The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[Francisco]

Jerry,

You misunderstand what I'm asking. You claim John the Baptist was forgiving sins through his water baptism. On what authority was John forgiving sins?

Of course God could forgive sins, based on the merits of Christ's death and resurrection, from the beginning of time. No Catholic would ever disagree with that. Remember, Mary was born sinless because she was 'saved' before she was even conceived.

I may have thrown you a screwball when I said 'forgiveness of sins was impossible until Jesus Christ redeemed us'. That's a poor way of wording my question, sorry. What I mean is, how did John forgive sins without the authority of Jesus?

And to revisit another aspect we were discussing, and I don't believe you ever replied (correct me if I'm wrong), why did John decide his mission was not to 'give the people knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of sin' but to actually go ahead and forgive their sins?

And again, why did Jesus even need to die on the cross if John the Baptist was capable of forgiving sins? I don't believe John was forgiving sins at all. Nor do I believe the sin offerings under the Mosaic Covenant forgave sins, but rather was an attempt to appease God.

John's mission was no more than to preach repentance to prepare the way for Jesus, who would die for sins and redeem us from sin. John's baptism was a symbol of the people's commitment to repent.

Also notice that none of the OT prophecies of John said he was going before the Lord to forgive sins, but to cry out 'Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.'

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Apollos]

Baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus"...

Baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus"...

One point currently being overlooked is that "baptism in the name of Jesus Christ" is NOT "Spirit" baptism.

Some are overlooking the fact that this is established with the conversion of the Samaritans in Acts chapter 8 - particularly verse 16 !!!

Someone needs to tell me HOW "baptism in the name of Jesus" CHANGED between Acts 8 and Acts 19.

Answer: It did NOT change. It is just that some here are overlooking this fact!!

The HS was given by the "laying on of hands" and NOT by "baptism" in Acts 19. Cf. Acts 8 again.

Baptism in Jesus' name is WATER baptism, the ONE baptism as mentioned in Ephesians 4.

Thank you!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

The priests under the Mosaic Covenant had the power to take away the sins of the children of Israel,as I have already pointed out.Just because they had to do that every year does not change the fact that they did in fact take away the sins of the Jewish people:

"And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel,and all their transgressions in all their sins...and the goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited..."(Lev.16:21).

Did the priests have the AUTHORITY to do this?

Of course they did.

John the Baptist also "preached the baptism of repentance for THE REMISSION OF SINS"(Lk.3:3).

If words have any meaning,those that confessed their sins and repented were baptized,and their sins were also taken away.

Did the Baptist have the authority of God to do this?Of course he did.

He was sent to prepare a people who had become defiled and were not holy by any standard.As long as they remained in their sins,they were not holy.

Therefore,we can see that he had the authority to sent their sins away so that they could in fact serve the Lord in HOLINESS when He appeared before them.

Again,if you are right we must throw away our reason and believe that the "baptism of repentance FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" had nothing to do with the remission of sins.

And I am not willing to do that.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[c.moore]

You said:Francisco



I have investigated your side. Most of the beliefs you you disagree with me and Kevin on did not exist until approximately 400 years ago, around the beginning of the reformation period. Those beliefs that disagreed with the belief of the Church that did exist were considered heresy, and were battled by the great theologians of early Christianity. And when the 'new' beliefs sprang up during the reformation period, the reformers fought amongst themselves in regard to these beliefs. Why? Because interpretting scripture without
the basis of the tradition from which the New Testament came allows different interpretations by different individuals. The disagreements between different private interpretations has led to the thousands of different Protestant denominations, most of which have gradually moved away from the teachings of their original founders.
With me and Kevin, we will stand firm on the teachings of the earliest Christians, the founders of the Catholic Church, so to speak. Here is what they had to say about water baptism:

Quote c.moore
Ho:4:6: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Proverb:3:5: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

For we grow to glory to glory everyday, so we have learned more understanding from that time praise God.


You mention (Large Catechism 4:6).

