Do you haft to be baptized?

[Asyncritus]

Hi Asyncritus.

You've been challenged to show where the NT is scripture. I know you know the answer as do I but I have said I would no longer reply to comments made by one poster.

I'm getting there as well. Waste of good electrons, really.

Here is one of the most direct example statements:

2 Pet.3.15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter says that these people wrest ALL Paul's epistles and THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Which means that ALL Paul's epistles, as far as Peter is concerned, IS ALSO SCRIPTURE.

Hey SC, there's a short answer to your foolish question. From an inspired apostle, at that. Satisfied? I doubt it, but one lives in hope...

 

[Asyncritus]

You do know it's against the TOS to post that you are ignoring other members, don't you?

The fact that he says that 'I have said I would no longer reply to comments made by one poster' shows that he is not ignoring you.

He may not be replying, but has gone to the trouble of seeing that you receive an answer to your question. That's not ignoring. You really should learn the difference.

 

[jasoncran]

Come Jason, you've got more sense than that.

Romans was written to PEOPLE WHO HAD ALREADY BEEN BAPTISED. Go read chapter 6 if you don't believe me.

romans?

really? what of this.

1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.
12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

was the readers of that saved? no, while im sure sinners were in that audience but that doesnt mean he didnt address groups in that church.

why would paul say with the mouth made confession if that wasnt the way to the cross and he this is what we PREACH . HMM

WORD OF FAITH.

 

[Webb]

Jason--The very scripture you used for your proof, Rom.10:10, note the prepositions in it, "UNTO" not "INTO" "Unto salvation"; ''unto righteousness", not "into". Surely you know the difference between these prepositions.

 

[Stormcrow]

I'm getting there as well. Waste of good electrons, really.

I feel the same way.

Peter says that these people wrest ALL Paul's epistles and THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Which means that ALL Paul's epistles, as far as Peter is concerned, IS ALSO SCRIPTURE.

:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

That's not what Peter is saying AT ALL!

Here's what Peter wrote in language even you might be able to understand:

{14} Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, {15} and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, {16} as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16 (NASB)

The New Testament wasn't canonized until the 5th century when - and only then - it was considered "scripture." Every reference to scripture in the New Testament is a reference directly to the Old Testament, specifically the Septuagint, which the early church used because it was written in Greek.

Peter is saying that the "untaught and unstable distort" Paul's letters, as they do "the rest of the scriptures". Peter was NOT calling Paul's letters "scripture" in the sense that it was used in every other instance in the NT, but was commenting on the way the "untaught and unstable" distort both Paul's letters AND the Old Testament (much like some here do!)

But again, such nuances are lost on people apparently incapable of understanding them.

Nice try. Epic fail.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

Sorry Jethro, I've missed replying to this.




I have done. You are ignoring the facts, so let's do a survey now.

1. None of John's disciples who were baptised received the spirit till long afterwards.

2. Jesus was baptized and THEN received the spirit.

3. Jesus (or His disciples) baptised, and we are not told that those who were baptised received the spirit.

4. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptised, but did not receive the spirit.

5. The samaritans were baptised and did not receive the spirit.

6. The people in Acts 2 were baptised - thousands of them - and did not receive the spirit (at least, we are not told they did).

7. Lydia and her household were baptised, and did not receive the spirit.

8. The Philippian jailor and his household were baptised and did not receive the spirit.

9. A whole church was set up at Ephesus, and we aren't told that they received the spirit.

In fact there are a lot more people who we know were baptised and as far as we know, did not receive the spirit.

The ONLY ONE who received the spirit first and was then baptised, is Cornelius. And we know exactly why that happened.

So it is just plain wilfulness to say that receiving the spirit before baptism is the rule. Plain wrong.

......

You are misrepresenting the facts.

There is only ONE example where this happens, and thousands of examples where it didn't, or we are not told about it

So your last line condemns you out of your own mouth. YOU are saying the Bible says so, when it clearly doesn't.

I didn't say the Bible says so. I said my own experience in twenty five years as a Christian was that most of the saved people I fellowshipped with said they got saved before their water baptism (I think only one person said they received the Spirit at their water baptism). These people did not 'haft' to be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and be saved, though they did later obey the command to be water baptized. My argument is, Cornelius is our Biblical precedent to know that receiving the Spirit apart from water baptism is possible.

Conclusion: You MUST BE water-baptised, and you may or may not receive the spirit.

