different instructions

[veteran]

Now, James had it wrong. He was almost right, but no. Faith alone without works is enough. Faith without works is not dead faith. See, Mr. Rosenberger... I don't murder. I don't steal. I'm not gay and I don't cheat on my wife. I like beer and I do drink, but not to excess. I give to charity. The heathen can and some of them do all this too. I'm saved by grace through faith alone. Not because I do or don't do these things. James had a great message, but he was not an apostle and when he says "faith without works is dead" he's wrong. But by no means is his overall messsage wrong. He was a wise man, and said a lot of useful and prophetic things, just like Martin Luther, whom I admire. But some things were just wrong and not in line with the Bible teaching.

James was not wrong, what he was preaching was right in align with what Christ taught in Matthew 25 about the unprofitable servant and Christ's sheep vs. the goats. In the situation James gave, it was about failing to help someone in physical need by showing faith only. It was a lesson about having faith only and not having works to prove it. He was not denying that we are saved by God's grace. What Christ Jesus taught shows He expects us to have works in Him to go along with our faith.

The OSAS doctrine tries to throw away the importance of serving Christ after having believed on Him. It's so the hirelings can get people's money.

Let me sum it up. Yes, Christians are free to do anything they want in the flesh (they can't do wrong spiritually... They can't blasheme God or deny him or believe false doctrine). But a true Christian will understand that this freedom means they are the LORD'S free man. That means they are still the Lord's and still a prisioner of Christ. It means they will put his bidding above their own desires. It means they won't do anything to bring reproach to the Body of CHrist, because they love the brethren and they want to be left alone by the heathen. It means they will obey the laws of the land for Christ's sake as the Bible says.

I understand what you're trying to say, but we shouldn't ever say that we Christians are free to do anything we want. That's not a true definition of liberty in Christ Jesus. There's a big difference between having the 'ability' to follow whatever, vs. the liberty toward good works in Christ Jesus. That liberty is not about permission from Christ to do whatever we want. Some of the early Christians had that problem of thinking, as they practiced fornication along with their belief. They brought a pagan practice in with their Christian belief.

 

[RichardBurger]

1 Corinthians 6:12
12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
NKJV

 

[FHII]

James was not wrong, what he was preaching was right in align with what Christ taught in Matthew 25 about the unprofitable servant and Christ's sheep vs. the goats. In the situation James gave, it was about failing to help someone in physical need by showing faith only. It was a lesson about having faith only and not having works to prove it. He was not denying that we are saved by God's grace. What Christ Jesus taught shows He expects us to have works in Him to go along with our faith.

The OSAS doctrine tries to throw away the importance of serving Christ after having believed on Him. It's so the hirelings can get people's money.




I understand what you're trying to say, but we shouldn't ever say that we Christians are free to do anything we want. That's not a true definition of liberty in Christ Jesus. There's a big difference between having the 'ability' to follow whatever, vs. the liberty toward good works in Christ Jesus. That liberty is not about permission from Christ to do whatever we want. Some of the early Christians had that problem of thinking, as they practiced fornication along with their belief. They brought a pagan practice in with their Christian belief.

Veteran,

I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

When we look at what James wrote in his epistle, we see something glaring that contradicts what Paul preached. James said things like faith without works is dead [faith]. Paul said faith alone produces grace and we are saved by grace without works. Churches, ministries and denominations have tried for centuries to link reconcile what James said and what Paul said. But it can't be done.

With that opinion in mind (and hear me out), James was a Christian. He is worthy to be listened to as much as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter. He, according to history, died a martyr because he would not deny his half brother, the Lord. He didn't believe in the beginning. But he ended believing. Everything he wrote I believe was inspired and meant to be in the Bible.

With that in mind, he addresses his epistle to the 12 tribes which are scattered. We can't take that lightly. It doesn't contradict Paul because it's to a different audience. James was at level one, which is great, and I love the things he said. But Paul was at a second level.

Paul barely got along with any of the other apostles. He openly and publically challenged Peter as noted in Galatians, he had some kind of dispute with John in the book of Acts. And he didn't think highly of the Council of Jeruselem as we see in his writings of I Corinthians and Galatians. However, he still did meet with Peter, John and James to get advice. He went through something truamatic and counciled with them.

