What do you make of the words Jesus spoke to Nicodemus? You must be born again John 3:3.Jesus' two greatest commandments refer to faith and work.
How does your infant baptism save you?
For the cause of Christ
Roger
What do you make of the words Jesus spoke to Nicodemus? You must be born again John 3:3.Jesus' two greatest commandments refer to faith and work.
would It be wrong to GOD If you helped someone In distress because you felt It was your duty knowing that somebody might see you not helping that person but In your heart you didn't really want to help them?Many today don't like works. It requires effort and who has time for that. Grace only makes it easier, makes the faith into one of those little things you add to your life with all the other things. Much more convenient.
You can't have faith + works just like you can't have your cake and eat it too LOL.
Galatians 2:16 (KJV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Hahahahhahahahaah yes indeed it is.......but on this site we have several CAKE TAKERS..........cake is a gift!
![]()
Can you explain the difference between justification and sanctification?Baptism is not a work of the law (of Moses). So this verse clearly is not talking about baptism. And James 2:22 says faith and works do work together. The whole thought there in James 2 is that faith without works is dead. Verse 24 clearly condemns the doctrine of faith only. No one yet has explained John 6:29 that clearly says faith is a work—the same kind as baptism. They are both works of God. If you can throw away 1 you can throw away the other. Mark 16:16 gives equal importance to faith and baptism. Why not just believe the what the Bible says?
In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Please tell me, which good works could a Christian perform that are "completely detached" from these two great commandments which are found in the law of Moses? (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). Are there any good works that Christians do which fall outside of loving God and our neighbor as ourself? *When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, you cannot dissect good works from the law, so the not saved by "these" works (works of the law) but saved by "those" works (good works) argument is bogus.Baptism is not a work of the law (of Moses). So this verse clearly is not talking about baptism.
In James 2:20, "faith without works is dead" does not mean that faith is dead until it produces works and then it becomes a living faith (which is like saying that a tree is dead until it produces fruit and then it becomes a living tree) or that works are the source of life in faith or that we are saved by works. James is simply saying faith that is not accompanied by evidential works is dead. If someone merely says-claims to have faith but they lack resulting evidential works, (James 2:14) then they have an empty profession of faith/dead faith and not authentic faith. Simple!And James 2:22 says faith and works do work together. The whole thought there in James 2 is that faith without works is dead. Verse 24 clearly condemns the doctrine of faith only.
I explained John 6:29 to you in post #85, but apparently you just don't have eyes to see or ears to hear. Once again, Jesus was not stating that faith is just another work in a series of works in a quest to receive salvation by works, as you teach. Nobody is throwing away anything and baptism simply needs to be put in it's proper place -- subsequent to obtaining salvation through faith. Faith is the ROOT of salvation and good works which "follow" (including water baptism) is the FRUIT. *You error by teaching that BOTH faith AND works are the root of salvation.No one yet has explained John 6:29 that clearly says faith is a work—the same kind as baptism. They are both works of God. If you can throw away 1 you can throw away the other.
If Mark 16:16 gives equal importance to faith and baptism, then why didn't Jesus say that whoever is not baptized will be condemned? hmm.. Also, if water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, then why didn't Jesus mention this in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26? What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentioned in these 9 verses? *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 1 John 5:13 etc..). *Why not just believe what the Bible says?Mark 16:16 gives equal importance to faith and baptism. Why not just believe the what the Bible says?
Baptism is not a work of the law (of Moses). So this verse clearly is not talking about baptism. And James 2:22 says faith and works do work together. The whole thought there in James 2 is that faith without works is dead. Verse 24 clearly condemns the doctrine of faith only. No one yet has explained John 6:29 that clearly says faith is a work—the same kind as baptism. They are both works of God. If you can throw away 1 you can throw away the other. Mark 16:16 gives equal importance to faith and baptism. Why not just believe the what the Bible says?
How can he do that when HE HAS NO CLUE?Can you explain the difference between justification and sanctification?
The faith is ours when WE come to Christ believing.How can he do that when HE HAS NO CLUE?
You can see that from the OP. "Faith is a work". Unbelievable.
If Mark 16:16 gives equal importance to faith and baptism, then why didn't Jesus say that whoever is not baptized will be condemned? hmm..
Here is an analogy
a) He that eateth and digesteth his food shall live;
b) he that eateth not shall die.
Two requirements are necessary to live: 1) eateth AND 2) digesteth. A logical progression for one cannot live if he does not digest and one cannot digest what he has not eaten. So we logical know that the person who (b) "eateth not" has not digested for one cannot if he had not eaten.
Christians do not base their doctrines on one verse. What is the sum total of Scripture regarding faith in Christ? That is the key issue.Salvation has two requirements: belief and baptism.
