What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?

I don't know what conditions are necessary for salvation other than believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. No, that would be a matter of obedience not salvation. Baptism is a matter of obedience, good works are a matter of obedience. Neither of the two have anything to do with salvation. The repentent thief on the cross did nothing (no good works, no baptism, nothing) except accepting Jesus as is Lord and Savior. Jesus said "Today you will be in heaven." I agree but you are talking about two different things. The "fruit of the spirit" (evidence of salvation) is doing good works, but it;s not the same as salvation

Then let the Lord explain it to you. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. he that believeth not is condemned" But of course you just contradicted yourself. For if baptism is a matter of obedience, then so is BELIEVING, because it is something that we choose to do, correct, believe that is. We can also exercise our will and choose not to believe.Then if baptism is a work, then so is believingAgain baptism is simply an act of faith, like BELIEVING, or confessing or repenting We do it because this is what God requires to salvation according to Mark 16:16Nothing is a work of man, that God requires, either before or after initial salvation. A work of man is something he produces out of his own will and has decided will merit his salvation before God. Stigmata, deciding from ones own mind apart from Gods word, what we think he wants, and these types of things could be classified as works of menIf obedience and baptism have nothing to do with salvation, then it would follow that nobody anywhere has to do anything, including believing, to be saved. This is not what the scriptures teach.Sure salvation is a free gift but we must obey Gods wishes to obtain the gift. Example, can a man become a child of God without believing, simply because the gift is free?Jesus said he that believe AND IS baptized SHALL be savedhere is an example of active faith verses works of men, to decide what God wants.Lets say God said, he that believeth and walks around the city walls of the city you live in 7 times, while blowing the trumpets, will be savedNow is this a work of man (something from his own mind) or is it faith in action through obedience, to obtain a free gift of GodWill the walls fall if you dont obey the command? Will you recieve salvation if you dont obey the command to be baptized. I dont think sothat which God requires before or after salvation are not works, their just more faith and beliefEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Hi EMA, I said what I meant and meant what I said. In Message 115 I asked the question: Your answer was "I would have to say No".You are calling God a liar.Since it is not recorded as you state when you say "No":
"Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord if a person is baptized".You adding baptism to Romans 6:23 makes God a liar.I would be careful what I add to God's Word. Present those requirements including scripture for them.I will help you a little. I believe this verse of scripture, but apparantly you don't. Peter preached the gospel. Death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.While Peter was preaching the Holy Ghost came upon all who believed. Verse 45.They spake with other tongues as the Church did on the day of Pentecost.EAM were these people who had received the Holy Spirit SAVED?Why did Peter ask for permission of those with him to baptize those who had received the Holy Spirit?He then commanded them to be baptized.Peter was accustomed to baptizing people who had received the Holy Spirit.He did not baptize them so they could receive the Holy Spirit but because they had already received the Holy Spirit.When a person receives the Holy Spirit he is sealed until the day of redemption. Was Paul a liar when he said those people who had trusted God after hearing the word of truth of the gospel were saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise after they had believed?Can you refute Ephesians 1:13?Can you refute Romans 6:23?Can you refute what happened in Acts 10:34-48?Can you refute that when a person receives the Holy Spirit they are sealed until the day of redemption?Can you refute that the People that believed and received the Holy Spirit and sealed until the day of redemption?Can you continue to add baptism to the requirements for a person to receive eternal life?If so what do you base it on.God Bless and forgive EMA,I said a big prayer for me first. I would agree and add the opposite of eternal life with God is eternal life separated from God. When a person is born again and sealed by the Holy Spirit they will spend eternity with God that is His promise.If a person who has been born again does not do good works they will still be saved. Paul talking to those who have God residing in them said every man will be judged according to his works.If those works are good he shall receive a reward.If they are bad he will suffer a loss.But he will retain his eternal life.So a person who believes God and receives His free gift and are born again being sealed by the Spirit has eternal life even if he/she gets mislead into false doctrine they will not lose it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi EMA, Elplain how you can do anything other than receive a gift.If I offer you a birthday gift when does it become yours?It is not yours until you receive it because you can refuse to receive it even though you believe I will give it to you.Many do that with the free gift God has offered to all mankind. Whosoever will receive it obtains it. Quit coating the scripture to support your bias.Jesus actually said: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. That is a fact. BUT he that believeth not shall be damned. That is a fact.The verse does not say and cannot be twisted to say: BUThe that is not baptized shall be damned. That is a fact.Try as you may you can not put those words in the mouth of Jesus. How do you make Mark 16:16 into a conditional statement when it is a declarative statement?The statement does not say if you believe and are baptized you shall be saved. This would be a conditional statement making salvation dependent upon believing and being baptized. Any thing God or anyone requires to obtain the free gift of eternal life other than to accept it is works.Anybody that teaches you have to do anything other that receive the free gift is teaching heresy.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I take it you're Catholic judging by your response. Just answer two questions:

How was the thief on the cross able to go in to heaven without having been baptized?

