by the word. Eph. 5:25,26. Now it is clear from this passage, Connie, that Christ gave himself for the church (before the church was ever established) that he might sanctify and cleanse it how? BY THE WASHING OF WATER BY THE WORD. Not a washing with the word-the washing of water by the word; that is in obedience to it, and in harmony with its teaching. These were the words of the Spirit. So Paul, discussing the exact same washing that he discusses with Titus in Titus 3:3-5 calls that same washing a "washing of water by the word". But Connie know more than the inspired apostle Paul about it and she expect us to believe her instead of Paul whom we ALL KNOW WAS GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. That the washing of water here is baptism cannot be doubted by those who are able to reason for men such as Watson, Wesley, Clark, Macknight, Stuart, and all reputable scholars as far as I have been able to examine believe that both Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:3-5 are talking about the same subject and that the washing under consideration is a reference to the cleansing that takes place in water baptism.

Now notice another passage where the term washing is found and it also is a reference to water baptism.  Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies WASHED WITH PURE WATER. Heb. 10:22. Now no one with the slightest ability to think or reason can doubt, and none of the commentators deny, that this is a reference to the cleansing that takes place in our hearts WHEN our bodies are washed in pure water when we are baptized. Not notice that WHEN our bodies are so washed our hearts are sprinkled (An allusion to the sprinkling of the blood in the sacrifices by the priest of the Old Testament) from an evil conscience (Read 1 Peter 3:21). Now this explains what happens in our hearts when we are baptized IN WATER. It also helps us to understand what Paul was talking about when he said,  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision not made with hands, in the putting of the body of the sins by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye are also raised with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven all of your trespasses. Col. 2:11-13. You see when we are baptized in water Christ performs a circumcision on our soul and by it removes the body of sins of the flesh and therefore this is the reason that baptism is referred to as the washing of regeneration and that it is done in accordance with the teaching of the spirit through the apostles and since the Spirit is given to those who submit to it (Acts 2:38; Acts 5:32) it is called a renewal of the Holy Spirit. So that is the truth Connie about water and the washing of regeneration". In all of the other places this washing is referred to, including John 3:3-5, it talks of the water that is connected with baptism. Now we wait for you to PROVE that the washing of regeneration has no water baptism connected with it. You say it refers to the New Birth. Yes it does and John 3:5 says that the New Birth is of water and the spirit. An do not be so stupid as to think that the water in John 3:5 refers to the physical birth. Since you can only assert it but you cannot PROVE it. For Christ was not talking about being born he was discussing how to be BORN AGAIN the second time. The second birth is of water and the Spirit. As all of the above scriptures abundantly prove.

So once again Connie we have an ignorant and completely uninformed extremely biased opinion from you, which you do not prove  because you cannot prove it - to be true that is in direct conflict with the very teaching of the word of God. How long will you continue to pervert the right ways of the Lord"?!

 The Lords hand is not shortened that it cannot save, neither is His ear heavy that He cannot hear but your iniquities have separated between you and your God and your sins have hid his face from you that he WIL NOT HEAR. Isaiah 59:1,2. Therefore Connie, until you are baptized to have your sins washed away Acts 22:16 by submitting to the circumcision of Christ that takes place when you are buried with him in baptism (Col2: 11-13) and are thereby saved from your sins (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16) Gods face will continue to be hidden from you and his ears will be deaf to your prayers therefore your praying for me is of no effect whatsoever even though the thought is nice. However, you can continue to deceive yourself and others but you will not be heard just because you feel like you should be heard. That is a fact Connie. You sins must be removed in the circumcision of Christ that Happens in WATER baptism that is the washing of regeneration as I have proven with the scriptures stated above.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 27, 2000

So that is the truth Connie about water and the washing of regeneration". In all of the other places this washing is referred to, including John 3:3-5, it talks of the water that is connected with baptism. Now we wait for you to PROVE that the washing of regeneration has no water baptism connected with it. You say it refers to the New Birth. Yes it does and John 3:5 says that the New Birth is of water and the spirit. An do not be so stupid as to think that the water in John 3:5 refers to the physical birth. Since you can only assert it but you cannot PROVE it. For Christ was not talking about being born he was discussing how to be BORN AGAIN the second time. The second birth is of water and the Spirit. As all of the above scriptures abundantly prove. Yes it does and John 3:5 says that the New Birth is of water and the spirit. An do not be so stupid as to think that the water in John 3:5 refers to the physical birth.

Yes it does and John 3:5 says that the New Birth is of water and the spirit. An do not be so stupid as to think that the water in John 3:5 refers to the physical birth.

JOHN 3:3-8: [AMPLIFIED]

3. Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, except a man be born of water and (even) the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God.

4. Nicodemus said to him, "HOW CAN A MAN BE BORN WHEN HE IS OLD? CAN HE ENTER HIS MOTHER'S WOMB AGAIN AND BE BORN?

5. JESUS ANSWERED, "I ASSURE YOU, MOST SOLEMNLY I TELL YOU, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER {natural birth} AND (EVEN) THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT [EVER] ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

6. WHAT IS BORN OF [from] THE FLESH IS FLESH {natural birth} -- OF THE PHYSICAL IS PHYSICAL {natural birth}; and WHAT IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT IS SPIRIT.

