I forgot to be baptized

[mailmandan]

Mailmandan: "Please listen closely - James does not teach that we are saved "by" works."

So you do teach salvation by works. I already knew that. James 2:14-24 have to be the most misunderstood verses in the Bible.

James: You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness and he was called God's friend.

In James 2:21, notice closely that James does not say that Abraham's work of offering up Isaac resulted in God's accounting Abraham as righteous. The accounting of Abraham's faith as righteousness was made in Genesis 15:6, many years before his work of offering up Isaac recorded in Genesis 22. The work of Abraham did not have some kind of intrinsic merit to save his soul, but it proved or manifested the genuineness of his faith. *This is the sense in which Abraham was justified by works, "shown to be righteous."

Faith made complete by works means bring to maturity, carry to the end, to complete like love in 1 John 4:18. It doesn't mean that Abraham was finally saved based on the merits of his works many years later, after his faith was already accounted to him for righteousness in Genesis 15:6. When Abraham performed the good work in Genesis 22; he fulfilled the expectations created by the pronouncement of his faith in Genesis 15:6.

You see that a person is justified by works and not faith alone.

In James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" here to mean "accounted as righteous" but is "shown to be righteous." Again, James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3). Works bear out the justification that already came by faith.

In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaioo" #1344 is:

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

In Matthew 12:37, "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." This is because our words (just like our works) reveal the state of our hearts. Words will appear to be evidences for, or against a man's being in a state of grace and righteousness.

God is said to have been justified by those who were baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29). This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God IS righteous. Notice that the NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right.." The ESV reads, "they declared God just.." This is the sense in which God was justified, "shown to be righteous," not accounted as righteous.

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified/vindicated/shown to be right by her deeds."

And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them off by another way?" James 2:22-25

Rahab believed in the Lord with genuine faith (Joshua 2:9-13), requested "kindness" (2:12), received the promise of kindness (2:14), and hung out the "scarlet line" (2:21), as the demonstration of her genuine faith. Rehab proved her faith in God was not a dead faith by her works, just as all true believers prove theirs. We show our faith by our works (James 2:18) but we do not establish it.

And I have a stumbling block?

You most certainly do.

 

[hornetguy]

The whole purpose of this story is to prove to the world that God accepts Gentiles as well as Jews.. This whole episode is about Peter being told that ALL men are acceptable to God.

The reason the Gentiles received the Spirit before baptism was to SHOW to all the Jews that the Gentiles were accepted by God. Apparently, from that account, the Jews were not going to allow the Gentiles to be baptized (a known requirement for entering the new covenant) until God let them receive the Spirit, which was publicly manifested by the speaking in tongues. And this occurred before the Gentiles even professed faith... it happened while Peter was still speaking!

It was a miraculous SIGN to the Jews to convince them that Gentiles were accepted, and was a "one-off" event, just as the salvation of the thief on the cross... happened one time only, as a PROOF. Neither event was establishing a standard, or a precedent, they were signs.

[SUP]44 [/SUP]While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the [SUP][ag][/SUP]message. [SUP]45 [/SUP]All the [SUP][ah][/SUP]circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. [SUP]46 [/SUP]For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, [SUP]47 [/SUP]“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” [SUP]48 [/SUP]And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

 

[mailmandan]

The whole purpose of this story is to prove to the world that God accepts Gentiles as well as Jews.. This whole episode is about Peter being told that ALL men are acceptable to God.

The reason the Gentiles received the Spirit before baptism was to SHOW to all the Jews that the Gentiles were accepted by God. Apparently, from that account, the Jews were not going to allow the Gentiles to be baptized (a known requirement for entering the new covenant) until God let them receive the Spirit, which was publicly manifested by the speaking in tongues.

These Gentiles were not still lost int their sins prior to receiving water baptism. Lost unbelievers do not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-47; 11:17) and spiritual gifts (tongues in this case) is only for the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12). Acts 10:47, Can any man, though ever so rigid a Jew, forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we and are already converts? The argument is conclusive; can we deny the SIGN (water baptism) to those who have received the thing signified? (Holy Spirit, Salvation). Are not those on whom God has bestowed the grace of the covenant plainly entitled to the seals of the covenant? Surely those that have received the Spirit as well as we ought to receive baptism as well as we; for it becomes us to follow God’s indications, and to take those into communion with us whom he has taken into communion with himself. Praise God! So "bring on the water" for these SAVED CONVERTS!