What in the world is that, and from what book????

Ehat is this also, and is this Holy scriptures from God (Homilies 11:26 [A.D. 217])?????????????????????

I can`t find this in my Holy bible .

 

[c.moore]

I think we need to start a new thread on are catholic really christians , and is the popes, nuns, and monks in the bible, also people called fathers????

 

[servantofChrist]

Hi Jerry,

I want to comment, please, on your words as quoted below:

Again,if you are right we must throw away our reason and believe that the "baptism of repentance FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" had nothing to do with the remission of sins.

We all know that it is the blood of Christ that made possible the forgiveness of our sins (Eph. 1:7, et. al)

And add to that Heb. 10:12, which says, "But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God."

Mk. 1:4 plainly says that John the Baptist came "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness [or remission] of sins."

But the difference between Mk. 1:4 and the baptism in Acts 2:38 is - those who obeyed John's baptism did not receive the forgiveness of their sins in actuality at the moment they came up out of the waters of his baptism, because Jesus had not yet died and shed His blood on the cross that this forgiveness might be thus applied.

But in Acts 2, for the very first time in history, the practice of baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" was inaugurated. And when those people in Acts 2 were commanded to "Repent and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ...", Jesus had already shed His blood on the cross, so their sins had actually been forgiven the moment they came up out of the waters. Or, as Acts 22:16 says, by baptism one's sins are "washed away."

No one knows how many people, who had been baptized with John's baptism of repentance, were living at the time that the baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" commenced. But I believe that Acts 19:1-5 (esp. 3-5) shows that all who had been baptized in John's baptism, when they had been correctly taught about the baptism of Jesus Christ, God would hold accountable to be re-baptized in the "new" baptism of Jesus Christ. First of all, because He was the primary One that God sent into the world for all people to obey (John was only a "forerunner" of Christ). And secondly, because Acts 4:12 says, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

That is exactly why Acts 19:5 says that when those people in Ephesus had been taught correctly, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

This is somewhat conjecture, yet, I believe that it is substantiated by the overall teaching of the scriptures, but I believe that anyone who obeyed John's baptism from the heart, realizing that he was a prophet of God and that his message of repentance indeed was a message that came from God, and any such person who died before he/she had the opportunity to hear the gospel message of Acts 2 and learn of the baptism of Christ... I believer that these people will be saved in the end for the same reason that Abraham and all the other Godly individuals before Christ will be saved - because of their OBEDIENCE to the commands of God that they were given to believe and obey in their lifetime!

This is a theme that spans the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation - obedience to GOD is what saves people in any generation of time, and those who obey God faithfully - both before and after the cross of Christ - will have had their sins forgiven BY HIS BLOOD, conditional on their faithful obedience to God's commands that were applicable to them in their lifetime.

That is what Heb. 10:12, Rom. 3:25 and other similar passages teach.

 

[HardCoreFundy2]

Originally posted by c.moore
I think we need to start a new thread on are catholic really christians , and is the popes, nuns, and monks in the bible, also people called fathers????

Thats been done many times before - but go go it

 

[servantofChrist]

"Please don't let me be misunderstood!"

"Please don't let me be misunderstood!"

I feel that I need to comment further on something I stated above...

I did NOT say above that I believe that one could simply obey the baptism of John and be saved, period

I said that I believe that anyone who obeyed John's baptism from the heart, and DIED BEFORE having the opportunity to hear the gospel messge of Acts 2, which teaches baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ," - that these would be saved (assuming they were faithful in the other areas of their relationship with God, as well) because they obeyed God's word that was given to them IN THEIR LIFETIME; which is all they could be held accountable for.

But that is also why, I believe, the words in Acts 4:12 appear when/where they do - after - the baptism of Jesus Christ was inaugurated in Acts 2. From that point on - there would be ONLY ONE BAPTISM that men could obey and receive God's approval in so doing - the baptism of Christ. That is also what Paul was alluding to, and referring to, in Eph. 4:5, when he said that there is -"one Lord, one faith, and one baptism."