​

If you accept Jesus, and on the way to your baptism you get crushed by a 4-ton truck, are you saved or will you burn for eternity?

​

But of course you just contradicted yourself. For if baptism is a matter of obedience, then so is BELIEVING

​

Believing and works are two entirely different things, no? For as a pagan I can feed ten times the amount of the poor than you, but you've been saved regardless of whether or not you lift a finger.

​

Obedience is better than having to be forgiven... But you can still be forgiven for your transgressions. So how is that a contradiction?

​

Again baptism is simply an act of faith, like BELIEVING

​

Baptism is nothing more than a public declaration of your belief and that's all it is. Could the Holy Spirit baptize me or do I need a minister, a pastor, a priest, or a Rabbi to intercede on my behalf? If I need someone else's help then that is not salvation by grace through faith alone... That's salvation plus something else.

​

Sure salvation is a free gift but we must obey Gods wishes to obtain the gift.

​

No, we don't. All we have to do is surrender. Shit, the entire need of Jesus is because we couldn't be obedient to God's law!

​

Jesus said he that believe AND IS baptized SHALL be saved

​

So then infant baptism doesn't save the souls of little babies because they haven't the capacity to love or reject. But I'm curious. If a baby doesn't go through some sort of infant baptism, will they burn in hell?

​

Lets say God said, he that believeth and walks around the city walls of the city you live in 7 times, while blowing the trumpets, will be saved

​

Now is this a work of man (something from his own mind) or is it faith in action through obedience, to obtain a free gift of God

​

That's a work. People who clothe the poor are being obedient to Christ, but it doesn't equal salvation and never has. Works for God is supposed to be the outward evidence of an inward bond with Christ. We are called to take the gospel to the furthest reaches of the earth, but if you didn't go on a mission, is your soul therefore in jeopardy? Think about it. Those are works, and while works are great they don't save anything.

​

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

your a hard case ICANT and very funny at times. I am beating out a response to your and Hs, last post. Ill try and have it out this evening or tommorrowEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