7. Marvel not -- do not be surprised, astonished -- at My telling you , "You must all be born anew (from above).

8. "The wind blows where it will; and though you hear its sound, yet neither know where it comes from nor where it goes. So it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.

**********************************************************************

NO WATER BAPTISM; PHYSICAL BIRTH; THEN SPIRITUAL BIRTH ~ BEING BORN AGAIN.

**********************************************************************

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Titus 3:5,6: [AMPLIFIED] 5. He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing (bath ) of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

6. Which He poured out [so] richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.

**********************************************************************

NO WATER BAPTISM; THIS IS THE WASHING OF REGENERATION (NEW BIRTH) AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. SINGULAR STATEMENT OF FACT.

**********************************************************************

I am praying for you, Lee, and all on this forum.

In Him, by the work of the Holy Spirit in my life.

Exigesis,anyone?

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2000

Connie,

I was going to ask if your copy of the Amplified translation actually included the words "natural birth" in John 3, verses 5 and 6, since my copy of the Amplified doesn't. Then I happened to be browsing the thread on "translations" and saw your explanation that curly brackets "{}" indicate something you have inserted yourself, as opposed to the regular parentheses "()" and the square brackets "[]" which the Amplified translation itself uses. You may have explained it in this thread too, but if you have, I have missed it.

I would suggest that you find another way to differentiate your added comments, because at first glance it appears as though that is part of the Amplified text -- especially in the font that shows up on my computer for this forum. It is hard to distinguish between "{}" and "()".

With regard to the interpretation that "water" in verse 5 refers to natural birth, there are a number of objections.

(1) It is not required by the context. There is certainly a contrast in these verses between natural birth (flesh) and being born again (spirit), but nothing to require that there be a contrast within verse 5. Instead, the contrast seems to be BETWEEN verse 5 and what Nicodemus asked in verse 4, with verse 6 then pointing out that there is a difference between the two births -- the physical or "fleshly" birth from the mother's womb, which Nicodemus asks about in verse 4, and the spiritual birth (which involves BOTH spirit AND water) which Jesus mentions in verse 5. This is how the MAJORITY of Bible scholars and commentators have ALWAYS understood this, through all of church history. (See also point 4, below.)

(2) As someone has already pointed out, in some thread somewhere, when this argument came up previously, in verse 5 Jesus seems to be telling Nicodemus what is required before he can see the Kingdom of Heaven, i.e. be born of water and the spirit; but it is ridiculous to tell him that he MUST be born physically, since that is a given, for anyone who is in existence.

(3) Someone also has also said that there is no evidence that Koini Greek ever used the word "water" to refer to natural birth or even to the amniotic fluid itself. I don't have the resources to check this out, but I have heard this before. This also would tend to confirm and be confirmed by point 4.

(4) While I have HEARD the explanation that "water" here refers to physical birth, NONE of the books I have consulted (commentaries, study Bibles, etc.) interpret it any other way than as a reference to baptism. I have also HEARD (obviously from other sources than those I mentioned in the first half of the previous sentence) that this suggestion that it refers to physical birth was never even suggested until the latter part of the 20th century -- that it had ALWAYS previously been understood to mean baptism. Once again, I don't have the resources to check this out thoroughly, but I thought the following might be helpful. It is from a book called "John Shines Through Augustine", which is a translation of some sermons by Augustine of Hippo on some passages in the Gospel of John.

"Nicodemus who came to Him by night could not appreciate this 'spirit and life' at all. Jesus said, 'Unless a man be born anew, he will not see the kingdom of God'. He, not yet having that taste of the flesh of Christ, took it in a material way: 'How can a man, when he is old, be born again? Can he re-enter his mother's womb and be born?' He only knows one birth, the one that had its origin in Adam and Eve. He knew nothing as yet of the birth that springs from God and the Church. He only knew of the parents who had brought him into the world to die. He knew nothing of the Parents who would give him new birth to live. He knew of fathers and mothers who produce heirs to succeed them. he knew nothing of the Father and Mother who never die and produce children who are to be with them for ever. Whereas there are two births, he only knew of one. One is of the earth, the other of heaven; one is of the flesh, the other of the Spirit; one is finished by death, the other never dies; one is the work of man and woman, the other of God and His Church. But both are alike in this, that neither can happen twice. Nicodemus understood this correctly about birth in the flesh; you should not fail to understand the same about birth in the Spirit. As birth according to Adam cannot be repeated, so neither can birth according to Christ. There cannot be a second birth from the womb, NOR CAN THERE BE A SECOND BAPTISM." (emphasis mine).

I disagree with Augustine on a lot of things, and am not suggesting we appeal to him as the final authority on anything, but the point is that IN THE 5TH CENTURY, he not only obviously interpreted the "water" to refer to baptism, he didn't feel a need to define it as such since he took it for granted that that was how everyone understood it.

