Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Do you HAVE to be baptized to go to heaven? I know the thief on the cross with Jesus wasn't baptized and Jesus told him, "Today you will be with me in paradise." So lets leave the death bed repenters out of this debate. I'm wondering about people who accept Christ as Lord and savior, but chose not to be baptized. Scriptures please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Jesus says in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."
As we read in Acts 10:48, "And He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." God offers salvation to all men, but He conditions that offer with obeying the requirements which He has set out in His word. The Lord has commanded us to be baptized. The Lord has no nonessential commands. In Hebrews 5:9 we saw that no man can be saved by the grace of God without being obedient to the will of God.
being raised non coc, I do belive that you can go to heaven with out being baptized... I dont know why and I dont have any scripture to back it up. I say this not only because of the man on the cross beside Jesus, but because their are alot of people who I love dearly who I know did right things in their lifes and just because they were not baptized means they dont get to go to heaven??? God knows are heart and I dont think that he would send someone to hell that did good deeds and help the poor and was what a good christian was supposed to be like over not being baptized. Now before you all start being unchristian and telling me i must not love the lord. Iam Baptized and Im now a coc memember. these are just my thoughts. I also come from a church that believes once saved always saved! what are your thoughts on that.
It is heartbreaking to realize that some really good people will not make it to heaven. But God does not call us to be only good. He calls us to give our lives to him, and he requires that in the form of baptism, as stated in the previous posted scriptures.
I do not mean this with any malice, but I believe to say "I dont know why and I dont have any scripture to back it up" is stating that you have more HOPE than BELIEF that baptism is not essential for salvation.
Mark 16:16 "Everyone who believes and is baptized will be saved"
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Why are we so concerned in the cofC about being right instead of being righteous?
Romans 10:9-13
"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. As the Scripture says, "anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Is baptism important? Yes.
Romans 6:3-4
"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefor buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
But so is repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and belief (John 3:16)and hope (Hebrews 6:19) and faith (Galatians 3:24-25).
I am so glad that it's not my job to say who goes to heaven and who doesn't. I think that God would like for us to focus on living righteous lives and showing Christ's love to others rather than focusing on what things we have to do to get to heaven and making sure others "do" those things as well.
8:41- Let's make sure and accurately quote that ENTIRE Scripture please. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16:16)
When did AT become a bible studies blog? This is yet another thing that I just don't get about jesus, christianity, and the bible. Say you've got one person who has been baptised, goes to church, active in the church, and lives a sort of secret life his church members don't know about. Say he treats people like crap outside of church. Or he sexually abuses children. Or he has a gambling problem. Or he has homosexual sex. Or whatever, you pick the problem. This guy's getting into heaven because he's been baptised, and he goes to church every Sunday and asks for forgiveness. But this other person, maybe someone you've never seen before, because she doesn't go to church, isn't going to heaven... all because she's never been baptised? Never mind that she's a good person, maybe someone who has a rewarding career that helps people, or someone who make large monetary donations to charity, or volunteers her time with the needy. Where's she going? Hell? I know that noone is perfect, but there are fine lines. Or do I get the "a sin is a sin" argument?
I'm sorry I don't have scriptures, and I'm not going to waste my time searching the internet. Are there ANY other non-believers out there, or is it just me?
I believe the scriptures say you should be baptized. I have a friend who was 'baptized' (sprinkled) as a baby. Around the age of 12 she accepted Christ as Lord and Savior of her life, but was not baptized at that time. She feels she has already been baptized. She is a wonderful person and Christian. While I believe she should be baptized (dunked) as an adult, I don't know how to approach her about it.
Any suggestions? Or do you think baby baptisms count if the person later accepts Christ on their own?
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.
Good question. The issue of salvation has nothing to do with us. It is a gift of grace given by the Lord. All we have to do is "call on the name of the Lord" to recieve this gift.
I don't have all the answers, I think Baptism is important,I was baptized. I want my children to be baptized.
6:07 -- if there are no nonessential commands, then you should probably sell your possessions and give to the poor as Jesus commanded in Luke.
But we miss the boat when this becomes the debate. What about living our lives for the Lord? What about sacrifice and obedience and fellowship with the Holy Spirit?
9:51, here is a good book to read that I think would help you in regards to your friend http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Believers-Ceremony-Lagard-Smith/dp/089225422X/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
Mark 16:16 "Everyone who believes and is baptized will be saved" --the assumption here is that the word "everyone" means "only those".
