It is also referred to as a book... and the Good Book. Did you really not know this?
Ta Biblia <---the book
Faith is a work.
- Thread starter Beckworth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Ta Biblia <---the book
did i fail to give you chapter or verse?
what question?
there's no question there.
In talking about faith and works, you gotta look at the context of what kind of faith is being addressed.
* There is saving faith
* There is on going through your life acts of faith
They are not the same thing, and the going thru your life faith doesn't determine saving faith.
Saving faith.. is when someone places there trust in Jesus Christ as God, to redeem them from sin and give them eternal life. It is not a work.. it's a response to God's conviction on their soul.. for them to say the likes of'God be merciful to me, a sinner'.. once off act.. done and dusted.
Ongoing faith.. that is what we do in response to being saved in the first place.. our love letter back to Jesus for what He has done. That is where 'faith is a work' comes in.
But even then... that work is still all about Jesus.. and not meant to be about our own self. Loving God and leaving the results up to Him.
In James 2.. 'faith without works in dead'.. the context of this isn't about saving faith where someone receives eternal life.. but acts of service to Jesus.
When Abraham was 'justified by works' when he offered up his son Isaac.. that is not about receiving eternal life but an act of faith that is pleasing to God. Abraham would have been justified in terms of eternal life being given earlier.
Same goes for the 'hall of fame of faith' in James with the other examples.. all acts of service.. works pleasing to God.. but not acts to give eternal life.
There is justification for eternal life and there is acts of service that are justified. Not the same thing.
* There is saving faith
* There is on going through your life acts of faith
They are not the same thing, and the going thru your life faith doesn't determine saving faith.
Saving faith.. is when someone places there trust in Jesus Christ as God, to redeem them from sin and give them eternal life. It is not a work.. it's a response to God's conviction on their soul.. for them to say the likes of'God be merciful to me, a sinner'.. once off act.. done and dusted.
Ongoing faith.. that is what we do in response to being saved in the first place.. our love letter back to Jesus for what He has done. That is where 'faith is a work' comes in.
But even then... that work is still all about Jesus.. and not meant to be about our own self. Loving God and leaving the results up to Him.
In James 2.. 'faith without works in dead'.. the context of this isn't about saving faith where someone receives eternal life.. but acts of service to Jesus.
When Abraham was 'justified by works' when he offered up his son Isaac.. that is not about receiving eternal life but an act of faith that is pleasing to God. Abraham would have been justified in terms of eternal life being given earlier.
Same goes for the 'hall of fame of faith' in James with the other examples.. all acts of service.. works pleasing to God.. but not acts to give eternal life.
There is justification for eternal life and there is acts of service that are justified. Not the same thing.
Amen brother....and Hi from across the Pacific.....just west of Sydney about a hour
Faith is a difficult word
Faith is like life, we know we are alive, and we know what helps us live and get stronger and
many things that can kill us.
God plants faith in us. God makes it grow.
But we can close our eyes and close our ears, and whatever the word was it can wither and die,
as described in the sower and seed parable.
2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Rom 12
If you know what the King of creation wants and how He works, your faith will be strong, and you
will know how to speak forth this faith.
Faith is like life, we know we are alive, and we know what helps us live and get stronger and
many things that can kill us.
God plants faith in us. God makes it grow.
But we can close our eyes and close our ears, and whatever the word was it can wither and die,
as described in the sower and seed parable.
2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Rom 12
If you know what the King of creation wants and how He works, your faith will be strong, and you
will know how to speak forth this faith.
I properly harmonize scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. You on the other hand distort and pervert passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan of salvation by faith plus works.
Specific messages first;
In Mark 1:4, was this baptism of repentance (for) "in order to obtain" the forgiveness of sins or was it (for) "in regards to/on the basis of" the forgiveness of sins received upon repentance? *In Matthew 3:11, we read - I baptize you with water (for) repentance.. *Was this baptism (for) "in order to obtain" repentance? OR was this baptism (for) "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? Getting water baptized "in order to obtain" repentance makes no sense at all. Repentance precedes water baptism. Obviously you don't baptize a new believer in order to obtain repentance, but BECAUSE they already repented.
