PS: I found where you ripped off the false reply from:
https://carm.org/oneness-pentecostal/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-oneness/ <-- false teaching and ignorant understanding from an organization that has done more to lead people astray than to actually help them grow in faith and understanding.
You could have at least cited your source for a reply that clearly isn't your own.
There is no way you read and digested anything of what I said. It's clear you're only looking to spread falsehood and not even afford common decency. After all, you've personally attacked me over this.
Baptismal regeneration (or whatever plagiarized title you want to give it by another name) does not contradict Scriptures.
Jesus taught it, Jesus commands it, the Apostles taught it and the Apostles commanded it. People who twist the scriptures to their own demise disagree. Ironic especially when they claim Jesus's words are twisted. Denying Baptism is literally twisting Jesus words. Why do you work so hard to be found defiant of God's commandments?
Fact:
Baptism is required. Jesus says so. No amount of scriptural twisting and mental gymnastics will change this.
Fact:
Without it people stand condemned. Jesus says so regardless of how you feel.
I've said my piece here, you're not interested in a discussion, you're only interested in spreading lies and falsehoods from Scriptures. This is not something I'm going to entertain further.
is not capable of answering a simple question nor does he believe what the Bible says about salvation"
I did answer your question. Amazing you try and catch me here but you avoided answering my question. Hypocrisy at the very least.
The answer is very clear from Scripture. You stand condemned if you do not obey. In your example hell is the outcome.
Appreciate the broadside and personal attack. The person doing this in a discussion is the immediate loser of said discussion. When you can't win on merit, attack the person! Such a winning proposition huh?
The bible is very clear on baptism.
Jesus commands baptism:
Matthew 28:18-20
"18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”"
-and-
Mark 16:15-16
"15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned."
Jesus says if you love Him you will keep His commandments:
John 14:15
"15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."
Jesus also says not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven:
Matthew 7:21-23
"21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"
Scripture references you shared:
"Acts 15:11, Romans 3:24, Romans 5:1"
Your scripture reference to Acts 15:11 is talking about Jewish ceremonial rites, it is not talking about works of faith.
Your scripture reference to Romans 3:24 is talking about how justification from God is now available to all men everywhere, it is not a counter to James' statements nor Christ's commands.
Your scripture reference to Romans 5:1 is not talking about a new method of salvation (i.e. faith alone) rather Paul is talkinga bout obedient faith. After all he goes through great lengths to talk about walking in Abraham's faith, you know, where he offered up Isaac before God said "I will provide".
"🙂👍💯 the answer is yes ‼️ the person who confessed his sins to Christ and then was killed by the bus is most definitely saved just like the thief on the cross was"
The person in your hypothetical is not saved, they are condemned if they die. It references to this begin to produce false dilemmas spawning from incorrect understanding of Scripture fueled by hypotheticals that tremendously miss the mark.
This is like the people who cannot settle the question: "Can God create an object so heavy He cannot lift it?"
In fact, talking about the thief on the cross there is more evidence for the thief on the cross being baptized than there is not. We find this in various places in Scripture, one such example is Luke 3 and another is Mark 1. This is trivial however because to think Jesus was "different" the day He died than when he commissioned baptism after His resurrection is really the kind of disputes we are commanded against pursuing.
Since you bring up scripture, here are some verses for you and others to digest. You have been warned to shed the false doctrine of faith alone. It cannot and will not save.
A believer puts on Christ:
- Galatians 3:27
How do they do it? They are baptized into His name:
- Acts 19:5
As it is only His name under heaven that is given to mankind wherein we must be saved:
- Acts 4:12
When does a believer enter the body of Christ? When they are baptized into it:
- 1 Corinthians 12:13
Plainly stated that the people of the Lord are admitted into Christ when they are baptized into Christ:
- Romans 6:3
So how do believers die to themselves and then participate in the newness of life in Christ, aka born again?
- Romans 6:4
How do we know it is being born again? It is because the believer dies through their own denial and repudiation of themselves
and then begins to live the new life in Christ:
- John 3:5
And when is the believer sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise into the Kingdom of God? When they believed in this same manner:
- Ephesians 1:13
Earlier I shared that Christ commands baptism but you make excuses not to. This is wrong because even the Apostles taught it
as necessary:
- Acts 2:37-41
For there is One Lord, one baptism, and One God and Father over all, through all and in all:
- Ephesians 4:5-6
Baptism commanded by Christ, taught for 2000 years and yet people hold onto deception, lies and misunderstanding from the 1400s so as to supplant the word of God with their own devices and their own understanding. They even rigorously defend such nonsense so as to destroy churches, divide people instead of uniting them and even defend their ignorance on modern day message boards.
The most dominant theme concerning salvation in Acts is baptism. Every conversion it is commanded and either explicitly recorded or implicitly understood by way of action. Even the Jailer asked "Sir, what must I do to be saved?" a few verses later he and his household are baptized. Imagine that if it were unnecessary like you say. (For reference this is in Acts 16).
Also I must point out it's very revealing you don't even consider what is said nor even weigh the statements in the bible. You dismiss it and immediately resort to a failed "counter" example, an example that isn't a counter at all, really it's a woeful "gotcha" moment that doesn't hold weight.
You're vastly incorrect on faith and works. The reference to works in your context are works of the Law (as in the Law provided to the Hebrews by Moses on Mt. Sinai) and there is no way that James teaches to the contrary as evident in James 2.
