Baptism apologetic

[MarcoPolo]

Peter is addressing Israel in 1 Peter 3:21. Notice 1:1 and compare with Gal. 2:9. He is preparing Israel to become a “kingdom of priests” [Ex. 19:5,6; 1 Peter 2:9. Our Lord Jesus Christ did command the 11 apopstles [later 12] to baptize, but note what Paul writes in 1 Cor. 1:17. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded Paul to “preach the gospel” and water baptism was not part of that gospel. Paul mentions the “one baptism” for the Body of Christ in Epoh. 4:5 and 1 Cor. 12:13 - The Holy Spirit baptizing believers into the Body of Christ - no water here.
QC

Water is quite central to Peter’s whole point in 1 Peter 3: saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…

Water is central to the whole flood story.

Peter again* Acts 10:46-48 Then Peter declared, “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.*

See also:

*Acts 8:36-38 And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. **Ezekiel 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.*So it is incorrect to point out baptismal verses that don’t happen to mention water as meaning water is not involved since other passages explicitly identify water baptism as a rite of the New Testament.

 

[jlhargus]

Good question. The logical answer is: Our Lord Jesus Christ was teaching a “ruler of the Jews.” He was teaching about the “kingdom of God.” You will recall that our Lord spent His last 40 days on earth teaching the eleven about the “kingdom of God” from the Old Testament. This would be that kingdom that the prophets foretold that will be on this earth with our Lord Jesus Christ sitting on David’s throne in Jerusalem and the 12 apostles sitting on "twelve thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel [Mt. 19:28]. Remember, that our Lord’s earthly ministry [1st advent] was only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” [Mt. 15:24]. It is obvious that the 11 understood our Lord’s teaching about this early kingdom by asking the question of Acts 1:6, “Will you, AT THIS TIME, RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” Water baptism was an O.T. cleansing [Heb. 9:10] “imposed” until the time of reformation. And it was required as the initatory rite into the Jewish priesthood [Ex. 19:5,6; 40:12 cf 1 Peter 2:9. Peter is an apostle to the circumcision [Mt. 10:5; Gal. 2:9]. You will note that his speeches in early Acts are all directed to Israel - not the Body of Christ [Acts 2:14,22; 3:12; 4:10]

Mt28:16 Then THE ELEVEN disciples WENT away into Galilee, INTO A MOUNTAIN where JESUS had APPOINTED them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And JESUS came and SPAKE UNTO THEM, saying, ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH. 19 GO ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING ** them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and, lo, ** I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. Amen.]

Christ SENT the apostles to teach ALL NATIONS (GENTILES) BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How does Christ sanctify and cleanse THE CHURCH?

[Eph5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved **THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might SANCTIFY and CLEANSE it WITH THE WASHING OF WATER BY THE WORD,]

How does scripture tell us we are sanctified and cleansed by washing?

[Act22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and **BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.]

How does scripture tell us we are REGENERATED?

[TITUS 3:5 **Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he SAVED us, BY the WASHING OF REGENERATION, and RENEWING OF the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That BEING JUSTIFIED by his grace, we should be made HEIRS according to the hope of eternal life.

Notice washing of regeneration, renewing of the Holy Ghost. Sounds like Jn3:5 by water and of the Spirit.

[1Cor6:11 And such were some of you: **BUT YE ARE WASHED, but ye are SANCTIFIED, but ye are JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.]

Notice washing by the Spirit of our God.

Jn3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be BORN OF water AND OF the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Notice water and of the Spirit. How are we BORN AGAIN by water and of the Spirit and become a child of God?

[Gal 3:26 For **YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY of you AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.]

 

[EricFilmer]

Good question. The logical answer is: Our Lord Jesus Christ was teaching a “ruler of the Jews” (etc.)…

I beg to differ. This is not “the logical answer” but rather your opinion of Scripture which does not take into account several other Scripture passages, as others have demonstrated in this thread. Quite frankly, if your interpretation is “the logical answer” then how did literally millions of Christians and Scripture scholars within the Catholic Church, all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches manage to miss it for the first 1500 years of Christian history?