I cannot add what Christ already added in Mark16:16. While you deny that Christ made baptism a condition to being saved, you have the rest of the NT to deny, which makes it clear that it was more than a suggestion and WAS CLEARLY a command, because that is what Christ had previously commanded. Your grammar twists wont work hereSo now you have the Apostles 'commanding' something as in Acts 10, that Christ only suggested or intimated, through a delarative statementSecondly, notice the verse you quoted above, it says THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. This would would mean all Christ requires to avoid death., ie belief and baptismYour mentality is I dont care if he said it, Im not going to teach and believe it, even if he plainly stated it Did Jesus make baptism a requirement in this passage to being saved, Yes or No. Did he conjoin the two to form a requirement to being saved, Yes or No?secondly, I have demmonstrated numerous times now (to which you pay no attention) that baptism, confession and repentance are just faith itself, its faith in action. But more than faith in action its obedience in the same way belief is an action. Is it a command to believe, Yes or No? If it is it is an acto of obedience, and exercising of faith.Trust me ICANT, if Christ had not joined the two, to obtain salvation and the rest of the NT did not confirm it, I WOULD NOT BELIEVE IT.The difference here is that you make them two seperate things, where Christ made belief and baptism, the samething, in the same verse, Simply Belief or FaithNow pay close attention here brother ABecause, if one doesnt exercise the first part of faith in BELIEF, the second part of faith, baptism is of no effect, purpose or reason anyway and that is why he did not repeat himself on baptism in the latter part of the verse. Not that it is not important or that it is not required by him, but that the order is belief, baptism, then and only then, salvation. if you dont believe, you cant get to baptism anyway, not scriptural baptism, because you dont believe Jesus is the Son of god anyway.Therefore, was it really necessary for him to repeat, He that believeth not and is not baptized, is condemned, doesnt your belief which preeceeds baptism, condemn you. But this has nothing to do with what Christ initally conjoined together in the first part of the verse, belief and baptism to be saved.Yes belief proceeds anyother act of obedience, but belief is itself and act of obedience as well. Christ makes both of them an act of faith to recieve salvation. That is his order not mine You are calling God a liar not me Now to the more complicated issues as you present them. I appreciate what you are saying here is acts Chapter 10 but i believe I can demonstrate rather easily that you are violating a simple rule of interpretation. You have made the common mistake of reading into a verse your own doctrine and what you want to see, verses what has clearly been stated by the Master in a verse when he was here on earth.
In other words I dont need to extract out of Acts chapter 10, what the method of and for salvation is or is not when it has already been stated by the Lord EXCALLY what those conditions are, in Mark 16:16Now watch very carefully and pay close attention ICANT, Acts chapter 10 is and should be interpreted in light of what the master said previously, thus it is easy to see that simply recieving baptism in the Spirit, is NOT sign of being saved, because they HAD NOT yet followed the pattern set out by Christ to recieve salvation.IT WAS a sign that salvation HAD COME to the gentiles, but they still had not obeyed Christs command in Mark 16:16Secondly, isnt it interesting that no matter the example you give for me to respond to concerning baptism, that each one of them correspondes excally with Mark 16:16. In this instance Peter immediatley recognized the need for them to obey the Gospel to its completion, as prescribed by Christ, hence his statement, can any forbid water that they should be baptizedDont read into other passages what you want to see ICANT, read what the Master had to say on the subject before hand, THEN AND ONLY THEN, interpret those passages in that connection.Now watch me do the samething you did. In acts chapter 8 the Phillip preaches to the Ethiopian and they come to water and he says,"here is water what is stopping me form being baptized"Now I can assume that he was saved before he was baptized. but why would I, considering the fact that Christ said that both belief and baptism were what he required. Phillip was only doing and preaching what the Lord had originally commanded.There is no reason to read into this example any more that there should be in Acts chapter 10. Remenber interpret what you read by what the Lord had already saidSo we can assume that in Acts 8 when the Ethiopian did not recieve these gifts that he was not actually saved? No, because that was not the purpose of the gifts in the first place, to decide who was already saved or not.Peter and others needed to be taught a lesson, apparently Phillip did not, he already knew what the Lord required and who was now acceptable to the Lord if they obeyed What Christ had previously commandedPeter still had not learned this lesson, when Paul "withstood him to the face". Im not critizing peter we all do the samethingWe have not all and do not recieve, miraculous manifestations of of spiritual gifts when we believe in Jesus Christ as in the case of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, in these instances.Should we therefore assume we are saved or not saved depending on this manifestation of miraulous gifts. Absolutley