Infant Immersion

[jaybo]

--Jn 3:16 is not the only verse in the Bible that deals with salvation. In examining the 'whole counsel of God' (Acts 20:27) we find that repentance (Luke 13:3) confession (Mt 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10) and baptism (Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38) are just as essential as belief. Jesus did NOT say "he that believeth only" in Jn 3:16 for such a statement would contradict what Jesus said in Lk 13:3; Mt 10:32-33; Mark 16:16. Since the Bible does not contradict itself, then it must be understood that "believeth" in Jn 3:16 is used as a synecdoche, a part for the whole. That is "believeth" includes repentance, confession and baptism. In 1 Pet 3:21 Peter says baptism saves but "baptism alone" does not save. Here baptism is used as a synecdoche where it includes belief repentance and confession

--Eph 2:9 excludes works of merit from salvation, not obedience. All works are not the same and no verse ever excludes obedience to the will of God from salvation.

--baptism is only for those who are sinners and capable of believing, repenting and confessing which excludes infants.

Can you spell "rationalization"? The Bible clearly says that baptism is a rite after one is saved. It is not essential, it is a "statement" expressing the virtual death of the unsaved person and the virtual birth into the new life.

"John's baptism" in the Jordan River: how many were saved by it? None. Jesus was baptized by John; did that save Him? Of course not.

Luke 3:3, " He went into all the region around the Jordan River, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

Acts 19:3-4, " Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus."

Romans 6:3-5, "Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly [future tense] also be united in the likeness of his resurrection.

Even the few words in one verse in 1 Peter which can be misinterpreted out of context..."And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you—not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"... it clearly says that baptism is a pledge.

Your error lies in your repeated use of synecdoche to misinterpret what the Bible clearly says -- there are no hidden meanings, or substitutions of parts for the whole. Acts 26:24, " As Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus exclaimed loudly, “You have lost your mind, Paul! Your great learning is driving you insane!”

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Can you spell "rationalization"? The Bible clearly says that baptism is a rite after one is saved. It is not essential, it is a "statement" expressing the virtual death of the unsaved person and the virtual birth into the new life.

All the verses I see put baptism BEFORE salvation, that baptism is unto salvation, that baptism saves.

"John's baptism" in the Jordan River: how many were saved by it? None. Jesus was baptized by John; did that save Him? Of course not.

Luke 3:3, " He went into all the region around the Jordan River, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

Acts 19:3-4, " Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus."

Romans 6:3-5, "Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly [future tense] also be united in the likeness of his resurrection.

John's baptism was "for the remission of sins" (salvation) Mark 1:4.
Jesus had no sins but was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (example of obedience), to identify Him as the Son of God and His baptism gave a look forward to the the NT gospel's death, burial and resurrection. One must obey the gospel to be saved (2 Thess 1:8). The gospel is the death burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-5) and there is a death burial and resurrection that takes place in water baptism (Rom 6:3-7). Water baptism IS HOW one obeys the gospel of Christ.

Even the few words in one verse in 1 Peter which can be misinterpreted out of context..."And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you—not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"... it clearly says that baptism is a pledge.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Peter clearly said baptism saves which ends all arguments that baptism does not save.
In Acts 2 Peter condemned those Jews for crucifying the Christ (Acts 2:23). Peter's word pricked them in their heart, it bothered their conscience prompting them to ask Peter what they must do about this great sin they committed. The "answer" for a good conscience Peter gave them was to repent and be baptized for remission of sins. By having their sins remitted they would have a good conscience toward God. Again, baptism is that answer.

Your error lies in your repeated use of synecdoche to misinterpret what the Bible clearly says -- there are no hidden meanings, or substitutions of parts for the whole. Acts 26:24, " As Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus exclaimed loudly, “You have lost your mind, Paul! Your great learning is driving you insane!”

To quote Jn 3:16 and declaring "belief only saves" while purposefully ignoring all other salvific verses creates error and contradictions. Jn 3:16 does not teach belief only saves no more than 1 Peter 3:21 teaches baptism alone saves or Mt 10:32-33 teaches confession alone saves.

Acts 16:33-34 "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God." The participle "having believed" sums up all the jailer had done including his repentance (washing their stripes) and be baptized.

Another example:
Acts 2:41 "They then that received his word were baptized:....."
Acts 2:44 "And all that believed were together,..."