Like if I say "Everyone who does their homework will receive a prize." Sure, each person who does their homework will receive a prize. But does that exclude those who haven't done their homework from receiving prizes? Not necessarily.
I believe in baptism. But I also believe in quality arguments.
So if you really want a prize, are you willing to risk NOT doing your homework to see if you get a prize anyway?
If you REALLY want the prize, won't you do everything you know to do to get that prize? I agree that the teacher has the right to offer grace and mercy in that situation. But should we just expect that grace? Or should we do the best we CAN to try to show that we want that mercy and grace? Not that we earn or deserve it, simply desire it.
Galatians 3:26 - 29 -- "26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
This passage, which is talking to a church full of people who were already Christians, says they're all sons of God through faith, BECAUSE they were baptized into Christ. Then it says that everyone who was baptized has put on Christ, and assumes the opposite of that -- that if they HAVEN'T been baptized, they HAVEN'T put on Christ.
1 Peter 3:18 - 22 discusses a comparison between the water of the flood which saved Noah and his family, and the water of baptism, which saves us by the pledge of a clear conscience.
I think it's interesting that the two main camps of this issue tend to the same kind of behavior. Each side gravitates to the scriptures that back up its side, and tend to ignore the ones the other side uses.
Yep. We're saved by faith. Yep, we're saved by grace. Yep, we're saved by baptism. It's ALL there in the scriptures. I don't find contradictions here. I find a chance for obedience. It's Christ ... shouldn't we want to obey what he commands?
2:57-
The comment you slid-in to your “exegete” of Galatians 3 is one of the roots of the problem. To confidentially state that the text “assumes the opposite of that” is not at all necessarily what the text assumes. It only “assumes” that because YOU assume it. This is a hermeneutical issue, which, for those who don’t know simply means how we read and interpret the Scriptures. 2:57’s hermeneutic is that if a passage says one thing then it automatically must imply (or “assume”) the opposite. This is the same shoddy hermeneutic Restorationists have used for years to say that instrumental music is wrong. Their argument is, “Well, the Bible just tells us to sing, so that implies/assumes that anything other than just singing is wrong.” Really? Where did we get that way of interpreting Scripture? Did God give it to us? Or did we come up with it? And if we came up with it, can we be absolutely convinced that God approves of it to the point that we are willing to condemn anyone who has a different hermeneutic. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find a passage that states what 2:57 is saying that “if they HAVEN'T been baptized, they HAVEN'T put on Christ.” Is that not ADDING to what the Bible teaches? By the way, when 1 Peter 3:21 is correctly interpreted in context, it really negates the argument that there is anything saving in the act of baptism itself. It reads from the NIV, “…and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
Like text clearly states- the water of baptism doesn’t do anything. The text is absolutely clear that the “resurrection of the Jesus Christ” is what saves us. Romans 6:3-ff expounds on this stating that baptism is a reenactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. When we are baptized we are doing something physically to show what has happened spiritually. The same thing is true of communion. Does taking communion save you? No. It reminds us of what saved us- the body and blood of Christ. Stating unequivocally that baptism is absolutely necessary to be saved turns it into a work. And we cannot do ANYTHING to obligate God to save us. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:7-9) When we start thinking that WE have done something special in order to be saved (baptism, communion, giving to charity, attending a certain church, worshipping a certain way, etc.) it always leads to arrogance and boasting as Paul wrote in Ephesians 2. God setup our salvation so that we could not take any credit for it. Yes, we are saved by faith and grace. Period.
To 9:06 – “I know that no one is perfect, but there are fine lines.”
Which “fine lines” are you talking about? Who draws those lines, and who decides how fine to draw them?
This is why we must leave this to God. He is clear about sin and its consequences when he says “Your sin has separated you from God.” (Isaiah 59:2) There’s no fine line there. It’s separation, plain and simple caused by sin, no matter what size.
This is the beauty of the grace of God. It’s available to anyone, regardless of which sin you have committed, or how many, or to what degree or extent. Someone who grew up with a strong, committed Christian upbringing needs the grace of God just as much as the mass murderer. Because the “little” sin of the Christian causes just as much separation as the “big” sins of the evil person.
There’s no degree of separation. If there were, there would be a chance of earning salvation by being good. This is contrary to Scripture. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8, 9). If salvation were earned, people would be able to brag about how good they are. As it is, we can’t.