But no. When James says things like faith without works is dead, it's not what Paul preached. That is, if you take each verse of James and isolate it.

When I read the book of James I see James, being a head of a Church, having similar problems Paul had. There were idiots in James' Church who were snubbing their nose at the poorer folks who worshipped with them. Paul's problem was that they took grace too far and were bringing reproach to God. Both were making God look bad in the eyes of the heathen. Both dealt with the situation in Word righteously. The things that James said are true. But James never believed in grace through faith the same way Paul preached it. It is close, but not exactly there.

Paul, a true man of God cut off ties with John, who was also a true man of God. He also challenged another true man of God in the name of Peter. He also left fellowship with Barnabas. Yet he never said they weren't devout and worthy of listening to. He just couldn't deal with them any longer. So it's not surprising that his message would be against James either, whom he didn't like yet he respected.

So, "faith without works is dead." Not necessarily true. Works aren't going to get you into heaven. That's the bottom line. However, Jesus said love the brethren as you love me. So in that aspect, yes, James was right. But it's a result of faith. It's not the evidence as James suggests.Yes, Christians do care for the brethren and Christians do obey the law. But that's not faith. It's not even the result of faith. It happens but it doesn't mean it's a work of faith. A muslim can give me a sandwich when I'm hungry... It doesn't mean he is saved or has faith.


Your second round of a response I also partially disagree with. Yes, we are free to do anything we want. But that does not mean we will. Paul said we are free from the Law. As the Lord's free man (but I am the Lord's, but yet free), I can do anything, but I don't have time for sin. Like I said, murdering someone would hinder my spritiual growth. Anything else that sends me to jail would to. If I drink too much too often, it'll hinder my learning. I have my eyes set on learning about Him.... I'm free to do anything, but I won't because there are conciquences. And those consequences (however you spell it!) aren't going to help me. So I choose not to do them.

I'm not damned if I do them. But if I do them, they aren't going to help me and in fact they are going to hurt my spiritual growth. So I choose not to do them.

 

[veteran]

Veteran,

I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

When we look at what James wrote in his epistle, we see something glaring that contradicts what Paul preached. James said things like faith without works is dead [faith]. Paul said faith alone produces grace and we are saved by grace without works. Churches, ministries and denominations have tried for centuries to link reconcile what James said and what Paul said. But it can't be done.

With that opinion in mind (and hear me out), James was a Christian. He is worthy to be listened to as much as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter. He, according to history, died a martyr because he would not deny his half brother, the Lord. He didn't believe in the beginning. But he ended believing. Everything he wrote I believe was inspired and meant to be in the Bible.

With that in mind, he addresses his epistle to the 12 tribes which are scattered. We can't take that lightly. It doesn't contradict Paul because it's to a different audience. James was at level one, which is great, and I love the things he said. But Paul was at a second level.

Yes, I've understood all that debate of James vs. Paul, with James trying not to alienate his Jewish brethren from following the law while attempting to console The Gospel with their traditions.

But hasn't that led to the false idea that Gentiles don't need to heed not just James, but not heed even our Lord Jesus' Own Words in The Gospel Books? Ask Richard about that and see what he says.

Our Lord Jesus taught the same things James did, so how does one reconcile Paul's teaching with that of our Lord Jesus' teachings, especially since our Lord Jesus is Who called and sent Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles?

 

[Rach1370]

Veteran,

I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

When we look at what James wrote in his epistle, we see something glaring that contradicts what Paul preached. James said things like faith without works is dead [faith]. Paul said faith alone produces grace and we are saved by grace without works. Churches, ministries and denominations have tried for centuries to link reconcile what James said and what Paul said. But it can't be done.

With that opinion in mind (and hear me out), James was a Christian. He is worthy to be listened to as much as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter. He, according to history, died a martyr because he would not deny his half brother, the Lord. He didn't believe in the beginning. But he ended believing. Everything he wrote I believe was inspired and meant to be in the Bible.

With that in mind, he addresses his epistle to the 12 tribes which are scattered. We can't take that lightly. It doesn't contradict Paul because it's to a different audience. James was at level one, which is great, and I love the things he said. But Paul was at a second level.