Who were the ones that "believed" in verse 44? The ones that rejected Peter's words and NOT baptized or those that gladly received his words and was baptized?
Obviously the ones that "believed" were the ones baptized, Hence "believed" of v44 includes being baptized.

Lastly "They then that received his word were baptized:" The logical conclusion is not being baptized is rejecting the gospel words as spoken by Peter. Being baptized is gladly receiving the gospel as preached by Peter.

 

[jaybo]

All the verses I see put baptism BEFORE salvation, that baptism is unto salvation, that baptism saves.



John's baptism was "for the remission of sins" (salvation) Mark 1:4.
Jesus had no sins but was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (example of obedience), to identify Him as the Son of God and His baptism gave a look forward to the the NT gospel's death, burial and resurrection. One must obey the gospel to be saved (2 Thess 1:8). The gospel is the death burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-5) and there is a death burial and resurrection that takes place in water baptism (Rom 6:3-7). Water baptism IS HOW one obeys the gospel of Christ.



"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Peter clearly said baptism saves which ends all arguments that baptism does not save.
In Acts 2 Peter condemned those Jews for crucifying the Christ (Acts 2:23). Peter's word pricked them in their heart, it bothered their conscience prompting them to ask Peter what they must do about this great sin they committed. The "answer" for a good conscience Peter gave them was to repent and be baptized for remission of sins. By having their sins remitted they would have a good conscience toward God. Again, baptism is that answer.




To quote Jn 3:16 and declaring "belief only saves" while purposefully ignoring all other salvific verses creates error and contradictions. Jn 3:16 does not teach belief only saves no more than 1 Peter 3:21 teaches baptism alone saves or Mt 10:32-33 teaches confession alone saves.

Acts 16:33-34 "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God." The participle "having believed" sums up all the jailer had done including his repentance (washing their stripes) and be baptized.

Another example:
Acts 2:41 "They then that received his word were baptized:....."
Acts 2:44 "And all that believed were together,..."

Who were the ones that "believed" in verse 44? The ones that rejected Peter's words and NOT baptized or those that gladly received his words and was baptized?
Obviously the ones that "believed" were the ones baptized, Hence "believed" of v44 includes being baptized.

Lastly "They then that received his word were baptized:" The logical conclusion is not being baptized is rejecting the gospel words as spoken by Peter. Being baptized is gladly receiving the gospel as preached by Peter.

Obviously you won't listen to reason or interpret what Scripture clearly says. Baptism is a symbolic act that shows that the "old man" has died and the "new man" has been born. That's it. Period. I am not going to discuss this with you any more. Read your Bible and understand what it clearly says: baptism does not save; Jesus saves. Period.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Obviously you won't listen to reason or interpret what Scripture clearly says. Baptism is a symbolic act that shows that the "old man" has died and the "new man" has been born. That's it. Period. I am not going to discuss this with you any more. Read your Bible and understand what it clearly says: baptism does not save; Jesus saves. Period.

As pointed out, from 2 Thess 1:8 one must obey the gospel to be saved. The gospel is the death burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-4) and there is the DEATH of the old man of sin in baptism where one is BURIED in a watery grave and then RESURRECTED from that water grave to walk in newness of life, Rom 6. Hence one has not obeyed the gospel until one is water baptized. This death burial and resurrection takes place only in water baptism, not ever in belief only.

I will continue to believe the Bible in that "baptism doth also now save us". Some try and change the letter "w" in the word "now" to a "t".

 

[jerry63935]

baptism does not save; Jesus saves. Period.

amen

 

[stovebolts]

Yes
1) infant baptism is not Biblical. You said as much yourself. False teachings do not save.
2) God has drawn the line in having chosen water baptism as the means by which He saves men. No baptism =lost. Cornelius was a just man, did many good works but was lost until he heard and obeyed the gospel. Many good people in the world but are lost until they obey the gospel of Christ (2 Thess 1:8).

Other people have drawn the line at "faith only". Everyone will have to decide what bed they will sleep in, so to speak, and on judgement day God will sort it all out.
-God's word is truth, (Jn 17:17) and truth never contradicts itself.
-Doctrine does matter, it separates the saved from the lost, (2 Jn 1:9-10).

Hi Ernest,
Sorry for the delay in responding as I was vacationing and cell service was very poor if not completely unusable. I see many have posted after me, and I'll try and read those later. For now, I simply want to address your reply and my reply centers on Justice and rightousness.