It is useless to argue or debate over the question of whether there were any who were baptized in John's baptism, but who may have lived after the gospel message of Acts 2 was preached, but never, somehow, heard that gospel message... as to what their final outcome will be in the judgment. Because the scriptures are silent on this matter.

All we can know, and will be held accountable for, is what the scriptures HAVE revealed to us, and that is, there were some individuals whom Paul came across who had been baptized in the baptism of John, who - BEFORE Paul laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit - were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," when they had been correctly taught; in today's terminology, when they had been "updated" concerning the matter.

Today, we, and the entire world are "bound" under the gospel of Christ, which was first preached in Acts 2; and which clearly commands baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ." How can anyone, therefore, be so foolish as to believe he can reject God's word in this matter, and yet be saved?????

 

[UzandBuz]

s-o-C,

:thumb:

I agree.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

servantofChrist,

You attempt to put a strait jacket on the Lord by saying that He cannot forgive sins until the Cross.But God cannot be bound by the doctrines of men.

You correctly say that the death of Christ on the Cross made it possible the forgiveness of our sins.But that does not mean that God could not forgive the sins of the sinner BEFORE the Cross.We see that BEFORE the Cross the Lord Himself forgave the sins of many.

We also see that the high priest under the Mosaic Covenant was also authorized to send away the sins of the children of Israel (Lev.16:21,22).

According to your ideas this would be impossible.And if the high priest could send away sins before the Cross,why couldn´t the Baptist?

And we can see that the Baptist preached a "baptism of repentance FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS."

We must completely abandon our common sense if we are to believe that this "baptism of repentance for the REMISSION OF SINS" had nothing to do with the remission of sins.

But in the sphere of religion man proves again and again that he will willingly subject his mind to delusions.And it is a delusion to believe that the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" had nothing to do with the remission of sins.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

servantofChrist,

Do you not understand that our "salvation" is in the SPIRITAL REALM?

As the Lord Jesus Himself said,"It is the SPIRIT that giveth life...The words that I speak unto you,they are SPIRIT,and they are life"(Jn.6:63).

It is BELIEF in the New Testament that brings life,and that New Testament is SPIRIT (2Cor.3:6,8).

With that in mind,it becomes obvious that the ONE BAPTISM of Eph.4:5 is the SPIRITUAL BAPTISM spoken of at 1Cor.12:13:

"For by one Spirit are we all BAPTIZED into one Body...the Body of Christ"(1Cor.12:13,27).

To say that the SPIRITUAL baptism is not the one baptism is to betray an ignorance of the SPIRITUAL nature of our salvation.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

You make a huge mistake that only demonstrates that you have only a small degree of understanding of the Scriptures,especially when it comes to the meaning of the various BAPTISMS.

A picture is worth a thousand words: ----->

You say that John´s baptism could not possibly wash away sins,and therefore that is why those at Acts 19 had to be re-baptized.

John's baptism did not forgive sins. I know you emphasize that "John did baptize in the wilderness,and preach the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS", but you empahsized the wrong part. John "PREACHED the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." That baptism that he was PREACHING came to pass in Acts 2:38 - baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. Peter didn't only preach this baptism, but he performed this baptism, something that John couldn't have done, because baptism in the name of the Lord had not been instituted yet.

Here's more evidence that John's baptism didn't forgive sins. If you read Romans 6-11, it speaks about baptism and what it does for us. It says that when we are baptized, we are baptized into His death, and that we are freed from sin. It clearly says that this baptism, the one where we are baptized into His death, frees us from sin (verses 6,7). Now that we know that this is the baptism that frees us from sin (being baptized into His death), how can you say that John's baptism forgave sins, when it would be impossible to be baptized into Christ's death using a baptism that was being practiced before Christ's death?