Paul barely got along with any of the other apostles. He openly and publically challenged Peter as noted in Galatians, he had some kind of dispute with John in the book of Acts. And he didn't think highly of the Council of Jeruselem as we see in his writings of I Corinthians and Galatians. However, he still did meet with Peter, John and James to get advice. He went through something truamatic and counciled with them.

But no. When James says things like faith without works is dead, it's not what Paul preached. That is, if you take each verse of James and isolate it.

When I read the book of James I see James, being a head of a Church, having similar problems Paul had. There were idiots in James' Church who were snubbing their nose at the poorer folks who worshipped with them. Paul's problem was that they took grace too far and were bringing reproach to God. Both were making God look bad in the eyes of the heathen. Both dealt with the situation in Word righteously. The things that James said are true. But James never believed in grace through faith the same way Paul preached it. It is close, but not exactly there.

Paul, a true man of God cut off ties with John, who was also a true man of God. He also challenged another true man of God in the name of Peter. He also left fellowship with Barnabas. Yet he never said they weren't devout and worthy of listening to. He just couldn't deal with them any longer. So it's not surprising that his message would be against James either, whom he didn't like yet he respected.

So, "faith without works is dead." Not necessarily true. Works aren't going to get you into heaven. That's the bottom line. However, Jesus said love the brethren as you love me. So in that aspect, yes, James was right. But it's a result of faith. It's not the evidence as James suggests.Yes, Christians do care for the brethren and Christians do obey the law. But that's not faith. It's not even the result of faith. It happens but it doesn't mean it's a work of faith. A muslim can give me a sandwich when I'm hungry... It doesn't mean he is saved or has faith.

Hey FHII, I just wanted to jump in about James, and how he seems to contradict Paul. He doesn't, you know. It sounds like he does, but when one looks at his point, it really doesn't.
Paul says works are useless...that faith is what gets us into heaven. And this is true.
James says that faith without works is dead. The meaning of this is actually quite simple. Faith is what gets us to the Father, but true faith, a faith that leads to regeneration, always comes with works. Anyone who claims to have 'faith' but has no works...no fruit, to show the change of heart..is lying.
So you see, the two actually complement one another. True faith always comes with action...of gratitude, of love, of thankfulness...but never to 'earn ones way into heaven'. Hope that makes sense!

 

[RichardBurger]

James writing was addressed to the Jews who were under the Law of Moses so said the Holy Spirit.

But Paul’s writings are addressed to those under grace. Law and grace do not mix.

This is what man does:

James 1:1
1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings. NKJV

The above was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
******

Below is the same verse re-written, by man, to make it written to the grace church as well.

James 1:1
1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad and to the Gentiles: Greetings.

and to the Gentiles

Which way is correct, the Holy Spirit’s way or man’s way? I will believe what the Holy Spirit wrote.

 

[FHII]

Yes, I've understood all that debate of James vs. Paul, with James trying not to alienate his Jewish brethren from following the law while attempting to console The Gospel with their traditions.

But hasn't that led to the false idea that Gentiles don't need to heed not just James, but not heed even our Lord Jesus' Own Words in The Gospel Books? Ask Richard about that and see what he says.

Our Lord Jesus taught the same things James did, so how does one reconcile Paul's teaching with that of our Lord Jesus' teachings, especially since our Lord Jesus is Who called and sent Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles?

The Lord Jesus taught some of the same things, but not all. James said, for example, "...show me thy faith without thy works, and i will show thee my faith by my works." yet in Matt 6 Jesus spoke on three subjects (Praying, giving and fasting) and said to do them in secret and not let anyone see it. Furthermore, I don't see Jesus at all saying faith without works is dead, and Paul certainly said that was not true.

Again, I understand the problems James was addressing, and yes he was right according to both Jesus and Paul for correcting them. However, There is just too much difference between Paul's view of grace through faith and the three or four statements James made concerning faith without works. It is especially interesting that they both used Abraham and Rehab to prove their respective points, which leads me wonder if they didn't have each other in mind when making those statements.

I don't think its a concern to believe that gentiles would be led astray (although I believe Martin Luther didn't believe the book of James should've been in the Bible) away from James or Jesus, but rather that they would be led away from Paul.