And this occurred before the Gentiles even professed faith... it happened while Peter was still speaking!

In Acts 11, Peter is explaining his actions that took place in chapter 10. He already said enough. If you would finish reading through verse 17, you would see that they received the Holy Spirit WHEN they BELIEVED ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, NOT BEFORE THEY HEARD NOTHING AT ALL. *Compare this with Acts 16:31, "BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND YOU WILL BE SAVED." Amen!

Acts 10:44 says, "THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME ON ALL WHO HEARD THE MESSAGE, not on all who "heard nothing." They obviously heard enough, regardless of whether or not Peter was "still" speaking. "Began to speak" (Acts 11:15) and "still speaking" (Acts 10:44) are not in contradiction. Scripture cannot contradict other scripture my friend. Acts 10:44 says, while he was "still speaking," which means, he already started talking and said, "WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM RECEIVES REMISSION OF SINS." So obviously, began to speak can't mean, said nothing at all yet, because that would contradict, "still speaking." There is a difference between "as" I began to speak and "before" I began to speak.

It was a miraculous SIGN to the Jews to convince them that Gentiles were accepted, and was a "one-off" event, just as the salvation of the thief on the cross... happened one time only, as a PROOF. Neither event was establishing a standard, or a precedent, they were signs.

Acts 10:47, Can any man, forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? The argument is conclusive; can we deny the SIGN (water baptism) to those who have received the thing signified? (Holy Spirit, Salvation). Are not those on whom God has bestowed the grace of the covenant plainly entitled to the seals of the covenant? Surely those that have received the Spirit as well as we ought to receive baptism as well as we; for it becomes us to follow God’s indications, and to take those into communion with us whom he has taken into communion with himself. So "bring on the water" for these SAVED CONVERTS.

The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles have BELIEVED, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were saved and a part of the body of Christ before water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid them from being baptized because of their unacceptance of these Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. Praise God!

Before they were water baptized they already "received" the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In view of this, there are three passages that demonstrate they were saved. They are Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13.

Romans 8:9 - If one has received the Holy Spirit they "belong" to Christ. To belong to Christ does not describe a lost unbeliever but a saved believer - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

Galatians 4:6 - And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" This would only describe the condition of one who is saved - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

1 John 4:13 - By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. Because they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, these Gentiles abided in God and God abided in them. To abide in God and to have God abide in you does not describe the condition of a lost unbeliever but a saved believer - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

In regards to the thief on the cross, he received salvation through faith "apart from water baptism." Some may try to argue that the thief had already been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

 

[DJ2]

These Gentiles were not still lost int their sins prior to receiving water baptism. Lost unbelievers do not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-47; 11:17) and spiritual gifts (tongues in this case) is only for the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12). Acts 10:47, Can any man, though ever so rigid a Jew, forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we and are already converts? The argument is conclusive; can we deny the SIGN (water baptism) to those who have received the thing signified? (Holy Spirit, Salvation). Are not those on whom God has bestowed the grace of the covenant plainly entitled to the seals of the covenant? Surely those that have received the Spirit as well as we ought to receive baptism as well as we; for it becomes us to follow God’s indications, and to take those into communion with us whom he has taken into communion with himself. Praise God! So "bring on the water" for these SAVED CONVERTS!

In Acts 11, Peter is explaining his actions that took place in chapter 10. He already said enough. If you would finish reading through verse 17, you would see that they received the Holy Spirit WHEN they BELIEVED ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, NOT BEFORE THEY HEARD NOTHING AT ALL. *Compare this with Acts 16:31, "BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND YOU WILL BE SAVED." Amen!

Acts 10:44 says, "THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME ON ALL WHO HEARD THE MESSAGE, not on all who "heard nothing." They obviously heard enough, regardless of whether or not Peter was "still" speaking. "Began to speak" (Acts 11:15) and "still speaking" (Acts 10:44) are not in contradiction. Scripture cannot contradict other scripture my friend. Acts 10:44 says, while he was "still speaking," which means, he already started talking and said, "WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM RECEIVES REMISSION OF SINS." So obviously, began to speak can't mean, said nothing at all yet, because that would contradict, "still speaking." There is a difference between "as" I began to speak and "before" I began to speak.