Okay, we're making progress here. You're making it very clear that you believe you do not 'haft' to be water baptized to receive the Spirit and be saved. If this is truly what you believe I have no argument with you.

From here the theoretical question is, "can a person who has received the Spirit, but does not get water baptized, expect to continue in the salvation he has received?" I say we have to know why he or she is not getting water baptized to know the answer to that. I don't think it's a legalistic rule that a person is condemned who receives the Spirit but never gets water baptized. The reason they don't get water baptized determines if they are condemned by their disobedience or not. Water baptism is not a legalistic check mark on a list of things you have to check off, like in a boy scout manual, in order to be saved.

Just as getting baptized does not in and of itself determine if you are saved or not, so not getting baptized does not in and of itself determine if you are condemned. There's much more to be considered than just whether or not you got water baptized or not.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason--The very scripture you used for your proof, Rom.10:10, note the prepositions in it, "UNTO" not "INTO" "Unto salvation"; ''unto righteousness", not "into". Surely you know the difference between these prepositions.

why didnt jesus baptise the disciples?

john the baptist deal doesnt count as he lead the way to the cross.

so the disciples werent his till when?

so how does unclean sinners get the holy ghost? when you answer that then you just realised that baptism is a command but doesnt save.

otherwise the thief on the cross is in hell and also any christian who died with the intent to be saved.

so you carry a mass of water withyou when you preach so that you can save souls.

so if am near the ocean and lead a soul at work to christ i then should stop(as tommorow isnt promised) and go the beach and baptise him?

believe , and paul was refering to hearing the word and was refering to the law of moses!

 

[Asyncritus]

I feel the same way.



:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

That's not what Peter is saying AT ALL!

Here's what Peter wrote in language even you might be able to understand:

{14} Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, {15} and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, {16} as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16 (NASB)

Your own pet version condemns your nonsense.

As Peter says, they are wresting and distorting PAUL'S LETTERS, as they do THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES. Therefore Paul's letters are ALSO REGARDED AS SCRIPTURE by Peter.

You wanted a passage which showed that the epistles of Paul were scripture. There it is, and you can't deny it. Go ahead and try.

The New Testament wasn't canonized until the 5th century when - and only then - it was considered "scripture." Every reference to scripture in the New Testament is a reference directly to the Old Testament, specifically the Septuagint, which the early church used because it was written in Greek.

I see. So for 400 years, God left the church without any scriptures. Well done SC, well done. You've just proven that you know nothing about this.

Tell me, what did 'they' canonise? Books out of thin air? Or already existing books?

Go read the early church fathers and see just how many of them regarded the NT in the same way that some of us do. They quote from them, they allude to them, they treat them with reverence and respect: as much as you seem to despise them.

Peter is saying that the "untaught and unstable distort" Paul's letters, as they do "the rest of the scriptures". Peter was NOT calling Paul's letters "scripture" in the sense that it was used in every other instance in the NT, but was commenting on the way the "untaught and unstable" distort both Paul's letters AND the Old Testament (much like some here do!)

I think you need a course in basic English.

YOU are unstable and untaught, and YOU ARE DISTORTING THE VERY PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE, to suit your foolish and ungodly theory.

I just hope you aren't leading too many astray.

 

[Asyncritus]

why didnt jesus baptise the disciples?

Because He did not want some saying 'I'm better than you, because Jesus Himself baptised me'. That's obvious, isn't it?

john the baptist deal doesnt count as he lead the way to the cross.

So God didn't send him, and tell him to baptise?

so the disciples werent his till when?

Don't understand the question.

so how does unclean sinners get the holy ghost? when you answer that then you just realised that baptism is a command but doesnt save.

I don't understand why all this hullabaloo about something very simple. He that BELIEVETH AND is baptised SHALL BE saved.

There two steps in the process. You believe first, then get baptised. Where's the problem?????

otherwise the thief on the cross is in hell and also any christian who died with the intent to be saved.

How do you know he wasn't baptised by either Jesus or John and then fell away?

so you carry a mass of water withyou when you preach so that you can save souls.

Philip didn't, neither did Peter at Pentecost.

I can't save anybody. It is God who does that. He's bigger than me, and will make sure that the person does whatever is necessary.

so if am near the ocean and lead a soul at work to christ i then should stop(as tommorow isnt promised) and go the beach and baptise him?

God is not mocked, Jason. You do your best to obey His Son's command, and He will look after the rest. Remember the Ethiopian eunuch? How many miles did they travel before they came to the water? 5? 10? 50? God will find a way, even past your limitations.

