Posted on 02/14/2015 5:44:42 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
LOL, sing it MM. How about this?
For it struck 24 when he entered at the door
with a blooming and beautiful bride.
But it stopped short, never to go again,
when the old man died.
We can only wonder why the Lord has given people in this country so much gospel light. Even with all the light Americans have had, most reject Christ, so it's clear access to the gospel isn't enough. We know from the Bible that most who saw and heard Christ firsthand did not believe. To a group of Jews he said, "The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." He then said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."
We can't know for sure who His sheep are, but we know that He has sheep scattered among every tribe and language and people and nation. We can go forth and spread the gospel to the nations with utter confidence because we know that when His sheep hear His voice they will believe.
I've got a neighbor, a smart well-educated man in his 80's, who seems to hate the gospel. He had Christian parents, has Bibles in his home, and within a ten minute drive there are at least a dozen congregations where the gospel is still faithfully preached. He isn't interested in any of it. Meanwhile I know missionaries toiling in remote and dangerous spots on the globe who tell stories of encountering people who have never even heard the name Jesus uttered. Some of these primitive people hear the gospel and immediately believe. Why would they believe a story about a man who died on a Roman cross to pay a sin debt they were unaware they owed? Why would they believe such a story told by an unknown white man who had to machete his way through the bush to get to their village? Why do they believe and my lost neighbor does not? They believe because they are His sheep and they recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Ephesians 1:3-10)
Yep coldest day here since the 1800’s ..liberals are such fools
The problem is the pride of men .. they want to be in control of their own eternal fate ...
Which is the height of folly. To think that one can even begin to get close to what God requires one would have to actually be as perfectly sinless as Jesus. Why would anyone try to attain their own righteousness when Jesus offers His righteousness to us through faith?
Romans 3:22 The righteousness moreover from God through faith of Jesus Christ to all those believing for there is no distinction.
The "no distinction" there talking about Jews or Gentiles.
By removing rules (like a scoreboard showing points) that result in a winner, and saying that even those present at an event are ‘winners’, and should receive a trophy as well, is not unlike the disregarding of many of the Lord’s words concerning conversion, and then saying that everyone that has a simple belief (though not in belief as the Lord commands) is saved. The intent of preaching salvation in Jesus Christ, but being selective in his words, such as preaching John 3:16 (great verse, but a summation), and ignoring his detailed command of being born again, is being like:
Ahimaaz: a messenger not called (or at least not fully prepared) for the job of delivering the message (2Sam. 18:19-32). Or like Apollos, who was mighty in the scriptures, but needed a couple of lowly tentmakers to expound “the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26).
Or NOT being like King Josiah: Who, when he was presented the fulness of God’s will, promptly took action to correct the words of God that had been overlooked.
The preaching of salvation to the lost exclusively out of Romans (or even other epistles) still regularly overlooks the context: Paul was writing to those that already had been born again, or at least knew how to be.
As a Calvinist, I was instructed by the ‘Ahimaaz’ testamony for my first 28 years, with steady diet of Acts 16:31, and Romans 10:9,13. But......when my personal ‘Josiah/Apollos’ moment came, I had to hear and obey the ‘missing link’ of biblical rebirth (Acts 2:38).
Is it not right to believe on the Lord as HE instructs us to believe on him? He gives very explicit instructions in being born again, beginning with John 3:5-8. Then, at the end of the Gospels, we read his words of commission to his apostles.
Matt. 28:19; the Lord commanded that THEY baptize souls.
Mark 16:16; The Lord commanded to his disciples that one must believe and be baptized.
Luke 24:47; The Lord commanded that repentance and remission of sins are to be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
John 20:23; The Lord commanded that whose soever sins YE remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins YE retain, they are retained.
Then following those commands, the apostles preached Jesus Christ, commanding repentance, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost.
Jesus has made it quite clear that if you want his blood on you, you must be ‘buried’ in his name.
In Acts 2:37 (Jews) we find convicted souls asking, “what shall we do?”
The ‘wide way’ answer seems to be, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved”. But no details, such as HOW to believe, contrary to what the Lord and his apostles specifically commanded.
2:38; “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. (note the position of the commas in the KJV.)