Hey FHII, I just wanted to jump in about James, and how he seems to contradict Paul. He doesn't, you know. It sounds like he does, but when one looks at his point, it really doesn't.
Paul says works are useless...that faith is what gets us into heaven. And this is true.
James says that faith without works is dead. The meaning of this is actually quite simple. Faith is what gets us to the Father, but true faith, a faith that leads to regeneration, always comes with works. Anyone who claims to have 'faith' but has no works...no fruit, to show the change of heart..is lying.
So you see, the two actually complement one another. True faith always comes with action...of gratitude, of love, of thankfulness...but never to 'earn ones way into heaven'. Hope that makes sense!

I've heard this before many times, and in fact it is almost point by point in my Bible's commentary.

There are just too many direct contradictions to go through them all and consider this theory to be true.

 

[veteran]

The Lord Jesus taught some of the same things, but not all. James said, for example, "...show me thy faith without thy works, and i will show thee my faith by my works." yet in Matt 6 Jesus spoke on three subjects (Praying, giving and fasting) and said to do them in secret and not let anyone see it. Furthermore, I don't see Jesus at all saying faith without works is dead, and Paul certainly said that was not true.

Again, I understand the problems James was addressing, and yes he was right according to both Jesus and Paul for correcting them. However, There is just too much difference between Paul's view of grace through faith and the three or four statements James made concerning faith without works. It is especially interesting that they both used Abraham and Rehab to prove their respective points, which leads me wonder if they didn't have each other in mind when making those statements.

I don't think its a concern to believe that gentiles would be led astray (although I believe Martin Luther didn't believe the book of James should've been in the Bible) away from James or Jesus, but rather that they would be led away from Paul.



I've heard this before many times, and in fact it is almost point by point in my Bible's commentary.

There are just too many direct contradictions to go through them all and consider this theory to be true.

Well, I'm forced to point you to this then that our Lord Jesus said...

Matt 5:19-20
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(KJV)


I see no difference in purpose but in delivery, for Apostle Paul also taught to have works in Christ Jesus, and not just faith only. Nor did he ever teach God's laws no longer exist, but that we are only dead to the law IF we walk by The Spirit. In 1 Timothy 1 Paul confirmed that God's laws still exist to punish the unrighteous, and he was constantly warning the brethren to keep to Christ and not fall to that.

Per the grace only view, one is forced to deny all the parts of even Paul's Epistles where he warned about maintaining works and walking by The Spirit instead of falling to punishment under the law for following unrighteousness. With the grace only view, you'd only have about 1/3 of Paul's Epistles.

 

[FHII]

Veteran wrote:

Well, I'm forced to point you to this then that our Lord Jesus said...

Matt 5:19-20
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
(KJV)"

I have no problem with this. Yes you are right. James said something very similar in Jas 2:10. I didn't say they taught everything different. Furthermore, Paul said similar things in Galalatians.


Veteran wrote:


"I see no difference in purpose but in delivery, for Apostle Paul also taught to have works in Christ Jesus, and not just faith only."

Works in Christ Jesus, yes. Absolutely. This is why I try my best when discussing this to say we are free from works of the flesh. We are not free from works of the spirit. Now, I readily admit that if James was talking about works of the spirit, then he does agree. And certainly I can say that the problems James was facing with his congregation were due to a spiritual sickness. But if you are going to apply works of the flesh to James' statement (faith without works is dead), then he is not in agreement with Paul who painstakingly said we are NOT saved by works of the flesh.


Veteran wrote:

"Nor did he ever teach God's laws no longer exist, but that we are only dead to the law IF we walk by The Spirit. In 1 Timothy 1 Paul confirmed that God's laws still exist to punish the unrighteous, and he was constantly warning the brethren to keep to Christ and not fall to that."


I have no problem with any of that.


Veteran wrote:


"Per the grace only view, one is forced to deny all the parts of even Paul's Epistles where he warned about maintaining works and walking by The Spirit instead of falling to punishment under the law for following unrighteousness. With the grace only view, you'd only have about 1/3 of Paul's Epistles."

This I do have a problem with. Paul said constantly you can't do that. If you know of a verse that says we must maintain works AND walk by the spirit, please let me know.... I just did (admittingly) a quick search and he doesn't. Now, works of the spirit, yes. I will even admit that some works of the spirit involve fleshly actions (going to Church, giving, helping brethren, etc). This is what is truly meant by putting your flesh under subjection.