Baptism in the name of the Lord, however, was instituted AFTER Christ's death (Matt. 28:19-20), and is for the remissioin of sins (Acts 2:38). Baptism in the name of the Lord perfectly fits the baptism that is being spoken of in Romans 6.

As Francisco already pointed out, there would be no need for Jesus to come down and die if there was already forgiveness for sins through John's baptism. Your assertion that John's baptism actually forgave sins completely contradicts the well known fact that Jesus Christ came and died so our sin can be forgiven.

The book of Hebrews clearly shows that there was no forgiveness of sins (besides those who were directly forgiven by Christ or people given that authority by Christ) before the death on the cross. Observe:

Hebrews 9:15
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

It clearly says that Christ died for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenent. For you to assert that that there was forgiveness of sin before the death on the cross negates the significance of Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the first covenent (as well as our own). Like I said, there would be no need for Christ to come and die if there was already forgiveness of sins.

Before Christ, all the Jews could do was to offer sacrifices of bulls and goats to appease God. So when you say: "We see that on the day of atonement the sins of the children of Israel were forgiven them when their sins were laid upon the scape goat to be taken out of the way (Lev.16:21)", this did not "forgive" their sins. The book of Hebrews says:

Hebews 10:1-4
1) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3) But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Bulls and goats, including the scapt goat that you quoted (Lev.16:21), does not forgive sins.

Now I guess that you will invent another reason why you believe that it was necessary for them to be re-baptized.

I have no need to "invent" a reason why those people needed to be rebaptized. I know why they needed to be rebaptized because I know from the scriptures that they needed to be baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38), being baptized into His death (Romans 6). Perhaps someday you will realize that John's baptism cannot baptize into the death of Christ, nor can it actaully forgive sins, because Christ hadn't died for our sins yet. Baptism in the name of the Lord was institued AFTER Christ's death and forgives sins through Christ's blood which had already been shed for us.

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Did John that Jesus was GOd???

Francisco did a nice job of answering this:

"John the Baptist did not know Jesus was God, but referred to him as the 'lamb of God'. John also sent some of his followers to inquire of Jesus: 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?' So, John the Baptist was unsure of exactly who Jesus was, other than knowing Jesus might be the one prophesied of as the Christ.

What I am saying is no matter how much proof we pour into you ,or show all the scripture saying water baptism is a symbol,

"Proof"? Please. I've asked several times for you to show me a scripture that says that water baptism (baptism in the name of the Lord) is merely a symbol of outward faith for other Christians, which is the popular denominational view. Where is that scripture?

Baptism in the name of the Lord is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Baptism in the name of the Lord uses water (Acts 10:47-48). This is what baptism in the name of the Lord is for, not for the edifcation of faith for other people. You will not find that anywhere in scripture. Perhaps someday you will be able to deal with this. If people do not understand what baptism in the name of the Lord is for, then they have either been taught wrong, haven't read their Bible's, or are blinded with pride.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

Do you not believe the Scriptures that show that the high priest of the Mosaic Covenant was able to take away the sins of the children of Israel BEFORE THE CROSS?

Please answer me.Do you believe that the sins of the children of Israel were taken away from them or not?

And even though Scripture states that the death of Christ redeemed the transgressions of those living under the law,it is a fact that the sins of some of those living under the law were taken away before the Cross.Did the Lord Jesus not forgive sins before the Cross?

If the Lord wants to use the Baptist to prepare a people so that they can serve the Lord in holiness,who is to say that He cannot?You seem to think that you can.

You all act as if those verses are not there.Just IGNORE them and perhaps they will go away.I have seen this behavior over and over on this thread.

And what about all those who died before the Cross.We see the Lord Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah at Matthew 17:3.Do you think that these men remained in their sins at that time?Do you think that Moses was resurrected,but yet remained in his sins.No,obviously his sins had been taken away,and all this happened before the Cross.

And the "baptism" of Romans 6 is not a "water baptism",but instead it is the baptism spoken of at 1Cor.12:13:

"For by one SPIRIT are we all BAPTIZED into one Body...the Body of Christ"(1Cor.12:13,27).