Now I will list the separate DETAILED accounts of water baptism (remember, water baptism is the Lord’s will, not mine, and the list and commentary is a bit long, but only shows how much of scripture is being overlooked by the ‘Ahimaaz’ messengers):
8:12,13 (Samaritans) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip...”.
Notice they ‘believed, and were baptized’. (sounds like fulfillment of the the Lord’s command in Mark 16:16; “He that believeth, and is baptized..”). They had NOT received the Spirit yet. Peter and John were then called to come to Samaria:
8:16; “(For as yet he was fallen upon NONE of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”
The Ethiopian eunuch: 8:35-38; “Then Philip....preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is WATER; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down INTO the WATER, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (first detailed witness mentioning water used in baptism).
10:46,47,48 (Gentiles) “...Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME of the Lord...”. (care to guess what that name is? AND, remember these words of Peter: “Can any man forbid water..”. That is the second detailed witness mentioning water baptism).
In Acts 11 we find Peter back in Jerusalem, after the conversion event at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea, testifying of their receiving the Holy Ghost. With God giving them the Spirit, his hand was forced to obey God’s ordained plan, and baptize them in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Notice his testamony at that point:
11:17; “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; WHAT WAS I, THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD?”.
God expected Peter to do HIS part, and baptise them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins. Peter HAD to do it, for it was required by God.
Under your ‘no works’ opinion, those souls were completely born again after the Spirit fell, so Peter had NOTHING to withstand. Also, he could have refused to baptize them. But knew he couldn’t withstand God’s command, for notice his words; “Can any man forbid water..”.
Re-baptism in Ephesus: 19:5,6 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (OOPS! Paul baptized ‘about twelve’ people, when he ‘wasn’t sent to baptize’. /sarc.
1Cor. 1:17 is a declaration by Paul, telling us that his ministry was not just baptism. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have baptized ANYBODY)
Now, the list of the brief mentioning of baptisms. You may argue that those are ‘Spirit’ baptisms only. Can you prove that? I say they are water baptisms, or both (and Paul is involved in all but the first of them):
Acts 2:41 about 3,000 were added.
9:18 Saul/Paul’s conversion.
16:15 Lydia and her household.
16:33 keeper of the prison and his household.
18:8 Crispus (one of several Paul admitted to baptizing in Corinth. 1Cor 1:14,16)
22:16 Saul/Paul again.
Now, the references to baptism in the epistles, which were written to those already born again (note the intro to those letters; ‘brethern’, ‘faithful’, ‘saints’, etc. Like it or not, that’s the context).
Romans 6:3; “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
4. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:....” (That’s certainly not Spirit baptism, because the Spirit is life.) “..that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the GLORY of the FATHER, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
5 “For if we have been planted together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the LIKENESS of his resurrection.”
Col. 2:12 is quite similar: “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Buried,...planted.....That sure is clear to me: Paul is referring to water baptism, and Spirit baptism, as separate events, and that both are required.
1Cor. 1:12-17
Now is as good of a time as any to address the inconsistancies of the ‘water baptism is not essential’ folks, which I will call the ‘discount crowd’:
When faced with passages that mention baptism, but don’t specifically say that it was water baptism, the ‘Ahimaaz’ messengers will say it’s not talking about water baptism. But, when faced with the passage in 1Cor. 1:12-17, then they wholehearted agree that it is referring to water baptism.
(I have just taken the afore mentioned Acts 18:8 (Crispus), and solidly put that passage in the water baptism category.)
Then there is the emphasis on the name, which Paul makes clear to be Jesus: 1Cor. 1:13 “Is CHRIST divided? was PAUL crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul?”
(Yes, Paul baptized in water at Corinth, in the name of Jesus.)
Heb. 6:1-3 is written to those born again: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection: not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement. And this we will do if God permit.”
(Notice the ‘doctine of baptisms’ is plural?)
1Peter is also written to born again souls. Look at 1:2, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto OBEDIENCE and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ...”.
1Peter 3:20,21 is quite plain, if you are willing to allow it to harmonize with everything presented so far. 20 “...eight souls were saved by water.” 21 “The LIKE figure whereunto even BAPTISM doth also now save us (not the butting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Water baptism is not a bath, but is done in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. That is how it saves. That is how one has the answer of a good conscience toward God. Being “buried with him” is where you get his blood on you, but his NAME must not be left out.