Something else I remember from past reading, but haven't been able to track down. One writer said that the Jews themselves used the idiom of being "born again" to refer to the conversion of proselytes, for which they also had a custom of immersing (and used the idiom to refer specifically to that part of the process). If that's the case, it is hard to see why Nicodemus would not understand Jesus' meaning, but the writer suggested that this was merely Nicodemus's way of pressing Jesus for a fuller explanation.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Benjamin:

I appreciate your careful and respectful interpretation. The problem is that I cannot suspend what happened in my own life. I am glad to see that you do not always agree with Augustine.

I can see nothing but physical birth and spiritual birth in those verses. Physical birth involves water.

Bless you and have a good day in Hong Kong.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Me, Again, Ben,

I have thought that I would have to find a way to give my interpretation other than the way I have in a couple of quotes; I did it that way so that I would not have to re-type in my explanation some of the words I had just typed.

You said:

'I disagree with Augustine on a lot of things, and am not suggesting we appeal to him as the final authority on anything, but the point is that IN THE 5TH CENTURY, he not only obviously interpreted the "water" to refer to baptism, he didn't feel a need to define it as such since he took it for granted that that was how everyone understood it.'

Wasn't Augustine Roman Catholic? Babies were being sprinkled very early on, and they believed it bestowed salvation. The Scriptures indicate over and over again that it is not by works that we are saved, at least the way I interpret it. Only adults were baptized in the N.T., although others in ~ was it Cornelius' house? ~ it doesn't indicate the age, were.

God has written His commandments in our hearts, and I listen closely to what the Holy Spirit says. Not that I can't be wrong, as even Augustine or Calvin or Luther or Campbell or any other man was. It is my error if I interpret it wrong. But my god is merciful and knows I am but dust. He forgives me and keeps trying .

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

1 Corinthians 14:34

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

Yes, that's why I've said a couple of times that I'm glad this isn't a church ~ that it's a public discussion forum, and that Duane is in favor of free speech. Also, that 'there is no more Jew or Greek, no more slave or free, no more male or female, but we are one in Christ'.

GALATIANS 3:26-29: [AMPLIFIED]

26: For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.

27: For as many [of you] as were baptized into Christ -- into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah -- have put on (clothed yourself with) Christ.

28: There is [now no distinction], neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29: And if you belong to Christ (are in Him, Who is Abraham's Seed), then you are Abraham's offspring and (spiritual) heirs according to promise.

CONNIE'S COMMENT: 'sons' in 26 means both genders; in 27, we will come down on separate sides, I suppose. This could be water baptism, but I think it is a spiritual baptism.

As for the role of women, Christ freed us to obey him, our own husbands and the leaders in our churches, which I do.

The virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 went out (it sounds as though she did it on her own) and bought a field. She had maidens whom she instructed.

Deborah in the Old Testament was a judge. There were female associates working with Paul.

In that whole passage, which is instructive, it says:

I Corinthians 14: 26-39, but notably: [AMPLIFIED]

26: What then, brethren, is [the right course]? When you meet together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a disclosure of special knowledge or information, an utterance in a [strange] tongue or an interpretation of it. [But] let everything be constructive and edifying and for the good of all.

27: If some speak in a [strange] tongue, let the number be limited to two or at the most three, and each one [taking his turn], and let one interpret and explain [what is said].

28: But if there is no one to do the interpreting, let each of them keep still and talk to himself and to God.

29: So, let two or three prophets speak -- those inspired to preach or teach -- while the rest pay attention and weigh and discern what is said.

30: But if an inspired revelation comes to another who is sitting by, then let the first one be silent.

31: Fir in this way you can give testimony -- prophesying and thus interpreting the divine will and purpose -- one by one, so that all may be instructed and all may be stimulated and encouraged.

32: For the spirits of the prophets [the speakers in tongues] are under the speaker's control [and subject to being silenced as may be necessary],

33: For He [Who is the source of their prophesying] is not a God of confusion and disorder, but God of peace and order. As [is the practice] in all the churches of the saints (God's people).

34: The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says.

35: But if there is anything they want to learn, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to talk in church [that is, for her to usurp and exercise authority over men in the church].

36: What! Did the Word of the Lord originate with you [Corinthians], or has it reached only you?

CONNIE'S COMMENT: {Did the Word of the Lord originate with you [Baptists; Calvinists; Catholics; Campbellites]}?

37: If anyone thinks and claims that he is a prophet -- filled with and governed by the Holy Spirit of God and inspired to interpret the divine will and purpose in preaching and teaching -- or [to have any other] spiritual endowment, let him understand (recognize and acknowledge) that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.

38: But if anyone disregards or does not recognize [that it is a command of the Lord], he is disregarded and not recognized -- he is one whom God knows not.

39: So, [to conclude], my brethren, earnestly desire and set your hearts on prophesying -- on being inspired to preach and teach and to interpret God's will and purpose -- and do not forbid or hinder speaking in [unknown] tongues.

40: But all things should be done with regard to decency and propriety and in an orderly fashion.