 

[Stormcrow]

Therefore Paul's letters are ALSO REGARDED AS SCRIPTURE by Peter.

Nonsense!

I see. So for 400 years, God left the church without any scriptures.

Nope. They had the Old Testament, the Gospels, Paul's letters, John's letters, etc.

If Peter considered Paul's letters "scripture", then why not the very words of Christ Himself in the gospels???

Peter's language is nothing more than me saying something like, "Noah took birds on the Ark along with the rest of his family." Does that make the birds part of Noah's family? Does it even make birds human???

According to you, it would! That's how utterly ridiculous your reading of this passage is!

As for the rest, not at all interested in continuing this nonsense.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

Sorry to have missed this LSS.

Maybe you're taking this too literally. How is it written in other versions of the bible?

Mk 16.16 He who has faith and is given baptism will get salvation; but he who has not faith will be judged.BBE

16 whoever trusts and is immersed will be saved; whoever does not trust will be condemned.CJB

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.ESV

16 Whoever believes and is baptized is saved; whoever refuses to believe is damned.MSG

Meanwhile, here are some definitions of "christian" for you:

- A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
- One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
- Someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ.

That's a dictionary definition, not a NT description. Not valid.

It says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." But it does NOT say, "He that is baptisedeth not shall be damned."

Isn't it obvious that someone who doesn't believe is NOT going to be baptised? He does credit us with some sense.

I know plenty of christians who say they were never baptised.

Then you know plenty of disobedient 'christians'. They really need to get into gear and obey the commandment.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

I didn't say the Bible says so. I said my own experience in twenty five years as a Christian was that most of the saved people I fellowshipped with said they got saved before their water baptism (I think only one person said they received the Spirit at their water baptism). These people did not 'haft' to be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and be saved, though they did later obey the command to be water baptized. My argument is, Cornelius is our Biblical precedent to know that receiving the Spirit apart from water baptism is possible.

I'm afraid your experience doesn't wash with me.

If Jesus says one thing and your experience (and others') says different, then guess who I'm going to listen to? Yeah, you got it in one.

Okay, we're making progress here. You're making it very clear that you believe you do not 'haft' to be water baptized to receive the Spirit and be saved.

Where did you get that from? That misrepresents my position quite badly, actually.

From here the theoretical question is, "can a person who has received the Spirit, but does not get water baptized,

As I've shown by all those examples above, that is impossible, and/ or highly unlikely.

I say we have to know why he or she is not getting water baptized to know the answer to that. I don't think it's a legalistic rule that a person is condemned who receives the Spirit but never gets water baptized.

Then he'd better look to his salvation. It's not a complicated thing that we are commanded to do.

The reason they don't get water baptized determines if they are condemned by their disobedience or not. Water baptism is not a legalistic check mark on a list of things you have to check off, like in a boy scout manual, in order to be saved.

If you believe in Jesus, and claim to be a disciple, then you have absolutely no choice but to get off your behind and get baptised. If you don't, deliberately, then you deserve the penalty of disobedience.

Just as getting baptized does not in and of itself determine if you are saved or not, so not getting baptized does not in and of itself determine if you are condemned. There's much more to be considered than just whether or not you got water baptized or not.

This is your opinion again - not scripture. Beware, I say, of trusting your own opinion as opposed to Jesus' own. You could pay dearly for it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: Do you have to be baptized?

If you believe in Jesus, and claim to be a disciple, then you have absolutely no choice but to get off your behind and get baptised. If you don't, deliberately, then you deserve the penalty of disobedience.

Like all disobedience, it depends on why you are deliberately disobeying the command to be baptized. God examines the heart, not just a legalistic list of 'to do's' when determining who belongs to him or not. People who have the Holy Spirit belong to him. And we know, Biblically, God can give his Holy Spirit before water baptism.

This is your opinion again - not scripture. Beware, I say, of trusting your own opinion as opposed to Jesus' own. You could pay dearly for it.

It is plainly recorded in the Bible that Cornelius and his family received the Spirit before their water baptism. They were, as a matter of God's own written record, saved before and without water baptism. You add to the scriptures by saying the Bible says they were saved before their water baptism in a special one-time event to show they were accepted by God (as if simply receiving the Holy Spirit at water baptism would not be evidence enough). You have never provided the scripture that says this. But what is plainly stated in scripture is that the giving of the Holy Spirit is what showed their acceptance by God to the Apostles.

 

[jasoncran]

thread locked due to reports of personal attacks.