Judge not...

[Jim Schue]

So, we are to discount all the Scriptures on baptizing and believing for this one Scripture?

 

Here is a novel concept, how about looking at ALL the Scriptures and say that Christ expects us to do what is said in Matthew 25 and also expects us to be baptized and believe in Him and His sacrifice.

 

Why can we not look at the Scriptures in totality rather than pick and choose the Scriptures that tickles our ears?

 

I have that same question all the time about people who rail on about the sinfulness of homosexuality while stuffing their face with a ham sandwich.

[Jim Schue]

We should try! And when we fail we should pray for forgiveness.

 

Do you eat ham? Shrimp?

[ladiesbballcoach]

I have that same question all the time about people who rail on about the sinfulness of homosexuality while stuffing their face with a ham sandwich.

 

I agree and have said that homosexuality is a sexual sin just like adultry and lust, as well as, just like the other sins of gluttony, pride, greed, lying, etc, etc.

[Hearsay]

An interesting discussion, we have done this before but with less contributors, and more proclamations than posts with support like we have here.

 

Here is my take:

 

Look at Luke 18. The ruler asks Jesus, point blank, what does he have to do to inherit eternal life? Jesus responds, on down, that the ruler must sell all of his earthly possessions and give the money to the poor.

 

Are we to take that literally, that if we do not give away all we have that we are not saved? Of course not. But that is what the scripture says!

 

My point is, you have got to give Christ credit for when he is being literal and when he is using metaphor to make a point. His point here was to make it clear to the ruler that he would never get close to Christ until he had given up that which was most important to him, his money, and in the critical "literal" part of the scripture, verse 22, "come and follow Me." That is the command.

 

Acts 2:37 is the same. Peter commands the Jews to follow Christ, and also tells them to baptize as an outward symbol to all of their conversion. But the symbol is not a pre-requisite, it is a result.

 

Those of you who place artificial time constraints of your own making on Old Covenant versus New Covenant are missing the forest for the trees. For example, when Christ came down to John the Baptist, we are told that John was baptizing Jews in the river by the legion. What was he baptizing them for? Since the Resurrection had not occurred, are we to ignore those baptisms? Are they meaningless and empty? Of course not. The hand of God was on John. No artificial timeline for Old Covenant versus New Coveant was applicable then, just as it was not with the thief on the cross, the woman at the well, etc. etc. etc.

[Hearsay]

The traditional support for requiring baptism is Mark 16:16. I advise you to read that very, very closely, and in its entirety, for what that passage (2 sentences) actually says.

 

Salvation is Jesus, not Jesus + water. At the time you accept Christ, your soul is cleansed by the Holy Spirit. To assert otherwise, seems to limit the reach of Christ's power.

[Trojans]

Everything is permissable but not everything is beneficial. Paul

 

I think you need to read that whole passage and look at the context of what he is talking about.

 

Paul also says "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not"

[Trojans]

Do you eat ham? Shrimp?

 

We are now living under a new law. The old law was done away with when Christ died on the cross.

[Trojans]

The traditional support for requiring baptism is Mark 16:16. I advise you to read that very, very closely, and in its entirety, for what that passage (2 sentences) actually says.

 

Salvation is Jesus, not Jesus + water. At the time you accept Christ, your soul is cleansed by the Holy Spirit. To assert otherwise, seems to limit the reach of Christ's power.

 

There are many, many more passage that give insight on baptism and the reasons for it. If someone wants I can give them.

[thegooch]

We are now living under a new law. The old law was done away with when Christ died on the cross.

 

Or so that was the way Paul wanted everyone to think.... I would say that the other apostles would disagree with you.

[Trojans]

Or so that was the way Paul wanted everyone to think.... I would say that the other apostles would disagree with you.

 

So which law are we under?

 

I see the significance in Lk 27:51 where the veil in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom right after the death of Jesus.

[Jim Schue]

We are now living under a new law. The old law was done away with when Christ died on the cross.

 

That's a hogwash answer used to justify cherry-picking OT verses, while ignoring others.

[Habib]

Salvation is Jesus, not Jesus + water. At the time you accept Christ, your soul is cleansed by the Holy Spirit. To assert otherwise, seems to limit the reach of Christ's power.

 

:thumb:

[ladiesbballcoach]

An interesting discussion, we have done this before but with less contributors, and more proclamations than posts with support like we have here.

 

Here is my take:

 

Look at Luke 18. The ruler asks Jesus, point blank, what does he have to do to inherit eternal life? Jesus responds, on down, that the ruler must sell all of his earthly possessions and give the money to the poor.

 

Are we to take that literally, that if we do not give away all we have that we are not saved? Of course not. But that is what the scripture says!

 

My point is, you have got to give Christ credit for when he is being literal and when he is using metaphor to make a point. His point here was to make it clear to the ruler that he would never get close to Christ until he had given up that which was most important to him, his money, and in the critical "literal" part of the scripture, verse 22, "come and follow Me." That is the command.

 

Acts 2:37 is the same. Peter commands the Jews to follow Christ, and also tells them to baptize as an outward symbol to all of their conversion. But the symbol is not a pre-requisite, it is a result.

 

Those of you who place artificial time constraints of your own making on Old Covenant versus New Covenant are missing the forest for the trees. For example, when Christ came down to John the Baptist, we are told that John was baptizing Jews in the river by the legion. What was he baptizing them for? Since the Resurrection had not occurred, are we to ignore those baptisms? Are they meaningless and empty? Of course not. The hand of God was on John. No artificial timeline for Old Covenant versus New Coveant was applicable then, just as it was not with the thief on the cross, the woman at the well, etc. etc. etc.

 

On the bolded, :thumb:

 

On John's baptism, there is a difference.

 

Acts 19

Paul in Ephesus

1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism," they replied.

 

4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

[ladiesbballcoach]

The traditional support for requiring baptism is Mark 16:16. I advise you to read that very, very closely, and in its entirety, for what that passage (2 sentences) actually says.

 

Salvation is Jesus, not Jesus + water. At the time you accept Christ, your soul is cleansed by the Holy Spirit. To assert otherwise, seems to limit the reach of Christ's power.

 

So, would putting the requirement of believing on Jesus.

 

I believe if God WANTED Jesus sacrifice to cover all sins whether we believed in Him or not, God could have set it up that way.

 

But He didn't.

 

He put in there a stipulation that we have to accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior and have a personal relationship with Him.

 

That does not mean that Jesus power of sacrifice is diminished.

 

Same with if God setup that baptism is required to receive that power. No limiting of Jesus' power of sacrifice but rather God setting up His own rules on how we receive that power.

[ladiesbballcoach]

We are now living under a new law. The old law was done away with when Christ died on the cross.

 

Christ himself said it was fulfilled, not necessarily done away with.