Within your understanding, Baptism is a line that demarcates salvation. For many Catholics, this line of thinking also holds true. What you share with Catholics is a very high view of Baptism to which I also share

Where the cofc and the RCC differ is in the doctrine of original sin. This, I believe is at the root of infant baptism.

Having buried my first born while she was an infant, I can testify first hand the anguish the doctrine of original sin has on a parent who's infant was not baptized. No parent should have to bury their infant and worse yet, no parent should struggle with the thought of their innocent child being tortured for eternity simply because they were not baptized.

As a result, I cannot fault a parent for baptizing their child on the basis of acting in love for that child's eternal fate. Oh, that a parent would love their child so much as to secure the state of eternity of their child especially in a time when infant mortality was so high.

Again, I see the issue within the Church as being with the doctrine of original sin and it is acted on with sincere hearts by parents looking out for their newborns through infant baptism.

Now please do not misunderstand me. You and I are in agreement that children are innocent and that the biblical model for baptism is for believers. There is no justice nor rightousness in sending an infant to hell.

So let's talk about rightousness. The first three chapters of Romans talks about God's rightousness and a close look reveals that God's rightousness is bound in mercy. In other words, if there isn't an element of mercy in rightousness, it's not rightousness.

You may recall Jesus saying, if you are sure, give him your cloak as well. This stems from the law where if you gave your cloak as calateral, the holder would have to return it each night as that was the only covering you might have to stay warm.

You see, Justice says if you have a debt, your accountable for your debt. In this case, Justice demands your cloak. However, Rightousness upholds Justice but demands mercy when appropriate. As a result, the cloak must be returned at night so the debtor can stay warm.

We also need to touch on the idea of sin. Paul makes it clear that there are two types. First is sin done in ignorance and the second being a blatent disregard. We call this wilfull sinning. Eve sinned, but it was done in ignorance and yes, there are consequences for sin done in ignorance. However, Adams sin was willful and the consequences are much more severe. Thus, death came through Adam.

Now, let's apply that principal to Mother Teresa whome I heard with my own two ears preached from a church of Christ pulpit that she was in hell for eternity because she was not baptized as an adult.

Mother Teresa was a woman of God and exhibited the fruits of the Spirit and of her works, blameless. She devoted her life to God and the Church.

If we say she is in hell because she was taught baptism differently and she believed this teaching was her eternal security then where is God's rightousness in sending her to hell?

A teacher is held much more accountable than a student.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Hi Ernest,
Sorry for the delay in responding as I was vacationing and cell service was very poor if not completely unusable. I see many have posted after me, and I'll try and read those later. For now, I simply want to address your reply and my reply centers on Justice and rightousness.

Within your understanding, Baptism is a line that demarcates salvation. For many Catholics, this line of thinking also holds true. What you share with Catholics is a very high view of Baptism to which I also share

Technically I do not view baptism the same way as Catholics. Catholics view water baptism as a rite, sacrament where sin is removed separate and apart from the person having faith and voluntarily submits himself to baptism.

Baptism As a Mystical Sacrament
“Baptism,” as administered by the Roman Catholic Church, reflects a form of “baptismal regeneration” that is wholly at variance with the New Testament. A leading Catholic authority defines “baptism” in the following fashion:

“A sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ, in which, as a result of washing with water accompanied by the words ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,’ a human being is spiritually regenerated, and made capable of receiving the other sacraments” (Attwater, 45).

This view involves the idea that “baptism” need not be accompanied by faith, or personal surrender to the Lord. Note these additional citations from the same page of this volume.

“Baptism of the insane may be lawfully performed if such a desire has been expressed in a lucid interval, or in imminent danger of death if, before losing reason, a desire had been manifested. Those who have been insane from birth, or since before attaining the use of reason, may at any time be baptized as infants.”

“Baptism of the unborn. If there is not a probable hope that a child can be baptized after birth, Baptism may be administered in the womb: in the case of a head presentation, on the head; in other presentations on the part presented, but then it has to be again baptized conditionally if it is living on complete delivery. Should the mother die in labour, the child is to be extracted from the womb and, if certainly living, baptized absolutely; if life is doubtful, conditionally. An aborted fetus must also be baptized, unconditionally or conditionally according to the circumstances.”