Paul did preach against fleshly sin. I've always admitted that. However, if you read carefully, he never said it wasn't covered by grace through faith. But it doesn't always edify, help and I also say it can hinder your spiritual being. I've listed ways earlier and I hope you've had a look at them.

I'm not against works... I think they are a wonderful thing and we should do them. However, they should never be looked upon as something that makes us righteous. They should never be looked upon as something that proves our worth in Heaven as it has been stated (perhaps you said it, I lose track) that all our righteousness is as filthy rags.


I appreciate the good and civil conversation. Veteran, and anyone else, would you consider looking into something that may benefit the conversation? Have you ever noticed that the term "works" and "good works" are both used? What is the difference between the two? Paul nor anyone else ever said anything negative about "good works". But Paul clearly Paul said works won't get us into heaven, we aren't saved by works, works and grace don't mix, works frustrate grace and no one is saved by works. Just look at the two terms and tell me what you see (if you see) the difference is.

Thanks

 

[Groundzero]

Peter’s instructions:

Acts 2:36-38
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
38 Then Peter said to them,"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Paul’s instructions:

Acts 16:27-31
27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself.
28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here."
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas.
30 And he brought them out and said,"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31 So they said,"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."
NKJV

While Peter and Paul phrased what they said differently, they both believed the same thing. If we follow on in chapter sixteen, we find that they are baptised. Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. I can't see any different instruction whatsoever. Belief must be acted upon. When someone is baptised, it is evidencing that they believe Jesus.

 

[RichardBurger]

While Peter and Paul phrased what they said differently, they both believed the same thing. If we follow on in chapter sixteen, we find that they are baptised. Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. I can't see any different instruction whatsoever. Belief must be acted upon. When someone is baptised, it is evidencing that they believe Jesus.

I think I will have to disagree with your statement. Water baptism is a ritual that is accomplished by a organized religion and many do it just because they have been told it is a requirement (a law). The problem with using it to show salvation is that anyone can do it, whether saved or not, and many thinkl they are saved by a water baptism instead of the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. Said in another way, they place their faith in what they did in water baptism to save them.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
NKJV

If water baptism is required for salvation then, in this scripture above we see Paul saying he thanked God that he did not baptize, and thereby save, any others than those he stated. I think that we, today, are not sent to baptize but to teach the the gospel of God's grace offered by the shed blood of God's Son Jesus Christ.

That is what I believe.

 

[Groundzero]

I think I will have to disagree with your statement. Water baptism is a ritual that is accomplished by a organized religion and many do it just because they have been told it is a requirement (a law). The problem with using it to show salvation is that anyone can do it, whether saved or not, and many thinkl they are saved by a water baptism instead of the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. Said in another way, they place their faith in what they did in water baptism to save them.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
NKJV

If water baptism is required for salvation then, in this scripture above we see Paul saying he thanked God that he did not baptize, and thereby save, any others than those he stated. I think that we, today, are not sent to baptize but to teach the the gospel of God's grace offered by the shed blood of God's Son Jesus Christ.

That is what I believe.

Really? Well let's actually look at the whole Bible, not just one Scripture that has been completely put out of context! You want Scriptures, I can give them!


Jesus commanded his apostles to baptise:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


The Apostles did:
Act_10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


Act_8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


Act_2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


As for Paul, I think he did baptise! And he didn't just baptised, he even baptised those who did believe Jesus when he found out they hadn't been baptised!

Act 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,
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye 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.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 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.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Act_16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.


Did Paul write Galatians? If so, he says, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that all those who have been baptised have put on Jesus!
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


Perhaps if you had the guts, you would have also put in the rest of the verses of 1 Corinthians 1! Oh, I understand. You can't, because there goes your verse that supports 'no baptism necessary' doctrine! Of course, we MUST have Scripture, but JUST the ones we want! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Let's put this verse in context!