Moreover, objectively speaking, a logical answer should probably take Ockham’s Razor into consideration: All things considered equal, the simplest explanation is probably correct. The simplest explanation is usually understood to be the one that requires the least amount of assumptions and/or extrapolations.

In light of that, compare these two interpretations of John 3:5.

1) “Water and the Spirit” refers to Baptism because it is a water ritual which sacramentally conveys the Spirit of God.

2) “Water and the Spirit” refers to the Kingdom of God (if I understand your post correctly) because…

Our Lord Jesus Christ was teaching a “ruler of the Jews.” He was teaching about the “kingdom of God.” You will recall that our Lord spent His last 40 days on earth teaching the eleven about the “kingdom of God” from the Old Testament. This would be that kingdom that the prophets foretold that will be on this earth with our Lord Jesus Christ sitting on David’s throne in Jerusalem and the 12 apostles sitting on "twelve thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel [Mt. 19:28]. Remember, that our Lord’s earthly ministry [1st advent] was only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” [Mt. 15:24]. It is obvious that the 11 understood our Lord’s teaching about this early kingdom by asking the question of Acts 1:6, “Will you, AT THIS TIME, RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” Water baptism was an O.T. cleansing [Heb. 9:10] “imposed” until the time of reformation. And it was required as the initatory rite into the Jewish priesthood [Ex. 19:5,6; 40:12 cf 1 Peter 2:9. Peter is an apostle to the circumcision [Mt. 10:5; Gal. 2:9]. You will note that his speeches in early Acts are all directed to Israel - not the Body of Christ [Acts 2:14,22; 3:12; 4:10].

In light of Ockham’s Razor, the correct explanation is probably #1, and therefore I would say that it is incorrect to identify #2 as “the logical answer”.

 

[jlhargus]

There may be a few verses that mention baptism, but there are more verses that mention faith without baptism. If you can find 5 verses that say baptism saves or remits sin, I can find 10 verses that say salvation is by faith without any mention of baptism. Therefore, baptism is not necessary.

““For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)” You just have to believe

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Ro 3:28)” Faith is all you need. You don’t have to follow any laws or commandments.

"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. (Eph 2:8-9) All works excluded. That would include baptism.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a million to one. If the million contradict other scripture then you can bet the interpretation is wrong. This is a perfect example of trying to rest on a few SCRIPTURES isolated from the whole of scripture. We know scripture NEVER contradicts scripture. It’s only an incorrect interpretation of a particular scripture that contradicts scripture.

Resting on the above, cafeteria style selection of scripture alone. Disregarding the whole of scripture. We need not REPENT, be baptized in the name of the Lord TO REMIT AND WASH AWAY OUR SINS, and RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. To ignor other scripture is to follow a tradition of men nullifying the Word of God.

Resting on the above, scripture would be in error, contradicting itself in Acts2:38, Acts16:22, Jn3:5, and Jms2:26 but also other scripture. Again resting on those, cafeteria style selections, we need not love our neighbor, feed the hungry clothe the naked, or take up our cross daily etc… All we need is FAITH ALONE, which is dead faith and contradicts, [Jms2:26 **For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.]

One can have faith that moves mountains and still be condemned. [1Cor13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and **Though I HAVE ALL FAITH, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, IT PROFITETH ME NOTHING.] As much as some try they can’t rest on ONE, cafeteria style, selection of scripture alone, anymore than you can rest on FAITH ALONE, which is dead faith.

 

[jlhargus]

There may be a few verses that mention baptism, but there are more verses that mention faith without baptism. If you can find 5 verses that say baptism saves or remits sin, I can find 10 verses that say salvation is by faith without any mention of baptism. Therefore, baptism is not necessary.

