Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, to have the Gifts of the Spirit, which are given to the church, you have to be part of the body of Christ, the church. While the Holy Spirit had come upon unrighteous men, and an animal, to prophecy, and do His work, the Gift of Tongues is given to the church. I know it's hard to understand that the gift of prophecy in the church is different than the prophetic utterances of those that were used by God and yet not counted as part of the wicked before Christ, but there is a difference. And the Donkey wasn't given the gift of tongues, he was just given the power to be understood by Baalam. But this is discussion should be opened in another forum.
Hi We,
You say the gift of tongues given to the church is different that the gift of prophesy given to Caiaphas and Saul. Different how? Can you prove that? You saying so is your opinion only. It's not fact unless you can back it up.
Cornelius is used constantly by faith onlyiss to prove he was saved before he was baptized. But the Scriptures don't say he was saved when the Holy Spirit came on him. The only thing we're told is that he spoke in tongues.
We are saved by grace through faith. There is no doubt about that, but not by faith alone. Every single example we have in the entire Bible is of people who had obedient faith, and that includes Abraham.
If you go all the way to the beginning of the story of Abram, you will see that he was an obedient servant of God from the get go. When God told Abram to do something, he did it. God told him to leave his homeland. He did it without question. He had no idea where he was going. He built altars to God and worshiped Him, and he called on the name of the Lord.
Abram, of course, didn't need to be baptized or circumcised, but he obeyed God in all things, and long before God declared him righteous in Genesis 15:6, He says to Abram, "“Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.” Could God have said this to an unforgiven sinner? And God said it before He told Abram that he would become a father in his old age.
Wretched.elect;28322834]When was Cornelius 'in Christ?' At the point that he believed and repented? Or not until after he was baptized? And if he has suffered and died before he had been baptized, would his faith have saved him or would he still have to have been baptized for the remission of his sins in order to be saved because he was in the church age? The event of salvation is faith in Christ which encompassed repentance and confession. When he believed, he was in Christ.
I see no other way to be "in Christ" other than through baptism.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27)
Quote:
While it does not say that Cornelius and his household was save (actually use that word) prior to baptism, it also does not say he was saved at the event of or after his baptism. And you're right, of course, there is absolutely no mention of the the words saved or salvation, so I guess since we cant assume that he was saved at any point in the Acts 10:34-48 passage. The only thing we can take away is that they received the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit same as the Jews did, and that's only because 11:17-18 tells us so.
I agree with you. Maybe the reason we have so many denominations is because doctrine is based on assumption, and not fact.
Quote:
What was the gift that was given by promise when they 'believed in the Lord Jesus Christ'? It was not the empowering of the Holy Spirit, Jesus had already given them that kind of temporary filling. It was the full on indwelling of the Holy Spirit which was evidenced by 'speaking the mighty works of God' in dialects that they were not native of. This particular event, the receiving of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, is seen only three other times in the New Testament: Acts 8 with the Samaritans, Acts 10 with Cornelius and his household and with John's disciples in Acts 19 (which is a backward account of the other two, baptism of water then baptism of the Holy Spirit).
I may see this differently than you do. Jesus promised His apostles that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. That promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. This was evidenced by the sound of mighty rushing winds, tongues of fire, and by the apostle's ability to speak in foreign languages unknown to them. Later they performed many signs and wonders.
I don't think Pentecost was when the apostles received the indwelling Holy Spirit. I don't know for sure when that happened. It could have been earlier when Jesus breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)
I don't think the empowering of the Holy Spirit is the same as receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I think we can both speculate, but that proves nothing.
In my opinion, we receive the indwelling Holy Spirit when we are immersed in water for the remission of our sins. I believe that's what the gift of the Holy Spirit is, the indwelling.
But hey, I could be wrong about all of this. I have studied it many times, and this is how it seems to me. I will continue to study and keep an open mind.
I am 99.9% convinced that immersion in water, however, is necessary for salvation.
Quote:
There is also no wording as to the Ethiopian Eunuch's salvation in Acts 8:26-40. Are we to assume then that he was not saved? Or is it alright to believe that he was saved because he went into water? Neither Philip nor the Eunuch assumed baptism was required for salvation, at least we're not told that Philip preached to him that it was. So one might ask why the Eunuch mentioned water at all. It was not for salvation, rather it was a public announcement that he was becoming a disciple of a religious sect. Initiates into various religious cults or sects would go into the water naked and when they emerged they would be clothed with the robes (clothes) of a disciple of the various sects they were joining.