We are BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST BY THE SPIRIT:

"Know ye not that,as many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were baptized into His death?"(Ro.6:3).

NOWHERE do we ever read that anyone is baptized into Christ by a "water baptism",but we do read that we are baptized into Christ by the Spirit.

At at rite of water baptism the person is baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST,and not INTO CHRIST.

And don´t you understand that our salvation involves SPIRITUAL THINGS?

Do you remain so much in the flesh that you cannot separate the things of the flesh from the things of the Spirit?

The one baptism of Eph.4:5 is not a "water baptism",but instead is the baptism where the Holy Spirit baptizes the believer into Christ.

You cannot even provide one verse that states that anyone is ever baptized into Christ by submitting to a rite of "water baptism",but the Holy Scriptures do indeed state in no uncertain terms that the believer is baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit.

But you would rather IGNORE the plain word of Scripture when it is in conflict with the ideas that you have.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

You cannot even provide one verse that states that anyone is ever baptized into Christ by submitting to a rite of "water baptism",but the Holy Scriptures do indeed state in no uncertain terms that the believer is baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit.

What baptism was the eunuch in Acts 8 baptized into?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Did the eunuch, while Philip preached Jesus to him, see water and decide to be baptized into the baptism of John? No.

Baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism.

Consider this the 'one verse that states that anyone was ever baptized into Christ by submitting to a rite of "water baptism" you said Kevin couldn't provide.

It appears you are the one who IGNORES the plain word of scripture when it conflicts with your non-apostolic theology.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

The verse that you provided does not by any stretch of the imagination teach that anyone was baptized INTO CHRIST by submitting to the rite of water baptism.

And now,even though the verse says nothing about anyone being baptized into Christ,you accuse me of ignoring the word of Scripture when it conflicts with my ideas.I did no such thing!

Read the words here concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit:

"For by one Spirit are we BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY...the BODY OF CHRIST"(1Cor.12:13,27).

BAPTIZED INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST!

The words are plain.The believer is baptized into Christ by the Spirit.

Now let us examine the words that you say proves that the believer is baptized into Christ by submitting to a rite of water baptism:

"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?

"And Philip said,If thou believest with all thine heart,thou mayest.And he answered and said,I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

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

"And when they were come out of the water,the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,and the eunuch saw him no more;and he went his way rejoicing"(Acts8:36-39).

There is NOT ONE WORD here concerning being baptized INTO CHRIST,Francisco!

Why did you think there was?Because your church told you so?

It appears that it is not I who ignores the plain words of Scripture,but instead it is you who adds words that are not there in order to make them match the teaching of Rome.

And if we examine these verses,we can see that it was not the water baptism that saved the eunuch,but instead it was his faith:

"And he answered and said,I BELIEVE that Jesus is the Son of God"(v.37).

If we compare this with the words from the first epistle of John,it is clear that it was his BELIEF in this truth that saved him:

"For whoever is born of God overcometh the world;and this is the victory that overcometh the world,EVEN OUR FAITH.Who is he that overcometh the world,but he that BELIEVETH that JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD"(1Jn.5:4,5).

The eunuch believed that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God,and because he BELIEVED he was born of God.

And Scripture teaches us that being born of God is not a matter of submitting to a rite of water baptism:

"Who were born,not of blood,NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH,NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN,BUT OF GOD"(Jn.1:13).

Submitting to a rite of water baptism would indeed be through the "will of man" and through the "will of the flesh".