““For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)” You just have to believe

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Ro 3:28)” Faith is all you need. You don’t have to follow any laws or commandments.

"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. (Eph 2:8-9) All works excluded. That would include baptism.

JL: Paul had a life changing encounter with Christ, yet he was told to be baptized and wash his sins away.

[Acts22:16 **AND NOW why tarriest thou? arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS,] Assumption, only if you ignor scripture, is Acts22:16 assumption?

Some Protestants ASSUME when one FIRST BELIEVES (has a conversion experience) he receives the Holy Spirit, is regenerated and born again. Yet we clearly see Paul didn’t receive the Holy Spirit when he had his conversion experience and first believed.

[Acts9:8 And **Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. 10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.]

[Acts9:17 And **Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, AND arose, and WAS BAPTIZED. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.]

Notice in verse 17, Ananias says Jesus sent him to Pual to restore his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. This is three days after Paul’s conversion experience. Ananias laid hands on Paul and he received his sight. Then Paul was baptized were his sins were washed away, Acts22:16, and he RECEIVED the Holy Spirit, Acts2:38.

[Acts22:12 And one **Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16 AND NOW why tarriest thou? arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.]

Did Paul receive the Holy Spirit before his sins were washed away? What does Acts2:38 say, repent, be baptized FOR remission of SINS, RECEIVE the Holy Spirit. What did Paul say to BELIEVING diciples in

[Acts19: ACTS 19:1 And it came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth **Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus and FINDING certain DISCIPLES 2 HE SAID unto them HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YE BELIEVED? And they said unto him WE HAVE NOT SO MUCH AS HEARD whether THERE BE ANY HOLY GHOST 3 And HE SAID unto them UNTO WHAT then WERE YE BAPTIZED? And THEY SAID UNTO JOHN’S BAPTISM 4 Then said Paul, JOHN verily BAPTIZED WITH the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE SAYING unto the people that they should BELIEVE ON HIM WHICH should COME AFTER HIM that is ON CHRIST JESUS 5 When they heard this THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS

Evidently more is needed than BELIEF and faith in Christ, to be born again receiving the Holy Ghost. Because John’s baptism of WATER, was of repentance, believing or having faith in the one to come, Christ. They needed the sacrament of Christian baptism to be born again by water AND the Spirit. The Holy Spirit and Christian water baptism go hand and hand else why would Paul ask about baptism when he found they had not RECEIVED or even heard of the Holy Spirit? We receive the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit, in the sacrament of Christ’s baptism, BORN AGAIN by water AND the Spirit. Just as Peter, Paul and Jesus knew and tells us, we receive the Holy Spirit thru BAPTISM, by water AND of the Spirit, Jn3:5.

 

[jlhargus]

I’m pretty sure all good Baptists know what Jesus meant when he said one must be “born of water and spirit” (John 3:5). Born of water refers to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. Born of spirit refers to being spiritually “born again” which happens after one gets saved by believing in Jesus.

What I wrote above isn’t my personal beliefs. It’s what I’ve heard from Baptists and what they will probably tell you when you try to convince one of them that baptism is required. In all likelihood, nothing you say will convince a Baptist that baptism is required for salvation. Some Baptists believe one needs to trust Christ alone to be saved. Relying on baptism or any other work for salvation would mean that you aren’t trusting Christ alone (which according to some would mean that one is going to Hell).

JL: Amniotic fluid is nothing more than a tradition of men to nullify the Word of God on baptism. It’s not mentioned in scripture at all. There goes their tradition of men scripture alone. I have debated Baptists several times. I may not have convinced anyone. I can only hope and pray. Yet I gave them a lot of scriptures to ponder along with the FACT they cannot give even one scripture saying, baptism is a profession of faith only. Baptism is God’s work not mans. It is only TRUSTING IN CHRIST that we can even believe baptism washes away sins and gives the Holy Spirit, as scripture tells us.