not, for two reasons.that was not the reason for the manifestation of the spirit in this instance, to determine how one BECOMES a child of God, BUT simply to demonstrate that Salvation had come to the Gentiles.Christ long before this showed the pattern of how one becomes a child of God. peter then follows that exact pattern to complete the process Can you refute 1:13.? Your funny ICANTICUS. Why would I want to refute it when I can explain it. remeber the expression "Come let us reason together"ICANT, there is a difference in the Baptism of the Spirit and the Holy Spirit of promise. While its the same Spirit of God, the reasons were different in each instance. The Spirit of promise, that by which we are SEALED UP to that day, is the same one spoken of in the book of Joel and in Acts chapter 2. This has to do with the fact that God would "pour out his Spirit on all flesh",Or the fact that God had a plan to bring in both Jew and gentile toghether in Christ. this is what is meant by the expression, "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh"Now pay close attention. Since not all people have recieved the miraculous gifts of the spirit, including we that are alive today, it is clear that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was a special designation of the Holy Spirit, given to the Apostles and certain others like Cornelius and his hosehold, for the pupose of demonstrating that salvation had come to Jew and gentile.But this manifestation of the Spirit in a miraculous manifestation was not for the purpose of making people children of God, or to demonstrate that they already were children of God.On the other hand the Spirit of Promise was that Spirit that overshadowed Mary, guided the life of Christ and revealed later the knowledge that God had promised the Apostles that guides us to the knowledge of how to become children of GodOnly the blood of Christ can make us children of God and Christ revealed this in his life, death, butial and ressurection. The Holy Spirit of God was the vehicle that carried this through and finally revealed the method of assurance through his word. thus we are sealed with an assurance (the spirit that was promised from long ago) that cannot be broken.But ICANT, it is the Spirit that makes Christs words and wishes known to us, so as to be able to obey the Spirit of God. The Spirit of promise reveals through Christs actions and WORDS how we are sealed up Why would I, i agree with it Again, remember ICANT, The baptism in the Spirit was of a miraclous nature, for the purpose of demonstrating that salvation had come to the gentiles and to confirm and further the word of God by a miraculous means, NOT for demonstrating HOW someone is saved, only that God now accepts them when they obey the GospelNow pay close attention. Christ had already set that out long before the events in Acts chapter 10, how one becomes a child of GodInterpret those events in acts 10 by what was spoken by Christ long before. The answer you will come up with is that those folks in Acts 10 needed to be baptized before they could correctly obey Christ and be saved Possibly, but we are talking about someone coming to Christ and we are not talking about WORKS, we are talking about obedience to Gods wishes, to believe and be baptized. His words not mine. We are are talking about an active Faith in obedience to Gods wishes. If You dont like Christs commands, that is your issue. Notice in Acts chapter 10 it says "He COMMANDED them to be baptized" So Christ statement in Mark 16:16, is more than declarative, it is a command Some gifts have conditions. Accepting a gift is a condition, believing is condition and Christ conjoins baptism to it as a condition, for the numerous biblical reasons I have now demonstrated and to which you simply skip over time and time again. The rest of the examples in the NT confirm everything Christ had to say concering the matterremeber Jesus' words to the Apostles, "Whatsoever you bind on eath is bound in Heaven, whatsoever you lose on earth is loest in heaven." He commanded them to be baptized because Christ had already bound it a long time agoYour right, refusing a gift is an action of the mind, a choice, just like refusing baptism as a part of Gods plan is a choice I have now responded to this to many times to mention, to which you give my response no attention Your play on English grammar wont work in this instance for the following reasonsThe only thing you have done here is change the word HE into YOU, which does not change the meaning of the statement. You have not changed the meaning of the passage or the verse.Further as I have clearly, or the Word of God has indicated, the rest of the NT makes it a command, as in Acts chapter 10. thus it is to easy to see that is more than some suggestion as you seem to indicateAgain your statement above may have some validity if the rest of the NT did not make it conditional, it does.Believing that baptism is the point at which we contact the blood of Christ, as Romans chapter six clearly indicates is seperate, somewhat from the idea that it is commanded in the NT.You need to deal with the latter here before you begin to get to the former. Each of the examples of conversion in the NT demonstrate beyond any doubt that Baptism was not only necessary but commanded. Now isnt interesting that these examples conform, excally to Christ wishes?It always amazes me how and why anyone would resist such a simple instruction and command, clearly stated by Christ and confirmed beyond any doubt by His Apostles. Simply amazing Presently we are not speaking about that, but I would say a person can have some false doctrine, because we cannot get everything right. But the concern I would have is whether the person (Christian) can continue in wilfull and deliberate sin, then simply march into heaven. I doubt it.