Acts 10:47, Can any man, forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? The argument is conclusive; can we deny the SIGN (water baptism) to those who have received the thing signified? (Holy Spirit, Salvation). Are not those on whom God has bestowed the grace of the covenant plainly entitled to the seals of the covenant? Surely those that have received the Spirit as well as we ought to receive baptism as well as we; for it becomes us to follow God’s indications, and to take those into communion with us whom he has taken into communion with himself. So "bring on the water" for these SAVED CONVERTS.

The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles have BELIEVED, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were saved and a part of the body of Christ before water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid them from being baptized because of their unacceptance of these Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. Praise God!

Before they were water baptized they already "received" the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In view of this, there are three passages that demonstrate they were saved. They are Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13.

Romans 8:9 - If one has received the Holy Spirit they "belong" to Christ. To belong to Christ does not describe a lost unbeliever but a saved believer - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

Galatians 4:6 - And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" This would only describe the condition of one who is saved - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

1 John 4:13 - By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. Because they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, these Gentiles abided in God and God abided in them. To abide in God and to have God abide in you does not describe the condition of a lost unbeliever but a saved believer - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

In regards to the thief on the cross, he received salvation through faith "apart from water baptism." Some may try to argue that the thief had already been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

On the assumption that the thief on the cross was never baptized see post #118. You like most others in the "believe only" sects are but attempting to find loopholes for you weak theology. Doctrine is not based on loopholes, exceptions or twisted reasoning it is based on clear and common sense understandings of presented scripture and not what is not said. Baptism is clearly presented as part of the work of salvation, you detest this so your search for excuses.

"But what about:

Death bed conversions
Thief on the Cross
People in deserts with no water
People afraid to get their head wet
etc.

Certainly this proves that baptism cannot be needed"?

At some point you will come to the understanding that the wedding clothes are not optional.

 

[hornetguy]

"But what about:

Death bed conversions
Thief on the Cross
People in deserts with no water
People afraid to get their head wet
etc.

Certainly this proves that baptism cannot be needed"?

1: That is up to God....
2: This was a "one-off" kind of thing... no way for the thief to get down, but Jesus taught us about repentance by "saving" him at that point. Jesus has the authority to do that. There are no other examples of it happening in scripture.
3: LOL.... seriously? How often do you think that happens? The eunuch and Philip were riding through the desert, and God provided water for HIS baptism... also...

where there is a will... God will provide the way.
4: You're joking, right? "Yes, God, I love you and want to be saved, but I just don't want to get my head wet.... and mess up my hair.... ok? " really?

 

[DJ2]

1: That is up to God....
2: This was a "one-off" kind of thing... no way for the thief to get down, but Jesus taught us about repentance by "saving" him at that point. Jesus has the authority to do that. There are no other examples of it happening in scripture.
3: LOL.... seriously? How often do you think that happens? The eunuch and Philip were riding through the desert, and God provided water for HIS baptism... also...
View attachment 173273
where there is a will... God will provide the way.
4: You're joking, right? "Yes, God, I love you and want to be saved, but I just don't want to get my head wet.... and mess up my hair.... ok? " really?

Yes, people have postponed their baptism so as to not "mess up their do".

"What's the rush? After all its just a symbol of an outward expression of an inward something, something. I will just wait until the day before my next trip to the salon."

I forgot to add the excuse of the astronauts in space. I am sure mailmandan has a few more.

 

[mailmandan]

On the assumption that the thief on the cross was never baptized see post #118.

Your argument in post #18 about the thief on the cross is merely an assumption. My case is much stronger in post #143.

You like most others in the "believe only" sects are but attempting to find loopholes for you weak theology.

My theology is quite strong. If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then God would not make so many statements in which He promises eternal life to those who simply BELIEVE (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5 etc..). I at one time had attended the so called church of Christ so none of your arguments are anything new or enlightening.

Doctrine is not based on loopholes, exceptions or twisted reasoning it is based on clear and common sense understandings of presented scripture and not what is not said.