NO COMMENT

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

By the way ~ I'd love to know how you do that ~ post anonymously. There is so much to learn and so little time ~ for an elder woman.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

E. Lee Saffold wrote, "We are not talking, in our discussion of baptism, about you losing your salvation, Connie. For you cannot LOSE THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT FRIST POSSESS. You have never obtained the salvation from your sins through obedience to the gospel"

The verses you reference are subject to different interpretations, but I am interested in your statement that you can "obtain the salvation from your sins through obedience to the gospel." THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SALVATION BY WORKS. Read Romans and Galatians with an open heart, and SEE THE LIGHT!

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2000

DBVZ:

You refer to my words as with your comments as follows:

E. Lee Saffold wrote, "We are not talking, in our discussion of baptism, about you losing your salvation, Connie. For you cannot LOSE THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT FRIST POSSESS. You have never obtained the salvation from your sins through obedience to the gospel"

"The verses you reference are subject to different interpretations, but I am interested in your statement that you can "obtain the salvation from your sins through obedience to the gospel." THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SALVATION BY WORKS. Read Romans and Galatians with an open heart, and SEE THE LIGHT!

Now dbvz, I have answered you thoroughly in another thread on these matters and have shown conclusively from the scriptures that baptism is not salvation by works any more than faith is a salvation by works. You completely ignored all that I said to you about those matters then you come to another thread and appear to want me to write all of it over again only to have you deliberately ignore it because you and Connie both are completely incapable of answering those arguments. You even said that you were through with this forum because you were so frustrated. Now you come back and pretend that these verses that I have quoted are open to different interpretations. They are not as open to such as you claim and those reading this forum can see that your so called interpretation is absurd as I have shown it to be. Now if you really want to discuss this matter, either go back to the thread where we were discussing it and honestly attempt to answer my arguments or state your propositions clearly, define them and agree to a formal debate in this forum on this matter so that you are not able to just slip away to another thread and ignore arguments presented to you.

It takes time and effort to write these things and you do not have to agree but to ignore the arguments as if they were not presented by running to a different thread and thereby requiring a restatement of the same words over again is an escape mechanism that does nothing more that waste everyones valuable time.

So, we wait for you to be honest and try to answer the arguments that we have already presented to you concerning your erroneous views on these passages. You have failed miserably to even attempt an answer. If you and I were involved in an organized debate it would be painfully obvious to you that you were unable to deal with these arguments. It is already obvious to those who have taken the time to read all that you and I have said to each other.

Your ignoring these things does not help your Calvinistic cause and you should be ashamed to pretend that these matters have not been dealt with before.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Danny;

As I tell a Presbyterian friend of mine, I am a "half-point" Calvinist. I accept the "P" part of TULIP ... there are verses to verify it ... but I also accept at the same time that the Arminian position on the subject is also true. It is a matter of perspective. (true Christians are preserved = eternal POV; "christians" can fall away = man's POV) IMHO.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Connie:

You do not like what the Bible actually says so you do, as you have been doing regularly in this forum, something that is very wrong in the following quotation from you:

 JESUS ANSWERED, "I ASSURE YOU, MOST SOLEMNLY I TELL YOU, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER {natural birth} AND (EVEN) THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT [EVER] ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

The Bible does not say that water in this verse is a reference to the natural Birth as you have indicated by your insertion of the phrase {natural birth} in a place where Gods word says no such thing. I have argued very conclusively along with the greatest scholars commenting on these verses that this water refers to baptism. I did not use your tactic of deliberately inserting my opinion into the word of God to make it appear as if it is the word of God as you have done. I merely made arguments to prove that such is what the word of God means in this place when it uses the word water in this connection.

But you have completely ignored the arguments that I made. You have not referred to them nor have you attempted to show why they cannot be true. Then you claim that the word water refers to the physical birth but you offer no evidence to support your claim. All you do is the dishonest thing of inserting your unsubstantiated CLAIM into the word of God without making it clear to everyone that these words were inserted by you and are not a part of Gods word. Now I know that they are your personal insertions because the Amplified version does not have the words {natural birth} in their text. But not everyone will notice this and you know that such could be the case. So this deliberate attempt on your part to deceive is a shameful way to treat the word of God.

But notice, Connie that you have not even attempted to give us any evidence to support your false claim that the word water refers to natural birth. We have heard you affirm that, Connie, several times but we have not seen you PROVE it. Assertions without proof are meaningless Connie. That is the reason that your assertion that this term water refers to {natural birth} is not only ridiculous in this context and historical background but is completely without any good reason or evidence to support such a view.

Christ was responding to the question asked by Nicodemus which was Can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born? This question had nothing to do with the first and natural birth of all men. Nicodemus wanted to know if such a thing could be done a SECOND time! He knew that the FIRST birth or natural birth was possible for he had so been born. He wanted to know if this SECOND or SPIRITUAL birth could happen. Jesus in answering this question had no reason nor need to even discuss natural birth and even if he did he would have referred to it as physical birth instead of obscurely saying water. No one, in that time ever referred to natural birth as a birth of water, EVER. No one would refer to it that way today except to escape from the truth as taught in this passage.