The eunuch would not have brought up water or baptism unless Philip had first taught it. Based on the fact that in the apostle Peter's first sermon, he commanded repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, I think it's safe to say that Philip preached the same message. Considering that throughout the New Testament we read that those who believed were baptized IMMEDIATELY, I think it's safe to assume that the eunuch was no different. Also, the fact that the eunuch went on his way rejoicing is a good indication that he was saved. A good reason to rejoice!
Quote:
Why was baptism so important back in the days of the Apostles? Was it because they understood that baptism was the 'event' of salvation. Hardly, but it was a very public confession that as a candidate for baptism, you were dedicating your life to the teachings of that religious, or political, sect you were joining. For a Jew, this would be blasphemous, because he declaring Jesus as his Lord and God. Baptism could be the end of a believers life, both literally and symbolically, at the very best he could hope for excommunication by the his family, at worst, imprisonment or stoning. The importance of baptism, especially for a Jew, was that you were confessing Jesus Christ as Lord, letting everyone know that you were becoming his disciple. If you could not follow on in a public confession like that and confess Christ as Lord, you were denying him publicly and so Christ would deny you to his Father. While it was only a ritual washing of water it was a significant part of the confession of a true convert.
I agree with you that baptism was the time a person confessed Jesus is Lord. We see that with the eunuch. I also believe baptism is when a person called on the name of the Lord, just as the apostle Paul was told to do. The Scriptures very clearly say that baptism is for the remission of sins. Ananias told Paul to be baptized to have his sins washed away, calling on the name of the Lord. Those are the reasons stated for baptism in the New Testament. I didn't make them up.
Quote:
Thus, we can say that salvation is through faith alone and not through a ritual event of any kind. Faith beats in mind the repentance and confession that is needed, it's really all one and the same. There is no true faith with out repentance, and true repentance walks hand in hand with confession. While one may believe the story of the gospel message, if there is no repentance, its just a story that has no power in the life of the one hearing the message. That's only assent, a very basic facet of faith, on that does not lead to salvation.
I don't know how you can say that baptism is not the saving event, the time when a person is saved. If you believe you are baptized with the Holy Spirit, which I believe you do, then you need to read Romans 6 and Colossians 2 because both passages say that baptism is the time, the WHEN you are set free from sin, the saving event. The only difference between us that I can see is that you believe it is Holy Spirit baptism, and I believe it is at water baptism.
No one is saved by faith alone. They must also repent. And as you pointed out, they must confess. So faith is not alone.
Not to mention, when you say your faith alone is what saves you, you are giving the credit to yourself, and not to the blood of Jesus.
Quote:
We will have to agree that we do not agree with each other. You cannot show me from scripture that baptism, at least not water baptism, saves. In only two places, and one questionable one, does there even begin to appear the possibility that ritual water baptism is required for salvation. Nothing that either of us can say to the other is going to change either of our minds on this. You believe in a salvation/righteousness that is obtained outside of the scriptural establishment of faith along. The same means of salvation/righteousness that Abraham had, simply faith alone in God. The righteous before Christ looked forward to the cross, their salvation was apart from any works of righteousness and definitely had no 'event' of salvation such as baptism. The righteous after the cross are saved in the same way, God did not change how he credits righteousness to man, He fulfilled the promise that He would provide a way to credit righteousness to us. Salvation has always been by faith alone with no reference to a works 'event' of salvation.
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. But I will say it again. Abram wasn't saved by faith alone. Read his story.
Being immersed in water was commanded by Jesus Christ, and restated by Peter on the day of Pentecost. Baptism is no more a work of righteousness than repentance or confession is. If you want to call it a work, then I would agree that it is a work of faith. It is no different than Abram obeying the commands of God.
I hope you understand that when I say baptism is the saving event, I am talking about the TIME when a person is saved, not the cause.
One thing we can both agree on is that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, and by the power of His resurrection, we too will be resurrected to live with Him forever in heaven.
Quote:
Blessings in Christ,
Matthew
You too Matthew. May God's grace be with you.
Katie
Last edited by MissKate12; 02-20-2013 at 07:24 AM..
I have never said that faith alone in Christ has or ever is my own faith. I don't believe that man can of his own faith confess the Lord Jesus Christ.
by Faith alone, I do not mean without repentance and confession, they are integral parts to Faith. Faith alone, or sola fideles, refers to faith without reference to any 'event' such as that which you would call baptism. I understand that you differentiate between the 'cause' and the 'event' of salvation. I don't see a difference, but I understand what you are saying about the 'cause' and the 'event' of salvation. The cause of our salvation is the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, the shedding of his blood in complete obedience to the Will of the Father, the effecatious washing of his blood of our sins. For me, the 'event' of salvation is Faith.