So yes, a sin is a sin, and it’s not just an argument that some guy made up. It’s God’s argument. God’s rules. Each person is going to have to answer to God for what they have done while they were alive. It doesn’t matter if they’re “saved” and live the life of a “sinner,” as you have described – or if they aren’t saved and still manage to live a pretty good life. The point is, we can’t base OUR behavior (or God’s behavior) on what we think is going on in someone else’s life.
No, 4:16. 1 Peter 3 says clearly (and I can't believe you missed it) that BAPTISM saves us by the resurrection of Jesus. That's why the "It" is there at the beginning of that sentence: "It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." "It" refers to baptism. "By" connects the resurrection of Jesus to baptism.
The water of the flood is an Old Testament prefigure of the water of baptism, clearly stated by Peter in this passage. Noah and his family were saved through the water of the flood, just as people today are saved in the waters of baptism, BY the resurrection. Again, clearly stated in the passage, but not the way you put it.
Romans 6 develops this idea, also. Paul describes baptism as a kind of reinactment of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But it isn't just a symbol. There's real power there. NOT power that men have ascribed to it. Power that God has given it, where our sins are washed away.
And this, 4:16 -- I did not just "slide in" the comment in my exegete of Galatians 3. I'm using common grammar constructions and logic. Look at the words of the verse.
"... all of you who were baptized" refers to one specific group of people: those who were baptized. Then there's a specific characteristic attached to those people who were baptized, that they have put on Christ. That specific logical structure necessarily excludes those who have NOT been baptized -- they have NOT put on Christ.
We could understand this the same way we would when a teacher says "All of you who took the test received a grade." Who recieved the grade? Those who took the test? What if I didn't take the test? Then I didn't receive a grade.
It's the same construction, based on the actual words of the text, and reason. Didn't Jesus use the same path of reasoning when he asked the teacher of the law "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" (Luke 10)? I looked at the words that are written and reasoned it out, the way Jesus expected that teacher to do to arrive at eternal life.
I'm not "assuming the opposite" here because I've been taught that way to interpret. I'm not assuming the opposite at all.
"Assuming of the opposite" is obviously not an appropriate method of thinking about the scriptures, and it isn't how I've arrived at my conclusion. You yourself assumed too much, here -- not I.
4:34- I didn’t miss anything in. I was reading in CONTEXT. If you want to get technical the word “it” isn’t even in the Greek. Peter is simply telling the Christians that if they stay faithful under persecution (as Noah did) that they too will be victorious. It’s possible that Peter is using an antitype which is an earthly expression of a spiritual reality. Eight people were in the ark and were able to withstand God’s judgment. Those who are in-Christ will also be able to withstand God’s final judgment. It’s also plausible that Peter isn’t even referring to water baptism. I’m sure you know that baptism means “immersed.” Some scholars believe that Peter is saying that those who are immersed/engrossed/covered in Christ will escape judgment. In the first century the word baptism was not always synonymous with being dunked in water. Baptism isn’t even associated with being dunked in water every time it’s used in the NT. Mark 10:38-39, Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16, and 1 Cor. 12:13 make this clear. In fact, 1 Corinthians 10:2 says that the ancient Jews …“were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” They certainly weren’t dunked in water as we understand it. So baptism can have various meanings even in the Bible. Again, reading 1 Peter 3 in its full context you can see in verse 21 that Peter is trying to ensure that his readers don’t get the idea that the immersion he is talking about has anything to do with water! The baptism he is talking about is “not the removal of dirt from the body.” It is a “pledge of a good conscience toward God” which seems to have more of a connection to being engrossed/covered/immersed in Christ than being dunked in water. And by the way, Noah and his family weren’t saved “through the water” as you put it. The water is what KILLED the people! Noah’s family was saved because they were immersed/engrossed/covered in the ARK! The ark is the antitype of the salvation that God gives us through the resurrection of Christ. It’s interesting that you state “baptism isn’t just a symbol” when the very passage you are trying to use to prove water baptism’s importance refers to it as a symbol! “…and this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you also…” Our sins have already been washed away by the blood of Christ. What we do in a tank in a church building may be important in our Christian walk in that it symbolizes what Jesus did on the cross, but it cannot save us.