The sentiments expressed by Attwater (whose book, incidentally, has the Imprimatur of the Roman Church) are wholly foreign to New Testament doctrine."
Wayne Jackson

What Is Baptismal Regeneration?

Exactly what is "baptismal regeneration"? Is this doctrine scriptural?

www.christiancourier.com

Where the cofc and the RCC differ is in the doctrine of original sin. This, I believe is at the root of infant baptism.

As seen above, Catholics do not just baptized infants but baptize those who have gone into insanity.

Having buried my first born while she was an infant, I can testify first hand the anguish the doctrine of original sin has on a parent who's infant was not baptized. No parent should have to bury their infant and worse yet, no parent should struggle with the thought of their innocent child being tortured for eternity simply because they were not baptized.

I am sorry to hear about this of your first child, but she is with David and his child in paradise.

As a result, I cannot fault a parent for baptizing their child on the basis of acting in love for that child's eternal fate. Oh, that a parent would love their child so much as to secure the state of eternity of their child especially in a time when infant mortality was so high.

But that is the problem...one error (OS) leading to more errors (infant baptism) which only leads to more and more errors. Baptizing infants does not make OS sin true.

If I agree with infant baptism then that means I must also agree with OS, error leading to more error. Instead of me compromising my beliefs (I believe compromisers will be spewed from Christ's mouth) men have to learn their way out of error.

Again, I see the issue within the Church as being with the doctrine of original sin and it is acted on with sincere hearts by parents looking out for their newborns through infant baptism.

Now please do not misunderstand me. You and I are in agreement that children are innocent and that the biblical model for baptism is for believers. There is no justice nor rightousness in sending an infant to hell.

So let's talk about rightousness. The first three chapters of Romans talks about God's rightousness and a close look reveals that God's rightousness is bound in mercy. In other words, if there isn't an element of mercy in rightousness, it's not rightousness.

You may recall Jesus saying, if you are sure, give him your cloak as well. This stems from the law where if you gave your cloak as calateral, the holder would have to return it each night as that was the only covering you might have to stay warm.

You see, Justice says if you have a debt, your accountable for your debt. In this case, Justice demands your cloak. However, Rightousness upholds Justice but demands mercy when appropriate. As a result, the cloak must be returned at night so the debtor can stay warm.[/quote]

I am not following. Are you suggesting Mt 5:40 is saying I am to go along with error to make those that believe in OS to feel 'warm'?

Now, let's apply that principal to Mother Teresa whome I heard with my own two ears preached from a church of Christ pulpit that she was in hell for eternity because she was not baptized as an adult.

Mother Teresa was a woman of God and exhibited the fruits of the Spirit and of her works, blameless. She devoted her life to God and the Church.

If we say she is in hell because she was taught baptism differently and she believed this teaching was her eternal security then where is God's rightousness in sending her to hell?

So I am to compromise my beliefs to go along with Catholics while Catholics do not have to compromise what they believe?

Cornelius was a just, devout man, feared God and did many good works but was lost having not been baptized. Am I to purposefully misunderstand Acts 10 to appease the Catholics?

Here is my position on it:
-Others can compromise their souls away into hell all they choose, not me.
-Catholics need to study their way out of this error.

 

[stovebolts]

Here is my position on it:
-Others can compromise their souls away into hell all they choose, not me.
-Catholics need to study their way out of this error.

I get the idea you think I'm asking you to compromise. I am not.
I am asking you to understand another's point of view without condemnation.
Catholics baptize infants so they will be saved from eternal damnation. You and I both agree they have been taught wrong. You will not succeed in winning an argument in regard to infant baptism until you have laid the foundation that infants don't need to be baptized in order to be with Christ. Until they believe otherwise, what you are doing is telling them children go to hell. Like yourself they believe baptism is a line that demarcates heaven from hell. Your job is to move the goal line but that won't happen until they know their children are safe.

When you or others say Mother Teresa is burning in hell because she was not baptized as an adult is void of compassion and turns baptism into a legal transaction which can be construed as a work.

You will need to explain how we serve a just and rightous God who would send a devoted servant to hell on a technicality.