Faith is not as simple as many would seem to teach, especially those that do not hold to sola fideles. Repentance and confession are parts of that saving Faith that every believer is given. It is faith quite outside ourselves, and only possible by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. When we repent, make a complete 180 turn away from our sin and wicked life, that takes faith. Additionally, in order to confess the Lord Jesus (or Jesus as Lord) we must first believe that he is Lord. That is why I say Faith alone, repentance and confession are part of Faith, repentance and confession outside of Faith is meaningless.
I know that we both agree that the foundation of our forgiveness in the work of Christ on the Cross and in the power of his resurrection.
I have never said that faith alone in Christ has or ever is my own faith. I don't believe that man can of his own faith confess the Lord Jesus Christ.
by Faith alone, I do not mean without repentance and confession, they are integral parts to Faith. Faith alone, or sola fideles, refers to faith without reference to any 'event' such as that which you would call baptism. I understand that you differentiate between the 'cause' and the 'event' of salvation. I don't see a difference, but I understand what you are saying about the 'cause' and the 'event' of salvation. The cause of our salvation is the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, the shedding of his blood in complete obedience to the Will of the Father, the effecatious washing of his blood of our sins. For me, the 'event' of salvation is Faith.
Faith is not as simple as many would seem to teach, especially those that do not hold to sola fideles. Repentance and confession are parts of that saving Faith that every believer is given. It is faith quite outside ourselves, and only possible by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. When we repent, make a complete 180 turn away from our sin and wicked life, that takes faith. Additionally, in order to confess the Lord Jesus (or Jesus as Lord) we must first believe that he is Lord. That is why I say Faith alone, repentance and confession are part of Faith, repentance and confession outside of Faith is meaningless.
I know that we both agree that the foundation of our forgiveness in the work of Christ on the Cross and in the power of his resurrection.
Blessings in Christ,
Matthew
The Father is the only one that gives repentance...
You say the gift of tongues given to the church is different that the gift of prophesy given to Caiaphas and Saul. Different how? Can you prove that? You saying so is your opinion only. It's not fact unless you can back it up.
Cornelius is used constantly by faith onlyiss to prove he was saved before he was baptized. But the Scriptures don't say he was saved when the Holy Spirit came on him. The only thing we're told is that he spoke in tongues.
We are saved by grace through faith. There is no doubt about that, but not by faith alone. Every single example we have in the entire Bible is of people who had obedient faith, and that includes Abraham.
If you go all the way to the beginning of the story of Abram, you will see that he was an obedient servant of God from the get go. When God told Abram to do something, he did it. God told him to leave his homeland. He did it without question. He had no idea where he was going. He built altars to God and worshiped Him, and he called on the name of the Lord.
Abram, of course, didn't need to be baptized or circumcised, but he obeyed God in all things, and long before God declared him righteous in Genesis 15:6, He says to Abram, "“Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.” Could God have said this to an unforgiven sinner? And God said it before He told Abram that he would become a father in his old age.
God Bless,
Katie
If you'd like we can start another thread on the Gifts, of which prophecy and tongues (both speaking and interpretation of) are part.
Cornelius at best is a weak argument for salvation for either baptismal regeneration or sola fide groups. Abraham was saved by his faith apart from works, yet it was his works, the obedience to God that proved his faith. Faith is not simply assent, I've never argued that point. But Faith also does not require a work to accompany it, such as baptism. Following in believers baptism is not the 'event' of salvation, it's the proof of the one professing faith.
Read the OP. Baptism isn't what saves. It is the saving event. Big difference.
Everyone, including me, understands that the blood of Jesus saves.
I don't have the right to say who will or who will not be saved, and neither do you. It's not my call, or yours.
All I can do is present the Scriptures. Jesus clearly commands us to be baptized. I don't have the right to tell someone they don't need to be baptized, especially when you take into consideration that Jesus commanded it.
God bless,
Katie
What do you mean by water baptism being the "saving event"?
What do you mean by water baptism being the "saving event"?
Katie sees two parts in salvation, the cause and the event. The cause of our salvation is in Christ's atoning work on the Cross and faith (repentance, confession, etc.) But you are not saved at that point, it isn't until you are baptized in water immersion that you actually become saved. That's my contention with Katie, that the event of salvation is not a ritual work but the point of Faith.
Blessings in Christ,
Matthew
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