I would also add that a good way to view baptism is like we see a wedding ceremony. The ceremony may be beautiful and emotional, but the ceremony doesn’t marry you to another person. What marries you in the eyes of God is your pledge that you are going to stay faithful to your spouse. That pledge, by the way, can happen with or without the ceremony. I’m curious to get your take on passages like Mark 1:8 where John the Baptist stated, “I baptize you with water , but he (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” and 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 where Paul wrote, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” It’s interesting how John the Baptist and Paul seemed to underemphasize water baptism when we try so hard to emphasize it. Why is that? Probably because we like things that distinguish us from other religious groups. Hence, we now have a church that’s known mostly because it stresses that people be dunked in water and sing a cappella. I doubt when Jesus was hanging on the cross that he envisioned his people would one day be known primarily for their entrance requirement and style of singing. I know you’ll probably not agree. That alone shows that this issue can be seen differently by sincere people who read the Bible using varying hermeneutics. What’s important is that we agree on what our Savior has done for us, not on what we do for the Savior. He alone gets to judge that.
5:38- You keep proving my point even through you won’t (or can’t) see it. When you state, “I'm using common grammar constructions and logic,” what common grammar constructions and logic are you using? Those of first century Palestine? Those of 17th Century America? You cannot accurately read words written in a first century culture using only your culture’s “common grammar constructions and logic.” These change over time and human “logic” does not always reflect biblical truth. And your statement, “That specific logical structure necessarily excludes those who have NOT been baptized -- they have NOT put on Christ” is scary. “Necessarily excludes”? Really? Who gets to say that it “necessarily excludes”? Is that YOUR call or God’s? Do you apply this “logic” to EVERY passage of Scripture? When Paul wrote in Romans 16:5, “Greet also the church that meets at their house.” Does that imply that we should only meet in homes? Homes is all that is specified here. Using your “logic”, where do we get the authorization to meet in church buildings? Have a paid minister? Have youth ministers? Use PowerPoint and modern amplification? Paul wrote in Romans 16:16, “Greet each other with a holy kiss.” Do you practice this? Does this imply that we should ONLY greet people with a kiss, or can we shake hands and hug? Do you practice what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:8, “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.” Does that mean that we should only pray when holding our hands in the air? Using your “logic” it appears so. My point is that you cannot take one strict set of interpretive rules and apply them to every Scripture. We should not interpret Revelation the same way we interpret Matthew. We should not interpret every word in Matthew the same way we interpret Paul’s letters to Timothy. The worst thing we can do is to try to find a system of interpreting Scripture that only supports OUR view of it.
Blah.Blah.Blah. Not to be rude but the comments are getting a little lengthy. Let's get to the point. The Bible says to do it so do it. I don't understand all of the people that say 'I'm doing everything else I'm supposed to do, but I don't think being baptized is 'necessary''. Really???? That's a pretty big risk to take. You probably should stay on the safe side and go ahead and do the deed. It wouldn't be written in God's Word if HE didn't think it was important.
Part One
You, 5:44 -- I was reading in CONTEXT. If you want to get technical the word “it” isn’t even in the Greek.
Me: So I need to understand Greek to get the truth of the scriptures? Why can’t I read the text in English? If there wasn’t some indication in the Greek that that’s what it means, it would say something different. The “IT” in English is only there because there’s something in Greek that demands it.
I think the problem with your interpretation is that it reaches too far OUT of context. You take a text clearly written and say immediately, “That isn’t what it means.” You add interpretations that the text and the apostle do not intend.
You, 5:44 -- Peter is simply telling the Christians that if they stay faithful under persecution (as Noah did) that they too will be victorious. It’s possible that Peter is using an antitype which is an earthly expression of a spiritual reality.
Me: Peter is NOT using an antitype. He is using a TYPE, which is a figure or event that later observers were to remember when they experienced a similar figure or event of their current time, called an Antitype. Peter clearly defines his Type here. So you and I don’t get to redefine it. (An earthly expression of a spiritual reality is called a parable. This is not that, either.)
You, 5:44 – (Some deleted. You explained a lot about baptism not always meaning “immersed in water.”)
Me: Yes. True. But WE don’t get to say when it means water and when it means something else. Scripture does that for us. There’s a thought progression, follow it please: vs. 18, Christ was made alive through the Spirit. vs. 19, through that Spirit he went to preach to the spirits in prison. vs. 20 those spirits were the disobedient ones back in the days of Noah who built the ark, which held the eight people who were saved through the water of the flood (“water” here can’t mean anything else). vs. 21, the water of the flood symbolizes baptism “that now saves you also.”
