different instructions

[FHII]

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.

Please go back and re-read my post. I did say Baptism was necessary. It just doesn't have to be with water.

 

[Groundzero]

Please go back and re-read my post. I did say Baptism was necessary. It just doesn't have to be with water.

The apostles did not preach such a doctrine:


Act_8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?


In the previous verse, water is connected with baptism!


Act_10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?


Same here. These people already had the Spirit. If just baptism of the Spirit was required, by did Peter say that they should be baptised in water!?




The word 'baptism' means 'to make whelmed' or 'fully wet'. Sounds like water to me!


There is one reason why people want to say that you don't have to baptise, and that is because they want to make salvation easy. Is that what Jesus said? NO!


Mat_7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[FHII]

The apostles did not preach such a doctrine:

Act_8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

In the previous verse, water is connected with baptism!

Act_10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Same here. These people already had the Spirit. If just baptism of the Spirit was required, by did Peter say that they should be baptised in water!?


The word 'baptism' means 'to make whelmed' or 'fully wet'. Sounds like water to me!

There is one reason why people want to say that you don't have to baptise, and that is because they want to make salvation easy. Is that what Jesus said? NO!

Mat_7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I don't deny that water baptism was done. ... I don't have a problem with that. Jesus baptized with fire... That doesn't sound like water to me.

Jesus said he was THAT water that if you drink it, you never thirst again. That's the water I am baptized in. And, by the way... Water baptism isn't really that difficult. Being whelmed and emmersed in the Word is much more difficult. But by all means.... Enjoy water baptism.

 

[RichardBurger]

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.

I think it """WAS""" necessary under the gospel of the kingdom. It was a washing ritual under the Law of Moses.

We are not under the Law of Moses. We are under the gospel of grace given to Paul by Jesus and in this gospel of grace water baptism is not necesary. In this gospel the only thing necessary is to place your belief, faith, trust, and confidence in God's work on the cross; the sheding of the blood of Christ.

Only one scripture!!! Are you saying that one scripture is wrong?

You are just as set in your ways as I am and yet you made a big to do about my being set in my ways. I think there is a word for those that accuss others of doing the same things they do. Do you need a hint?

 

[Groundzero]

I don't deny that water baptism was done. ... I don't have a problem with that. Jesus baptized with fire... That doesn't sound like water to me.

Jesus said he was THAT water that if you drink it, you never thirst again. That's the water I am baptized in. And, by the way... Water baptism isn't really that difficult. Being whelmed and emmersed in the Word is much more difficult. But by all means.... Enjoy water baptism.

Well people certainly go to great lengths to come up with alternatives!

 

[RichardBurger]

What is so tragic, to me, is that the scriptures plainly say that Paul is the apostle Jesus sent to the Gentiles. The scriptures never record. except for Cornelius, that Peter or any of the 12 were sent to the Gentiles with a gospel of Grace (no law).

The 12 were to convince the Jews that Jesus was their Messiah. If they had been able to do that Jesus would have returned after Jacob's trouble (7 years). Then the nations (Gentiles) would be saved through the Jews. There is nothing in the preachings of the 12 that tell us that the Law of Moses was resciended.

But the Roman CC established their church on apostles that never went to the Gentiles. That ought to say something about the theologies that men have built.

All through the scriptures we see that only a few are saved and Jesus confirmed it. If people think that the millions that call themselves Christians are the children of God then they should reconsider it.

"""What """ IF""" you were Satan""" and God instituted a plan of salvation that saved mankind by what He had done on the cross (His shed blood) and not by what they (men) do to be saved, how would you still trap mankind away from God. -- By getting them to be religious and lost. The Law makes men to be religious because religion is all about what mankind does for the god of their imagination. -- Grace gives glory to God and His Son Jesus Christ. Religions glorify what man does.

Think about it.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Hello again RichardBurger

The reason these two instructions are different, is because Peter’s instructions are being given to God’s People(Note: Peter calls them brethren).
But Paul’s instructions are given to an unsaved man.
--------------------------------------------------
You see, Jesus came to Earth to bring God’s backsliding people(the Jews), back to God.
And the only way a backslider is brought back to God, is by repentance.

But when the nation of Israel turned their backs on the Lord; God turned to the Gentiles.
--------------------------------------------------
And you will find later on in Acts(Chapter 13), where the Jews are blinded and from that point on, need to be “saved” just like the gentiles do!

Sir! There are NOT different gates into God's kingdom! "God does NOT respect persons" in case you've forgotten.

 

[Prentis]

Sir! There are NOT different gates into God's kingdom! "God does NOT respect persons" in case you've forgotten.

Good point! Something we too easily forget...

Looking forward to seeing more of what you have to say.

 

[veteran]

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

James, Paul, Peter, and especially our Lord Jesus, all kept the ideas of 'grace by faith' and 'works' as separate things, with bearing 'fruit' as a product of grace by Faith.

It's how like Rach said in post #25.

Looking carefully at what James was teaching was how as Christian believers that receive Christ's Grace by Faith, what good are we if we have no fruit in Him to show it? That has nothing to do with any idea that 'works' could ever be a substitute for Salvation by Faith.

It's tied to what our Lord Jesus said about where one's treasure is, that's where their heart will be. What we put our trust in, that's the kind of fruit we will show.

Paul taught about that 'fruit' also...

Col 1:7 As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;
8 Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.
9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
(KJV)

Rom 7:4
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
(KJV)

John 15:5-8
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
8 Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples.
(KJV)

So when James said,

James 2:18
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
(KJV)

... he was not saying something like, "I'll show you my works that will save me", it was about showing fruit as a byproduct of Faith.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13

 

[RichardBurger]

"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13

In context.

Romans 2:13-29

13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

The Jews Guilty just as the Gentiles
17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,
18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.
21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?

24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.

25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
NKJV