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Hi Ema, No.No. NoYou need to rephrase the last part of that question and make it clear what you are asking. Let me get this straight.They had salvation. They were saved. They had eternal life. They received the gift of God in the form of the Holy Spirit.Yet they had not been baptized.So if they were saved why did they need to be baptized to be saved? They received the Holy Spirit to demonstrate that they had eternal life.I agree competely. Are you saying a person can be saved without being born of the Spirit as Jesus told Nicodemus?I agree that people do not receive the gifts that was received before the Bible was competlete. Paul told us when that which is perfect is come that which is in part shall be done away. 1 Cor. 13:10 Make up your mind. Either it was as you said: "IT WAS a sign that salvation HAD COME to the gentiles". Salvation in the past tense.orIt meant nothing. So why mix water or works with the blood? So why do you add conditions to receiving the gift of God?Dictionary definition of gift: 1. Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation.Legal definition of gift: A transfer of property with nothing given in return. Gift Definition So you see you don't agree with Romans 6:23 as you require something in return for the gift. Again you say the manifestation of the Spirit was to demonstrate that salvation, eternal life, had come to these gentiles.How did they have salvation if they had not been baptized according you all your assertions that they must be baptized in order to be saved.Did these people have eternal life before they were baptized?Could they go to heaven without being baptized? Where did Christ command one to believe and be baptized in order to receive eternal life?Certainly not in Mark 16:16 as He states that a person who believes and is baptized will be saved.There is no scripture in the Bible.But there are many that say if you believe you will receive eternal life.There are also many that say if you believe not you are condemned already and will die in your sins.There is zero scripture that says if you are baptized you will receive eternal life.There is zero scripture that says if you are not baptized you will be damned. I have never said baptism is not commanded.Jesus was baptized and said take up your cross and follow me.You cannot follow Jesus without being baptized, although you can go to heaven without being baptized. I truly look to see Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Enoch and John the Baptist in heaven.Where we disagree is on the purpose of baptism.You say you must be baptized in order to become a child of God.I say you have to be a born of the Spirit of God before you are a fit subject for baptism.Jesus set the example.He was the Son of God before He was baptized. His baptism was the beginning of His personal ministry.A person who is born of the Spirit announces to everyone present at his/her baptism that they are beginning their personal ministry to God.When Cornelius heard the word, received the Spirit, spoke in tongues and Peter announced he had received the Spirit the same as they had, was he born again at this time? Yes/NoIf a Church of Christ minister was in the act of baptizing a person and just before the person went under the water they had a heart attack and died would they be saved? Yes/NoWhat if he got him/her competely under the water would they be saved? yes/noIn other words at what point would you consider the person saved posessing eternal life.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Your a great brother, but
As I read your responses and I use that in he simplest sense of the word, it is clear that you are unable or unwilling to respond to exact argument I am presentingAn example would be the response and argument I gave concerning the thief on the cross, which recieved not the slightest rebuttal. There are to many others here to mentionIt seems you keep repeating the same statements and contentions regarless of whether I provide a response,Your statement above is an example of this evasion.It should be obvious that when i say, the expression "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh", means that salvation had come to the gentiles", that I dont mean people can recieve this gift, without obeying the GospelYet you have manuvered my words to say excally that. No I am not saying they were saved before they were baptized, that would be violating Christs words and the examples in the rest of the NTMy argument is that we should look at what Christ said bedore hand, then interpret anyother scriptures in that connection.Secondly, Baptism in the Spirit, in this miraculous sense in Acts 10, was not a sign that they had yet obeyed the Gospel, not a sign of HOW to obey the gospel, only that God now accepted the Gentiles in his plansPeter then follows through with Christs wishes already stated in mark 16:16, to complete their salvation here is another example of what I am talking about.Can any thinking person take your above statement as seriousYour a good brother and it is not my wish to lose your friendship, so we can leave this where it is at and let the reader decide for themselves.Let me present a couple more question to demonstrate the point form my position.ICANT, is it possible to have a scriptural baptism with out believing in Christ? I assume your answer will be NO.Since baptism is a response to the Gospel and a belief in jesus