You, 5:44 –- Again, reading 1 Peter 3 in its full context you can see in verse 21 that Peter is trying to ensure that his readers don’t get the idea that the immersion he is talking about has anything to do with water! The baptism he is talking about is “not the removal of dirt from the body.” It is a “pledge of a good conscience toward God” which seems to have more of a connection to being engrossed/covered/immersed in Christ than being dunked in water.
Me: Why would Peter want to ensure that people understood that baptism doesn’t have anything to do with water? He received instruction from Jesus to go and make disciples and baptize (Matthew 28). He instructed those repentant Jews in Acts 2 to be baptized. And when he says, “…water that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God,” he’s talking about what salvation MEANS. One is saved at baptism, but NOT by getting physically clean. No one would say that we’re baptized to get physically clean. Of course that’s not right.
Part Two
You, 5:44 -- And by the way, Noah and his family weren’t saved “through the water” as you put it. The water is what KILLED the people! Noah’s family was saved because they were immersed/engrossed/covered in the ARK! The ark is the antitype of the salvation that God gives us through the resurrection of Christ.
Me: Sorry, you’re wrong. I didn’t “put it,” as you say. When I said, “through the water” I was quoting from verse 20 which says that eight people were in the ark and were saved through water. Go back and read. Those are not my words, they’re Peter’s, who I think was inspired by God.
And you don’t have your type/antitype definitions correct. The type comes first. The antitype comes after. What you must mean, in order for your statement to make sense, is that “the ark is the TYPE of the salvation that God gives us.” But even then, it’s incorrect. If the ark is the type, then the NT writer/speaker must DEFINE it as such. He doesn’t. He defines the antitype water of the flood as the type of baptism.
You, 5:44 -- It’s interesting that you state “baptism isn’t just a symbol” when the very passage you are trying to use to prove water baptism’s importance refers to it as a symbol! “…and this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you also…”
Me: Yes. The WATER is the symbol. You quote it right, but you get the intent wrong. The symbol of the passage is the WATER (the water of the flood), NOT the baptism. Plus, I said baptism isn’t JUST a symbol. That means that it IS a symbol, but not ONLY a symbol. It certainly carries symbolic layers, as God intended. But it isn’t JUST a symbol. It can’t be ONLY a symbol when it is commanded and exampled in so many different places. It seems to me that you haven’t studied the passage on its own merits, to find out for yourself, but have simply accepted a false doctrine without question. Seems that way. Maybe I’m wrong.
You, 5:44 -- Our sins have already been washed away by the blood of Christ. What we do in a tank in a church building may be important in our Christian walk in that it symbolizes what Jesus did on the cross, but it cannot save us.
Me: I’m sorry you don’t see the text clearly printed on the page. If Peter says baptism saves us, I’m inclined to believe him, and not resort to extreme mental gymnastics (such as it-says-that-but-clearly-doesn’t-mean-that, which you have said, and it-can’t-mean-that-because-it-doesn’t-match-what-I-already-believe).
6:07 -- I can't reason with you on this one, because you're getting ridiculous.
I didn't say that I apply that one particular method of interpretation to EVERY scripture. You're taking my words to an extreme that I haven't intended. Too bad.
If you do the deed, but don't believe that it's important, does it do you any good?
6:07, I am a different poster than the one who had lengthy answers. Obviously, you are very convicted about what you believe. However, I hope people don't mistake your lengthy verbiage for good reasoning.
8:04- Obviously, whoever does not believe would not be baptized. You can't use that Scripture to say that if you "believe" without obedience, you will be fine.
And 1:04 (I am thinking all three posts are the same writer.) I understand you to be saying that God has the ability to grant special privileges of salvation. That is true, as the teacher in the classroom does. BUT I have two things to say abut this: one- God has the power of giving special dispensation of salvation. The thief on the cross was saved by Christ DIRECTLY. There is NO GUARANTEE or direction by Christ that anybody else will be saved. OF COURSE that is up to God.
And I also have to say that no teacher makes statements like that to the class then gives everybody the prizes. Seriously.
9:06 a.m. I will not tell you that all sins are the same. They simply aren't, in the effects that they have on people, how hard they can be to recover from, and what kind of lasting damage they do.
However, any sin does separate us from God. And we all need a way back to Him.
Also, the great problem with churches is that they are filled with sinful people. As you talk about someone who leads a double life, I am convicted thinking about how all too often I have not been willing to confront people about things that they may be doing behind the scenes. Christians have that responsibility. Paul instructs believers to cast somebody out who is blatantly living in continued sin. And if someone has a double life, they will be repaid for what is done in secret.