1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Right here we find what the discussion is about: There is a division at Corinth. Soon we will find out what division.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
The people of the church were taking sides, saying they belonged to either Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ. From the following verses, which you say support your doctrine, I would say that the division was to do with who baptised them: that determined which side they 'belonged' to. There were a few who then claimed to belong to Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Paul is not thanking God that he DOESNT baptise, since it is evident from Scripture that he DID baptise. He is looking at the situation and saying, I have only baptised one household and two others besides. Your taking sides over something which I barely even did!" You obviously have missed the additional part of the sentence, ". . . but Crispus and Gaius;"
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
Here he gives his reason! He says that he thanks God that didn't baptise many lest some people would say that he was baptising in his name. This makes sense if the division was over who was baptised by who.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Hang on. I thought you said Paul didn't baptise anyone?! It seems that you have failed to emphasize the rest of the chapter! In Corinth, Paul ALSO baptised the household of Stephanas! Paul isn't saying, "Thank you God I don't baptise." He is saying, "I thank God that I only baptised Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas." Paul is making it evident that he is NOT seeking his own glory, but the Glory of God.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
You have put this totally out of reference! If Christ didn't send him to baptise, he obviously sent someone else to do that! Paul was pioneering so to speak. He would go and preach the Gospel, while others actually did the settling. This is evident in chapter three:

1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.




No doubt you are going to say that I still haven't explained this Scripture or say something like that, perhaps explain it all away with some long-winded explanation of Greek. Fine. But TELL us, HOW do you reconcile all the above examples of baptism?! Because they defy your 'doctrine' which is supposedly Bible-based.

I think I will have to disagree with your statement. Water baptism is a ritual that is accomplished by a organized religion and many do it just because they have been told it is a requirement (a law). The problem with using it to show salvation is that anyone can do it, whether saved or not, and many thinkl they are saved by a water baptism instead of the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. Said in another way, they place their faith in what they did in water baptism to save them.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
NKJV

If water baptism is required for salvation then, in this scripture above we see Paul saying he thanked God that he did not baptize, and thereby save, any others than those he stated. I think that we, today, are not sent to baptize but to teach the the gospel of God's grace offered by the shed blood of God's Son Jesus Christ.

That is what I believe.

I just realised, I haven't covered one other topic

. Is baptism necessary?


Joh_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.


Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[RichardBurger]

Really? Well let's actually look at the whole Bible, not just one Scripture that has been completely put out of context! You want Scriptures, I can give them!


Jesus commanded his apostles to baptise:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


The Apostles did:
Act_10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


Act_8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


Act_2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


As for Paul, I think he did baptise! And he didn't just baptised, he even baptised those who did believe Jesus when he found out they hadn't been baptised!

Act 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,
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye 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.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 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.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Act_16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.


Did Paul write Galatians? If so, he says, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that all those who have been baptised have put on Jesus!
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


Perhaps if you had the guts, you would have also put in the rest of the verses of 1 Corinthians 1! Oh, I understand. You can't, because there goes your verse that supports 'no baptism necessary' doctrine! Of course, we MUST have Scripture, but JUST the ones we want! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Let's put this verse in context!



1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Right here we find what the discussion is about: There is a division at Corinth. Soon we will find out what division.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
The people of the church were taking sides, saying they belonged to either Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ. From the following verses, which you say support your doctrine, I would say that the division was to do with who baptised them: that determined which side they 'belonged' to. There were a few who then claimed to belong to Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Paul is not thanking God that he DOESNT baptise, since it is evident from Scripture that he DID baptise. He is looking at the situation and saying, I have only baptised one household and two others besides. Your taking sides over something which I barely even did!" You obviously have missed the additional part of the sentence, ". . . but Crispus and Gaius;"
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
Here he gives his reason! He says that he thanks God that didn't baptise many lest some people would say that he was baptising in his name. This makes sense if the division was over who was baptised by who.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Hang on. I thought you said Paul didn't baptise anyone?! It seems that you have failed to emphasize the rest of the chapter! In Corinth, Paul ALSO baptised the household of Stephanas! Paul isn't saying, "Thank you God I don't baptise." He is saying, "I thank God that I only baptised Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas." Paul is making it evident that he is NOT seeking his own glory, but the Glory of God.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
You have put this totally out of reference! If Christ didn't send him to baptise, he obviously sent someone else to do that! Paul was pioneering so to speak. He would go and preach the Gospel, while others actually did the settling. This is evident in chapter three:

1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.




No doubt you are going to say that I still haven't explained this Scripture or say something like that, perhaps explain it all away with some long-winded explanation of Greek. Fine. But TELL us, HOW do you reconcile all the above examples of baptism?! Because they defy your 'doctrine' which is supposedly Bible-based.



