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

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Hello Kevin you said:
Show me one post where I put baptism before belief. Just one will do. I emphasize baptism because you try to take it out of the requirements for salvation that Jesus laid out in Mark 16:16. Jesus says that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. It takes BOTH belief and baptism, and I have NEVER put baptism before belief. I've often said takes both belief AND baptism.

Quote c.moore
I hope you can repent after looking at your post?
I`ll give you more than one so you don`t try to queeze out and hide from lieing.

... notice you mention nothing about believe or believing, only baptism is needed for salvation only

What are those quotes supposed to prove? The topic at hand is whether or not BAPTISM is necessary for salvation. Therefore, I was emphasizing and defending BAPTISM to show that it IS necesssary for salvation. Just because I don't mention belief in EVERY post does NOT mean that I don't think it's necessary for salvation, OR that I put it BEFORE belief!

As I said in my other post, there are MANY MANY TIMES I have included belief in the requirements for salvation. I haven't seen ONE person on this entire thread deny that belief is necessary. Your accusations are completely false. NONE of those quote show anything about me believing that BELIEF is not necessary for salvation. Here are just SOME of the my quotes that show that I INCLUDE belief:

"Pay close attention to the requirements listed in the begining of that verse that is required for salvation. Belief AND baptism. The significance of the word "and" is essential to understanding this verse's meaning. Two, not one, two conditions HAVE to be met before one can be saved: Belief and baptism!"

That can be found on page TWO! Did I mention belief? YES! Did I somehow put it before bapism? NO!

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

"Jesus also said that He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."

Did I forget belief there? Did I put baptism before belief? NO!!!

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=6

"Pay close attention to the requirements listed in the begining of that verse that is required for salvation. Belief AND baptism. The significance of the word "and" is essential to understanding this verse's meaning. Two, not one, two conditions HAVE to be met before one can be saved: Belief and baptism!"

Did I forget belief there? Did I put baptism before belief? NO!!!

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=10

"Jesus said that we need to believe and be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16). You don't believe that. Simple as that.

Did I forget belief there? Did I put baptism before belief? NO!!!

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=25

"The fact is, there are conditions to obtain that saving grace: believe and be baptized (Mark 16:16)."

Did I forget belief there? Did I put baptism before belief? NO!!!

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=25

"It's quite simple. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. These are the two, not one, two, conditions that must be met in order to be saved.

Gee, I said that there are TWO conditions that HAVE TO BE MET before one can be saved. Is one of those BELIEF? YES! Did I put it BEFORE baptism? NO!

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=37

"Both belief and baptism preceed salvation, and none of your analogies will be able to put baptism after salvation."

Did I say that BOTH belief and baptism PRECEED salvation? YES! Did I put baptism before belief? NO!

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=56


Well, C.moore, I ran out of time, or else I'm SURE that I could have found MORE proof. Those posts SHOW that I INCLUDE belief in the requirements for salvation, and I have NEVER, EVER put baptism BEFORE belief.

What if I used the same LAME logic against you and cited passages where you talk about belief and do not acknowledge GRACE? Does that mean that you don't think that GRACE saves us? LAME.

Your accusations are FALSE. Once again, like when you falsely accused me of being a Mormon, you are spreading LIES about me. Your antics are pathetic. If this kind of lying GARBAGE is the best you can do, in light of your inability to produce scriptures to back up what you say, then hang it up and let someone who can back up what they are saying debate me... instead of resorting to unfounded LIES.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

I will answer these questions,and then will you answer mine?

I believe that when the eunuch believed the words concerning the Lord Jesus Christ,at that time He was baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ and received eternal life.

As the Lord said,"It is the SPIRIT that giveth life;the flesh profiteth nothing.The WORDS that I speak unto you,they are Spirit,and they are life"(Jn.6:63).

Upon belief the eunuch was sanctified by the Holy Spirit through the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ"(1Pet.1:2).

It is the Holy Spirit Who baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ:

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

So to answer your question,the eunuch was baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Now will you show me your evidence which you think proves that the believer is baptized into Christ when he submits to the rite of water baptism?I have been waiting for any verses which explicitly state that anyone is baptized INTO Christ when they submit to that rite,but so far no one has provided even one verse.Perhaps you will be the first.

And in answer to your next question,you tell me whether or not the children of Israel had their sins taken away from them BEFORE the Lord died on the Cross:

"And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,and confess over it all the iniquities of thechildren of Israel,and ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS IN ALL THEIR SINS,PUTTING THEM ON THE HEAD OF THE GOAT,and shall send it away by the hand of a man into thewilderness.And the goat shall bear upon it ALL THEIR INIQUITIES unto a land not inhabited..."(Lev.16:21,22).

