Posted on 03/09/2017 7:25:55 PM PST by Salvation
Formula merely indicates that one can be converted to the other.
If I have a MASS of magnesium shavings in a little pile; it does not give off any light. But by raising the temperature of it above a certain level, then LIGHT is produced.
Weighing the residue indicates that there is no longer the same amount of MASS.
You and I both!
But; if we don't, we STILL have this faith...
2 Corinthians 4:7-9 (ESV)
But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.
We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed;
Matthew 24:4-13 (KJV)
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void,"
1 Corinthians 1:17
Romans 10:17 KJV
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Indeed, without the time-independent Schrödinger equation, where would we be?
Without deBroglie matter wave solutions?
But the verse does not say that Paul didn't baptize, does it? However, this is not an answer to my question, is it, Els?
Without cats?
But it does kinda; shall we say; de-emphasize it.
Else why mention it at all?
**One does not wait until being baptized to make the decision to repent.**
Of course not. That would be contrary to Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38; 8:12-17, 35-39; 9:17,18 (retold in 22:16); 10:44-48; 16:30-34; and 19:1-6.
Jesus told his disciples that THEY would remit sins (John 20:23). How do you interpret that?
**In Acts 2:38, you must take into consideration the Greek grammar and syntax as it was understood by the first-century Common-Greek-speaking readers of Luke’s writings......**
So the scholars that prepared the KJV tried hard, but just didn’t have right stuff to do the job? What else did they inaccurately interpret?
**However, the act of baptism is a human work involving the efforts and decisions of both the candidate and the baptizing agency**
So a candidate going to hear a preacher, and the preacher (baptizing agency) coming to preach, has no human work towards salvation? Maybe you don’t see an inconsistency in you belief system, but I sure do!
**boastworthy human works**
The Lord commanded it, yet you regard it as a boastworthy human work? I fear your position takes you out of the first half of Mark 16:16, and threatens to put you in the latter half.
Paul was involved in many of those ‘human works’, even admitting to it in the verses leading up to the (horribly misunderstood) 1Cor. 1:17.
**No argument that you can come up with, or the RCC either, can be used to affirm that baptismal regeneration will agree with Ephesians 2:8-10. with Romans 10:8-10, or any legitimate statement of how God saves.**
The argument can be made that you are taking the word ‘believeth’, anywhere you find it, and as long as there are no details on conversion, it’s all you need.
John 3:16 comes after instructions given in verses 3,5-8. Ephesians 2:8-10 and Romans 10:8-10 come after introductions that show that the respective bodies already have been converted. Paul reminded the Romans of their conversion, and baptized souls in Ephesus. Those facts are conveniently overlooked for various reasons. Some probably feel that Eph. 4:5 is not water baptism, but Spirit baptism, when the previous verse already mentions the Spirit (I believe it is both, because I believe it is one birth).
**The water baptism of Matthew 28:18-20 has nothing to do wit conferring the forgiveness of sins.**
And no correlation with Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, or John 20:23?
The disciples were being sent before he ascended to heaven. After that happened, Acts 2:38 was the first time his conversion commands were issued.
**Let me ask you if you can explain who baptized Andrew and Beloved John and Peter and Judas Iscariot and the others of The Twelve, when they were baptized, and for what purpose?**
They were baptized unto John the baptist’s baptism unto repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). Andrew was a disciple of his (John 1:35,40), Peter’s brother, and business partners with James and John. Yet, Paul rebaptized disciples in Ephesus because they only knew John’s baptism.
You see it’s the NAME that gives the power since Calvary. That’s why those in Ephesus were rebaptized in the name of Jesus. There is no other name with power to remit sins. As Paul reminded those converts in Rome and Colosse; they were buried with HIM (Jesus Christ) in baptism unto death.
You linked me to the ‘seven baptisms’ article over a year ago, and this was my reply to Dr Wittman’s opinions:
I will begin at the last one just to show how wrong the Dr can be at times in his presentation:
His interpretation of ‘baptism for the dead’ is just as bad as the Mormon’s. Like them, he sees it as actually being baptized in place of someone that is dead. Only he sees doing it as wrong, whereas they see it as right.
The confusion is that they fail to see the context:
Paul starts chapter 1Cor. 15 teaching of Christ resurrection, and shifts gears at verse 12, telling of the doubters arguments about no resurrection, and the hopelessness if Christ is not. This continues through verse 19, then he diverts for a few verses to teach of the Lord’s resurrection, and the results of it. Then.....
...in verse 29, he continues the thought from 19. He is saying that, why be baptized into Christ if he is not risen, or his saints will not rise from the dead?
That’s the context, and Dr. Wittman missed it by a mile.
Now, back to the very beginning of his article:
His introduction is such a give away to his wordy goal: discount water baptism as a command from Jesus Christ and his apostles. Then he doesn’t even mention Acts 2:38 in his first reference, Acts 2:41,42.