 

[jerry63935]

Having buried my first born while she was an infant, I can testify first hand the anguish the doctrine of original sin has on a parent who's infant was not baptized. No parent should have to bury their infant and worse yet, no parent should struggle with the thought of their innocent child being tortured for eternity simply because they were not baptized.

burying a infant has to be tough . i can assure that no child or infant will spend time in eternity of hell

I heard with my own two ears preached from a church of Christ pulpit that she was in hell for eternity because she was not baptized as an adult.

that preacher has no authority in the pulpit. that is cold and enough to drive a parent nuts . i dont know much about coc other than what i have heard on t.v this is pathetic .yes it make my blood boil .that pastor will stand in judgment for that fleshly remark

 

[stovebolts]

burying a infant has to be tough . i can assure that no child or infant will spend time in eternity of hell

In my experience, it was one of the darkest periods of my life. I didn't know the scriptures like I do now, so I trusted the people I looked up to and I was left empty and in fear that my child might be in hell. It added to my misguided anger and hatred of the God I thought I knew. I grappled with my theology for years, and this forum helped me to dig deep in scripture to come to firm ground that yes, my children are with David's children.

St. Augustine was debating what we now call universalists and it was widely accepted and I understood at that time that baptism was directly linked to salvation. Yes, the early church was fairly unified in this doctrine. Seizing on this, St. Augustine developed the doctrine of Original Sin to defeat the universalists and in doing so, cemented the practice of infant baptism for the salvation of their souls. Even Calvin agreed with regeneration through baptism as recorded in his institututes but I don't know where Calvin stood on infant baptism.

We need to understand how St. Augustine reshaped Christianity and how we today are still being impacted by the doctrines he hammered out.

What that means is the vast majority of Christians can't show scripture to back up your statement and most can't win a debate with one who holds close the doctrine of Original Sin and the best you'll get out of them is, "We don't really know", which is of no comfort to one greiving the loss of their child.

preacher has no authority in the pulpit. that is cold and enough to drive a parent nuts . i dont know much about coc other than what i have heard on t.v this is pathetic .yes it make my blood boil .that pastor will stand in judgment for that fleshly remark

It was a deacon, but he had the support of the Elders. In the cofc, the preacher has no authority unless he also happens to be an Elder. It's actually a Biblical model and although they get some things dead wrong in my view of scripture, they also get a lot of things incredibly right.

I've got good friends that still attend and we meet every Saturday for men's breakfast.

 

[jerry63935]

What that means is the vast majority of Christians can't show scripture to back up your statement and most can't win a debate with one who holds close the doctrine of Original Sin and the best you'll get out of them is, "We don't really know", which is of no comfort to one greiving the loss of their child.

im not out to prove anything i can refer back to king david when God took his baby conceived in adultery. baby dies we read in scripture

8 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?

19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.

20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.

21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? { I shall go to him, ] but he shall not return to me. its just not God nature to do that to a child I REALIZE YOUR NOT SAYING OTHER WISE. I AM JUST SAYING ON MY PART I DONT NEED TO PROVE MY POINT... i do however fail to understand a preacher saying that . that could very well cause a person to leave the church never return.. i helped do one baby funeral . i did what i could to minister...
might i add this child was a twin and the healther one as per size. born at 10 and half months. the couple has spoke to me about a type sprinkling before something happened. i had agreed but before i could get to the neonatal unit 2 hours away . he took a turn for the worse and the had another minister do it..
i was against it told them i would do it for them..... as type dedication twin boys his brother survived his name is william 5 years old was told he would have issues. we bring him and his 3 sisters to the house every weekend. he is smart very sharp and yes spoiled . but he still gets his tale warmed up.. his dad took off has nothing to do with him. pays no child support on him or his sister

any way we dearly love all 4 kids God has blessed the family Mom has nothing to do with Church .but we take them..

i know some who has lost a child you can see it left a big hole in them. honestly dont know how i would have held up had i experienced that

 

[jerry63935]

It was a deacon, but he had the support of the Elders. In the cofc, the preacher has no authority unless he also happens to be an Elder.

i dont know much at all about that denom ..i have looked at pentecostal they have many good points . i actually agree with there worship .they put baptist to shame

 

[JLB]

With all due respect if water baptism is not that "hard line" then what is that hard line and who drew it?

Believing.


Jesus drew it.


Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. Luke 8:12

• lest they should believe and be saved.

Paul says it this way —


that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10

• For with the heart one believes unto righteousness

Here‘s my question to you:

Can a person be right with God (righteous) and still be in their sins?