So no one is born of God by submitting to any rite.That is the teaching of pagan religions,but that is not the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[SteveT]

Pardon me for butting in, but I don't think there's anyone who would argue that baptism ISN'T a work done BY the Holy Spirit. It's just a question of the means: Is it done BY the Holy Spirit THROUGH the water, or apart from the water? Since John says one must be born again of both water and spirit (Jn 3:5; see also Eph 5:26, Heb 10:22,1 Pt 3:21, all of which explicitly mention water), a case can be made that it is through the water, and that was certainly the unanimous understanding of the early church. But I have never yet seen anyone who holds that the Holy Spirit CANNOT baptize through the water, but MUST baptize directly in the soul somehow, ever provide a biblical case to support this assertion (which, frankly, smacks of anti-materialist gnosticism to me). Of course, merely pointing out the verses that don't mention the water, but only mention the Spirit, is an argument from silence and proves nothing.

While He walked the earth, Jesus used mud and the waters of the pool of Siloam to heal the eyes of the man born blind. The miracle was done BY Jesus, THROUGH the mud and the water. Today, the Holy Spirit uses the waters of baptism to heal our souls. This miracle is done BY the Holy Spirit THROUGH the water. Is there any reason, exegetically, to assert that the baptism by the Holy Spirit ISN'T done through water? If there is, I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Freak]

Tell me every water lover, what does Ephesians 4:30 say?

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

Do you not believe the Scriptures that show that the high priest of the Mosaic Covenant was able to take away the sins of the children of Israel BEFORE THE CROSS?

Please answer me.Do you believe that the sins of the children of Israel were taken away from them or not?

I've already addressed this in my previous post. I said that the sacrifice of bull and goats were done to appease God, but those sins were not "forgiven" (even though they were placed onto the goat) until the death on the cross. Why? Because the blood of bulls and goats CANNOT forgive sins. I've already shown this in scripture. How long will you ignore this?

And even though Scripture states that the death of Christ redeemed the transgressions of those living under the law,it is a fact that the sins of some of those living under the law were taken away before the Cross.

The people who were saved under the OT were saved because of their faith and obedience towards God. They lived an acceptable life that was righteous in the eyes of God, given the covenent and laws that they were under. But the fact is, there was no forgiveness of sins before the death on the cross (besides those who were directly forgiven by Christ or people that Christ gave that authority to). Otherwise the Bible wouldn't state that Jesus died for the sins of the first covenent, but that's exactly what it says.. Also, if bulls and goats could truly forgive sins, then Hebrews wouldn't say that the blood of bulls and goats cannot forgive sins, but that's exactly what it says.

Look at Hebrews 10:11-12:

11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

The sacrifies of the OT could NOT take away sins.

12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Christ died one time for sins forever- past, present, and future.

Did the Lord Jesus not forgive sins before the Cross?

Did you read my last post in it's entirity? I'll even underline it for you. I said: "The book of Hebrews clearly shows that there was no forgiveness of sins (besides those who were directly forgiven by Christ or people given that authority by Christ) before the death on the cross."

That's great for people who had the luxury of meeting Christ and having their sins forgiven, but what about everbody else? He had to die on the cross so our sins could be forgiven. After that, He instituted baptism in His name that would bring forgiveness of sins to ALL people, baptism in the name of the Lord.

If the Lord wants to use the Baptist to prepare a people so that they can serve the Lord in holiness,who is to say that He cannot?You seem to think that you can.

Yeah, and how will those people serve Him in holiness and righteousness? By being obedient to His teachings. None of this changes the fact that there was no forgiveness of sins before the cross.

You all act as if those verses are not there.Just IGNORE them and perhaps they will go away.

I tried to show you in my last post that those sins were not "forgiven", using the Hebew scriptures. How long will you ignore the meaning of those sciptures? And what about ignoring the question/point of why did Christ come and die for our sins if there was already forgiveness. Just keep ignoring those issues, Jerry. Act like they don't exist.

And what about all those who died before the Cross.We see the Lord Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah at Matthew 17:3.Do you think that these men remained in their sins at that time?Do you think that Moses was resurrected,but yet remained in his sins.No,obviously his sins had been taken away,and all this happened before the Cross.