Now,Kevin,according to your mistaken beliefs,this would not be possible until AFTER the Cross.But we do in fact see that the sins of His people were in fact being taken from them.

Or are you willing to deny these plain words of Scripture?

And I do believe that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins any more than water can wash away sins.These things can only touch the "flesh",but can have no true effect on the "soul".

"For if the blood of bulls and goats,and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling (WITH WATER) the unclean,sanctifeth to the PURIFYING OF THE FLESH..."(Heb.9:13).

Water cannot clean anything but the flesh of man.It cannot cleanse the soul from sin.To cleanse the soul from sin,it takes the "blood of Christ":

"...purifying of the flesh,how much more shall the blood of Christ...purge your conscience from works that lead to death..."(Heb.9:14).

It is the "blood of Christ",and not water,which cleans the soul.And that cleansing,or sanctification,comes by the Spirit:

"Elect...through sanctification of the Spirit,unto obedience and SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST"(1Pet.1:2).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

servantofChrist,

Perhaps you overlooked my previous explanation of the water baptism that was commanded for those who repent.

Forgiveness of sins is accomplished by "repentance",not by baptism in water.

Matthew 3:11 should read:

"I baptize you with water BECAUSE of repentance."

The Greek word translated "because" is "eis".

It is also used in the following verse:

"They repented AT (eis) the preaching of Jonah (Mt.12:41).

The meaning is clear.They repented BECAUSE of the preaching of Jonah.

The verse at Acts 2:38 should read:

"Repent you all (and let each one be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins) and you shall recive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The word "repent" is from the Greek word,"metanoeo",and the tense is "aorist active imperative,2nd person plural (you all).

But the words that follow,"and let each one be baptized",is aorist passive imperative,3rd person singular.This provides a syntactical break and introduces a separate idea.The reason for the syntactical break is the fact that Peter changes from the 2nd person plural to the 3rd person singular.Therefore,this should be put into paraenthesis to demonstrate that their is in fact a syntactical break.

So by this correct translation we can see that the forgiveness of sins is based on repentance and it is not based on submitting to the rite of water baptism.

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.

But you would rather IGNORE the plain word of Scripture when it is in conflict with the ideas that you have.
Posted 08-23-2002 12:43 PM by Jerry Shugart


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.
Posted 08-23-2002 01:06 PM by 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!
Posted 08-23-2002 01:49 PM by Jerry Shugart


Oh really??? What then was the eunuch baptized into? Look again:

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?"

Can you answer this with something other than 'this verse does not teach anyone was baptized into Christ by submitting to water baptism? It's obvious the eunuch was moved to baptism through Philip's preaching Jesus to him, and it's obviously a water baptism. So please instruct us all Jerry, explain how the eunuch was not water baptized into Christ Jesus.....
Posted 08-23-2002 10:58 PM by Francisco


You obviously have not been taught that the Christian is baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

You keep using the verses surroundind the eunuch to prove that he was baptized INTO Christ,but the word "into" cannot be found in any of those verses.You are ADDING to the words of Scripture in order to attempt to make your point.

Well,Francisco,anyone can ADD WORDS TO SCRIPTURE and make Scripture say what they want it to say.

Again,Francisco,there is not one instance in Scripture that states that anyone was ever water baptized into Christ.
Posted 08-24-2002 09:11 AM by Jerry Shugart


Oh really??? What then WAS the eunuch baptized into? Look again:

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 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. (Acts 8:35-38, KJV)

It's obvious the eunuch was moved to baptism through Philip's preaching Jesus to him, it's obviously a water baptism, AND the eunuch confessed Jesus Christ is the Son of God just prior to going into the water. So, are you still saying the eunuch wasn't baptized by water into Christ?
Posted 08-24-2002 09:59 PM by Francisco


And no matter how many times you quote the verses concerning the eunuch,you are never going to find the words that anyone was water baptized INTO CHRIST.

IT IS NOT THERE FRANCISCO!

You need to come back to REALITY.
Posted 08-25-2002 12:03 AM by Jerry Shugart


Jerry,

Why do you continually dodge Francisco's question? Just WHO was the eunuch baptized into?
Posted 08-25-2002 12:53 AM by Kevin


You didn't answer MY question. Into what was the eunuch baptized after being moved to baptism through Philip's preaching Jesus to him, AND confessing Jesus Christ is the Son of God, just prior to going into the water?