Resting on the above, cafeteria style selection of scripture, alone. Disregarding the whole of scripture. We need not REPENT, be baptized in the name of the Lord TO REMIT AND WASH AWAY OUR SINS, and RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Resting on the above, scripture would be in error, contradicting itself in Acts2:38, Acts16:22, Jn3:5, and Jms2:26 but also other scripture. Again resting on those, cafeteria style selection, we need not love our neighbor, feed the hungry clothe the naked, or take up our cross daily etc… All we need is FAITH ALONE, which is dead faith and contradicts, [Jms2:26 **For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.]

One can have faith that moves mountains and still be condemned.

[1Cor13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and **Though I HAVE ALL FAITH, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, IT PROFITETH ME NOTHING.]

As much as some try they can’t rest on ONE, cafeteria style, selection of scripture alone, anymore than you can rest on FAITH ALONE, which is dead faith.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8330666&postcount=192

 

[QuickCat]

Newsy, QuickCat is infering there are two gospels one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Since Peter is addressing a Jewish group it doesn’t apply to Gentiles only to Jews. Paul’s writings are seen mainly as the Gentile gospel. I don’t know if you have ever heard of Les Feldick from Arkansas. QuickCat, from Arkansas, has the same theology.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9693596&postcount=71

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9698115&postcount=73

I have heard of Les Feldick, he is a very capable Bible teacher. I held my present beliefs long before I ever heard of Feldick.

Questions - [1] Is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 the gospel by which we are saved? [2] In Luke 9:1-6 the 12 are sent to preach the gospel, were they preaching 1 Cor. 15:1-4?

Thanks,
QC

 

[jlhargus]

I have heard of Les Feldick, he is a very capable Bible teacher. I held my present beliefs long before I ever heard of Feldick.

Questions - [1] Is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 the gospel by which we are saved? [2] In Luke 9:1-6 the 12 are sent to preach the gospel, were they preaching 1 Cor. 15:1-4?
Thanks, QC

Yes the same gospel.

 

[stewstew03]

I have heard of Les Feldick, he is a very capable Bible teacher. I held my present beliefs long before I ever heard of Feldick.

Questions - [1] Is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 the gospel by which we are saved? [2] In Luke 9:1-6 the 12 are sent to preach the gospel, were they preaching 1 Cor. 15:1-4?

Thanks,
QC

Is there more than one gospel…?

 

[XianThinker]

Those baptists are setting scripture against scripture. They seem to be consciously ignoring the “5 verses that say baptism saves or remits sin.”

They aren’t really ignoring them. They interpret them differently to try to make them fit the rest of the scriptures.

I found this on a Protestant website and it the same thing I’ve heard when I tried to convince other people that baptism is required for salvation:

“Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture.”

“As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.”

Acts 2:38 - “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”

“As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache”… the majority of the evidence is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.”

 

[XianThinker]

XianThinker, I know that you have clarified that the things you listed are not your personal beliefs (nor were they mine when I was a Protestant; I’m a former Anglican), and I thank you for sharing them, as this gives representation of an opposing view for the purpose of consideration. As such, I think that a response to the things you shared would also be beneficial for this thread discussion.

I know people make the claims you cited, but how well do they make the case in the context of Scripture in its entirety? In other words, do such people formulate their doctrine based on a few stand-alone verses, or do they test their interpretation against other Bible verses? Here are some examples of what I am referring to…

1) What does it mean to “believe” in Christ? People have different opinions, but here is what Christ, himself, said:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do” (John 14:12, emphasis added)

Therefore, if I profess to believe in Jesus then I ought to do the works that he did, and that includes baptism…

Baptists and other Protestants I’ve talked to all believe that works are the result of faith.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do” (John 14:12, emphasis added) If you have true saving faith, you will always do works (even though works aren’t required for salvation)