If there is no resurrection, then water baptism is a waste of time. “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1Cor 15:29. That’s Paul (the one who wasn’t suppose to baptize), saying that if Christ (and the asleep in Christ) rise not, then it is all vain. Of course, we know that is not the case, since Christ is risen, and the Spirit poured out.
Being born again requires obedience, which is NOT ‘our OWN works’. As Paul said to the saints in Rome:
“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being THEN made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Rom. 6:17,18
Interesting post, Zuriel. Not long ago I heard a preacher speak on baptism and he noted Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 1:17...
“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”
His takeaway: “So, the Gospel is NOT water baptism.”
Thoughts?
**Not long ago I heard a preacher speak on baptism and he noted Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 1:17...**
The context of that passage is that Paul did baptize people there. It was just that some converts had gotten ‘preacher religion’ and had been bragging about WHO baptized them, instead of WHO they were baptized into (Jesus Christ).
In which case Paul was thankful he had only baptized a few in Corinth. But, by Paul’s own words, other ministers had performed baptisms there. Paul showed up in Ephesus and promptly baptized 12 disciples there in the name of Jesus.
Then there is the emphasis on the name, which Paul makes clear to be Jesus: 1Cor. 1:13 “Is CHRIST divided? was PAUL crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul?”
(Yes, Paul baptized in water at Corinth, in the name of Jesus.)
Heb. 6:1-3 is written to those born again: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection: not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement. And this we will do if God permit.” (Notice the ‘doctine of baptisms’ is plural?)
Jesus Christ said that we must be born of the water, and of the Spirit. The Lord put great emphasis on water baptism TO his apostles. THEY were to do the water baptism in his name for remission of sins (”whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted..”), while HE would baptize with the Spirit.
There is SO much proof of that (as my previous post shows), that if one shoves aside the traditions of men that overlook those scriptures (either ignorantly, or willingly), then it becomes quite clear.
Just the fact that the Lord, and his apostles, put such great emphasis on it, should cause one to sit up and take notice.
**His takeaway: “So, the Gospel is NOT water baptism.”**
The Gospel (the death, burial, resurrection, and message of salvation in Jesus Christ) INCLUDES water baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. By Paul’s admission, he did baptize, but his was not a John the baptist ministry. For one thing, Paul said that John’s water baptism was a baptism unto repentance (Acts 19:4). The Gospel’s water baptism is in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Over 33 yrs ago, when I was first told these things, I promptly asked the messenger, “What about everybody passed on that hasn’t done that?” To which the messenger’s reply was, “That’s not your responsibility. They’re gone, and besides, you don’t know how much they heard”.
So, if after hearing the Law read, that had been missing for so long, Josiah had chose not to have it read to the people for fear of offending them (”Hey Josiah! My deceased relatives didn’t observe those things you’re now following!”), then what? He would have been guilty of rejecting the will of the Lord.
Under the new covenant, the simple question is this: Acts 2:38; is it from heaven, or of men?
Ziruel, I have posted ore than 400 times here, giving as much of the full gospel details as I can. You can’t call me Ahaizaaz, on the basis of one post, which by the way is an exposition of a specific passage.I don’t and haven backed away from repentance, the New Birth, and the reality heaven and Hell. I think it is a cheap shot to infer otherwise.
Thanks for taking time to thoughtfully reply. Appreciated.
Interesting posts.
Zuriel
Thanks for your posts. I have a couple of questions for you.
Does it matter whether a person is baptized in the “name of Jesus” or “in The Father, Son and Holy Ghost” ?
Who is authorized to perform baptisms and where should the be performed?
Thanks for your answer.
I’m sure you realize that some replies are to post ‘one’, only because it is post ‘one’. I don’t think I specifically addressed you personally. So please don’t take it as such. It was more of a general reply to many that tend to overlook the points that I tried to cover.
I was addressing the issue of main-stream Christianity’s routine of preaching salvation to the lost, by way of Romans. Which is a letter written to souls that are already born again, or at least know how to be. That’s the context, that more often than not, is usually not pointed out to the lost.
There are generalities about salvation in Romans (”call on the name of the Lord”), that don’t go into the details that the Lord himself set forth for rebirth. Romans doesn’t need to, since it was written to those that already knew. Although, there are reminders, such as those in chapter 6.