Do you still say the eunuch wasn't baptized through water into Christ? LOL... Take another look:

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 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. (Acts 8:35-38, KJV)

Do you require everything be spelled out explicitly like 'the eunuch went into the water to be baptized into Christ'? If so, I'll be presenting you with larger problems for your theology than water baptism.....
Posted 08-25-2002 12:54 AM by Francisco


Oh really??? What then WAS the eunuch baptized into? Look again:

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 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. (Acts 8:35-38, KJV)

It's obvious the eunuch was moved to baptism through Philip's preaching Jesus to him, it's obviously a water baptism, AND the eunuch confessed Jesus Christ is the Son of God just prior to going into the water. So, are you still saying the eunuch wasn't baptized by water into Christ?
Posted 08-26-2002 10:32 AM by Francisco


Francisco,

I answered your words about the "eunuch" many times.There is not one word there where it states SPECIFICALLY that anyone was baptized INTO CHRIST by submitting to a rite of water baptism.

So either produce the SPECIFIC WORDS or please hold your peace.And please do not attempt to add words that are not there.
Posted 08-26-2002 11:03 AM by Jerry Shugart


Also, Jerry, why do you continually dodge Fransisco's question? Since you don't think the eunuch was baptized into Christ, who or what was he baptized into? You have YET to answer this simple question.
Posted 08-26-2002 02:50 PM by Kevin


I've repeatedly asked you to tell me what the eunuch was baptized into. You have not provided an answer. Take a look again and give me the answer to my question, 'WHAT WAS THE EUNUCH BAPTIZED INTO IF NOT JESUS CHRIST'?:

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 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. (Acts 8:35-38, KJV)

Besides, we would have a much larger problem than our disagreement over baptism if everything had to be proven with 'SPECIFIC WORDS.' For instance, show me the specific words that support the Christian belief of the Trinity, of monogamous marriage, of the dual natures of Jesus Christ. You can't because they're not there, but that doesn't mean these beliefs are invalid, nor the many other commonly accepted Christian beliefs that are not spelled out with specific words in scripture.
Posted 08-26-2002 03:37 PM by Francisco


You admit that your doctrine is not "spelled out" by Scripture.

However,mine is.And you agree with my contention that it is the Spirit that baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ.
Posted 08-26-2002 05:48 PM by Jerry Shugart


Regarding Paul's and Silas' words ,"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved..." I don't see any SPECIFIC WORDS about repentance, which you say in another post above IS necessary for forgiveness of sins. I hate to go off on a tangent like this, but just a few posts back you were requiring SPECIFIC WORDS from me. There are NO SPECIFIC WORDS here that says they must repent, but believing in Jesus Christ implies necessary repentance. Just as the eunuch confessing Jesus Christ is Son of God and then going into the water to be baptized implies he was water baptized into Jesus Christ.

With this in mind, I ask you again, what was the eunuch water baptized into, if not Jesus Christ?
Posted 08-26-2002 07:28 PM by Francisco


By the way Jerry, are you ever going to answer the questions of:

What or who was the eunuch baptized into, if not into Christ Jesus?

Why did Christ come and die for our sins if there was supposedly already forgiveness of sins?

Do you believe the verse in Hebrews that shows that the blood of bulls and goats cannot forgive sins (Heb 10:4)?
Posted 08-29-2002 12:26 AM by Kevin


Kevin,

I will answer these questions,and then will you answer mine?

I believe that when the eunuch believed the words concerning the Lord Jesus Christ,at that time He was baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ and received eternal life.

As the Lord said,"It is the SPIRIT that giveth life;the flesh profiteth nothing.The WORDS that I speak unto you,they are Spirit,and they are life"(Jn.6:63).

Upon belief the eunuch was sanctified by the Holy Spirit through the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ"(1Pet.1:2).

It is the Holy Spirit Who baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ:

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

So to answer your question,the eunuch was baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
Posted 08-29-2002 11:18 AM by Jerry Shugart

That doesn't answer the question Jerry. The question that you have been asked about no less than 10 times is:

What was the eunuch water baptized into, if not Jesus Christ?

In addition, you have again ignored the other question I posed to you - Why did Jesus need to die on the cross if John the Baptist could already forgive sins?

And the other question Kevin posed regarding Hebrews 10:4.

You've been dancing around these question for a week now, offering lame excuses like the need for SPECIFIC WORDS, charging me with adding words to scripture, etc... If you can't answer the question DIRECTLY, instead of beating around the bush, you expose the fallacy of your beliefs Jerry.

So, WHAT ARE YOUR ANSWERS???

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

I provided verses that once the sinner believes the gospel he is at that time baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.And that is exactly what happened with the eunuch.I have answered that question many times.Even though you do not like my answer,please refrain from your false accusation that I have never answered the question.