He moves on to another passage he thinks will discount water baptism, Heb. 6:1,2.
Context:
Paul is writing to people that have already been born again, having obeyed the same instructions as given Acts 2:38. Need proof?...
Heb. 2:3,4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.
If that doesn’t sound like reference to the happenings in the Gospels and Acts, I don’t what does.
Heb. 6:1,2 shows the Acts 2:28 message is known to the reader. The point being made by the writer is that the foundation is laid, and doesn’t need to be laid again in THEIR lives.
When Wittman continues his introduction, complete with his own personal interpretations, he gets to Acts 2:38, only to leave a GAPING hole in it. Guess what’s missing?... Remission of sins!!
There wasn’t much point in continuing, but I moved on to ‘Baptism of Disciples or Water Baptism’. I sped down through the scripture reading, that gave various accounts of water baptism, then got to this.........confusion:
In the intro to that segment, I see an expected dodge:
“So effective was his preaching that the question was asked by those who heard, “O men! Brothers! What shall we do?” In addition to the brief answer to, “Repent at once and be baptized!” recorded by Luke, Peter exhorted and earnestly testified “with more other words” (Acts 2:40 APT).
The brief answer; I’ll say it was brief. No mention of remission of sins, or even the name of Jesus.
Then in his first of the seven step break down he uses, there is this:
“When Peter first preached The Gospel and opened the Kingdom to the Jews with the keys The Lord Jesus Christ had given to him,” (I agree with that part), “he preached The Gospel of Christ and the necessity of repentance for Salvation followed by the command to be baptized at once.” (maybe the APT tries to say that, but my KJV says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.) “A few days later Peter had a little better understanding of The Gospel.”
That last line?!?.....Boy, the ‘Dr’ sure throws the Lord Jesus’ teaching skills under the bus, with that interpretation. Not only that, but by Wittman’s interpretation, Peter must have backslid in his instruction giving, for he commanded that Cornelius and his household be baptized in the name of the Lord, pronto. ( a side note: how many times did you need to be told how to turn on a microwave oven? Just making a point on how often instructions have to made in detail.)
Yep. If we only have hope in this life, then we are of all men most miserable.
**Else why mention it at all?**
Because he was rebuking pride over who had baptized them. He let them know (just like in Acts 19:1-5) that his wasn’t a John the Baptist message. It’s the power of Jesus name in baptism. If you could literally go back and be buried with Him unto death, his blood would be there with you as well.
Can we show it didn’t?
;^)
o On the basis of all unambiguously translated Scripture, I say that God, plus no other agency, does all the saving.
o You assume and say, based on a few ambiguously, questionably interpreted verses, that God alone does not save, but that it takes at least one action performed by man to complete the salvation.
I believe that you are offering a false gospel that contradicts the gospel of salvation which consists of total irreversible committed trust in Jesus as Lord and Christ alone, and in nothing else.
I could spend hours and hours contradicting your ineffectual arguments, and succeed, but it will all boil down to the fact that your salvation theorem requires an added item not required by Jesus' Gospel.
=========
"Jesus said unto her,
I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me,
though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
Believest thou this?"
(John 11:25-26 King James Translation).
"Jesus said to her,
I Am Myself continuously being The Resurrection and The Absolute Life.
The one continually committing trust unto me, although he die off,
he shall absolutely live.
And every one, who absolutely lives and persistently commits
trust unto Me, positively shall not die off for ever.
Are you persistently committing trust with reference to this?"
(John 11:25-26 A Precise Translation).
Jesus' began His ministry by taking up residence in Capernaum (Kislev/December, A.D. 29), preaching the gospel of repentance because of the proximity of the Kingdom of Heaven, and beginning to gather his close circle of students (starting with Simon, Andrew, James, and John) in Tebet/January of A.D. 30 (Mt. 4:12-17, cf Mk. 1:15-20).
What Jesus said was, "Come here! After Me! And I will make you to become fishers of humans." Then they abandoned their fishing occupation and became His students, an exclusive circle, with the understood object that they were to be trained to recruit, induct, and train more disciples. The disciples coming from their recruiting efforts--the replication of themselves--would figuratively be their "fruit"--as "fishers of men" (Jn. 15:1-8,16).
To certify their inclusion into the selected company of His special intimate disciples, He baptized these Twelve who had already been baptized unto repentance by John Baptist as his disciples (Jn. 1:35). The Pharisees had heard that more disciples of Jesus were also being baptized, the baptism signifying becoming his dedicated students with Him as their head Rabbi:
"When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than John,
(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee" (jn. 4:1-3 KJV; but = except). People who came to follow Jesus as learners of His doctrine of life were inducted as His students by being baptized by The Twelve of the inner circle. However, Jesus baptized The Twelve as His special disciples, but only them as His chosen lieutenants. They were the core of the Company of Committed students, all of whom were examined for fitness when considered for incororation into this Company (later called ekklesia = 'Church'), 120 of whom were present in Jerusalem and met together on the day of Pentecost.