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15, RSV) If you have true saving faith, you will try to follow the commandments (even though obedience isn’t required for salvation)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Cor 6:9-10, RSV) If you have true saving faith, you won’t do those things. If someone does those things, it indicates he probably doesn’t have saving faith.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I think it is more illuminating when you notice that Peter did in fact use the word “baptize” in the sense of the tangible water sacrament, when he said “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized for the remission of sin, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

If Peter was as diligent to distinguish between invisible faith being the means of accomplishing all of salvation and the water baptism as a mere symbol, then I would doubt that this choice of language would have been appropriate. For he is literally speaking in terms of what happened to them in v40-45 “All who received the word were baptized”, through the water that was in their midst. It is very simple, repentance is a turning to the Lord, He commands water baptism upon entrance into the salvation that is offered in Jesus Christ, and it is in this act that a divine work is done where we are made alive to God and remitting of our sins in the blood of Jesus’ cross. And just as Jesus received the Holy Spirit in connection with His water baptism, so the normal consequence of believers would be that they receive the holy spirit in this sacrament.

As far as understanding water baptism as a “work”, this is impossible. Is John’s preaching a works based salvation? He insists on being baptized, one of repentance. It is implied that he you refuse baptism that you are not going to be a part of the salvation.

 

[Newsy]

Baptists and other Protestants I’ve talked to all believe that works are the result of faith.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do” (John 14:12, emphasis added) If you have true saving faith, you will always do works (even though works aren’t required for salvation)

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15, RSV) If you have true saving faith, you will try to follow the commandments (even though obedience isn’t required for salvation)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Cor 6:9-10, RSV) If you have true saving faith, you won’t do those things. If someone does those things, it indicates he probably doesn’t have saving faith.

So we wind up with a funny equation, in this instance. A Catholic believes its Faith + Works=Salvation. The person you mentioned believes that Faith=Salvation, BUTGood works will be present.
Kinda seems like the same outcome, to me. The difference between the two is James 2:24, Faith without works is dead. So, if both scenarios have Faith and Good Works and end in Salvation, then which one fits better with James 2:24?

As was mentioned earlier, all denominations teach a Faith + Works theology. The Works may be a sinner’s prayer or placing your faith in Christ or answering an altar call, but something is always required.

As for the OP, Baptism is a sacrament. We partake of Baptism because Jesus gave it to us, not instead of Jesus.

 

[EricFilmer]

Baptists and other Protestants I’ve talked to all believe that works are the result of faith…

I’ve heard such responses also, but none of them really preclude the importance of baptism. These are interpretations which make extrapolations beyond the plain words of Scripture. Moreover, as far as I know, they are extrapolations which no Christian made prior to the Reformation (and therefore, by definition, they cannot be apostolic in origin).

In addition to the comments that Newsy made in Post #32, it is worth pointing out there are many people who say they underwent a born again experience, but later ended up falling into serious sin and even losing their faith. To explain this, the usual response (from the adherents of the theology you mentioned) is that such people were not truly born again to begin with. But the point is, at the time of their conversion, they sincerely thought they were, believing it with their whole heart. So if they could be wrong about being truly born again, how can anyone else be sure of their own situation? The ramifications of this kind of theology is that the only “litmus test” for determining whether or not someone is authentically born again is simply the test of time (i.e, is this person truly born again? Time will tell). Naturally, such a theology is problematic on many levels.

 

[QuickCat]

Yes the same gospel.

Thanks Mr. Hargus:

In Luke 9:1-6, as previously stated, the 12 were sent to “preach the gospel.” You agree that it is the same gospel that Paul preached in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. But…

Lu 18:31 ¶ Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (KJV)

Lu 18:32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: (KJV)

Lu 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. (KJV)

Lu 18:34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Notice, also, John 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. (KJV)

So the gospel that the 12 were sent to preach in Luke 9:1-6 is not the same as the one that Paul preached in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. The 12 apostles did not know that gospel at the time of Luke 9 nor even after our Lord’s death, burial and resurrection.