Perhaps you will tell me if you believe that the believer is baptized into the Body of Christ BY THE HOLY SPIRIT?

It is there in black and white,but I just want to know if you will acknowledge the fact.

Now concerning the "water baptism" that the eunuch took part of,there is nothing in all those Scriptual passages that even hints that the eunuch was baptized into ANYTHING at all when he was water baptized.But you just can´t accept that.

And yes,I asked for SPECIFIC WORDS.I provided SPECIFIC WORDS that the believer is baptized into Christ by the Spirit,so why shouldn´t I demand the SAME STANDARD from you?

Where is your SCRIPTIUAL EVIDENCE,Francisco?Where is your evidence that is based on Scripture,and not merely on your speculation?

And again,according to your mistaken beliefs,you think that it is impossible for the sins of anyone to be removed before the Cross.Yet I provided verses that show that the High Priest under the Mosaic Covenant had the authority to place the sins of the Jews upon the goat(Lev.16:21,22).You did not respond.

You act as if those verses do not even exist.So I will ask you,Francisco,were the sins of the children of Israel taken away on the Day of Atonement or not?

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

You keep insisting the Greek word 'eis' as used in Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38 should translate to 'because.' You are, as usual, WRONG!!! And Strong's has conveniently provided a special note regarding the usage of 'eis' in Acts 2:38:

Strong's Number: 1519 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
eijß a primary preposition
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Eis 2:420,211
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ice Preposition

Definition
into, unto, to, towards, for, among

"For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have twomeanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for"signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

You can be unbelievably ignorant Jerry!!! You keep trying to pin a 'works salvation' on Catholic belief, which is a lie, but look who's trying to 'WORK' their way to heaven with this fallacy.... LOL

I give you the same advice you gave me earlier this week -

"You should get yourself a Greek - English lexicon and you might learn something."

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
I provided verses that once the sinner believes the gospel he is at that time baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.And that is exactly what happened with the eunuch.I have answered that question many times.Even though you do not like my answer,please refrain from your false accusation that I have never answered the question.

You STILL have not answered the question Jerry.

What was the eunuch water baptized into, if not Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
Perhaps you will tell me if you believe that the believer is baptized into the Body of Christ BY THE HOLY SPIRIT?

It is there in black and white,but I just want to know if you will acknowledge the fact.

And, even though I HAVE answered your question regarding baptism into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, I will answer it again:

I believe a REPENTANT SINNER is baptized into the Body of Christ by the merits of the Blood of Jesus Christ through the waters of baptism by the Holy Spirit.

And to show that you falsely accused me of not answering this question before, here are some of my previous responses to this and similar questions:

I concurred with your belief that repentance is necessary for forgiveness, and that the Blood of Jesus Christ merits the washing away of sins. I'm not certain if we agreed on this point or not, but I believe the Holy Spirit applies the Blood of Jesus to the repentant sinner.

Where we differ is HOW the Holy Spirit applies the Blood.
08-27-2002 08:45 PM

I concur completely that the Holy Spirit baptizes us into one body of Christ. Where we disagree is HOW the Holy Spirit effects that baptism.
08-26-2002 03:37 PM

After repentance comes the baptism into Christ, and the Holy Spirit is conferred upon the repentant sinner through water to give the repentant sinner new life, just as the Spirit gave the world new life in Gen 1:2.
08-26-2002 06:17 PM

But does scripture say how the HOLY SPIRIT COMES? Can the Holy Spirit come through water?

The Holy Spirit and water are connected from the beginning of scripture:

Gen 1:2b 'And the Spirit of God moved upon the waters.'

The Spirit of God moving upon the waters was the beginning of life. Tertullian said the spirit of God gave 'life, vigor and motion to things.' In other words, the Spirit of God conferred life upon the earth through water.

Why do you contend the Holy Spirit can no longer confer life through water?
08-25-2002 07:59 PM

The Holy Spirit gives us our 'new life' in Christ when He washes our sins away in the Blood of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit applies this life saving Blood to our sinful souls THROUGH the waters of baptism, just as the Holy Spirit gave the world life through water in Gen 1:2.
08-26-2002 08:27 AM

Stop making false accusations Jerry, and answer our questions, if you can.....

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

Just place any of the meanings that Strong gives for "eis" into the following verse and see if it makes any sense.By this you can see that the meaning of "eis" is not limited by the meaning that Strong attampts to put upon it:

"Because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah"(Mt.12:41).

We know that they repented because of the preaching of Jonah.So if "eis" can be used in this instance,why can´t it be used in the same way in other instances?