Actually, this special Twelve (including Judas Iscariot) were given spiritual authority over demons, diseases, dementia, and death to go before Jesus as advance men, to prepare people for His preaching and teaching of the Kingdom of God (Mt. 10:1-42, cf Lk. 9:1-6)). Then, He again commissioned another seventy to the Company, with the same powers, to announce His coming and act for Him (Lk. 10:1-22). By faith, I accept that these were more (secondary) disciples who had been inducted into the Company by baptism as disciples by the Twelve, as implying what John 3:22 and 4:1-3 says.
The point here is that this baptism by Jesus and under His delegated authority (exousia)--that is by His Name, by His authority--was a practice of which the Eleven Disciple-Apostles were well familiar when Jesus commissioned them (Mt. 28:18-20) to take this ministry forth under the same practices which they had already been executing for three and a half years.
However--and please make note of this--nowhere under Jesus' commission in His ministry did he give his lieutenants and soldiers of the Company of The Committed any power whatsoever to forgive sins in the general sense. They knew that under the Law in their time, that could only be done at the Temple and with the shedding of sacrificial blood, offered by the priesthood at the altar.
But later on under the New Covenant, Jesus did give these Eleven the power to remit sins, by only to them and no other ones succeeding them, and even then (under the bind/loose doctrine) only that which was already bound or loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19, 18:18). They did not have an arbitrary commission to select on their own authority what ever they wanted to bind or loose or forgive. Only the Godhead has the ability, the exousia, to forgive sins ex cathedra. Jesus astounded the doctors of the law when he did this for the paralytic man, and as God commanded him to rise up and walk (Mt. 9:2,5).
Regarding this power of the Eleven (and Paul) they did it as commissioned Apostles, the only ones bearing that authority, which age passed on their death and with the completion of the Canon of the written New Covenant Scriptures. There are no more such Apostles or Prophets since the completion of the Holy Writ.
So what I am saying is that the Disciples/Apostles baptism, while commended and commanded as the rite of induction into and as a certified Member of Christ's Body, is NOT and cannot be any constituting agent for the remitting of sins. Water baptism (by immersion. actually) is the induction of a professed responsible gospel-instructed adult believer as a member of the Church, subsequent to the fact that conviction/belief/repentance of sins covered and purged by the Blood of Christ already professed to having Spiritually taken place at the instant of belief, with Baptism in the Spirit and regeneration already claimed by the believer as already, previously (even if only by, say, five minutes) having taken place, that the baptism of induction of the professed believer as an authorized Member of the Company of the Committed can then take place.
The use of the term "Name" only means that the baptizer has been delegated authority under--not the NAMES of the persons of the Godhead--but as authorized? by the Godhead, not to cause the remission of sins, but merely having recognized sins already forgiven as credited by the profession of the faith of the "believer," admission to the Church of Christ is acknowledged and made official.
Now, we already know for sure, that many people who have placed their faith in and professed an incomplete or false gospel are not really regenerated. They are ones duped into professing salvation, but not actually possessing it. They are not saved, and do not realize it until they find out by experience that they have no power against continuing sinfulness as a way of life. They do not admit that their commitment was not a permanent one, that it was just an exhuberant flush of confidence in the awakening of their spirit by impassioned preaching, or by someone assuring them that their baptism as an infant gave them salvation, or their repeating a praer of confession, or some other artifact of the wrong doctrine that water baptism is the cause of remission of sins, not as what it really is--a commended consequence of the command to be added to the church as an official Member.
How many "baptized" people have you met who failed to evidence a holy life as the result? Who were given to think that their baptism constituted forgiveness of sins resulting in a phony salvation?
Water baptism is not meant for, does not accomplish, and cannot ever save anyone.
And anyone who propounds that is probably still themselves under condemnation as long as they continue to claim that they have contributed to their own or anyone else's salvation by being baptized "for" it.
- (jn. 4:1-3 KJV; but = except). People who came to follow Jesus . . .
Should be:
- (Jn. 4:1-3 KJV; but = except).
People who came to follow Jesus . . .
*******
- incororation --> incorporation
*******
- . . . the power to remit sins, by only to them and no other ones . . .
Should be:
- . . . the power to remit sins, but only to them and no other ones . . .
*******
- . . . and as God commanded . . . --> . . . and as God, commanded . . .
*******
- . . . but as authorized? by the Godhead, . . .
Should be:
- . . . but as authorized by the Godhead, . . .
*******
- . . . or their repeating a praer of confession . . .
Should be:
- or their repeating a prayer of confession without full and sincere apprehension of what they are praying . . .
*******
I appreciate it, my fellow servant, for you do understand the time and commitment required. Most humbly . . .
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.