Christ as the Son of God and there is no way to have a scriptural baptism without belief.Theoretically then, was it necessary for Christ to repeat the necessity of not being baptized, if one does not believe in the first place?IOWs does he need to repeat the first part of the verse in its entirity, if a person doesnt believe in the first place?Just a thought and depending on whether I feel I need to respond to anything you say, we will leave it at that But we are brother, its all the same Spirit accomplishing all of the acts, whether Baptism in water or miraculous gifts by batism throught the Spirit only on certain individualsListen, "We are baptized by one Spirit into one body"Read the following verses very carefully. Whether its baptism in water as commanded by Christ to be saved or whether it is baptism in the spirit to recieve Spiritual gifts, IT ALL THE SAME SPIRIT
1 Cor 12:7 Baptism as Christ commanded and Paul explains here makes us a part of one body. read verse 13 ICANT carefully. Its talking about the plan of salvation for all people, through what Christ had ealier exclaimed and commanded in Mark 16:16Yes Paul is here speaking about spiritual gifts, but NOTICE how he transitions to the bigger picture of salvation for all by being baptized (as Christ commanded) by ONE SPIRIT INTO ONE BODYNotice how this is an nearly an exact parallel to Mark 16:15-16Christ starts by speaking about the plan of salvation, then moves to spiritual gifts, "and these signs shall follow them that believe"Paul speaking about the same two things reverses the order and is speaking about spiritual gifts, then moves back to the plan of salvation, "We were ALL baptized by one Spirit into one body"All the same elements that Christ had intimated in both passages.Ephesians 5 here is yet another allusion to baptism in water, becoming a member of Christs bodyWhether water baptism or Baptism in the Holy spirit for the manifestation of Spiritual gifts, ITS ALL THE SAME Holy Spirit to accomplish a specific goal at a specific point in time If we follow the words of Christ and what the rest of the NT teaches it is AT Belief and Baptism."We are all Baptized by ONE SPIRIT INTO ONE BODY", BROTHERCan you refuse what Christ taught and what the rest of the NT teaches, that is so simple nobody should be able to miss it?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Hi EMA, You did not answer the question.Is it after belief?Is it after baptism?The question was at what point during the process were Cornelius and the people at his house saved.A little history. Cornelius was a devout man who feared God, gave much alms, and prayed always as did his household.Peter came and preached the gospel. The death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While Peter preached everyone in the house that heard the word received the Holy Spirit. Does that mean everyone in the house received the Holy Spirit? No only those that heard the word. You say how could they be in the house and not hear it. Easy, the Greek word akou translated heard not only carries the ability to hear the audible sound but to understand what is said and to accept that word.1. They heard the word.2. They believed the testimony of Peter.3. They accepted the word as truth.4. They received the Holy Spirit.5. They showed manifestations of the Spirit.6. According to Peter they had received the Holy Spirit like they had.7. Peter ask the church that was with him for permission to baptize them.8. Peter appointed someone to perform the baptism.9. I am going to assume they were baptized but the Bible does not say they were.At what point during the 9 points above did they receive eternal life? That was my original question.You made this statement: At what point during the 9 points above were they baptized by one Spirit into one body?What body does the Spirit baptize a person into, The family of God or the Church?I am presently teaching a college course "Defense of the Faith" and am at the chapter of "The Baptismal Regeneration Heresy" so the answers to these questions might prove valuable to the students.May I suggest an experiment for you to perform. Put Mark 16:16 on a 3 x 5 card and then find an atheist English teacher and ask them if the verse is a declarative statement or a conditional clause. Then ask if it says "he that is not baptized is damned" and see what they have to say about it. They would have no bias at all.You could also find several 5th graders and ask them the same question. You would want to make sure they are not children that attend church as you want a non bias opinion.I have performed such an experiment.You asked: You apparently missed the following scriptures.I do not refuse to believe and teach what is taught in the following passages: But he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.John could have cleared it up had he said: "But he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God and been baptized."But that is not what John said. You did not comment on how you can make baptism a requirement to receive a free gift according to the definitions of gift. Do you care to give it a go? No requirement for baptism. No requirement to be baptized. No requirement to be baptized to live. No requirement to be baptized in order to have eternal life. How many of these teachings in the Bible do you believe?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Ill have a concise response out to your latest post earlier this morning. I like to address each argument and each statement, in its entirity, so as to not miss any points, something you may actually want to try.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