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

Strong's specifically addresses Acts 2:38:

"For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for"signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

Are you claiming to be a more relliable authority than Strong's? If so, what are your credentials?

BTW, I answered your question very directly about 6 times. Can you answer my question 1 time DIRECTLY:

What was the eunuch water baptized into, if not Jesus Christ?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

You ask the same question overand over like a broken record--"What was the eunuch water baptized into?"

Well,show me where Scripture states that he was water baptized into anything.

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

I believe that when the eunuch believed the words concerning the Lord Jesus Christ,at that time He was baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ and received eternal life.

But you have no evidence that he was baptized by the HS. Acts 8:5-16 shows that the HS does NOT fall upon everybody upon hearing the gospel.

There is however evidence to show that he was water baptized in the name of the Lord. What do you think the purpose of this baptism is?

As the Lord said,"It is the SPIRIT that giveth life;the flesh profiteth nothing.The WORDS that I speak unto you,they are Spirit,and they are life"(Jn.6:63).

Yes, the Spirit (the word of God) gives life, IF it's obyed. It is through baptism that we are reborn, walking in the newness of life, being alive to God. The Spirit is what leads us to baptism, just as shown in Acts 2:38. After hearing the word of God, they were moved by the Spirit to be baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. This is why 1Cor.12:13... that by one Spirit we are baptized into Christ.

1 Cor. 12-13 is NOT speaking of the falling of the HS. Besides me showing in Acts 8:5-16 that the falling of the HS does NOT happen to everybody upon hearing the word, Spirit baptism was never commanded of us. The baptism that was commanded in the Great Commission was commanded for MAN to perform, and man cannot perform Spirit baptism.

Upon belief the eunuch was sanctified by the Holy Spirit through the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ"(1Pet.1:2).

The blood of Jesus Christ didn't do him any good UNTIL he was baptized into His death through the water baptism in His name.

It is the Holy Spirit Who baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ:

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

Been addressed. See above comments.

So to answer your question,the eunuch was baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, it was by the Holy Spirit that he was water baptized in the name of the Lord. The example clearly shows this. Philip preached to him the word of God. As a result of that, he was water baptized. By the Spirit, he was baptized into Christ.

Now will you show me your evidence which you think proves that the believer is baptized into Christ when he submits to the rite of water baptism?

As soon as you realize what 1Cor. 12-13 is speaking about, which I've explained, you should understand. And when you come to understand that HS baptism was NEVER commanded of us, you should realized that it is water baptism in His name that puts us into Christ.

Also, I've pointed out in the past that the baptism that puts us "INTO CHRIST", which is spoken of in Romans 6, is the same baptism that frees us from sin. (Romans 6:7) Acts 2:38, which is speaking of water baptism, is for the remission of sins, therefore is the SAME baptism spoken of in Romans 6 which put us INTO Christ.

"And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,and confess over it all the iniquities of thechildren of Israel,and ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS IN ALL THEIR SINS,PUTTING THEM ON THE HEAD OF THE GOAT,and shall send it away by the hand of a man into thewilderness.And the goat shall bear upon it ALL THEIR INIQUITIES unto a land not inhabited..."(Lev.16:21,22).

I'll agree with you that their sins were "put on the head of the goat", but this doesn't mean that those sins were forgiven. They were still there... they were just moved to a different place to appease God. How do I know that these sins were not forgiven? Because Old testament sacrifices could NOT forgive sins!

Hebrews 10:4,11
4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

You either believe those scriptures, or you don't. It's that simple. I'm still waiting to hear why Christ came and died for our sins if there was already supposedly forgiveness of sins. You keep ducking this question. Why?

Now,Kevin,according to your mistaken beliefs,this would not be possible until AFTER the Cross.But we do in fact see that the sins of His people were in fact being taken from them.

Or are you willing to deny these plain words of Scripture?

Again, I agreed that they were put on the goats head, but this doesn't mean that the sins were forgiven at that very moment. And if you believe the Hebrews verses I quoted, you should know that they were NOT forgiven at that very moment. Are you willing to deny the Hebrew words?

And I do believe that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins

Good. Because even after the goat was sent away, they still had to do a sin offering (verse 27) with the blood of bulls and goats, which we both agree CANNOT take away sins. If their sins were truly forgiven by the scapegoat, then they wouldn't have had any need of doing a sin offering after that.

Well, Jerry, you almost answered all the questions... you dodged the question about why Christ had to come and die for our sins if there was already supposedly forgiveness of sins.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

We can clearly see that the sins of the people are put on the head of the scape goat and those sinsare taken away from the people.Thewords could not be plainer:

"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,putting THEM upon the head of the goat,and shall send it away by the hands of a fit man into the wilderness"(Lev.16:21).