James 2:14-26
"14 What use is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 In the same way, faith also, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to acknowledge, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was our father Abraham not justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was Rahab the prostitute not justified by works also when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."
You cannot obey without works. The moment you obey something from Christ, your faith is working. Baptism is such a work for example. The people who erroneously teach faith alone tend to twist James' meaning into saying "works alone". James does not say this.
The people who teach faith alone are called Solifidians. Such a doctrine is not what Christ nor His Apostles ever taught.
No appropriate works = dead faith which of course cannot save. Faith can exist without works but like James says, it is a dead faith. For example, there were Jews who believed on Jesus and then killed Him (John 12:42).
The people who teach grace alone and faith alone are byproducts of false teaching since at least the 1400s.
The people who state things like "works are an expression of faith" are equally incorrect. The most practical and prevalent example of this is the people who treat Baptism as "an outward sign of an inward feeling". This is further refuted by the Apostle Paul's statements stressing deeds done by a believer in places like Romans 2:6-10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.
James Burton Coffman has an excellent writeup covering this: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bcc/james-2.html
I encourage everyone to read and understand it before continuing preaching and/or believing in the incorrect Gospel message of "Faith alone".
So you cannot show us in Scriptures where it is forbidden for the church or its members to be sued by those outside the church?
This is important because it rebuffs your statement on the church being able to be sued because of a tax-exempt status in the US.
501C3 is US specific. It's not the same around the world for churches in various other countries. Some have tax exempt status and some do not.
No part of this tax exemption in any form provides for special avenues to sue a congregation where they otherwise could not be sued. You suggesting this is terribly misguided.
In fact Jesus teaches about what to do when sued by an unbeliever which means invariably and inevitably that at some point Christians end up in court being sued or even suing others. Paul too even taught on this and God in the Old Testament talks about how Lawsuits are to be handled.
Simply put:
- Should a Christian sue another Christian? This depends. If the Christians sue each other over church-related matters the answer is absolutely not. If over a civil matter, if it can be avoided, then no.
- Can a Christian be sued by another Christian? Yes.
- Can a Christian be sued by a non-Christian? Yes.
- Can a Christian sue a non-Christian entity or person? Yes, but should not if this can be avoided. If this were explicitly forbidden then Paul would have not appealed to Caesar.
To answer your divorce question trap, this is easy. While they should not go to court and grind each other down at the hands of a secular judge, the State has a right and invested matter in settling the dispute from their perspective. Jesus already taught us on such an ambushing pharisaical question:
Luke 20:22-26
"22 Is it permissible for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 23 But He saw through their trickery and said to them, 24 “Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar’s.” 25 And He said to them, “Then pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 26 And they were unable to catch Him in a statement in the presence of the people; and they were amazed at His answer, and said nothing."
God creates Government and there are certain things that belong to the Government if even we disagree with what the Government has done or does do or even will do.
It's really unimpressive that you move from assailing tax exemption status on a church to talking about divorce. You speak just like the Pharisees did, why?
You seem to ask dodgy and shaky questions on purpose as if to pick fights. Go ahead and show us where in the Scriptures it says a Christian cannot be sued by those outside the church.
When it comes to the Bible and things like Politics and even things like vaccinations, Romans 14 comes to mind regarding those weaker in faith and those who are more mature in their faith.
However, one who is pure and sincere in their efforts to follow Christ will tend not to support things that are against Christ to begin with.
"I know Christians who are Democrats." this is very sad because if they were serious about their faith they'd realize that Democrats for several have been the antithesis to everything Jesus taught.
I strongly disagree with your take on politics and usage of verses like Colossians 3:11.
The verse is talking about how Christ transcends class divisions. The inclusion of things like Barbarians and Scythians addresses intellectual ignorance and primitive savagery among a group of peoples than it does to say "don't have a biblical leg to stand on" when it comes to politics and systems of economy.
The most dominant form of economy in the history of the world is capitalism and not because of the modern era either. The bible does have a close reference to communism in the Old Testament but it is very clear when God talks about honest gain and profit that capitalism fits the cleanest into such mentions. To say otherwise is really at odds with both secular and biblical histories (they do not diverge significantly in terms of economics).
Colossians 3:11 talks about the removal of barriers based on birth, nationality, race, social status etc or any identity derived from ceremony or ritual.
To deny something like capitalism is very myopic. The early church taught to sell excess to provide the needs of those without. This can only come about through capitalism. It's not a perfect system but I find this entire thread predicated on the start of conflating morality with economic systems. The bible does not do this as most will agree.
One thing more for now, the statement of "On the contrary, the only nation God had a relationship with was Israel." This is quite dismissive of the fact that the God of Heaven is the God of all nations and when we consider Psalm 33:12 we begin to see far beyond the Hebraic Homeland known as Ancient Israel. The same God that raises up and tears down kingdoms (leadership) all over the world has a relationship with those same nations. To dismiss this is to selectively box out God's interaction and control in the world. The mutual strength of the relationship depends on the people obeying God. If they do not obey, God clearly has calamity waiting for them. Such is impossible with the idea that God was only ever in one relationship with one nation.
God most certainly cares about our politics. If we care about Him and think about Him when we say and act then we will vote with Him in mind. If we are consistent with Jesus' teachings we're not going to make decisions (as a general rule) that go against God's teachings. Since God raises up kingdoms and tears them down it doesn't matter who we say in the end, it's a matter of whether we picked as God would have. If we as a people were far more serious about God the Democrats would have been long ousted from this country and so too the Whigs, er Republicans.
There's a lot to be said but that's enough for now.