The standard is high. I know that I don't live up to Christ's ideals for me, but trust me please that I do desire that. And I hope that I have not been someone you would see as a pushy, hypocritical Christian. If you know me, I hope that you would see the love of Christ in me.
I also believe that people who have not been taught God's word can still come into a relationship with Him. I write this with great respect and love for all of us who are in the human condition.
How can you say that Jesus is your Master if you refuse to do what he says?
To Mr. or Mrs. “Part 1 and 2”:
This is going to be my last post on this subject (I know many of you are relieved!). This is NOT my last post because you have convinced me I am wrong or that you are right. I still believe as strongly as I ever have that God gets to make the call of who is, and who is not saved. This is my last post for 2 main reasons. First, it is baffling to me that you and others like you fight so hard to be able to “justify” saying who is, and who isn’t one of God’s children. Why do YOU feel the need to be able to decide who is and who isn’t right with God? Has God given you this job? If a person has not been baptized the way you understand yet still exhibits the fruit of the Spirit, are they not your brother or sister? Try applying your so-called “logic” to Romans 10:9-10, “That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” Wouldn’t you say that this “implies” the opposite? That those who DO NOT confess with their mouth and those who DO NOT believe in their heart will NOT be saved? Where’s the mention of baptism here, dude? As I wrote yesterday, it is an absolute shame that the small part of God’s Kingdom we call the Church of Christ is not primarily known for its love, mercy, and justice. This is especially ironic because some of its members claim to be the only ones who are truly right with God! How can we truly be right with God when we are not primarily known for the unity and love that Jesus prayed about before his death and resurrection? Instead, many of our pews are still filled with prideful, arrogant, hateful, non-Spirit filled people who’d rather spend hours on the internet arguing over Greek words than going out in the world and being salt and light. I am by no means perfect at that, but that’s what I’m about. The second reason this is my last post is because I know there are people reading this blog who have little or no faith in God. This bantering back-and-forth only proves to them what they already suspect- that those in the Christian community can’t even get along with each other and prefer to grumble on and on among themselves rather than making a positive difference in the world. The only winner in arguments like this is Satan.
to 8:13 -- why didn't you answer Mr. or Mrs. Part 1 and 2? I was looking forward to another round of discussion.
Instead, you called them judgmental, and accused them of trying to take God's place in deciding who gets to be saved. When you resort to name-calling instead of reason and scriptures to back you up, it weakens you and makes the other side look right.
I didn't get that at all. I thought the "Two Parters" used reasonable support for their side. I thought you caved and ran when your position was challenged.
Study up and come back, Mr. or Mrs. "Last Poster." I enjoyed it.
10:35- I totally disagree with you. This may be my skepticism talking but I suspect you are actually “Mr. or Mrs. Part 1 and 2” (or a friend or relative) trying to make it look like people think you won this ridiculous debate. I hope that’s not true, but if it is that’s between you and God and it totally negates anything you have written here because it is totally dishonest. In no way did 8:13cave. He or she did the mature thing by stopping this non-sense. There are probably hundreds of people who see this blog and many of them are already turned off by religion. This is not the best place to air out our dirty laundry on issues where we don’t agree. I also don’t believe that 8:13 was name calling. If you say you know for sure that someone is lost b/c they haven’t been baptized are you not being judgmental? You are judging who is saved and who is not. To me 8:13 used the most bible and made the most sense, but I’m no bible scholar so I don’t know for sure. I’m just glad God knows our hearts and will judge us accordingly. Please people- let this topic rest!
If you want to let this topic rest, you have full control over that-- don't come back to it.
this thread is a great example of different point of views. Someone says one thing, someone says another. theyre looking at the same scripture and getting different things.
we all have to make up our own mind. we all judge, too. the ones who say baptism judge those who are not baptized. the ones who say no baptism judge those who say yes. thats what your doing when you look down on someones point of view.
and I don't think its dirty laundry, either. its talking about the question that was asked at the top. so let the discussion tkae it's course. but Christians do need to be careful how they present themselves to others.
I think anonymous truths is cool -but this is clearly a situation where filters are a good. Even the nicest people need a little filter every now and then, shoot - we all do. All I know, my wife goes to bed at night steamin' over some of the posts. She doens't even comment...just reads. All I know, saved or not saved - it's hurting my sex life. I say get baptized and get busy!