SO why dont you come back and give evidence. I mean by this, tell us this verse uses the term water to refer to the natural birth BECAUSE and state the reasons that such must be the case. We have given reason that it cannot be the case and you continue to ignore them but you have not given a single piece of evidence to support your assertion that water in this verse means the natural birth. But, just like your complete failure to give us even ONE SINGLE PASSAGE that teaches we are saved by grace through faith ALONE you will not be able to prove that water refers to the natural birth in this verse.

I also want to point out the fact that not only have you failed miserably to find one single verse that teaches we are saved by grace through faith ALONE, no one else has found such a verse in the scriptures either. You have not and your friend dbvz has not and none of the others in this forum who teach salvation by faith ONLY have found any verse that teaches it. But all of you continue to try to convince us to believe such nonsense. All you have to do to convince me, Connie, is to find ONE SINGLE VERSE that says we are saved by grace through faith ALONE and I will believe you. But you do nothing more than assert without proving all that you say. We have enough assertions, Connie. Now we ask for the proof that we have been asking for all along. Show us ONE verse that says we are saved by grace through faith ALONE as you deliberately and falsely claim. Show us just ONE, Connie. You have talked a lot, complained a lot about me being so unkind to you etc. But you have still failed miserably to show even ONE verse that teaches your false doctrine that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE. You have even falsely stated that there are MANY verses that teach this doctrine and you have lied by saying that you have given those verses but the truth remains that you have never even offered ONE SINGLE verse from these MANY that you falsely CLAIM to exist which teaches that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE". And none of your fellow false teachers have been able to HELP you, now have they? So Connie, if you really want us to accept your doctrine on these matters all you have to do is just produce ONE SINGLE verse that teaches we are saved by grace through faith ALONE". We wait for you to give us one. We have been waiting for weeks for you or anyone else to produce one but NONE OF YOU have ever even attempted to do so. Now this is conclusive proof that you cannot find such a verse, isnt it.

So there is no need for you to continue to pretend that you have any credibility in this forum concerning this subject until you either produce a passage of Scripture that says we are saved by grace through faith ALONE or admit that you believe such a doctrine even though the scriptures do not say any such thing.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

But John,

You cannot logically get to the P in tulip without going thru the rest of the Garden (T-U-L-I). Calvin was very wrong, but he was extremely logical and without Total Depravity (and its baggage) as your starting point, you CANNOT get to the rest of his system. And rest assured, it is HIS system. It is completely foreign to the Scriptures.

I would like to know what verses you see as supporting Eternal security. I think I understand what you mean by "God's point of view" that being His foreknowledge. Am I correct in that?

If so, I think I would agree with you, HOWEVER, I would not word it in that fashion due to the great confusion Calvinism has wreaked upon theology.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

I agree with the concept as it is presented in the Bible. I disagree with the concept as it is presented by Calvin.

(hmmm. ... too bad we don't have any "Hobbes"-ists to pounce on the "Calvin"ists) haha

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

I would suggest that the perseverence of the saints, or eternal security, isscriptural to this degree -- that God holds us in his mighty hand, and no one will remove us. Neither height nor depth nor angels nor demons nor principalities nor etc etc etc shall separate us from the love etc etc etc.

So from THAT point of view, God's hand is strong enough to protect us.

From the OTHER point of view, God's hand is also not locked shut. He allows us to leave if we so desire. No one and nothing can separate us from salvation......except us.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

zsam,

The passage in Rom 8 that you refer to has to do with the LOVE of Christ, not salvation. Christ also loves those who will spend eternity in Hell. That is not the same thing as eternal security.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

But I agree with you. Once we have become a Christian, no one can remove us except ourselves.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

Brother John:

You said to Brother Danny the following:

Danny;

As I tell a Presbyterian friend of mine, I am a "half-point" Calvinist. I accept the "P" part of TULIP ... there are verses to verify it ... but I also accept at the same time that the Arminian position on the subject is also true. It is a matter of perspective. (true Christians are preserved = eternal POV; "christians" can fall away = man's POV) IMHO.

I think that I understand what you are trying to say though I do not believe you have said it clearly. I believe that you are saying that If a Christian remains faithful to Christ and walks in the light (1 John 1:7-9) that he will not lose his salvation. But this is very different than the Calvinistic idea that a person who is saved (A Christian) from their sins CANNOT in any way whatsoever LOSE their salvation. Such a doctrine is completely contrary to the very word of God in the following passages:

They on the rock [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. (Luke 8:13).

For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6).

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (2 Peter 2:20-22).

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 13:41-43).

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1Corinthians 10:12).

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4).

But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (1Corinthians 9:27).

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2Peter 2:4). These people that Peter wrote to had escaped the corruption that is in the world. He then warns these people who were obviously saved, with these words: Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (2Peter 1:10).

Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;) For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (Hebrews 10:24,26).

"Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:29- 32).

Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38,39).

Now the Spirit speaketh 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 conscience seared with a hot iron; (1Timothy 4:1,2).

"But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things, which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan." (1Timothy 5:11-15).

And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. (2Timothy 2:17,18).

Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble [you], and thereby many be defiled; (Hebrews 12:14,15).

Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1Timothy 1:19).

Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (Rev. 2:4,5).

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. (1Corinthians 8:11,12). Keep yourselves in the love of God. (Jude 21).

There are many more that make it clear that we can sin so as to lose our salvation but these are sufficient for my purpose in demonstrating that the scriptures do warn us to be careful lest we fall away from the grace of God. (Gal. 5:4).

Now, brother John, I believe that you agree with the teaching of these verses so I am not really attacking your statement but I do want to say that a half point-Calvinist is worse that a Full point Calvinist because if you grant Calvin his initial proposition (which I do not) his system follows logically all the way through so that you cannot be a half point Calvinist without being far more illogical and inconsistent than a full point Calvinist. It is better to be a Christian instead of a Calvinist for Christianity is true and Calvins TULIP theology is completely false beginning with his initial proposition of Total Hereditary Depravity all the way to his ridiculous Perseverance of the saints!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2000

John:

H-m-m-m.

Hobbes was the spoiled brat, but funny kid. I think we have a few of those here!

;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Nate and John:

We got back from our Gideons' meeting around 9:30, but I couldn't get on the Internet, so took a nice nap, and now I am able to get on.

Thank you for your positions on the above. I made sure to put the single quote in front of each paragraph, because I wanted everyone to know they were not my words.

I KNOW Charles will not mind what I did, because he is not interested in personal glory. I WANTED to credit him, but to avoid people's pouncing on them (his words) and categorizing them according to their own prejudices, and prior information, (however erroneous, sometimes) I chose to do it that way. Since I placed the single 'quote' mark there, anyone with any knowledge is going to know they are not my words. As you did.

In fact, I sent something he wrote to someone, making a slight change in it, and when I told him, and asked if that was O.K., he said that was perfectly correct, and he was glad I did that.

I, too, use mostly only Scripture, and while I am aware that you consider my interpretations naive and benighted, I am thankful that my main teacher has been the Holy Spirit. I also know that if there is error, it is MY error, not the Holy Spirit's.

Also, as I told Lee, who was demanding an interpretation of something from me, I don't do that much interpreting; I leave it to the Holy Spirit, because I feel that it is His job, not mine to inform us as to the menaing of His words.

I think there is an awful lot of put-down implied by such subtle things that one needs to be very careful what one says. I try to be.

I keep hoping that 'God will use fools to confound the wise' in my case. Now, there, I didn't credit that quote, but I assume all Christians know it is from the Bible. I know that most of you have a lot of Bible training, but that doesn't negate what he has taught me. This goes back to what someone else said about the Scriptures or the Law being our 'tutor' - unless he meant the Holy Spirit. I asked, but never got an answer.

By the way, at our Gideons' meeting tonight, one of the members told me he is studying Greek from a pastor of a Bible church here locally, and he thinks that pastor might take me on as a pupil. I had just said that I might register at a Bible college down the street for Greek. I have been interested in it for many years.

Now I know that to read the Greek classics in the original language will take years of Greek, but that is not my goal. I just want to understand a little better the meanings of various words with the correct tenses.

Not that anyone can't understand the simple Gospel. John, did you notice on another thread that I said that our pastor had been an assistant pastor at Grace in California under John MacArthur? I can't even remember which thread, but it may have been the long RM one. It was in the last couple of days.

Because of a reference to it a couple of times, I went to the 'Abstinence' thread. It was quite civilized, which surprised me. When did the confrontational style develop? Was it when Mark Hillyard started posting?

In going back over the history in the archives, I see that not only is John MacArthur accepted, but Elaine Seavey says something about Trinity Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill. That school was not far from where we lived in Hoffman Estates, Ill., before we moved to Michigan.

It was founded by the Evangelical Free Church, which is the kind of church we attended for 7 years after leaving the Conservative Baptist Church we attended as new Christians. We were immersed, after my husband made a study of it, in that church.

I wanted my children to go to Trinity at Deerfield, but after sending five children to a private, Christian School, it was difficult to send them to a private college, since we still had children in the elementary and high school level of our school.

Not only that, but they were well-equipped by that time to go into the public community colleges and universities. As our school superintendent always said (the fellow who resigned his navy V-12 commission): 'In Michigan, you have to protect tomato plants until they are able to survive on their own.'

Our first pastor at our church, which we have attended for 33 years, left here to teach at Trinity, but we are not a denominational church. Actually, our church is also 'Trinity', as I've said. His name, by the way was E. Eugene Williams. Such a fine Bible expositor.

But I digress! I had asked someone (perhaps Benjamin) what he thought of Kenneth Wuest's scholarship, but never received an answer. Kenneth Wuest taught at Moody Bible Institute for many years.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

And Calvin was a Godly man who made a couple of wrong interpretaions ~ as did Augustine, Arminius, Luther, Wesley, Zwingli, Jonathan Edwards, Campbell, Cottrell, and Stone. Not to mention Paul, Peter, John, Matthew and James.

(I mean THAT was a BIG one ~ Christ wasn't God!?!) How do I know they made mistakes in interpretation? BECAUSE WE ALL DO.