Kevin,read the words!

ALL THE SINS of the people are put upon the head of the goat.

It could not be plainer.Open your eyes.

If you still will not believe,read the verse that follows:

"And the goat shall bear upon it ALL THEIR INIQUITIES unto a land not inhabited..."

Their SINS are taken away from them and placed on the scape goat.

But all you can say is that this does not prove that their sins were forgiven at that very moment.

But as usual you fail to provide any Scripture to prove your point.You just say it and expect us to believe that it is true.

And yes,if they did sin AFTER this,they were then commanded to bring a sin offering.But that does not mean that their sins were not forgiven and taken away on the Day of Atonement.

And what evidence can you give that the eunuch was water baptized into anything at all?

You have not even provided one verse that states that anyone at all was ever water baptized into anything.I believe that if the eunuch was baptized into Christ,it was done through the action of the Holy Spirit.And here is the Scripture verse I use to prove my contention:

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

You say that you believe that he was baptized into Christ by a water baptism.

Where is your Scripture to prove this?

You have not yet provided even one verse that says anyone is water baptized into anything at all,Kevin!I have but you have not.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

You have continuously claimed that YOU HAVE provided scripture that proves with SPECIFIC WORDS that we are baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Then after reading the verses I quoted at Acts 8:35-38, where the eunuch is baptized by Philip after confessing belief in Jesus Christ, you claim these verses don't prove the eunuch was baptized into anything because the verse doesn't use the SPECIFIC WORDS 'into Jesus Christ'. This is an extremely lame argument.

If we were to apply the same 'SPECIFIC WORDS standard' to the verses you cited, the verses you claim use SPECIFIC WORDS to support your position, you can't prove:

1) what 'spirit' the verses speak about
2) what 'body' the verses speak about
3) who 'we' refers to

Let's take a look at the verse you quoted:

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1Cor 12:13)

Now, show me:

1) the SPECIFIC WORDS that say the 'body' is the Body of Christ.
2) the SPECIFIC WORDS that say the 'spirit' is the Holy Spirit.
3) the SPECIFIC WORDS that says who 'we' includes

As you can see Jerry, if your SPECIFIC WORDS standard is applied to this verse, it severely cripples the meaning of the verse.

However, if you consider the context of the verse it is easy to discern that the 'body' is the Body of Christ, and the 'spirit' is the Holy Spirit. By the same token, if you look at the context of Acts 8:35-38, you can see Philip baptized the eunuch into Jesus Christ, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO ADMIT IT!

For clarity, here is Acts 8:35-38 for about the 15th time:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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 Christ is the Son of God. 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. (Acts 8:35-38, KJV)

Unless you can offer some other plausible explanation as to why the eunuch was NOT baptized into Jesus Christ, we will consider the fallacy of your modern beliefs exposed..........

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

According to your SPECIFIC WORDS standard, your claim that 1 Cor 12:13 & 27 go together is false. If the SPECIFIC WORDS 'baptized into the Body of Christ' cannot be found together in the same sentence, we will not be able to accept your argument.

Also, according to the SPECIFIC WORDS standard you have set upon us, you can't prove who 'ye' refers to in vs. 27.

I don't know about the rest of the folks in this forum, but I'm afraid your SPECIFIC WORDS standard will keep you from ever making a plausible argument to me, ever.

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

We can clearly see that the sins of the people are put on the head of the scape goat and those sinsare taken away from the people.Thewords could not be plainer:

"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,putting THEM upon the head of the goat,and shall send it away by the hands of a fit man into the wilderness"(Lev.16:21).

Kevin,read the words!

Jerry, I did read the words and acknowledged your point in my last post: "I'll agree with you that their sins were "put on the head of the goat"".

ALL THE SINS of the people are put upon the head of the goat.

Agreed, but these sins were not forgiven. If they were forgiven, then there would be no need to make a sin offering right after that with the blood of bulls and goats, which we both know does NOT forgive sins. In short, they did what God commanded that He may be appeased, but their sins were NOT forgiven.

But as usual you fail to provide any Scripture to prove your point.You just say it and expect us to believe that it is true.

No, that's not true. I've listed Hebrew scripture that shows that OT sacrifices do NOT forgive sins. Also, I have raised valid points, one of which remains unanswered that would have a direct impact on this discussion.

The first one is why did Christ come and die if there was already supposedley forgiveness of sin in the world, which you have ducked again, and again, and again! If you come to the realization that it takes the blood of Christ to forgive man's sins, you would know that those people in Leviticus were not forgiven of their sins.