And, as you know, this means of communication is somewhat lacking in it’s ability to display the level of emotion by those posting. Keep in mind that much of the Lord’s teaching in the gospels seems blunt and to the point much of the time (even using tough love). He didn’t waste words.
Hopefully, with God’s help, I will become more like the Lord at discussing points of scriptural importance.
God bless
**Does it matter whether a person is baptized in the “name of Jesus” or “in The Father, Son and Holy Ghost” ?**
The scriptures seem to say so. In the detailed accounts of water baptism in Acts, the apostles commanded baptism, or baptized, in the name of Jesus (2:38; 8:16; 19:5).
Peter commanded that Cornelius and his household be “baptized in the name of the Lord” (10:48). That name would be Jesus “..whom God....hath made both Lord and Christ” (2:36).
Paul relates his conversion to the Jews, speaking of his baptism by Ananias in Acts 22:16: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”.
Paul, who baptized many, but only a few in Corinth, pointed out in a roundabout way, in 1Cor. 1:13 whose name was to be used: “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”
‘Son’ is not a name, but a title. The Son was given the name of Jesus (Matt. 1:21).
The Son tells us where he got his name: “I am come in my Father’s name..” (Jn 5:43). And Hebrews 1:4 says of the Son, “..he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name..”.
The Holy Ghost is sent in the name of Jesus, for the Son said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name..” Jn 14:26.
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”. Acts 4:12
When you put that all together, water baptism in the name of Jesus is certainly the scriptural mode.
**Who is authorized to perform baptisms**
Any one who understands what it is for, and the power of the spoken name of Jesus.
**and where should the be performed?**
Anywhere that there is enough water to fully immerse someone. Water is water. Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river, where agricultural runoff (although it was probably organic) was already an everyday fact of life.
New Testament water baptism was done with almost an urgency. The week or so delays are simply not scriptural (that’s kind of a pet peeve of mine).
Thanks for asking,
God bless
**Interesting posts.**
Thanks for your interest!
They just take me too long to put together, as my wife will attest. lol
Zuriel
Thanks for your honest answers.
God Bless
Thanks Zuriel, I understand where you are coming from. Are you UPC? And do You not believe in the Trinity? Just asking-
We’re doctrinally like the UPC and ALJC, just independent. I have friends in both.
The Oneness teaching of ‘one God in three manifestations’ is usually the EXTREMELY brief definition we use to explain the Godhead, it is really not adequate, seeing that Jesus Christ is found teaching the Godhead a great deal in John. His most condensed words on the subject are probably John 4:24 (”God is a Spirit”), which he expounds on to his disciples in much greater detail in Jn 14.
While Oneness teach ‘one God’, and not a ‘three separate and distinct, co-equal, co-powerful, persons of God’, we define God this way: God the Father made his invisible attributes visible (made flesh), by begetting his Son. The Father is the source of the Holy Ghost, as the Son himself testifies. So we use the scriptural definintions when defining God, such as ‘God the Father’, the ‘Son OF God’, and the ‘Spirit OF God’ or the ‘Holy Ghost’. We don’t use the phrases ‘God the Son’ or ‘God the Holy Ghost’.
In John 14, Jesus Christ really lays it out: God the Father is IN the Son, and Son is IN the Father (since the Father is an omnipresent Spirit, that’s inescapable). And it is the Father that powers it all. The Son has his own soul, (”thou wilt not leave my soul in hell..”), but has been given absolute control of the power of God. Which is how he is able to call forth the Holy Ghost from God the Father.
John 1:1-14 are used to promote a least two separate and distinct ‘persons of God’, yet, when one compares those verses with the teaching that the Lord gives throughout John, especially chapter 14, one can see that the Son is literally in the Father, and that the Father is literally in the Son. Inseparable.
It is a subject of infinite discussion. And I’ve got to roll. Thanks for asking.
God bless
Zuriel
Thanks for your posts.
I come from an independent Baptist background. I like to talk to people who can have a civil discussion of doctrinal differences.
I read posts like yours and then go back to the Bible to examine my own beliefs to see if I can defend my positions.
Over the years I have changed some of my traditional Baptist beliefs when I am sure the Bible supports my position.
Thank you for your polite replies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.