Unless they said that Christ was not of the Godhead, or that He wasn't born of a virgin, or that He didn't do miracles, or that He didn't rise bodily into Heaven and is coming again in the clouds; and they believe that Christ's shed blood was the propitiation for our sins and that they accept that, repent, and confess with their mouth and are baptized; no matter how or how soon after their conversion, they are born again.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

OOPS!

Hobbes was the tiger (albeit STUFFED); I think many on this forum are playing the role of Hobbes and pouncing on Calvin ~ also they are stuffed!

But not you, John.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

The passage in Rom 8 that you refer to has to do with the LOVE of Christ, not salvation. Christ also loves those who will spend eternity in Hell. That is not the same thing as eternal security.

Yeah, I know that, Scott. In the context of the passage, Paul is speaking to the work of the Spirit in us, and, just before, refers to one who would "make a charge" against us, to destroy us, and that we cannot be separated from that love. I take it to mean that, while "eternal security" is not specifically mentioned, it is still a part of the package of the things that Paul has been addressing throughout the chapter -- benefits and help and assistance and assurance that we have through the work of the Spirit -- things that are nicely wrapped up in "the love of Christ".

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2000

Danny, you need to put your glasses on! You keep getting me mixed up with Nelta.

'Nelta' starts with 'N' and 'Connie' starts with 'C'.

Sam:

I agree with this statement of yours completely:

Paul is speaking to the work of the Spirit in us, and, just before, refers to one who would "make a charge" against us, to destroy us, and that we cannot be separated from that love. I take it to mean that, while "eternal security" is not specifically mentioned, it is still a part of the package of the things that Paul has been addressing throughout the chapter -- benefits and help and assistance and assurance that we have through the work of the Spirit -- things that are nicely wrapped up in "the love of Christ".

-- Sam Loveall (samloveall@prodigy.net), March 31, 2000

I take it to mean that, while "eternal security" is not specifically mentioned, it is still a part of the package of the things that Paul has been addressing throughout the chapter -- benefits and help and assistance and assurance that we have through the work of the Spirit --

Sam, I think of you and your dad often; I pray that things are getting better there, for both of you.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2000

Hi,

Better late than never I guess. It is 4/13/2000 and the last post was on the 1st of April. Oh well, I am slow at lots of things.

I would guess from all the discussion on Baptism (water/Spirit etc.) that your beliefs would leave the thief on the next cross in lots of trouble. Jesus told him DIRECTLY that he would be with him in paradise. I don't remember anyone bringing him down and performing a baptism for him. Of course, he did have to stay on his cross and suffer; probably had his leg broke so he would die quicker too. Maybe he was indeed the most fortunate of common man. Jesus must not have looked much like a savior on that cross and yet, one soul is definitely in paradise with him. If only my faith could be that strong. I have not been put to that harsh a test.

Lord's Blessings wally

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Wally, As I understand it, the New Covenant did not come into effect until after Christ's Resurrection. Therefore the thief on the cross was under the Old Covenant, and Christ's words to him directly gave him special dispensation. Thus, the thief is a 100% unique case.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Wally:

There are so many verses which refer to faith on the part of the receiver of the Gift, through the agency of the Giver of the Gift ~ grace ~ that it is very easy to see that baptism is not the agency, especially when it is 'into the Name of Christ' ~ with all that THAT entails: His death, shed blood (the real remission for sin) and resurrection; THE BAPTISM IS A FIGURE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE INNERMOST BEING of the receiver of the Gift. (The death to self, the rising to new life.)

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Wally

I am probably the least qualified on this forum but let me present my thoughts on (The thief on the cross)and Christ promise to him. I feel this occurance revolves around, 1. The covenants and 2. The church being established.

1. We know there must be shedding of blood to establish a covenant. a. The blood was the blood of Christ on the cross. 1. His blood was shed that we might have salvation through him. In this manner the NEW covenant was established.

2. The church would not/could not be established until Christ had sent the Holy Spirit. 2. The day of Pentecost. Acts 2. Peter told them to (Call upon the name Of the Lord and they would be saved)This was accomplished by their actions when they asked, (What shall we do)! and then following Peters instruction of, repentence, immersed for forgiveness of their sins, received Holy Spirit.(Holy Spirit, see Eph. 1: 13&14) I feel the church was established on the day of Pentecost with the arrival of Gods Holy Spirit. Therefore ushering in the NEW covenant. My understanding is,before Acts 2 the bible refers to the church that is to come. After this it refers to the church that is. Could that be because of those that repented,Immersed into Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, Thereby receiving the (seal,Ehp.1)Holy spirit, became the church, the body of Christ.

The thief. He died under the old covenant, before pentecost.

Paradise. A place of waiting for the righteous dead. Thief is waiting / Christ is at he right hand of the Father.

At the day of judgment/rewards the thief and those that were added to the church on the day of Pentecost will begin eternity with Christ. Same end result but different covenant.

Since Eph.1 Tells us that the Holy Spirit is the Seal that guarantees our inheritance and since we receive the Holy Spirit through repentance and immersion for the forgiveness of our sins. Why would one even consider standing before God at judgment without the Holy spirit to testify,Father, he is one of our's!