Once again, In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis. In Acts 2:40, we read - And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” That does not mean we save ourselves by works, namely water baptism, as if Jesus needs our help in saving us.
As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out, baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, but it does not literally wash away our sins (contrary to your conclusion). The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body" (Matthew 26:26). The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the death of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same sense Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins were actually washed away. In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with "believes in Him" and not with baptism (Acts 10:43-47). Also in Acts 26:18, remission of sins is connected with "faith in Him" and not baptism.
In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (verse 15), although the apostle had not yet been water baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear (His) name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15); such a commission is not God’s portion for one still lost and under condemnation. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (Acts 9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO. God accepted Paul’s prayers before his baptism (Acts 9:11). John 9:31 - "We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will." Well, Paul was a worshipper of God, calling Christ "Lord" and then setting out to do His will. All of these things characterized Paul before he was water baptized. So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism.
It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved.
Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes note of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160]. Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).
*No Scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.
To be continued..
We can see here that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Water baptism is a work of righteousness and we are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done.. (Titus 3:5)
We have a command here from Jesus to make disciples of all nations, and baptize converts. However, it does not say here that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. The same command also includes the clause "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ has commanded them.
Once again: Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." *You never did answer my question -- If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses?* (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).
*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
Have you considered living water in John 3:5? Jesus said, "born of water and the Spirit" He did not say born of baptism and the Spirit. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. Scripture interprets itself. Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. *Did you see that? If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.
In John 4:10, Jesus said, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." In John 4:14, Jesus said, "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Jesus connects this living water here with everlasting life. *Living water is not water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we also read - ..drink into one Spirit. *Water baptism is the picture or symbol of the new birth, but not the means of securing it.
Galatians 3:26 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Period.) *Not through faith and water baptism. *Also read John 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. *Received Him, given the right to become children of God, through believing in His name, not through water baptism. Galatians 3:27 - For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on/clothed yourself with Christ. The Greek word for "put on" is"enduo" and means to enclose oneself in, as when one "puts on" clothes or armor or some other item. Involved in this is the idea of "imitation" and "identification." Just as 1 Corinthians 10:2 says that all (the Israelites) were "baptized into Moses" in the cloud and in the sea, but this does not mean they were literally water baptized into the body of Moses. Believers are baptized by one Spirit into one body.. (1 Corinthians 12:13 - Spirit baptism) and water baptized into would be in regards to identification and not placement into the body of Christ. You confuse the picture with the reality.
In regards to Romans 6:3-4, Greek scholar AT Robertson explains - Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See on "Galatians 3:27" where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. Into his death (ei ton qanaton autou). So here "unto his death," "in relation to his death," which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance. The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin, forward to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave. There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/romans/romans-6-3.html
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/romans/romans-6-4.html
Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that FAITH, not baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification (Romans 1:16, 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1). That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures.
Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith, believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by FAITH, not baptism. *Hermeneutics. Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs "through faith." Christians are "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about "through faith" - and is properly symbolized by dipping the new believer in and out of the water.
The verses that you cited on baptism are the typical alleged proof texts which are often cited by works-salvationists in an effort to try and prove that the Bible makes water baptism absolutely necessary for salvation, yet after a careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, although they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, these texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and had also temporarily spent some time in the church of Christ (prior to my conversion) and I've had numerous conversations with people over the years who attend false religions and cults that teach salvation by water baptism + other works (Roman Catholics, Mormons, Campbellites, SDA's, Oneness Pentecostals etc..) so none of your arguments are anything new or enlightening. BTW where do you attend church?
The Bible sometimes only mentions repentance as a condition for salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Also see (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31). A few times both repentance and believe/faith are mentioned in the same verse (Matthew 21:32; Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). There are many, many verses which mention belief/faith as the condition for salvation (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9 etc..). Repentance is a "change of mind" and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ. *Two sides to the same experience.* When only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other. *Repentance and belief/faith are inseparable in obtaining salvation.* If you believe the gospel, then you already repented in the process of changing your mind and choosing to believe the gospel. *Not so with baptism. *You can repent and believe the gospel, but NOT YET BE WATER BAPTIZED.
This phrase faith plus works is the lie.