You haven't addressed any of my points.If baptism is necessary for salvation then how did the repentent thief on the cross get in to heaven?If baptism and faith are necessary for salvation as you allege, then infant baptisms are useless other than for ceremonial purposes because it isn't saving anything.Likewise, if baptism were necessary for salvation, someone could accept Jesus in their heart and on their way to go get baptized, get killed in an auto accident. If what you allege is true then that individual is not saved.This sounds no different than circumcision, only you have substituted circumcision for baptism from a legalistic point of view, rather than understanding the intended spiritual point of view.

quote:

---

"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." -- Collossians 2:11-12

---

Through baptism you [symbolically] crucify the flesh, but by faith you are raised. That's the illustration.According to the scriptures, Christ has become the one who circumcises the heart. Baptism is done in the heart. The outward act is merely that... an act... a work... needing to be done by someone else. Does that sound consistent with the premise of being justified by faith?You making it a prerequisite therefore makes baptism a law. Think about it. But the ONLY thing that guarantees damnation is rejection of the Holy Spirit (dying without surrendering to Christ).

quote:

---

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. -- Galatians 2:21

---

It would be like saying Communion saves you, when really it is just a matter of symbolism. Baptism is symbolic of what has already happened in the heart.You might want to rethink your position instead of relying on centuries of false dogma.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I hope you are explaining to your class why is it only myself that is required to respond to questions and arguments The person with the correct doctrine WROTE Which would make it following baptism and not until that point, according to Christ and th rest of the NT. each of the passages I have presentd demonstratesthe purpose and nature of baptism, they all echo exacally what Christs words are in Mark 16:16.Can you explain t o your class why you have failed to deal with A SINGLE PASSAGE I have presented?
Can you explain to them why you refuse to deal with a single argument I have presented or answer questions in that connection.Here it is again, Ill keep asking it to see if you will touch it.
If the only proper candidate for baptism is a believer in Christ, would it be necessary for Christ to repeat the need to NOT be baptized in the latter part of the verse, Yes or No? After their baptism and not until then. The baptism in the Holy Spirit was not for the purpose of designating whether they were now saved at the point of belief only. That was decided long before this time, how salvation was accomplished, through belief and baptism, as per christ declarationTo demonstrate that point I will ask you this question, when you RECIEVED THE WORD, ICANT in your life, what miraculous signs did you recieve for those around you to knowthat you ICANT were now saved? Did you speakin tounges did you prophecy or what. Everytime I or someone else today recieves the word there are no signs. That is and WAS NOT the purpose at that time either, for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, of a miraculous natureIOW, the recieving of the Holy Spirit was not an indication to Peter that they had been saved at the point of simple belief, neither was it an indication that gave clues to peter as to how someone was saved. he already knew that because he siad in Chapter two"repent and be baptized everyone of you inthe name of jesus Christ for the remission of Your sins"It was however a general sign to him that the same method of salvation was NOW available to not only the Jews but also to the gentiles.Secondly, peter was not asking permission I agree that if somone believes that water and dunking someone in water saves them then that is a heresy. Fortunatley that is not what baptism is, so therefore its not a hersey I have no doubt that you have conducted such an experimentSince neither you or the atheist understand the scriptural nature and purpose of baptism, it would be a knuckleheaded experiment. since you donot understand what is involved in Faith and belief, it would be a backwards experimentSurely you cant be serious about your contention concerning a declarative statement. Let me demonstrate why. here is he definition of a declarative statement. Your implication from this usage of such a statment is that it requires nothing of the hearer, correct. It is not a statement of condition. Given that fact ICANT, even BELIEF IN CHRIST then would not be necessary if your contenion, concerning declarative statements is true.Now listen carefully ICANT, simply because a declarative statement does not require a response from the hearer,immediately in the moment of the statement, does not mean that the individual person has no responsibility.A declarative statement is made to people in general, such as preaching to a crowd. That doesnt mean the conditions in the statement dont apply to the individual. it simply means that an IMMEDIATE response is not required by the individual at that moment of the declarative sentence or statementAgain, now watch and pay close attention. if a delarative statement is not setting out conditions at all anywhere, then it would follow that not even BELIEF is required on the persons part, coming to GodI love you brother but you really havent thought any of these things through have you? John like Christ, would not make such a statement like you just put in their mouth, not because baptism is not important to salvation, but because if a person does not believe, there is no need to reference anything else they might NOT do. Again, ICANT belief preceeds everything but it isnt the only thing necessary to salvationIve tried to be as sensitive as I can in this matter ICANT and I am now beginning to see what the problem is here, you simply do not understand in any degree what is involvedin Faith in Christ Jesus.Again and to which you pay no attention, belief in these verses is being used as a synecdoche, a figure of speech meaning, a part for the whole and the whole for the part. belief is being used to inculcate all aspects of becoming a Christia., ie baptism, repentance and confession, all of which are not mentioned in these passages as well Just the way you word your question is evidence you do not understand the nature and purpose of baptism in the scriptureI never said it wasn’t a free gift, but baptism is not a work, just like faith is not a work, belief, repentance and confession are not works, they are RESPONSES to God in Faith.Hence you are saved by grace (free gift) through Faith (obedience, belief and baptism), that not of yourself, it is the gift of God