Again, these people were saved through their faith and obedience to God under the covenent that they were in. They were accounted as righteousness. But the sins under the first covenent were not forgiven until Christ shed His blood. The Bible clearly says that the sins of the first covenent were forgiven by MEANS OF DEATH (Heb. 9:15), and without blood, THERE CAN BE NO FORGIVENESS (Heb. 9:22). The blood of bulls and goats CANNOT forgive sins. This is what the Bible says. Do you believe it? Why did Christ come and die Jerry? Quit ducking this point/question.

And the "baptism" of Romans 6 is not a "water baptism",but instead it is the baptism spoken of at 1Cor.12:13:

"For by one SPIRIT are we all BAPTIZED into one Body...the Body of Christ"(1Cor.12:13,27).

Wrong. It is referring to water baptism. The baptism spoken of by Paul in Romans 6 is the same one that was practiced; baptism in the name of the Lord, which uses water (Acts 10:47,48). Paul is referring to the same baptism that Jesus commanded in the Great Commission of MAN. Christ commanded MAN to go out and baptize. MAN cannot perform Spirit baptism and therefore is not the ONE baptism spoken of in Eph 4:5, or the baptism spoken of in Romans 6.

I fully believe the verse that you cited: "For by one SPIRIT are we all BAPTIZED into one Body...the Body of Christ"(1Cor.12:13,27)".

A perfect example of this can be found in the first gospel sermon - Acts 2. The Spirit, the word of God (Eph. 6:17), led people in Acts 2:38 to be baptized for the remission of sins. This was done by the Spirit, the word of God. So BY the Spirit, they were baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins.

We are BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST BY THE SPIRIT:

"Know ye not that,as many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were baptized into His death?"(Ro.6:3).

Again, it was by the Spirit that people are lead to the point of water baptism in the name of the Lord.

NOWHERE do we ever read that anyone is baptized into Christ by a "water baptism",but we do read that we are baptized into Christ by the Spirit.

Baptism in the name of the Lord uses WATER (Acts 10:47-48).

At at rite of water baptism the person is baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST,and not INTO CHRIST.

Just why do you think one is baptized in the name of the Lord, Jerry. Back it with scripture.

Spirit baptism was NEVER commaned of us. Never. When Jesus said in Mark 16:6 that he who believes and is baptized will be saved, the baptism He is referring to is the one that He commanded in the Great Commission for MAN to perform (Matt. 28:19-20). Again, man cannot perform Spirit baptism, and Spirit baptism is NOT commanded of us.

The baptism spoken of in Romans 6, being baptized into His death, is the same baptism that forgives sins. It clearly states that in Romans 6:6-7. Well, the baptism that forgives sins is baptism in the name of the Lord - FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. (Acts 2:38). This of course uses WATER. Same baptism. The apostles practiced what they preached: water baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins.

And don´t you understand that our salvation involves SPIRITUAL THINGS?

How is baptism in the name of the Lord not spiritual? Christ commanded it for salvation. It most certainly has a spiritual purpose.

Do you remain so much in the flesh that you cannot separate the things of the flesh from the things of the Spirit?

Again, how is baptism in the name of the Lord NOT Spiritual? Just because it uses water does not mean that it's purpose is not spiritual.

The one baptism of Eph.4:5 is not a "water baptism",but instead is the baptism where the Holy Spirit baptizes the believer into Christ.

The ONE baptism is the one commanded by Christ for MAN to do, and MAN cannot perform Spirit baptism and therefore is not the ONE baptism being spoken of here.

Do you think that the HS falls upon every believer when he/she believes the hears and believes the gospel as it did in Acts 10:44 to the Gentiles?

You cannot even provide one verse that states that anyone is ever baptized into Christ by submitting to a rite of "water baptism".

Acts 2:38 and Acts 8:38 are perfect examples of this. In both of these cases, the Spirit (the word of God) led these people to the point of baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. This is how these people were baptized by the Spirit into Christ.

 

[Freak]

Kevin,

Have you realized we have been at this for nearly a year? When will you open your eyes to the truth. Have you read Ephesians 4:30?