An old saying : The man that represents himself in court has a fool for an attorney. I once saw a man represent himself. He received 30 years in 3 different counties. A greater mistake would be standing before God without the representation of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion. Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.He will be the seal signifying that you are a child of God under the NEW covenant.

Much has been said of baptism being a work. Personally, I see immersion as being parallel with what Naaman did in 2ND Kng's to rid himself of Leprosy. The difference being,immersion is a part of the plan to cleanse us from sin. Caring for the sick, feeding the hungry,these are works. Baptism, obedience. Just like Naaman.

Wally. Sorry for rambling. It is easy for me to be like that rabbit with the drum when disscusing scripture.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Topic: Is baptism necessary for salvation? Grace2U Member Posts: 536 Registered: Feb 2000 posted 04-05-2000 09:37 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).

If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?

Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.

Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism.

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.

In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.

Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance.

I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6.

In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.

Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

I should have noted more clearly that the just-above post is not in my words. They are the words of Grace2U, from another Christian forum, but seemed to fit here.

Also, Duane, I didn't notice your note (following) until yesterday. Thank you:

My beautiful, organized formatting fizzled. Oh, well. {Connie... I worked on it a little... Duane}

-- Connie (hive@gte.net), March 25, 2000.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

From that other forum, from 'evan':

eschnei Junior Member Posts: 21 Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-15-2000 06:15 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- GTE/HIVE I am a student of Ancient Greek at the University of Oklahoma. I am learning what is called attic Greek (like what homer and plato wrote in.) This is one of the more complex forms of Greek. I only say this because Coine (or common) Greek is probably the easiest form of Greek to translate. I would in no way consider myself an expert (seeing that this is only my second semester) but I think I can help you.

First I will write the verse John 3:7 in Greek (or in transliterated Greek,) and then I will show the root of each word, finally I will give you a translation that I come up with.

"May thaumasays hoti aypon soy, Day humas gennaythaynigh anohthen."

May - means "don't"

thaumasays - is from thaumahoh, meaning to be amazed - in the text it means "(understood you) be amazed."

hoti - means "that"

aypon - is a past tense of the word legoh which mean "to say or speak" - in the text it means "I said"

soy - is a form of sue which means "you" - in the text it specifically means "to you"

Day - means "it is necessary" or "he/she must"

humas - is a form of humays which means "you" - in the text it means "for you"

gennaythaynigh - is a passive infinitive of the word gennaoh which means "to be born" - in the text it means "to be born"

anohthen - means "from on high" or "from above."

So literally the verse translates (this is the "evan" translation) - "Don't be surprised that I said to you, It is necessary for you to be born from above."

Make of this what you will, but the word "anohthen" or "from above" is pretty specific.....what else could it mean besides born of God - which is Salvation.

I hope this was helpful, In Christ, evan

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

Also from evan:

eschnei Junior Member Posts: 21 Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-16-2000 02:42 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- There has been some talk in this post that John 3:5 is talking about baptism. John 3:5 says, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and of spirit."

Where do you get that born of water means baptized??? Why would he have not just said baptized of water and spirit, if that is what he meant??? The word for baptize in the Greek is "bapteezoh," the word used in the text is "gennahoh," meaning to be born.

OK, so if to be born of water doesn't mean to be baptized, what does it mean?

Let's look of the very next chapter of John (4), in which Jesus is talking to the Samaritan women at the well. Interestingly, Jesus is also talking to this woman about water, and he says in verses 13-14, "Jesus answered, 'everyone who drinks of this water (meaning the water of the well,) will be thirsty again, (14) but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eteranl life."

This sounds like Jesus is describing what it is to be "born of water" for the water he speaks of "wells up to eternal life." Certainly in chapter 3, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus about salvation, so it only makes sense that when he says "born of water and of spirit," he is speaking of salvation and not baptism.

In Christ, evan

I repeat what evan said:

Where do you get that born of water means baptized??? Why would he have not just said baptized of water and spirit, if that is what he meant??? The word for baptize in the Greek is "bapteezoh," the word used in the text is "gennahoh," meaning to be born.

The above two posts are not my words.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

Faris A. Sweet wrote, "The thief. He died under the old covenant, before pentecost."

But under the old covenant he could not have been saved, because he would have been required to perform the rites of the old law. All he had that saved him, was faith by the grace of God. New covenant.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

NOT new covenant. Old covenant, special pardon from the Judge.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

John Wilson,

A "special pardon from the Judge" is what each of us needs, and what each of those who will be saved will get from that same Judge. Old or new covenant, it is the same sacrifice of Christ that saves. The issue is what process God uses to bring people to salvation. It is clear from the passage that by the grace of God, one thief came to faith; and that faith was considered sufficient for pardon. Every salvation is "special".

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2000

In Remembrance of Him:

To Recipient In Observance of Good Friday, April 21, 2000 " And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." - Luke 23:44-46 (KJV) With Love and Prayers on this Good Friday

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

He is not here: for He is risen, as He said.

Matthew 28:6a

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2000

Another good thread from the past.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001