Doctrine is not based on distorting and perverting passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan. You need to rightly divide the word of truth and properly harmonize scripture with scripture if you ever expect to come up with the correct doctrine.

Baptism is clearly presented as part of the work of salvation, you detest this so your search for excuses.

I have already shared overwhelming evidence that baptism is not a work of salvation. I detest works salvation theology, which renders Christ an insufficient Savior, but I do not detest the gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16).

"But what about:

Death bed conversions
Thief on the Cross
People in deserts with no water
People afraid to get their head wet
etc.

Certainly this proves that baptism cannot be needed"?

At some point you will come to the understanding that the wedding clothes are not optional.

I understand much more than you think. At some point you will come to the understanding that Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save. No supplements needed.

 

[mailmandan]

Yes, people have postponed their baptism so as to not "mess up their do".

"What's the rush? After all its just a symbol of an outward expression of an inward something, something. I will just wait until the day before my next trip to the salon."

I forgot to add the excuse of the astronauts in space. I am sure mailmandan has a few more.

Mock all you want, but death bed conversions happen and the Bible NOWHERE says "water baptized or condemned" but the Bible does say BELIEVE or condemned (John 3:18).

 

[DJ2]

Mock all you want, but death bed conversions happen and the Bible NOWHERE says "water baptized or condemned" but the Bible does say BELIEVE or condemned (John 3:18).

Again, you are focusing on what is not said,

"the Bible NOWHERE says 'water baptized or condemned"

Focus on what is said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". The "and baptized" is not filler but gospel.

Deathbed conversions do not prove baptism is not commanded for salvation any more then aphasia negates the need to confess Jesus as Lord. (Romans 10:9)

 

[graceNpeace]

Again, you are focusing on what is not said,

"the Bible NOWHERE says 'water baptized or condemned"

Focus on what is said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". The "and baptized" is not filler but gospel.

Deathbed conversions do not prove baptism is not commanded for salvation any more then aphasia negates the need to confess Jesus as Lord. (Romans 10:9)

Baptism is commanded - just not for salvation.

 

[DJ2]

Baptism is commanded - just not for salvation.

whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

Sounds like salvation to me.

 

[graceNpeace]

whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

Sounds like salvation to me.

Until you read the rest of the sentence...
Not to mention the rest of the New Testament!

 

[mailmandan]

Again, you are focusing on what is not said,

"the Bible NOWHERE says 'water baptized or condemned"

*The Bible says "whoever does not believe is condemned already" (John 3:18) yet the Bible NOWHERE says "baptized or condemned." 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.

Focus on what is said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". The "and baptized" is not filler but gospel.

Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Water baptism is not part of the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17; 15:1-4).

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. *Again, NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

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.

Deathbed conversions do not prove baptism is not commanded for salvation any more then aphasia negates the need to confess Jesus as Lord. (Romans 10:9)

The death bed conversion of the thief on the cross proves it and so does the fact that NOWHERE does not the Bible say "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." The determining factor whether or not one will be saved is whether or not one BELIEVES (John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 etc..).

So now you want to discuss Romans 10:9. Romans 10:8 - But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart" (together) that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (notice the reverse order from verse 9 to verse 10) - that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Confess/believe; believe/confess. *Not two separate steps to salvation but chronologically together.

So your 4 step plan of salvation goes like this: 1. Believe (but still lost) 2. Repent (but still lost) 3. Confess (but still lost) 4. Be water baptized (finally saved after all 4 steps are completed in that order). For such a person, confession is not made unto salvation, but unto baptism, which is then made unto salvation, in contradiction to what Paul said in Romans 10:9,10.

1 Corinthians 12:3 - Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except BY the Holy Spirit. There is divine influence or direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a person when confessing Jesus as Lord. This confession is not just a simple acknowledgment that Jesus is the Lord (even the demons believe that), but is a deep personal conviction, without reservation, that Jesus is that person's Lord and Savior.

So simply believing in our head (and not in our heart) that God raised Him from the dead is not unto righteousness and simply reciting the words "Jesus is Lord" from a check list of steps NOT BY the Holy Spirit is not unto salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

Baptism is commanded - just not for salvation.