JLB

 

[JLB]

i dont know much at all about that denom ..i have looked at pentecostal they have many good points . i actually agree with there worship .they put baptist to shame

 

[Sparkey]

Brothers, sisters in Christ, although I very much enjoy the feelings of intimacy while reading these various attempts at expressing innermost thoughts and beliefs, is it not possible for Christ to be preached?

We are speaking to a public forum. Being aware of our audience may allow our discussion to become more ...

No. It is not for me to correct nor reprove.

Carry on. But may we preface things that might sound like dogma with a phrase kike, "in a perfect world..."

So then something like, 'We must all..." could into, "In a perfect workd we would all..."

Such awareness helps include others perhaps less aware of all rhe deeper parts without significant exclusion.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Believing.


Jesus drew it.


Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. Luke 8:12

• lest they should believe and be saved.

Paul says it this way —


that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10

• For with the heart one believes unto righteousness

Here‘s my question to you:

Can a person be right with God (righteous) and still be in their sins?


JLB

Nowhere did Jesus ever say "believe alone" for such contradicts what He said in Lk 13:3; Matt 10:32-33 and Mk 16:16.

Jn 3:16 believeth keeps one from perishing just as repentance keeps one from perish Lk 13:3,5. Which means all the belief only in the world will never save the person who refuses to repent. Jn 12:42 belief alone will not save those that will not confess. It must be understood then that 'believeth' includes repentance confession and baptism.

====

Rom 10:10 KJV "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Rom 10:10 NIV "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."

Notice the difference between the KJV of this verse and the NIV? The KJV has it right in that belief leads one unto, toward salvation and not belief alone saves/justifies. The NIV, in trying to push Luther's faith onlyism, not only has one saved/justified at the moment of belief but saved/justified a second time when one confesses.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I get the idea you think I'm asking you to compromise. I am not.
I am asking you to understand another's point of view without condemnation.

That requires compromise.

Catholics baptize infants so they will be saved from eternal damnation. You and I both agree they have been taught wrong. You will not succeed in winning an argument in regard to infant baptism until you have laid the foundation that infants don't need to be baptized in order to be with Christ. Until they believe otherwise, what you are doing is telling them children go to hell. Like yourself they believe baptism is a line that demarcates heaven from hell. Your job is to move the goal line but that won't happen until they know their children are safe.

When you or others say Mother Teresa is burning in hell because she was not baptized as an adult is void of compassion and turns baptism into a legal transaction which can be construed as a work.

You will need to explain how we serve a just and rightous God who would send a devoted servant to hell on a technicality.

Catholics must learn their way out of this error. In the meantime I will not compromise. Why do you continue to insist I must compromise but do not seek compromise from Catholics in what they believe?

How many posts have I made showing obedience, as submitting to water baptism is a work of obedience? And that obedience is meeting a condition God placed upon a free gift in order to receive the free gift. Therefore obedience earns NOTHING. Out of all the obedience that men did in the Bible has anyone here yet produced the first verse that says Noah's Abraham's Paul's etc obedience earned their justification? No.

There is NO COMPASSION in letting people continue in error. The compassion is to get them out of error.
No compassion in compromise.

Jesus was not compassionate in that He would not compromise with the Pharisees but condemned them instead?

I

 

[JLB]

Nowhere did Jesus ever say "believe alone"

No such phrase as believe alone.

 

[JLB]

[

Nowhere did Jesus ever say "believe alone" for such contradicts what He said in Lk 13:3; Matt 10:32-33 and Mk 16:16.

Jn 3:16 believeth keeps one from perishing just as repentance keeps one from perish Lk 13:3,5. Which means all the belief only in the world will never save the person who refuses to repent. Jn 12:42 belief alone will not save those that will not confess. It must be understood then that 'believeth' includes repentance confession and baptism.

====

Rom 10:10 KJV "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Rom 10:10 NIV "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."

Notice the difference between the KJV of this verse and the NIV? The KJV has it right in that belief leads one unto, toward salvation and not belief alone saves/justifies. The NIV, in trying to push Luther's faith onlyism, not only has one saved/justified at the moment of belief but saved/justified a second time when one confesses.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:10 KJV

• with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;

Again my question is:

Can a person be right with God (righteous) and still be in their sins?


JLB

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

No such phrase as believe alone.

I agree for there is a big night and day difference between "believe" and "believe alone" as there is between "faith" and "faith alone". Jesus nor His Apostles ever taught 'believe alone' or 'faith alone'.