BAPTISM SAVES, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"

[Enoch111]

You're a Gentile and Gentiles have ONLY one apostle, Paul. Christ was an apostle that was sent ONLY to Israel.

This is called *Bullingerism" which is false doctrine.

'The teaching about the Jews being "formally broken off at Acts 28:28" is purely fiction. It is the false assumption upon which the whole structure of "Bullingerism" has been erected. How can anyone carefully read the book of Acts along with such passages as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Romans 11:17 and fail to see that the "natural olive branches," Israel, were broken off gradually? Paul would go into a town and preach to "Jew first" and would then pronounce the judgment of God upon the Christ-rejecting Jewish leaders in that town. After privately teaching the Jews and Gentiles who did believe his public message about the Christ spoken of by "the prophets and Moses," Paul would leave the Spirit-taught "members of the one body in Christ" (Galatians:3:27-28; Romans 12:4-5) and would go to another town to speak to "Jew first." Finally, Paul is ready to go to Rome and thus writes the Roman saints: "Now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you, whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you." Romans 15:23-24. But when he got to Rome he did as always, preached the gospel of Christ to "Jew first." His Roman pronouncement against the Jews, Acts 28:28, was no more a "formal" setting aside of the Jews as a nation than was his declaration in Acts 13:46.'

Maurice Johnson - Why I Reject "Bullingerism"

 

[justbyfaith]

Correct. And water baptism is AFTER regeneration, not before. Please note:

ACTS 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [born again through the Word, the Gospel]

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [the Holy Ghost given simultaneously]

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [tongues, a spiritual gift from the Spirit, manifested]

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [then the issue of baptism in water]

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. [then the commandment to be baptized by immersion in water]

Also, it is important to note that speaking in tongues is NOT the norm after regeneration. This too is supported by Scripture:Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41). No mention of 3,000 speaking in tongues. Had it happened it would have surely been recorded. It is only because the Jews with Peter were skeptical that tongues was manifested as a sign of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Kindly note that "the Word" is critical, as Peter already revealed, and you failed to take into account. "Born of water" means regenerated through hearing the *water* of the Word of God -- the Gospel -- as the Holy Spirit convicts and convinces. So yes, the RCC, the EOC, etc. are DEAD WRONG, and they promote a false salvation.

I already addressed most of this in post #109. And btw, I do not believe that tongues are necessary for salvation (1 Corinthians 12:28-30), though they are such a great benefit in my own Christian walk that I don't know what I would do personally without that gift. I believe that it has been of major importance (even indispensable--I very likely would not be a Christian today if I had not been given that gift) in my life as a means by which I can keep myself in the love of God.

Also, concerning being born of water--you are taking an awful chance based on whether you have the right interpretation--if your interpretation is wrong, you could be in a load of trouble and putting others in a load of trouble through what you teach. No prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation...and one of the public interpretations is that being born of water refers to baptism...and this ought not to be dismissed out of hand by anyone.

 

[justbyfaith]

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

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.

Doesn't get ANY clearer than that.

In Mark 16:16, it is showing that believing and being baptized will absolutely grant salvation but that condemnation will only be rendered if you don't believe...nothing about baptism in the latter end of the verse.

As for John 3:5, there are alternate interpretations to that other than it referring to baptism...although I am not certain that those interpretations are valid over and above the primary one you are speaking of and so I myself did not take any chances on going to hell and took the opportunity to be baptized when I was given the opportunity.

Not moved by your thoughts...

Post # 96

[QUOTE="justbyfaith, post: 468889, member: 7886"~]In the context of Acts 2:38-39, it says that 3,000 souls were added to the church that day. How did they do the counting? Faith is invisible to the human eye.

It should only be obvious that Peter baptized in water the same as John the Baptist baptized in water. That is what is normally being referred to when baptism is mentioned in scripture.[~/QUOTE]

Not impressed you think yourself qualified to lecture me, after you are the one, preaching what is not Scriptural.

"Your" wisdom is clearly worldly.
1 Cor 3:19.

Glory to God,
Taken

Teach me, Obi-wan; for you are not the kind to exhibit worldly wisdom...

 

[justbyfaith]

This is called *Bullingerism" which is false doctrine.

'The teaching about the Jews being "formally broken off at Acts 28:28" is purely fiction. It is the false assumption upon which the whole structure of "Bullingerism" has been erected. How can anyone carefully read the book of Acts along with such passages as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Romans 11:17 and fail to see that the "natural olive branches," Israel, were broken off gradually? Paul would go into a town and preach to "Jew first" and would then pronounce the judgment of God upon the Christ-rejecting Jewish leaders in that town. After privately teaching the Jews and Gentiles who did believe his public message about the Christ spoken of by "the prophets and Moses," Paul would leave the Spirit-taught "members of the one body in Christ" (Galatians:3:27-28; Romans 12:4-5) and would go to another town to speak to "Jew first." Finally, Paul is ready to go to Rome and thus writes the Roman saints: "Now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you, whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you." Romans 15:23-24. But when he got to Rome he did as always, preached the gospel of Christ to "Jew first." His Roman pronouncement against the Jews, Acts 28:28, was no more a "formal" setting aside of the Jews as a nation than was his declaration in Acts 13:46.'