Amen! Acts 10:47 - "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" These Gentiles had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and were saved (Acts 11:17; 16:31) BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47-48). Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit was irrefutable proof of this.

 

[mailmandan]

whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

Sounds like salvation to me.

If he who believes will be saved (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. Yet who will be condemned? He who is not baptized? NO. He who does not believe.. (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18). Your theology is water logged.

 

[Nehemiah6]

You like most others in the "believe only" sects are but attempting to find loopholes for you weak theology. Doctrine is not based on loopholes, exceptions or twisted reasoning it is based on clear and common sense understandings of presented scripture and not what is not said. Baptism is clearly presented as part of the work of salvation, you detest this so your search for excuses.

There is no question that there are a couple of verses in Scripture (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38) which appear to teach that water baptism is essential for salvation. But what they are really teaching is that immediate water baptism is essential for every new convert, and is almost inseparable from conversion.

But we must take the whole Bible into account when we develop any doctrine. We know for a fact from Hebrews that beginning with Abel the Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith and were deemed righteous because of their faith. Had water baptism been essential, they would have been excluded from salvation.

But then we have the plain words of Christ in numerous instances which confirm that it is faith in Him -- and nothing else -- that brings salvation to a sinner. So all those who were saved while Jesus was on earth would also have to be excluded since Christian baptism began only from Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ.

In addition to that we have the plain teaching of the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul which confirms that salvation is solely and strictly by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work of redemption. I put the emphasis on Lord because a sinner must believe that (a) the resurrection of Christ establishes Him as Lord and God and (b) sinners cannot simply receive Him as Savior without at the same time accepting Him as Lord and Master of their lives.

If we want to see the basis of salvation clearly we are provided with Romans chapter 10, from which there can be absolutely no misunderstanding about this matter. This chapter also emphasizes "Lord".

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above,
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[DJ2]

These Gentiles were not still lost int their sins prior to receiving water baptism. Lost unbelievers do not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-47; 11:17) and spiritual gifts (tongues in this case) is only for the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12). Acts 10:47, Can any man, though ever so rigid a Jew, forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we and are already converts? The argument is conclusive; can we deny the SIGN (water baptism) to those who have received the thing signified? (Holy Spirit, Salvation). Are not those on whom God has bestowed the grace of the covenant plainly entitled to the seals of the covenant? Surely those that have received the Spirit as well as we ought to receive baptism as well as we; for it becomes us to follow God’s indications, and to take those into communion with us whom he has taken into communion with himself. Praise God! So "bring on the water" for these SAVED CONVERTS!

In Acts 11, Peter is explaining his actions that took place in chapter 10. He already said enough. If you would finish reading through verse 17, you would see that they received the Holy Spirit WHEN they BELIEVED ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, NOT BEFORE THEY HEARD NOTHING AT ALL. *Compare this with Acts 16:31, "BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND YOU WILL BE SAVED." Amen!

Acts 10:44 says, "THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME ON ALL WHO HEARD THE MESSAGE, not on all who "heard nothing." They obviously heard enough, regardless of whether or not Peter was "still" speaking. "Began to speak" (Acts 11:15) and "still speaking" (Acts 10:44) are not in contradiction. Scripture cannot contradict other scripture my friend. Acts 10:44 says, while he was "still speaking," which means, he already started talking and said, "WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM RECEIVES REMISSION OF SINS." So obviously, began to speak can't mean, said nothing at all yet, because that would contradict, "still speaking." There is a difference between "as" I began to speak and "before" I began to speak.

Acts 10:47, Can any man, forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? The argument is conclusive; can we deny the SIGN (water baptism) to those who have received the thing signified? (Holy Spirit, Salvation). Are not those on whom God has bestowed the grace of the covenant plainly entitled to the seals of the covenant? Surely those that have received the Spirit as well as we ought to receive baptism as well as we; for it becomes us to follow God’s indications, and to take those into communion with us whom he has taken into communion with himself. So "bring on the water" for these SAVED CONVERTS.

The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles have BELIEVED, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were saved and a part of the body of Christ before water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid them from being baptized because of their unacceptance of these Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. Praise God!

Before they were water baptized they already "received" the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In view of this, there are three passages that demonstrate they were saved. They are Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13.