The other one is the question of why a sin offering had to be made after the scapegoat. Why? If there sins were forgiven upon being placed on the head of the goat, then why did they have to make a sin offering using the blood of bulls and goats which cannot forgive sins?

You tried to address this issue with: "And yes,if they did sin AFTER this,they were then commanded to bring a sin offering.But that does not mean that their sins were not forgiven and taken away on the Day of Atonement."

Nice try, Jerry. The sin offering was for the sins that were placed upon the scapegoat, not for sins that they *may* commit later. Your arguement that the sin offering is for possible sins later is found nowhere in there. Verses 20-28 cover the same event. Nowhere in those scriptures is there even a hint that shows that the sin offering is for another set of sins at a later time.

And what evidence can you give that the eunuch was water baptized into anything at all?

He had to be baptized into something or else what was the purpose of him being baptized? Even the people who were baptized with John's baptism were baptized "INTO" John's baptism (Acts 19:3). What or who was the eunuch baptized into and what does it mean?

You have not even provided one verse that states that anyone at all was ever water baptized into anything.I believe that if the eunuch was baptized into Christ,it was done through the action of the Holy Spirit.And here is the Scripture verse I use to prove my contention:

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

I've already addressed this. I've shown how people are baptized by one spirit into Christ. We both agree that Spirit is the word of God. How do you suppose the people in Acts 2:38 came to be water batized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sin? Was is not by the WORD OF GOD (the Spirit) that was preached by Peter? YES! By the Spirit, the word of God, those people in Acts 2:38 were baptized into Christ.

The eunuch is no different. Was he not "preached Jesus" by Philip? Yes. Did the preaching of the word of God cause the eunuch to be baptized, YES. If Philip hadn't preached to him, the eunuch would not have asked Philip, "See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?". It was by the word of God (THE SPIRIT) that the eunuch was baptized.

I've already explained to you that 1 Cor. 12:13 is not referring to the literal falling of the HS because it was NEVER commanded of us. I've also shown that the HS does NOT fall upon every believer upon hearing the gospel. You're response? Nothing.

I've also, more than once, shown you a paralell of how water baptism in the name of the Lord is the same baptism spoken of in Romans 6, which puts us INTO CHRIST. Your response? Nothing.

You say that you believe that he was baptized into Christ by a water baptism.

Where is your Scripture to prove this?

If you would address my questions and points, perhaps you would be able to answer this yourself. As long as you keep ducking them, of course you're not going to get it. You'll just keep preaching your same broken record and asking the same questions, and yet, if you won't consider the arguements at hand, it's useless for you to ask.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

The Lord created all things,and one of the things He created is "time".And in certain ways man is constrained by "time".

But God,Who lives in eternity,is not so constrained.

Therefore,before the Cross the Lord could overlook sins knowing that in the future He could put those sins upon Christ.

That is the meaning of Paul´s words in Athens:

"And the times of this ignorance God overlooked,but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent"(Acts17:30).

"Who in times past allowed all nations to walk in their own ways"(Acts14:16).

This refers to the "forebearance" of God.Before the Cross He could overlook sins or He could give the High Priest authority to forgive the sins of the children of Israel because He knew that at a latter time He could put all those sins upon the Lord Jesus Christ at the Cross.

That is the meaning of the following words:

"...to declare His righteousness for the remission of SINS THAT ARE PAST through the FOREBEARANCE OF GOD"(Ro.3:25).

The Lord would be unjust if He took away the sins of men if He had no way of making a "propitiation" for those sins.But now He can say that He was just for removing those sins because now that Christ has died on the Cross the Lord can place those sins upon Christ.

That is why Paul says:

"To declare,I say,at this time His righteousness,that He might be just,and the Justifier of him who believeth in Jesus"(Ro.3:26).

So the Lord was "just" when He authorized the High Priest to take away the sins of the Jews BEFORE the Cross because the penalty for those sins were paid in full at the Cross.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

Therefore,before the Cross the Lord could overlook sins knowing that in the future He could put those sins upon Christ.

I totally agree with that statement. You acknowledge that the Lord could overlook sins "knowing in the future that He could put those sins upon Christ." Don't you see, Jerry, that that right there is proof that sins were not forgiven until the cross, otherwise there would be no sins to "put on Christ". Christ blood is for forgiveness, and there would be no need to put sins on Him that were already forgiven.

That is the meaning of the following words:

"...to declare His righteousness for the remission of SINS THAT ARE PAST through the FOREBEARANCE OF GOD"(Ro.3:25).