8:13, fine to make it your last post. I'm curious, tho. You ridicule someone about their methods of Bible study and understanding (was that when you said "exegete" way back when?), but what methods do you use?
Are you saying you DON'T use logic? You DON'T use grammar to help you understand scripture? You DON'T infer or draw conclusions from your reading of the text? What DO you use? You have misused several common academic Bible terms ("exegete" for "exegesis" which your main opponent didn't call you on, and "antitype" for "type" which he did), which makes ME think you don't really know what you are talking about, and maybe are just making stuff up.
Mr. Part 1 and 2 (assuming it's a man) took the effort to deal with the text as it was written, instead of denying what the text said in favor of some denominational doctrine. You didn't deal with the text, you attacked the method of interpretation, deliberately twisting the methods your opponent was using by ridiculously accusing him of using ONLY that ONE method of interpretation for ALL texts, which no honest scholar does.
The fact is, unless one is schooled in the ancient original languages, the ONLY language one can use is one's native tongue. But the beauty of God's Word is that even those who have not had Greek or Hebrew, and even those who don't know that the Bible was mostly written in those languages, can read and understand and be saved IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. So what else to they have? They have their own logic, their own grammar, and their own inferences and conclusions.
So you should reopen the discussion, ask you opponent to come to some agreement upon WHICH methods of interpretation are acceptable to you, and try again.
Hey people don't go on the attack. just because you disagree. Listen to what other people have to say with respect. Listen, and comment in a respectful manner. Jesus said, Love God, love each other. I so do not see that in your responses. Do you want truth or tradition? Do you want to build bridges or burn them? Remember God knows all of our hearts, and that is what is most important.
11:31, I am the spouse of Mr. or Mrs. Part 1 and Part 2. I can verify to you that neither that person nor I posted the comment you are talking about. And Mr. or Mrs. Part 1 and 2 did not discuss this post with anybody except me.
Believe it or not. Wishing you some freedom from cynicism. We all need that.
12:32- Wishing you some freedom from legalism. We all really need that.
FYI...
ex⋅e⋅gete: [ek-si-jeet]
-noun a person skilled in exegesis.
an⋅ti⋅type [an-ti-tahyp]
–noun something that is foreshadowed by a type or symbol, as a New Testament event prefigured in the Old Testament.
6:49 -- Thanks for those definitions.
I think it'll become obvious to those who want to read back through 3:25 and 5:44 (same author) that he uses both of these terms incorrectly.
Oh my, I am now needing a nap after reading this. I think people are too ready to be on the defense and try and twist what people say to make them sound incompetent. It's funny how both of the people going back and forth said things I believe!! I think you are to be baptized or it wouldn't be talked about in the numerous scriptures already presented. However, I am NOT going to say if you don't, you will not go to heaven. I'm going to give that job to God! I believe he may use grace with some. That being said, I'm not going to risk my salvation on that! I'm going to try and do what he wants me to do.
I'm sure there are people out who just get dunked and think they are okay. I feel this is me at times and I really need to spend more time with Christ and go out and live more for him. I most of the time give him my leftovers. It's not just the baptism, it's not just the saying you believe, it's not just the selling possessions and living for him, it's the whole package. Do everything to the degree you can. The most important thing is your heart and only God can judge that. I am going to try and take EVERYTHING from the bible and live to be as much like Christ as I can (which I'm failing by the way, but trying).
Umm, funny thought but... Show me a scripture stating the thief was NOT baptized!
All of us fall short, maybe he was a Christian nd had just fallen away. Ever thought about that! I think EVERYONE needs to take a step back and not judge! This is a perfect example of casting the first stone! Reading too much into something that is NOT stated!!
Oooo, 6:46, you got sarcastic with me. Totally gross.
And if I am reading that wrong, I apologize. You need to know that my words were tender hearted and sincere.
This hasn't even been my argument. Thanks for wishing me freedom from legalism. It is something I have worked so hard to embrace (that freedom) as an adult Christian. I am sad for you that you give me bitterness, anger, and bile when I was ONLY being sincere. FOR REAL. Perhaps I should have used the word skepticism, as you called yourself possibly skeptical. Then would you have responded that way to me?
Take people at face value. I have taken you that way, I think. And wouldn't it be AWFUL iff this weren't anonymous and we were really friends talking to each other this way?
Post a Comment