I just realised, I haven't covered one other topic

. Is baptism necessary?


Joh_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.


Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:1-6 .. (NIV)
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
**** end scripture

It seems to me that in verses 3 and 4 there are only two births being discussed, a man's first birth in the flesh and a necessary second birth of the Spirit. -- Notice that in verse 5 he used the words "born of water" and then "the spirit" and in verse 6, "WHICH AMPLIFIES VERSE 5," He uses the words "birth to flesh" and then "birth to spirit." Nicodemus has brought up the subject of being born in the flesh for a second time. What has been said is that physical birth is not enough. Some will disagree but I believe he is talking about our physical birth "birth to flesh" in verse 5 and that there is another birth, "birth to spirit" which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit (NOT MAN)

Since the word baptism is not included in the text, to add it is to change the meaning of the word of God to fit into the theologies of men.

No where in this reply have I been disrespectful. Please be just as respectful.

 

[Groundzero]

John 3:1-6 .. (NIV)
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
**** end scripture

It seems to me that in verses 3 and 4 there are only two births being discussed, a man's first birth in the flesh and a necessary second birth of the Spirit. -- Notice that in verse 5 he used the words "born of water" and then "the spirit" and in verse 6, "WHICH AMPLIFIES VERSE 5," He uses the words "birth to flesh" and then "birth to spirit." Nicodemus has brought up the subject of being born in the flesh for a second time. What has been said is that physical birth is not enough. Some will disagree but I believe he is talking about our physical birth "birth to flesh" in verse 5 and that there is another birth, "birth to spirit" which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit (NOT MAN)

Since the word baptism is not included in the text, to add it is to change the meaning of the word of God to fit into the theologies of men.

No where in this reply have I been disrespectful. Please be just as respectful.

I have not been disrespectful. I have NOT had an answer, however, to all those Scriptures that I put up concerning baptism. If we really want to make a point over John 3, fine, because I see no obstacles.

Sure, baptism is not included in the text, but please, let's think here, how ELSE are we born of water?!

Let's read what Jesus said once more:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 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.

Obviously, the born again is not just Spirit, it's also water!

Your doctrine has no Scriptural base. Please, don't continue trying to mould Scripture to your believe, mould your beliefs to Scripture!

 

[FHII]

I have not been disrespectful. I have NOT had an answer, however, to all those Scriptures that I put up concerning baptism. If we really want to make a point over John 3, fine, because I see no obstacles.

Sure, baptism is not included in the text, but please, let's think here, how ELSE are we born of water?!

Let's read what Jesus said once more:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 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.

Obviously, the born again is not just Spirit, it's also water!

Your doctrine has no Scriptural base. Please, don't continue trying to mould Scripture to your believe, mould your beliefs to Scripture!

Groundzero,


First off, I'm not against water baptism. Obviously it was done in the Bible by John as well as some of the Apostles. However, I don't believe it is necessary. I do think it is necessary to be baptized, but not necessarily by means of a water baptism.

As for "water"... Jesus said to the samiritan woman that he would give her living water in John 4. He was not talking about literal water. Eph 5 says we should be washed and sanctified by washing of water by the Word. This is the true water -- the life sustainer -- we must really be washed by. The Word. When Jesus gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he also said to "teach them". That is, to deliver the Word.



Finally, John said he baptized with water, but he also said when Jesus came he would baptize with Fire and the Holy Ghost. The Word of God is likened both to a consuming fire and to living water (life to some, death to others). Thus, we all need to be baptized, but by that it means we must be emmersed in the Word.

Water baptism is a fine thing and there's nothing wrong with it. However, it is merely symbolic of what really must be done to be saved. Someone can fake a literal water baptism. However, you can't fake a word baptism. It's either going to save you or condemn you.

 

[RichardBurger]

I have not been disrespectful. I have NOT had an answer, however, to all those Scriptures that I put up concerning baptism. If we really want to make a point over John 3, fine, because I see no obstacles.

Sure, baptism is not included in the text, but please, let's think here, how ELSE are we born of water?!

Let's read what Jesus said once more:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 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.

Obviously, the born again is not just Spirit, it's also water!

Your doctrine has no Scriptural base. Please, don't continue trying to mould Scripture to your believe, mould your beliefs to Scripture!