Whatta ya think?
QC

 

[jlhargus]

Thanks Mr. Hargus

In Luke 9:1-6, as previously stated, the 12 were sent to “preach the gospel.” You agree that it is the same gospel that Paul preached in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. But…

Lu 18:31 ¶ Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (KJV)

Lu 18:32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: (KJV)

Lu 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. (KJV)

Lu 18:34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Notice, also, John 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. (KJV)

So the gospel that the 12 were sent to preach in Luke 9:1-6 is not the same as the one that Paul preached in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. The 12 apostles did not know that gospel at the time of Luke 9 nor even after our Lord’s death, burial and resurrection. Whatta ya think?QC

JL: Honestly QC, I think you are grasping at imaginary straws. It isn’t becasue they weren’t taught the same gospel. They simple didn’t let those sayings sink in and grasp what was meant AT THAT TIME.

[Lk9:44 **Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.]

Christ clearly told them in Lk18:33. This is the second time Jesus has told them He will die and Resurrect. He did so in [Lk9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and **be slain, and be raised the third day.

They were told at the transfiguration in [Mk9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, **till the Son of man were risen from the dead. 10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.]

These things, along with other things, simply didn’t sink in till they were endued with power from on high at Pentecost. Clearly they were taught the same gospel as Paul was preaching.

[1Cor15:1 Moreover, brethren, **I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:]

[Jn20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. 9 **FOR AS YET they KNEW NOT THE SCRIPTURE, that he must rise again from the dead.]

John20 was also before Pentecost. After Pentecost they would know a lot of OT scritprue speaking of the Christ.

This line is about baptism, If you want to continue to discuss two gospels or two kingdoms start another line. If you don’t know how let me know and I will start it.

 

[QuickCat]

Yes the same gospel.

Follow up to previous thread.

I have pointed out, in many threads, that the “gospel of the kingdom” preached by John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the 12 apostles, was proclaimed to Israel. It announced that the “kingdom” was “at hand” [Mt. 3:2; 4:17,23; 9:35; 10:7, etc]. The Lord taught the 12 to pray for “thy kingdom to come…” [Mt. 6:10]. As we come into the book of Acts we find that the Lord taught the 11 all about this “kingdom” from the Old Testament. He “opened their understanding” of these Scriptures [Luke 24:45] and they ask the logical question of Acts 1:6. The one thing He didn’t cover for them was the time element. In anticipation of the offer of the kingdom to Israel, the 11 make it their first order of business to bring their number back up to 12. This was necessary because He had promised that they would “sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel” in this kingdom [Mt. 19:28]. This would explain why Peter confines his early Acts speeches to “ye men of Israel.” And it would also explain why he presents the Lord in resurrection to “sit on David’s throne” and to be a “prince and a Savior to Israel” Acts 2:30; 5:31. Peter actually offers the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21.

QC

 

[QuickCat]

JL: Honestly QC, I think you are grasping at imaginary straws. It isn’t becasue they weren’t taught the same gospel. They simple didn’t let those sayings sink in and grasp what was meant AT THAT TIME.

[Lk9:44 **Let these sayings sink down into your ears

: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.]

Christ clearly told them in Lk18:33. This is the second time Jesus has told them He will die and Resurrect. He did so in [Lk9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and **be slain, and be raised the third day.

They were told at the transfiguration in [Mk9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, **till the Son of man were risen from the dead. 10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.]

These things, along with other things, simply didn’t sink in till they were endued with power from on high at Pentecost. Clearly they were taught the same gospel as Paul was preaching.

[1Cor15:1 Moreover, brethren, **I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:]

[Jn20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. 9 **FOR AS YET they KNEW NOT THE SCRIPTURE, that he must rise again from the dead.]

John20 was also before Pentecost. After Pentecost they would know a lot of OT scritprue speaking of the Christ.

This line is about baptism, If you want to continue to discuss two gospels or two kingdoms start another line. If you don’t know how let me know and I will start it.