Faith shows works, if it does not it is not faith in Jesus.
The error is to believe faith can exist without its demonstration.
It is like saying God is Holy except He never destroys that which is unholy.
If this was not so, God would soon no longer be Holy.
And it is true that works, or doing things does not mean you know Jesus or have faith.
Aestheticism desires to change the heart through action, rather Jesus calls us to repent
and to change within through faith in Him through the cross which will show itself in our
works.
It is often hard to say what an individual is. But if one refuses to address the hurts and
defences inside oneself that hold everything in check, no external moving the pieces around
will make any difference at all.
I suspect many have come to see Jesus, but they make religious theology their defence against
changing the real issues in their hearts, so though they may might have seen some reality, it has
passed them by without realising it.
No, it's not a lie. Those who teach that we are saved by faith "plus water baptism" or faith "plus other works" are teaching salvation by faith "plus works."
We show our faith by our works, (James 2:18) but we do not establish it. Faith produces works and not the other way around. Faith is the root of salvation and works are the fruit. No fruit at all would demonstrate there is no root.
The error is to believe that works are the very essence of faith and the means of our salvation rather than the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of faith.
Have you thought that your position could be miss-understood?
The two greatest commands of God, that summarise everything in the law and the prophets is
Love God with everything you are, and love your neighbour as yourself.
Now anyone who claims this God is their God, their Lord, their Saviour and they love Him yet
they do not respect or desire to obey and follow, how can they be speaking the truth?
Do not think I do not know this is the Kingdom of Heaven, and we as sinners find this way
impossible, unless we have the Holy Spirit, but those who seem to argue this is all irrelevant
seem also to be dysfunctional in these very areas.
I would suggest it is possible to gain an understanding of Jesus and not know Him in ones
heart, and be convinced you know everything about Him, yet not. And one clear sign of this
reality is the violent nature of argument with others, attempting to tare them down, when
revelation and conviction from the Lord is what is needed with openness and empathy with
people troubled past and lives.
I have come away sometimes completely discouraged and condemned for daring to suggest
Jesus changes us and His love can flow from within to others, that we can overcome and be
healed, made whole, at peace, resolved. Such anger and tumult speaks of what is at war in
many, and not the Holy Spirit, and resolution.
I do not know your particular story, but I will share my heart, and trust that this may bless and
help others. God bless you
For me, this exchange once again shows that, for those who hold on to Covenant Theology, that salvation has always been by grace thru faith alone, apart from works, ever since Adam's fall, they have to do so much mental gymnastics with verses like Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.
Those 2 verses are very clear in terms of stating that salvation for the Jews has never been by faith alone in Christ under the Gospel of the Kingdom. In order to explain away these clear verses, they have to say, "Oh what Jesus and Peter really meant to say was that "He that has repented/believed will be saved, but this saved person should therefore be baptized after being saved."
I mean, are they really implying that both Jesus and Peter were such poor communicators, that they would need us in the 21st century, to explain what they really meant? If that is what they really meant, why don't they just go ahead and say that instead?
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"For me, this exchange once again shows that, for those who hold on to Covenant Theology, that salvation has always been by grace thru faith alone, apart from works, ever since Adam's fall, they have to do so much mental gymnastics with verses like Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38.
Those 2 verses are very clear in terms of stating that salvation for the Jews has never been by faith alone in Christ under the Gospel of the Kingdom. In order to explain away these clear verses, they have to say, "Oh what Jesus and Peter really meant to say was that "He that has repented/believed will be saved, but this saved person should therefore be baptized after being saved."
I mean, are they really implying that both Jesus and Peter were such poor communicators, that they would need us in the 21st century, to explain what they really meant? If that is what they really meant, why don't they just go ahead and say that instead?
Works didn't do doodly for the S & P, as they were not mixed with faith. Also, they sought to establish their own righteousness by them.
Genesis 15:6 - And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness. Romans 4:2 - For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness.”
There are multiple verses in the Bible (before and after the cross) that make it clear man is saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 1 John 5:13 etc..) It's takes way more mental gymnastics to try and "force" these multiple passages of scripture to "conform" to your biased interpretation of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 then it does to properly harmonize Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 with these multiple passages of scripture.