Romans 8:9 - If one has received the Holy Spirit they "belong" to Christ. To belong to Christ does not describe a lost unbeliever but a saved believer - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

Galatians 4:6 - And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" This would only describe the condition of one who is saved - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

1 John 4:13 - By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. Because they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, these Gentiles abided in God and God abided in them. To abide in God and to have God abide in you does not describe the condition of a lost unbeliever but a saved believer - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

In regards to the thief on the cross, he received salvation through faith "apart from water baptism." Some may try to argue that the thief had already been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

Your theology of assumptions and exceptions is on display here.

Both examples are assumptions:

Each person in the room happened to believe enough at the same time to be saved, that they began to speak in tongues in unison?? Your assumption that their speaking in tongues was proof of their salvation is bogus. On his way to murder David, King Saul and his men prophesied by the Holy Spirit (1st Samuel 19). The power of God gave the donkey in Number 22 the ability to speak to its owner. Do not assume God using something to further His plan is an acceptance of that which is being used. God used pagans to do His will in punishing His people.

The thief on the cross certainly did repent. But whether or not he was baptized cannot be assumed, making your case meaningless.

At the very best your examples would be extreme exceptions:

A vision to Peter to preach to those seen as unclean and a physical supernatural event at the preaching of the gospel?

A last minute act of repentance and a promise given by Jesus Himself just before death on a cross?

Stop looking for loopholes and accept what God has commanded. Our own sensibilities be damned.

 

[mailmandan]

Your theology of assumptions and exceptions is on display here.

Both examples are assumptions:

I have scriptural evidence and not mere assumptions.

Each person in the room happened to believe enough at the same time to be saved, that they began to speak in tongues in unison?? Your assumption that their speaking in tongues was proof of their salvation is bogus.

The gift of tongues is a spiritual gift, which is only for the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12). Only saved believers receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17; 15:8,9). *Show me one example in the NT where an unbeliever received the gift of the Holy Spirit. I'll be waiting.

On his way to murder David, King Saul and his men prophesied by the Holy Spirit (1st Samuel 19).

In the OT the Holy Spirit came upon men to empower them, yet they were not sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise, as believers are now under the New Covenant (Ephesians 1:13).

The power of God gave the donkey in Number 22 the ability to speak to its owner. Do not assume God using something to further His plan is an acceptance of that which is being used. God used pagans to do His will in punishing His people.

Don't even bring up this "typical Campbellite" ludicrous argument about the donkey! The Lord simply used this situation to rebuke Baalam. The donkey was not a believer who received the gift of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant. I almost fell out of my chair the first time I heard a Campbellite use that bogus argument about the donkey!

The thief on the cross certainly did repent. But whether or not he was baptized cannot be assumed, making your case meaningless.

My case is not meaningless, considering the fact that in Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized. All you have is a bare assumption.

At the very best your examples would be extreme exceptions:

A vision to Peter to preach to those seen as unclean and a physical supernatural event at the preaching of the gospel?

A last minute act of repentance and a promise given by Jesus Himself just before death on a cross?

Stop looking for loopholes and accept what God has commanded. Our own sensibilities be damned.

It's painfully obvious that you are thoroughly indoctrinated into Campbellism and will stop at nothing to accommodate your biased church doctrine. Let me know when you are ready to repent and believe the gospel.

 

[DJ2]

If he who believes will be saved (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. Yet who will be condemned? He who is not baptized? NO. He who does not believe.. (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18). Your theology is water logged.

Your question:

"Yet who will be condemned?"

Answer: All of us, regardless of baptism.

The real question: who will be saved?

"Those who believe and are baptized"

If belief is the only thing needed to be saved, this is the perfect time for Jesus to utter that message. But how does He answer it? "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"

Regardless of why we are condemned, it is belief and baptism that takes away that condemnation.

How can you read these simple 18 words and not understand this?

You are fighting against the very words of Jesus.

 

[DJ2]

Until you read the rest of the sentence...
Not to mention the rest of the New Testament!

The "rest of the sentence" is about condemnation and does not negate the earlier eight words.

"Not to mention the rest of the New Testament"? Is not the rest of the New Testament full of belief and baptism as needed for salvation?