Notice that it says that God "passed over" the sins that were previously committed, not that God "forgave" the sins previously committed. He overlook their sins, but that doesn't make them forgiven.

The Lord would be unjust if He took away the sins of men if He had no way of making a "propitiation" for those sins.But now He can say that He was just for removing those sins because now that Christ has died on the Cross the Lord can place those sins upon Christ.

I've agreed that sins were taken away in the OT. I acknowledged that with the scapegoat. My beef is that they weren't forigven until the cross. Again, if sins were forgiven, then there would be no need to "place those sins upon Christ." By saying that there was forgiveness before the cross, you would be saying that that the sins were put on Jesus so that His blood could forgive what was already forgiven. That doesn't make sense. What does make sense is for God to take away the sins and have them forgiven with His Son's blood.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

The word translated "forgiveness" and "remission" means "to send off or away"--this is the fundamental meaning of "forgiveness"--to separate the sin from the sinner.

"The priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed,and it shall be forgiven him"(Lev.4:35).

The words could not be any plainer.Once the sinner brought the sacrifice IN FAITH then his sins were forgiven him.

On the day of atonement,all the sins of the children of Israel were taken away from them and placed on the scape goat.

And the Lord could only do that because He knew that the penalty for these sins would be paid in the future at the Cross.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

The word translated "forgiveness" and "remission" means "to send off or away"--this is the fundamental meaning of "forgiveness"--to separate the sin from the sinner.

Actually, remission in Greek (Acts 2:38) means:

Acts 2:38 - Remission
859 aphesis {af'-es-is}

from 863 </cgi-bin/strongs.pl?book=Act&chapter=2&verse=38&strongs=863&page=1>; TDNT </help/tdnt.html> - 1:509,88; n f

AV </help/av.html> - remission 9, forgiveness 6, deliverance 1, liberty 1; 17

1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they
had never been committed), remission of the penalty

"The priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed,and it shall be forgiven him"(Lev.4:35).

I'm not questioning whether or not the sins "shall be forgiven". The question is "when" shall those sins be "forgiven"? Lev. 4:35 is referring to a sin offering of an animal's blood. Are you going to tell me that an animal's blood can forgive the sins of man? Are you going to tell me that OT sin sacrifices could actually forgive sins? According to Hebrews 10:11, they can't. You either believe it or you don't.

You've already acknowledged in you other post that the sins of the OT werel put on Christ to be "paid in full at the Cross", which I agree with. The problem is that you want to say that they were already forgiven in the OT. If they were truly forgiven in the OT, then why would Christ pay for sins that were already forgiven? Doesn't make sense. And as I've said before, if there was truly forgiveness of sins in the OT, there would have been NO need for the coming of Christ.

And the Lord could only do that because He knew that the penalty for these sins would be paid in the future at the Cross.

If they were already forgiven, there would be nothing for Christ to pay for.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

"The Son of Man hath power on earth to FORGIVE sins..."(Mt.9:6).

The word "forgive" is from a Greek word meaning "to send away"(#863).

According to your definition of "remission",that word also means to "forgive".

So both "forgive" and "remit" can mean "to send away".

And the Scriptures reveal in no uncertain terms that BEFORE the Cross the Lord was able to "forgive" the sins of His people,either by doing it Himself or by giving the priests the authority to do it:

"Thou HAST FORGIVEN THEIR INIQUITY of Thy people;thou hast covered all their sin"(Ps.85:3).

Notice the tense--HAST FORGIVEN--meaning that it has already happened.And these words werewritten BEFORE the Cross.

No one´s sins can be "atoned" for unless their sins have been taken away.And we see that the priests had the authority to make "atonement" and to forgive sins:

"And the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed,and it shall be forgiven him"(Lev.4:35).

You would have us belive that the priest did make atonement for the sin but the sin would not be forgiven until after the Cross.But "atonement" is impossible until the sin is forgiven.

And it is not the "blood" of the sacrifice that makes atonement,but instead it is the "faith" of the one that brings the sacrifice.Before the Cross we read that Abraham was justified by "faith".The Lord took away his sin and declared him righteous,knowing all the while that he would be able to place Abraham´s sins upon the Cross.

Before the Cross the priest was able to forgive the sin of the sinner who brought a sacrifice in FAITH because God knew that in the future He could place those sins upon the Lord at the Cross.

Again,as I said previously,"time" is a created thing.It is a law of our being,and in some instances we are constrained by "time".However,The Lord,Who lives in ETERNITY (where time does not exist),is not constrained by "time".He can act as if time doesn´t even exist.So he can take away sins that were committed before the Cross knowing that He will place those sins on the Lord at the Cross.

In His grace,--Jerry