Well at least you believe the latter, yet people like Preston39 and other works-salvationists peddle salvation by water baptism before and after the cross.
That is the main benefit of being a dispensationalist in my opinion. We can interpret Bible verses literally and still maintain our position that, under the current gospel of grace, salvation is indeed by faith alone.
Mark 16:16 is an example of a crystal clear verse to me. If you really respect the literal KJV phrasing, there is no way around the fact that it says you need to believe AND be baptized, in order to be saved.
By the way, do you agree with my last point to you that you are "arguing from silence"?
Hi Dan,
I do wonder if you read what I write.
Faith expresses itself through a changed heart and the actions that result.
We agree on this, yet you talk as if I am saying by behaving well you will gain faith.
The discussion has always been with those who hold you can believe God but it does
not change ones life. Or more, you can be saved while having no faith at all.
What is truly the distinguishing factor is what has Jesus saved us for, and what is walking
with Him?
Some seem to think we are like objects moved from the judgement queue to the saved
queue, and there is nothing really else to distinguish us. Paul would say simply this is
wrong. Those in the Kingdom have the Holy Spirit, new life in their hearts, a reality that
transcends their mortality, being the Holy Temple of the living God.
Those in the Kingdom have a dynamic relationship with Him and in their hearts.
So I agree with what you have written above about faith changes our hearts and our hearts
show this in our works.
It makes me wonder if you are just looking for opponents rather than wanting to meet other
brother and sisters in Christ.
God bless you
Since when does properly harmonizing scripture with scripture equate to arguing from silence?
I did address Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 directly and if water baptism was absolutely required for salvation then Jesus would not have made so many statements in which He promises eternal life to those who simply BELIEVE. (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26)
So if multiple passages of scripture clearly teach that man is saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" we should just assume those verses left out water baptism, even though they were silent about including water baptism? That would be flawed hermeneutics.
I read through your link and it did not persuade my view. At least you agree that water baptism is not necessary for salvation "now" through your dispensational view on steroids. Many people who believe that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation believe that it was necessary for salvation then AND "now."
If you are satisfied with dispensationalism on steroids or contradictions in scripture, then go ahead and continue to believe that, but you will never convince me to agree with that method of flawed hermeneutics.
But that is precisely arguing from silence. Jesus was speaking to the Jews then, and by the time he arrived in the scene, John the Baptist and his disciples have been baptizing or baptized many of the Jews already. There could be many possible reasons why baptism was not mentioned in those accounts, that we do not know.
The key is "We do not know", so you have to examine Mark 16:16 directly and what it says, not try to use other scripture to explain baptism away.
Furthermore, Peter spent about 40 days with Jesus post resurrection when Jesus explained to them the Gospel of the Kingdom Acts 1:3.
When he finally uttered in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized, there is no reason for him to utter that in mistake. Remember he was baptized by the Holy Spirit before he began preaching. Hence every word he uttered should be counted as canonical scripture.
As long as you at least currently hold to salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.That is the main benefit of being a dispensationalist in my opinion. We can interpret Bible verses literally and still maintain our position that, under the current gospel of grace, salvation is indeed by faith alone.
To the contrary. Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." If you can persuade Jesus to re-write the Bible to include AND be baptized in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 then your dispensational view just might hold water.
No and I noticed in the article, it said -- On the other hand, the arguments from silence in favor of instrumental music are equally fallacious. When someone says, “God never forbids instruments, therefore they are acceptable in worship,” they are making a logically fallacious argument. The absence of a prohibition cannot be interpreted as permission. My position is always that we should, “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.” We cannot interpret God’s silence on instruments in the New Testament as permission to use them.
That argument comes straight out of the church of Christ (Campbellism) and they strongly support salvation by water baptism before AND after the cross. In regards to the New Testament being silent on instruments (which is not exactly true) I came to discover that Ephesians 5:19 says "..speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.." and correspondingly Colossians 3:16 says to, "..admonish one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." The word "psalm" in the Greek dictionary, definition (#5568): "A set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp, or other instrument)." The root word of psalm is "psallo" which means to means "to twitch, twang or pluck," such as pluck a string of a musical instrument.