No straws, just taking Scripture as it is written. Paul indicates that the good news of the cross, that the Lord Jesus Christ “…gave Himself as a ransom for all” was to be “testified in due time,” that is, when the apostles Paul came on the scene [1 Tim. 2:4-6].

As far as baptism goes, I have previously pointed out that it was an Old Testament cleansing “washings” [Heb. 9:10] and was “imposed” until the time of reformation. There are are least 12 different baptisms taught in Scripture:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ baptizing with the Holy Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit baptizing into the Body of Christ Church
3. Death baptism
4. Baptism of fire
5. The typical baptism of Noah’s Ark
6. Baptism for the dead
7. Baptism into Moses
8. Divers baptisms of the Law
9. Traditional Jewish baptisms
10. John’s baptism of Israel for the remission of sins
11. The Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism by John to fulfill all righteousness
12. The Pentecostal baptism for the remission of sins

Do you want to discuss these?

QC

 

[QuickCat]

I think it is more illuminating when you notice that Peter did in fact use the word “baptize” in the sense of the tangible water sacrament, when he said “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized for the remission of sin, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

If Peter was as diligent to distinguish between invisible faith being the means of accomplishing all of salvation and the water baptism as a mere symbol, then I would doubt that this choice of language would have been appropriate. For he is literally speaking in terms of what happened to them in v40-45 “All who received the word were baptized”, through the water that was in their midst. It is very simple, repentance is a turning to the Lord, He commands water baptism upon entrance into the salvation that is offered in Jesus Christ, and it is in this act that a divine work is done where we are made alive to God and remitting of our sins in the blood of Jesus’ cross. And just as Jesus received the Holy Spirit in connection with His water baptism, so the normal consequence of believers would be that they receive the holy spirit in this sacrament.

As far as understanding water baptism as a “work”, this is impossible. Is John’s preaching a works based salvation? He insists on being baptized, one of repentance. It is implied that he you refuse baptism that you are not going to be a part of the salvation.

There is no doubt that Peter is preaching to the Jews that [water] baptism is necessary for the “remissiossion of their sins.” Any serious Bible student should recognize that fact. Peter was given a “great commission” to “baptize the nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Why do you think he is baptizing in “the name of Jesus Christ” instead of the Trinity as he was told? Do you know of any place in the book of Acts where the Trinity formula is used?
QC
QC

 

[jlhargus]

No straws, just taking Scripture as it is written. Paul indicates that the good news of the cross, that the Lord Jesus Christ “…gave Himself as a ransom for all” was to be “testified in due time,” that is, when the apostles Paul came on the scene [1 Tim. 2:4-6].

JL: It doesn’t say WHEN Paul came on the scene. but at the proper time (right time). I notice you posted no scripture AS it is written. Why?

As far as baptism goes, I have previously pointed out that it was an Old Testament cleansing “washings” [Heb. 9:10] and was “imposed” until the time of reformation. There are are least 12 different baptisms taught in Scripture:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ baptizing with the Holy Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit baptizing into the Body of Christ Church
3. Death baptism
4. Baptism of fire
5. The typical baptism of Noah’s Ark
6. Baptism for the dead
7. Baptism into Moses
8. Divers baptisms of the Law
9. Traditional Jewish baptisms
10. John’s baptism of Israel for the remission of sins
11. The Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism by John to fulfill all righteousness
12. The Pentecostal baptism for the remission of sins

Do you want to discuss these? QC

JL: The time of reformation is now. Those OT washing have been replaced with Christ’s baptism. The one He SENT the apostles to BAPTIZE ALL NATIONS (gentiles).

I have no problem with any baptism NT or OT. OT baptisms, were ritual cleansings pointing to the sacrament of Christian baptism. [Hb10: 1 **For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.]

I want to discuss the Baptism that is necessary for salvation. The sacrament of baptism. The ONE SAVING WATER BAPTISM. Acts2:38 repent, be baptized FOR remission of sin, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. The PROMISE is to you AND your children. The others are simply diversions.