Maurice Johnson - Why I Reject "Bullingerism"

Not that I think "Bullingerism" is correct...but I think that a perfect strategy for the devil to adopt would be to identify sound doctrine and then condemn it as heresy if he possibly could, by labeling it with some kind of horrible-sounding label to try to deter people from believing in the doctrine in question; or to heap persecution on those who preach the doctrine thus labeled, because they find it in the Bible.

I think that Acts 24:14 (kjv) has a bearing on this.

Having not studied it out, I don't know whether "Bullingerism" is heresy or sound doctrine being condemned as heresy.

 

[farouk]

Not that I think "Bullingerism" is correct...but I think that a perfect strategy for the devil to adopt would be to identify sound doctrine and then condemn it as heresy if he possibly could, by labeling it with some kind of horrible-sounding label to try to deter people from believing in the doctrine in question; or to heap persecution on those who preach the doctrine thus labeled, because they find it in the Bible.

I think that Acts 24:14 (kjv) has a bearing on this.

Having not studied it out, I don't know whether "Bullingerism" is heresy or sound doctrine being condemned as heresy.

Do you know the Bullinger Bible edition?

 

[justbyfaith]

Do you know the Bullinger Bible edition?

Never heard of it.

 

[farouk]

Never heard of it.

E W Bullinger did an annotated set of notes to a Bible, which used to be available several years ago.

 

[justbyfaith]

Did you read the edition? And, what did you think of it?

 

[Taken]

In Mark 16:16, it is showing that believing and being baptized will absolutely grant salvation but that condemnation will only be rendered if you don't believe...nothing about baptism in the latter end of the verse.

As for John 3:5, there are alternate interpretations to that other than it referring to baptism...although I am not certain that those interpretations are valid over and above the primary one you are speaking of and so I myself did not take any chances on going to hell and took the opportunity to be baptized when I was given the opportunity.

Teach me, Obi-wan; for you are not the kind to exhibit worldly wisdom...

Not impressed.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[farouk]

Did you read the edition? And, what did you think of it?

I've not read a lot of it, but by reputation Bullinger advocted the idea of soul sleep; but some ppl who use the Bullinger annotated Bible are not aware of the soul sleep element, or else it may not be overt in the annotated Bible edition.

 

[justbyfaith]

I've not read a lot of it, but by reputation Bullinger advocted the idea of soul sleep; but some ppl who use the Bullinger annotated Bible are not aware of the soul sleep element, or else it may not be overt in the annotated Bible edition.

A case for soul sleep can be made from certain verses; but I think that 2 Corinthians 5:8 and 2 Peter 1:14-15 contradict the doctrine.

 

[farouk]

A case for soul sleep can be made from certain verses; but I think that 2 Corinthians 5:8, 2 Peter 1:14-15 contradicts the doctrine.

"With Christ, which is far better," indeed!

 

[justbyfaith]

Not impressed.

Glory to God,
Taken

Ditto to you.

But really, you are the Master, and you have no worldly wisdom; so teach! You have the floor. Give us your biblical opinion on the subject.

 

[justbyfaith]

"With Christ, which is far better," indeed!

Philippians 1:23.

 

[farouk]

Philippians 1:23.

Exactly!

 

[Taken]

Ditto to you.

But really, you are the Master, and you have no worldly wisdom; so teach! You have the floor. Give us your biblical opinion on the subject.

You can be content with your water baptism and snarky remarks...

I'm content with having Received Jesus' Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[justbyfaith]

Okay, let's go with a remark that isn't "snarky".

Your wisdom is clearly worldly.

Don't have the confidence to actually teach us? Maybe you don't have the knowledge and understanding that you think you do.

And the Baptism of the Holy Spirit will surely give you the power to teach us wonderfully on this subject (see Acts of the Apostles 1:8); if you really have it.

 

[mjrhealth]

The funny thing about water baptism, John must of baptized thousands, but not one of them was saved till Christs resurrection, So you see, water baptism saves no man, Christ Sacrifice on the Cross does,

 

[Jun2u]

Where we currently live, this doctrine is very popular. What are your thoughts on this matter?

My thoughts:

The Bible speaks of two baptisms, on one hand, it speaks of water baptism and on the other hand, it speaks of a spiritual baptism. Whether literal or spiritual both baptisms mean “to wash,” (what are we washed from, our sins?) however, there is only one baptism...by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5).

Water baptism does not and cannot save anyone! It can only wash the dirt off of our skin.

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure (shadow) 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.

Words in bold are for emphasis. It should be noted here that the phrase “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” is definitely describing water baptism because that’s what water does... If water baptism saves then Scripture will be speaking of two baptisms and chaos will ensue, rather than one baptism that saves (Ephesians 4:4-6). Many in Christendom have a difficult time understanding 1Peter 3:21.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Enoch111]

John must of baptized thousands, but not one of them was saved till Christs resurrection...

John's baptism was quite different from Christian baptism. And of course, neither baptism saved or saves anyone. But this is one of the most dangerous false doctrines around, since it gives people a false sense of security.