Christians do not base their doctrines on one verse. What is the sum total of Scripture regarding faith in Christ? That is the key issue.
Jesus clarified the gift of eternal life when He made this categorical statement:
Jesus said unto her [Martha], 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)
Do you see any mention of "baptism" above? So why was baptism included in Mk 16:16? Because salvation (baptism with the Holy Spirit) and water baptism were to be very closely tied together (Acts 2:38). And we see this illustrated in Acts 8 when Philip baptized the Ethiopian. Note the exchange carefully: 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 they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
It's not weak at all when you don't ignore the second clause and properly harmonize scripture with scripture. (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Why don't you explain to us what happened to baptism in (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). Did Jesus forget to mention it?You have probably cut and paste this in several posts, but this to me is a weak refutation of the meaning of Mark 16:16
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" clearly shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "water baptized or condemned."He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Jesus clarifies the first clause with ..but he who does not believe will be condemned.A compound sentence with two subjects, 1) salvation 2) condemnation
False. Salvation has one requirement. BELIEF - (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) 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.Salvation has two requirements: belief and baptism.
condemnation has just one requirement: unbelief.
General cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized does not make baptism a second requirement for salvation. It's not about rewriting the verse by changing requirements, but clarifying the first clause with the second clause and properly harmonizing scripture with scripture to show the one true requirement. Are we to rewrite John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 in order to "add" and additional requirement for salvation (baptism) in order to accommodate your biased view of Mark 16:16? I think not. That would be flawed hermeneutics.The requirements for each subject are different and because one subject (condemnation) has just one requirement does not in anyway give the reader a right to remove a requirement from the other subject (salvation) thereby rewriting the verse by changing requirements.
False. Again, Jesus clarifies the first clause with ..but he who does not believe will be condemned.The two requirement for salvation (belief and baptism) are joined by the conjunction 'and' making them (a) inseparable and (b) making both of equal importance and necessity. If one does not have to be baptized to be saved, then one would not have to believe either.
False. If he who believes will be saved (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well, yet Jesus said ..he who does not believe will be condemned. Jesus NEVER said whoever is not water baptized will be condemned. Continuing to ignore Mark 16:16(b) and John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 is not helping your case at all.1 and 2 make 3. The "and" ties the 1 to the 2 making them both necessary to have 3. Therefore one cannot remove either the 1 or the 2 for one would no longer have the 3.
False. Mark 16:16 is composed of two basic statements. 1. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2 He who does not believe will be condemned. While this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they will be saved) it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary, - “he who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “he who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in Mark 16:16. *Hermeneutics.He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
Jesus gives a logical progression of steps where a step cannot be omitted or skipped. Before one to be saved he must be baptized, before one can be baptized he must first believe. Therefore the logical progression of steps makes it impossible for an unbeliever to be baptized.
False. There are many people in false religions and cults who have been water baptized but do not truly believe. Roman Catholics, Mormons, Campbellites, SDA's, Oneness Pentecostals etc.. would certainly agree with your biased interpretation of Mark 16:16. You are not in good company. That should raise a red flag!This means an unbeliever is an unbaptized person therefore when Jesus said "he that believeth not" we know this already excludes being baptized so it would be redundant, unnecessary for Christ to say "he that believeth not and is baptized not due to his unbelief shall be condemned.
Bad analogy. A better analogy would be, "he who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well, but he who does not take his medication will remain sick." Of course it logically follows that we wash down medication with water, yet if no water is available and we take it dry (been there, done that) we will still be made well BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION (and not because of the water). It's the same with baptism. It logically follows that we get baptized after we believe, but if you are on your death bed and cannot get water baptized before your death, you are still saved because you BELIEVE which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b) ..but he who does not believe will be condemned and is also in harmony with ( John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26)Here is an analogy
a) He that eateth and digesteth his food shall live;
b) he that eateth not shall die.
Two requirements are necessary to live: 1) eateth AND 2) digesteth. A logical progression for one cannot live if he does not digest and one cannot digest what he has not eaten. So we logical know that the person who (b) "eateth not" has not digested for one cannot if he had not eaten.
1. Mark 16: 16 ia questionable as scripture. And even if it is scripture. Nothing in the passage says it is “WATER” baptism which is being spoken of. And not spiritYou have already quoted Acts 2:38 so that doctrine about water baptism is clearly not just based on Mark 16:16. 2 separate passages is enough for establishing doctrine 2 Corinthians 13:1
You have already quoted Acts 2:38 so that doctrine about water baptism is clearly not just based on Mark 16:16. 2 separate passages is enough for establishing doctrine 2 Corinthians 13:1