Let me demonstrate beyond any doubt, that while baptism is a requirement, it is not a work on your part.Do you not know that no person or yourself can actually baptize you? That while they assist you it is actually the Holy Spirit that baptizes you. Listen, For we were all baptized BYYYY one Spirit into one body the Holy Spirit is the one doing the Baptizing. You do nothing but be obedient as in BeliefThe only thing you have to do to be baptized is SHOW UP. Everybody else including the Holy Spirit does the rest. How could it be a work on your part. You’ve done nothing but be obedient to a commandNow do you get it brother?Remember also the difference between a Work and an act of obedience through Faith. A work is something a Man constructs in his own mind and has decided that God may or may not want., beating oneself with a whip or worshipping God by some other means than that which he has indicated in His word. A work is NOT something that God has asked us to do, those are acts of obedience through faith. No work involvedIn the scriptures it is described as ‘Will Worship, deciding from ones own mind what God may or may not want, putting his will and Word aside. Even though James desribes it as work he does not mean it in the sense of man deciding what God wants. There is no contradiction between James and Paul, he simply means Gods work Again ICANT, remember Synecdoche,Synecdoche, Synecdochebelief is being used in the general sense of the word to mean and include all aspects of faith, even including baptism, confession, repentance and faithfulness, eventhought hey are not mentioned in every verseEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Hi EMA, What makes you think you are the only one I have asked those questions? Would you agree with Rue Porter who said in answer to the question of Vernon L. Barr in a public debate in Antlers, Oklahoma, in 1952: "Do you baptize a child of God or a child of the Devil ?" replied in writing: "I baptize a rebellious child of the Devil." Agree/Disagree What are you complaining about.There are several questions I have asked you that you have ignored. In fact there are some about this verse: Is this a declarative statement? Yes/NoIs this a conditional statement? Yes/No Rinnnnnnnnnnng, Johnny give the man a prize.A declarative statement is a statement of fact.He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved is a statement of fact.There is no condition as to believing in order to be saved.Neither is there a condition of being baptized in order to be saved.The statement also makes a further statement of fact.He that believeth not shall be damned. Which is a statement of fact. Which makes belief a requirement to not be damned.Now for Mark 16:16 to state baptism is a requirement in order to be saved as EMA says it does it would have to include the opposite statement as the one concerning believing.There would have to be a declaration that he that is not baptized shall be damned.There is no such declarative statement in the Bible.There is no such conditional statement in the Bible.Declarative statements in the Bible concerning salvation. Positive and Negative declarative statement concerning believing. Positive and Negative declarative statement concerning believing. Positive and Negative declarative statement concerning believing. You can find 61 times in 51 verses where baptized was used and none of them are in a conditional statement to receiving eternal life nor receiving damnation if no baptism was performed. Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter BibleYou can find 22 times in 22 verses where baptism was used and none of them are in a conditional statement to receiving eternal life nor receiving damnation if no baptism was performed. Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter BibleYou can find 9 times in 7 verses where baptize was used and none of them are a conditional statement to receiving eternal life nor receiving damnation. Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter BibleI can not find a conditional statement in the Bible that says if you are baptized you will be saved.I can not find a conditional statement in the Bible that says you will be damned if you are not baptized.I can not find a declarative statement in the Bible that says you will be damned if you are not baptized.Help me out here. Has EMA now become God knowing all things?What makes you think you understand the scriptural nature and purpose of baptism? Not only have I thought through them I have studied through them in the Greek language. I have been involved is several debates where baptismal regeneration has been debated. I have even debated this subject in proper debate forum not as debate is here at EvC. Are you saying I misquoted John or that he did not write the book of John in the New Testament?Again here is what John said: Is there any place in the writing of John that he said baptism was necessary to be saved? Yes/NoIs there any place in the writing of John that he said one who is not baptized shall be damned? Yes/NoIf John had said, "because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God and been baptized." Do you agree that this would have made baptism essential to receiving salvation? Yes/No You are coating scripture again. Is this in your new translation of the Bible?You remember a statement I made a while back. "I must be specific.
I will stand before Jesus one day and give an account of every word I have ever typed on this web site as well as every word I spoke or wrote elsewhere."This goes for you also.But you are not saved by your faith. Mankind is saved by the faith of Jesus in the keeping of the agreement made in the eternity halls of heaven. That is given in John 3:16-18. Your faith is not good enough to save you.All anyone has to do is accept the offer God has made of a free gift of eternal life. So your grandstanding and hand waving about Cornelius and those who were baptized by the Holy Spirit was a waste of bandwidth.Question, why did they need to be baptized if they had already been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body? I am still looking for the command that says he that is not baptized shall be damned, and the only place I find it is in the Book of Mormons. Nope Just like you don't get that the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. So the Israelites keeping all the laws God gave them was not works.Are you saying All the acts of sacrifice was not works.Work, refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force.If you have to move a muscle to be saved you have performed work.If you have to walk to the front of the Church to be saved that is a work.If you have to be baptized that is a work.If you have to say a prayer that is a work.Anything that you do other that receive the gift is considered payment for the gift.The legal description of a gift is: The transfer of property with nothing in return. God's gift equals a disposition of eternal life without consideration. God gets nothing not even obedience in the act of someone receiving eternal life.Stile has argued with me that even receiving the gift is a work. The problem is a gift is not a gift until accepted. Salvation is not of works but a free gift of God. Are you calling John the Baptist a liar when He said in John 3:36:

quote:

---

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

---

Are you calling Jesus a liar when He said in John 6:47:

quote:

---

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

---

Those are complete declarative statements that stand alone as fact.When are you going to finish translating your Bible I would like a copy when you finish. I would also like a copy of your Bible dictionary and English dictionary when they are finished. I am 71 so get to it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This is a Pengthy lost I will get to it as soon as I can todaythanks for your patience Thats funny. You know the tooth brush was invented in Oklahoma, otherwise they would call it the 'Teethbrush'In alabama we have a couple of places named 'Frog Jump' and 'scratch ankle' Are you kidding me. Please repeat the question or the argument, I have not responded to as of yet excluding your present postEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.