Well where, in the verse, is the word baptism? Looks to me that you want to rewrite scripture. born of water = physical birth of the flesh. A large part of the human body is water.

I have my belief and you have yours. However, there is no way the scriptures given say water baptism except when man rewrites the verse to include the word baptism. I do not believe the Holy Spirit made an omission error

 

[Groundzero]

Well where, in the verse, is the word baptism? Looks to me that you want to rewrite scripture. born of water = physical birth of the flesh. A large part of the human body is water.

I have my belief and you have yours. However, there is no way the scriptures given say water baptism except when man rewrites the verse to include the word baptism. I do not believe the Holy Spirit made an omission error

God help us! You obviously are totally set in your ways. Fine, believe whatever you want about that verse. Pull it out of context. I never said that I had the word baptism, I don't intend to rewrite it or re-interpret it! Obviously you think 'water' refers to being born by your mother! You still haven't proven a thing! Other than you can explain away any Scripture to make it fit your preferences and totally ignore the rest of Scripture!

 

[Groundzero]

Groundzero,


First off, I'm not against water baptism. Obviously it was done in the Bible by John as well as some of the Apostles. However, I don't believe it is necessary. I do think it is necessary to be baptized, but not necessarily by means of a water baptism.

As for "water"... Jesus said to the samiritan woman that he would give her living water in John 4. He was not talking about literal water. Eph 5 says we should be washed and sanctified by washing of water by the Word. This is the true water -- the life sustainer -- we must really be washed by. The Word. When Jesus gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he also said to "teach them". That is, to deliver the Word.



Finally, John said he baptized with water, but he also said when Jesus came he would baptize with Fire and the Holy Ghost. The Word of God is likened both to a consuming fire and to living water (life to some, death to others). Thus, we all need to be baptized, but by that it means we must be emmersed in the Word.

Water baptism is a fine thing and there's nothing wrong with it. However, it is merely symbolic of what really must be done to be saved. Someone can fake a literal water baptism. However, you can't fake a word baptism. It's either going to save you or condemn you.

Where did the words of Jesus get lost in our mind when he said to the disciples to go and baptise in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?! Has a new dispensation started and I am not aware of it?! I can't think any excuses more blatant than those made by 'Christians.' Just because Jesus said to teach the nations, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BAPTISE! Jesus told the disciples to teach ALL nations to OBSERVE WHATSOEVER he had commanded them. The sentence 'baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' was a command, even though you probably see it otherwise!


Of course, since we don't want to mould ourselves to the Bible, we are going to mould the Bible to ourselves, or are we?! I can't help but notice that NOWHERE do the apostles and Paul make any mention of 'baptism not being necessary.' Yet for the sake of ease, we take Scripture, and we twist it till it's convenient for us! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! If you truly are correct, there should be NO CONTRADICTIONS! Your 'theory' is sadly lacking.


I believe that I have answered the question of whether we should be baptised, both correctly and Scripturally. I pray that those who read this will be able to see the glorious truth of Scripture, and somehow, make it out of this crazy world alive.

 

[RichardBurger]

God help us! You obviously are totally set in your ways. Fine, believe whatever you want about that verse. Pull it out of context. I never said that I had the word baptism, I don't intend to rewrite it or re-interpret it! Obviously you think 'water' refers to being born by your mother! You still haven't proven a thing! Other than you can explain away any Scripture to make it fit your preferences and totally ignore the rest of Scripture!

You act as if my being set in my ways is a crime. If it is for me then it is for you too.

What I said about the scriptures does not require making anything fit. I don't have to re-write them.

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Why was the above said by Jesus? You must take what is written """in context'''' without adding your ideas.

And yes, I think I have proven that the word "baptism" is not included in these scripture.

 

[Groundzero]

You act as if my being set in my ways is a crime. If it is for me then it is for you too.

What I said about the scriptures does not require making anything fit. I don't have to re-write them.

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Why was the above said by Jesus? You must take what is written """in context'''' without adding your ideas.

And yes, I think I have proven that the word "baptism" is not included in these scripture.

Yes, if I am set in my ways it is a crime. I have seen no proof that baptism is unnecessary. I have seen the opposite! You are kicking up a fuss over one Scripture, when there are plenty more to back it up! Fine, think what you want. You still have quite a few Scriptures to explain away. Over and out.