BadWolf Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Hi guys... new here... couldn't pass this one up.John 3:5
Flyonthewall Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Mark 16:16There are a number of clear and compelling reasons why we can be sure that Mark 16:16 isn
DLClark Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Can anyone show a verse in the Bible that says that condemnation is based on not being baptized? This is a very simple question. I hope that there is one that will answer it honestly if they can.I can show you where the bible says that unbelief brings condemnation. Can you do the same for not being baptized?DLC
Flyonthewall Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Can anyone show a verse in the Bible that says that condemnation is based on not being baptized? This is a very simple question. I hope that there is one that will answer it honestly if they can.I can show you where the bible says that unbelief brings condemnation. Can you do the same for not being baptized?DLCYou are very insistent on this. The issue is not whether "not being baptized" brings condemnation, but whether or not baptism is required for salvation. You have twisted this into something other than what it began as. Are unbeleivers baptised?In case you did not read my last post:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Who does Jesus Christ say shall be saved? Not those that just believe, but those that believe AND are baptized. Will an unbeleiver be baptized? no. So unbelief does indeed condemn, and belief alone does not save, but the combination of belief and baptism does. In your post, you spend a lot of time and effort trying to convince us that Jesus did not really mean what He said.It is very plain in the scriptures that baptism IS required for salvation. Baptism is for the remission of sins. Jesus was baptized, not because He needed a remission of sins, but to fulfill all righteousness. How does baptism fulfill all righteousness?
Vance Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Can anyone show a verse in the Bible that says that condemnation is based on not being baptized? This is a very simple question. I hope that there is one that will answer it honestly if they can.I thought we were talking about salvation not condemnation. Jesus was very clear that Baptism is required to enter the kingdom of God.I can show you where the bible says that unbelief brings condemnation. Can you do the same for not being baptized?If you don't believe what Jesus clearly and plainly taught will you be condemned?How do you claim to believe IN Jesus, when you don't believe Jesus when He clearly and plainly taught that Baptism is required for entrance into the kingdom of God?To believe IN Jesus you must believe Jesus!!
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Can anyone show a verse in the Bible that says that condemnation is based on not being baptized? This is a very simple question. I hope that there is one that will answer it honestly if they can.I can show you where the bible says that unbelief brings condemnation. Can you do the same for not being baptized?DLCThis is really simple. If part of ganing salvation is based on faith baptizim recieving the gift of the HG and enduring to the end, then reason stands that if you do not any of those you would not be saved.Baptism and enduring to the end come after belief and repentance. From a non believiers stand point what good would it do to tell them that unless the believe and are baptised they will not be saved? If not beleieving will already disqualify them from salvation. IOW it would be redundant to say so. How ever if one is a true beleiver the will be baptised because Christ told us and showed us that we must be baptised even as he was.
Vance Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 It is interesting to me that Christ, who was without sin, was required to be baptized (to fulfill all righteousness), and some people think that we, who have sinned, don't need it for salvation (even though Jesus taught otherwise).I don't understand such thinking.
BadWolf Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 I don't understand it either... since Baptism is a commandment. John 3:5Christ also said this...Matthew 5:17-2017 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.I wonder why DLCLARK is teaching to disobey Gods commandments.
Flyonthewall Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 I don't understand it either... since Baptism is a commandment. John 3:5Christ also said this...Matthew 5:17-2017 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.I wonder why DLCLARK is teaching to disobey Gods commandments.This particular verse can lead to a discussion of what exactly is "salvation" and the "kingdom of heaven" as breakers of the law and those that teach others to break the law may be the least, but still in the kingdom of heaven. This of course fits well within the LDS take on salvation, as one can be "saved" without being exalted. All those who inherit a kingdom of glory can be considered "saved" from the second death, be in the kingdom of heaven, but not in the highest level...An all or nothing outlook, doesn't really leave room for being the "least" in the kingdom.
Hoops22 Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 It is interesting to me that Christ, who was without sin, was required to be baptized (to fulfill all righteousness), and some people think that we, who have sinned, don't need it for salvation (even though Jesus taught otherwise).I don't understand such thinking.Well, if He fulfilled all righteousness, then why do we need baptism?Nonetheless, Jesus was living, obviously, in pre-atonement.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Well, if He fulfilled all righteousness, then why do we need baptism?Nonetheless, Jesus was living, obviously, in pre-atonement.Oh boy, that is not a very good understanding what what Jesus meant. Jesus was talking about himself. He had to do for himself to fullfil all rightessnous. IOW being bapstised was not some communal ordiance that effected every one. Talk about prooftexting.Yeah and living in "pre-atonement" doesn't mean a thing. Jesus started his misnitry 3 years before he died. That means the 2nd he started teaching the old things were done away with and there were new things brought about. Remeber the whole sermon on teh mount. That wasn't just for the jews. WE know that all that are not of Israel are Israel still, so I don't want to here anything about "context" "Jesus was talking to the jews". That is a mis-represntation of what it means to be Israel per Paul.
