“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”
(Mark 16:16).
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .”
(Acts 2:38).
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the
name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48).
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of
the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized
into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore
we are buried with him by baptism into death”
(Romans 6:3-4).
“But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye
are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the
Spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:11).
“For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision
made without hands, in putting off the body of
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
buried with him in baptism . . .” (Colossians 2:11-12).
“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also
now save us” (I Peter 3:20-21).
Now, let me ask you a question.
Is baptism a command of Scripture? Yes or no?
As far as the Bible speaks the water baptism in Jesus name is a must.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
...and many many others. I don't see them compromising. Why are we?
Baptism is a command to be obeyed. I sincerely believe that those who teach otherwise are in grave error though they may be good people.
Faith without works is dead. Those who believe that baptism isn't a necessity (a command taught in Scripture) may need spiritual CPR.
At the heart of the issue is a paradox. It whittles down to the timeless free will verses determinism debate.
A "determinist" (Calvinist, Evangelical, educated Baptist, etc) might say something like this:
If God chose you from the foundation of the world to be saved, then nothing you do will frustrate the will of God. You will change your mind about sin, you will change your sinful behavior and you will of course be baptized. All of those things are brought about by the working of God's Spirit upon your sinful heart and are inevitable because you were saved from the foundation of the world.
A "free will" advocate (Like a Wesleyan, a non-Augustinian RC or Church of Christ) would say something like this:
You need to make a decision now. Choose who you will serve. Obey the Gospel and the teachings of the NT. Can't you feel the ministration of the Holy Spirit beckoning you to repent?
My view is that both sides are correct. We need to preach from both a free will and from a determinist point of view for balance. This is considered officially to be "heresy" by the UPCI, but so be it. Truth in balance will accomplish far more than a reactionary a paranoid approach to hill billy theology.
Because this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
I don't think it has anything to do with the country...that's a politicization of our religion. Politically things will get far worse before the coming of the Lord. Besides...politics is meaningless in the face of the gospel.
Early Christians thrived in Rome, which was far more wicked than our nation today.
For some here the issue here is that we are in a major paradigm shift that is leaving them spiritually bewildered. The ways of previous generations have degenerated into a form of legalism. We are witnessing the fact that many of those traditions and much of the legalism is being rejected. Sadly, many in the past have married the message with the traditions and as the traditions are being rejected...so too is the message.
For others they never understood the full Apostolic gospel message.
I didn't say they wouldn't be interested in finding some historical data. I'm sure we all would.
I believe Pelathais has suggested that no one followed Acts 2:38 completely because of the complete lack of historical evidence when he compared it to the likelyhood of finding a full grown African elephant in a glove compartment.
Maybe they are both open to concede that there may be the possibility of finding evidence that some folks did obey Acts 2:38 in the past 2000 years. Perhaps they will do that when there are icicles on the devil's pitchfork!
Sorry, Ferd, that's my opinion from discussing this with Pelathais many, many times. He wants conclusive proof. I believe God's truth endures to all generations by faith and that God is able to not only preserver his truth but find folks who will believe and obey it in every generation. So whether or not I have historical recorded proof is not important to me. It would be nice to have historical proof of someone obeying Acts 2:38 and understanding the Oneness of God but the lack of it doesn't affect what I believe. And even if there is no proof, I won't catagorically deny that it isn't possible that there may have been someone who did obey Acts 2:38 in the past 2000 years. That is folly in my mind and an argument from silence.
generally I dont like speaking for others.... but...
Pel stated in this thread that historic evidnece is not needed for us to be certain of the truth of the Oneness message. the bible is enough.
Pels comments on this subject in this thread relate spicifically to the linking to Arnolds book and he has refuted a handfull of the claims made there in...
He (and I) want any scholor who makes such a claim to be accurate. At this point there is NO accurate historical evidence. that doesnt preclude the posibility they existed, however it does tell me that we should not make the claim sans proof.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I'm beginning to wonder if this is "arm chair" soul winning. Argue that obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't a necessity and then suddenly hundreds of millions of Christians can be classified as being saved! All in a day's work.
C'mon brethren...don't compromise a clear command of Scripture for expediency. Jesus commanded it. If we don't have to obey him regarding baptism...we don't have to obey him regarding anything.
Question baptism today...and question strict hetersexual morality tomorrow. It unravels the entire message if we deny just a portion of it.
It doesn't matter what Augustine or anyone else has written...Jesus trumps them all.
It is my own soul that I seek to save, first of all. How can I help another if I am shipwrecked myself?
You make an interesting statement: "Argue that obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't a necessity and then suddenly hundreds of millions of Christians can be classified as being saved!"
How can these "millions" even be "Christians" if they haven't "obeyed the Gospel?"
...
Sorry, Ferd, that's my opinion from discussing this with Pelathais many, many times. He wants conclusive proof. I believe God's truth endures to all generations by faith and that God is able to not only preserver his truth but find folks who will believe and obey it in every generation. So whether or not I have historical recorded proof is not important to me. It would be nice to have historical proof of someone obeying Acts 2:38 and understanding the Oneness of God but the lack of it doesn't affect what I believe. And even if there is no proof, I won't catagorically deny that it isn't possible that there may have been someone who did obey Acts 2:38 in the past 2000 years. That is folly in my mind and an argument from silence.
The bolded statement above is my point. You don't need the elephant in the glove box. Not only is it unlikely to be found there, but it isn't needed.
Now the old Taco Bell packets... that's a different matter.
generally I dont like speaking for others.... but...
Pel stated in this thread that historic evidnece is not needed for us to be certain of the truth of the Oneness message. the bible is enough.
Pels comments on this subject in this thread relate spicifically to the linking to Arnolds book and he has refuted a handfull of the claims made there in...
He (and I) want any scholor who makes such a claim to be accurate. At this point there is NO accurate historical evidence. that doesnt preclude the posibility they existed, however it does tell me that we should not make the claim sans proof.
Ferd,
Your points are taken but Pelathais has made the same arguments on other threads which you may not be aware of without anyone making a link to Arnold's book. I agree if someone makes those claims they should be able to prove them. I believe Pel makes his statements based on NO historical record and because of his elephant/ glove compartment comment I believe Pel thinks there is no possibility that anyone obeyed Acts 2:38 since the early church until the early 1900's and because he doesn't allow for the remotest possibility that someone may have obeyed it, I doubt he believes there is evidence that may be forthcoming.
Only Pel and Raven can clear up any misunderstanding I have about their post but I think it is good of you try to help me to see what they wrote in a different light.
Maybe I'm wrong in what I think he is saying.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