Vance Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Well, if He fulfilled all righteousness, then why do we need baptism?Because Jesus said it was required to enter into the kingdom of God. That is why. Can you believe in Jesus without believing Jesus? Nonetheless, Jesus was living, obviously, in pre-atonement.Sorry but your two gospels theory has been totally refuted time and time again.I have shown you before that what Jesus taught is preeminent over ANYTHING taught by ANYONE (including Paul).
Zakuska Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 Oh boy, that is not a very good understanding what what Jesus meant. Jesus was talking about himself. He had to do for himself to fullfil all rightessnous. IOW being bapstised was not some communal ordiance that effected every one. Talk about prooftexting.Yeah and living in "pre-atonement" doesn't mean a thing. Jesus started his misnitry 3 years before he died. That means the 2nd he started teaching the old things were done away with and there were new things brought about. Remeber the whole sermon on teh mount. That wasn't just for the jews. WE know that all that are not of Israel are Israel still, so I don't want to here anything about "context" "Jesus was talking to the jews". That is a mis-represntation of what it means to be Israel per Paul.If Jesus fullfilled all righteousness then why did Paul need to preach anything?
Hoops22 Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 Oh boy, that is not a very good understanding what what Jesus meant. Jesus was talking about himself. He had to do for himself to fullfil all rightessnous. IOW being bapstised was not some communal ordiance that effected every one. Talk about prooftexting.Is there a point in here some where? 'Cause I sure ain't gettin' it.Yeah and living in "pre-atonement" doesn't mean a thing.Really? Seriously? That is your position?All I can do is shake my head and tell you that I disagree. Jesus started his misnitry 3 years before he died. That means the 2nd he started teaching the old things were done away with and there were new things brought about.How could someone be saved pre-atonement? There was no shed blood to cover his sins. But, I think you're starting to get it - sans the comment above. How could He preach that His death and resurrection will save when it hasn't happened yet. For goodness sake, even when He hinted at it, told about it specifically, then it actually occurred, the apostles still didn't get it.I would contend that it wasn't until Paul and his preaching of the church and to the church that it finally dawned on them. Try reading Jesus ministry with the idea that "The Kingdom" is not the church, but His literal thousand year reign. It will happen for you, I promise. Remeber the whole sermon on teh mount. That wasn't just for the jews. WE know that all that are not of Israel are Israel still, so I don't want to here anything about "context" "Jesus was talking to the jews". That is a mis-represntation of what it means to be Israel per Paul.Got yer mind a-fixed, do ya? Paul was after the resurrection, you can't deny that. But you can deny, and do, apparently, that that has no meaning. Nevertheless, Jesus WAS talking to Israel, after all, it is to the Nation that He came.
Hoops22 Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 If Jesus fullfilled all righteousness then why did Paul need to preach anything?Paul preached the church to the gentiles.
Hoops22 Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 Because Jesus said it was required to enter into the kingdom of God. That is why. Can you believe in Jesus without believing Jesus? And what is the kingdom of God? It's not the church that's for sure.Sorry but your two gospels theory has been totally refuted time and time again.Please, show me one time. should be easy if it has been refuted time and time again. Just one please, Vasily. One ping only.I have shown you before that what Jesus taught is preeminent over ANYTHING taught by ANYONE (including Paul).'Kay, so what Paul wrote is not the words of Jesus? You know, the one they call "The Word." Is that your position?
Hoops22 Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 This particular verse can lead to a discussion of what exactly is "salvation" and the "kingdom of heaven" Let's do it.
Zakuska Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 Paul preached the church to the gentiles.He did? Weve been over this Hoops22. Acts 20 16 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. 17
cdowis Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 Can anyone show a verse in the Bible that says that condemnation is based on not being baptized? This is a very simple question. I hope that there is one that will answer it honestly if they can.I can show you where the bible says that unbelief brings condemnation. Can you do the same for not being baptized?DLCYour wish is my command.John 3 [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.A logical extension of that statement is found inLuke [16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.Obviously, an unbeliever will reject the words of Christ, and not be baptized and cannot enter the kingdom of God. Those who "confess Christ" and do not keep his commandments (such as baptism) will be found on the left hand of Christ. I'm sure you can find that scripture for yourself.So, considering these statements, it's obvious that the thief on the cross had already been baptized either by John, or the disciples.
DLClark Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 You are very insistent on this. The issue is not whether "not being baptized" brings condemnation, but whether or not baptism is required for salvation. You have twisted this into something other than what it began as. Are unbeleivers baptised?In case you did not read my last post:The blood of Christ not baptism cleasnes us from all of our sins.Now for Mark 16:16. Lets look at this verse from a textual stand point.Mark 16:16
DLClark Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 The Bible teaches that to be saved a person must
Flyonthewall Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 The blood of Christ not baptism cleasnes us from all of our sins.Now for Mark 16:16. Lets look at this verse from a textual stand point.Mark 16:16
cdowis Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 DL Clark,I wish you all the best in your search for the truth. One observation, all of us face the important choice of following the teachings of Christ, or the teachings of man. This is a very important choice, and each of us will be judged on that decision.The Lord will not be impressed with rhetorical fireworks.
Hoops22 Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 He did? Weve been over this Hoops22. Acts 20 16 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. 17
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.