/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>589241

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

>>589244

>and thy house

You can save other people through your own faith?

>>589254

1 cor 7:16

>>589254

Paul then went and preached to the people in the guy's house and all of them got saved

mark 10:17-31

>>589254

Yeah, by preaching

>>589277

Yes if you never break any of the commandments you will go to Heaven. But that's not possible.

>>589241

Accept Christ in his entirety and God will give you the grace of faith and works which you will cooperate with to attain salvation.

There are two ways.

The impossible one that is described in the entire OT, and the possible one described in the first three chapters of Romans.

>>589256

>>589409

You both know that's not what I meant

>>589241

(John 3:14-18)

<14> "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

<15> That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

<16> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

<17> For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

<18> He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Believe and be baptized(Mark 16:16). Do things that are good with God and don't do the things He says not to(Galatians 5,6). That's the short of it.

This is important now more than ever.

Matthew 24:12 Because of the multiplication of wickedness , the love of most will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.…

>>589459

Do you mean Romans 2 where Paul says we need works?

4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

>>589605

You don't have to be baptized. Mark 16:16 doesn't say you're damned if you aren't baptized, it says you're damed if you don't believe. And it says if you believe and are baptized you're saved because if you believe and do anything you're saved.

>>589608

That's about the tribulation, not salvation.

>>589610

No, he's saying you can be kustified by the law if you always follow it abd never break it, then in the next chapter he goes on about how no one does that

>>589689

>>589690

>>589691

Nice.

>>589605

Just as an additive to this post >>589689

The primary baptismal motif in Marks gospel is not water baptism, but baptism in the Holy Ghost as a distinctive event.

John baptist makes a distinction between the two favoring Spirit Baptism:

>(Mark 1:8) "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

Christ speaks of another baptism which his already baptized disciples must receive, this is the same Spirit baptism He received from heaven:

>(Mark 10:38) "But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"

In rebuking the pharisees outwardly washing themselves, Christ uses the word "βαπτισμους," and in the verses before mark uses the word "βαπτισωνται" both being used elsewhere as baptism:

>(Mark 7:8) "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."

This does not mean submitting to water baptism is unimportant just that it serves a purpose other than making us righteous.

>>589689

>Mark 16:16 doesn't say you're damned if you aren't baptized, it says you're damed if you don't believe.

On the contrary, "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved". No mention is made here of an unbaptized believer, because an unbaptized believer may be saved depending on circumstances. But it's a clear requirement, to say "and is baptized" is just useless fluff Jesus is just saying superfluous pointless things, and why would that happen? It's a bad technique if your interpretation leads to superfluous statements.

>>589711

>Christ speaks of another baptism which his already baptized disciples must receive, this is the same Spirit baptism He received from heaven:

If you read Marks Gospel you'd see clearly that that is referring to a baptism of blood, martyrdom. Firstly, this is said to James and John who wanted to sit at His right and left and "in glory". Jesus said in response can they follow His path, and they say yes and they actually did, dying a marytr's death. You can know this further because this event just precedes entering into Jerusalem for the passion. Further, Jesus says "This cup", but the cup is also mentioned in the Garden, where Jesus says "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt". The cup is His blood, the sacrifice He makes. Finally, on the cross Jesus pours out both blood and water, this is to show that baptism by both blood and water are sanctified by His sacrifice, that both of them are acceptable.

It is true that being baptized with water is different than being baptized with the Holy Spirit, as baptism and confirmation are different sacraments, however they are both necessary. Firstly Romans 6,

>3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried[a] therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

But if baptism buries you to make you walk in the newness of life, then baptism makes you righteous. In Galatians 3 we can read

>25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

But it is here the baptism that puts Christ on the man, and the faith is stated as a vital component, but not what puts on Christ. That is because faith does not regenerate, however baptism does.

This is a position supported by Luther as well, in his catechism it states

> No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat

and further

>In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. But to be saved. we know. is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.

and even further

>Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3, 5.

>>589780

>No mention is made here of an unbaptized believer, because an unbaptized believer may be saved depending on circumstances.

That's reading modern Roman Catholicism into the Gospel of Mark.

>But it's a clear requirement, to say "and is baptized" is just useless fluff Jesus is just saying superfluous pointless things, and why would that happen?

Christ here recognizes only two kinds of people, those who believe and are baptized, and those whom are unbelieving. We must consider the context of the Great Comission. Since the apostles were being sent out to bring men into covenant with God, we see two things, 1. the means of entrance to the covenant, being faith and 2. the sign of the covenant, being baptism. Therefore, His words "He who believes and is baptized" can be interpreted to mean "He who converts". But we can also understand His words to further mean "He who receives baptism in faith", that is, he who believes in the promises given in baptism. But one is covenanted to God by faith alone and the sign is not absolutely necessary to save them.

>If you read Marks Gospel you'd see clearly that that is referring to a baptism of blood, martyrdom

There is nothing about a baptism of blood in the New Testament, which is certainly why you can only justify your claim by gross allegorism.

>It is true that being baptized with water is different than being baptized with the Holy Spirit, as baptism and confirmation are different sacraments

Confirmation is not a sacrament, and it is blasphemous to transfer the work of the Holy Spirit to the oil of a chrism.

>But if baptism buries you to make you walk in the newness of life, then baptism makes you righteous

Baptism does not make one to walk in newness of life. Paul is speaking of union with Christ, which is sealed by baptism. Paul is saying the sacrament should move us to holiness by calling to remembrance our union with Christ, not that it magically makes us do so.

>But it is here the baptism that puts Christ on the man

No, it is not. Paul speaks specifically of baptism into Christ, which is baptism received in faith.

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

>>>589780

Again if you believe and are baptized you're saved bevause if you believe and do anything you're saved. Also that woukd then contradict where Jesus says anyone that believes is saved. Also that verse provaes you don't have to do any other works or communion to be saved.

>>589922

Yes if you follow the whole law you will be saved, but that's not possible

Romans 3

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Galatians 2

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

>>590012

>Also that verse provaes you don't have to do any other works or communion to be saved.

Yeah and actually Mark 16:16 is a great way to show that if you do not believe, then you are not baptized as far as Jesus is concerned. He is able to put all the baptized in one group and all the non-believers in the other group, with no overlap. So the baptized are a strict subset of the believer, and nobody who is not believing is in fact baptized. Or else the statement in Mark 16:16 wouldn't make sense.

These people just fail at basic logic. If you say one time you are saved in every case if X and Y are true and at another time you say you are saved in every case if X and Z are true, that means only X is required, it doesn't mean X, Y and Z are all required. That would make both statements false, as well as all the times he only says you need X.

>>590020

Why are you and the Romanists ripping this verse out of its context? It's the command to go out and convert the world, of course belief and baptism are going to be conjoined because the people they're being sent to are heathens worshipping false gods.

>>590022

In light of Acts 2:41-42 and Acts 8:36-37 it makes perfect sense.

>>590030

You Baptists have a serious problem with eisegesis

>>589913

>We must consider the context of the Great Comission. Since the apostles were being sent out to bring men into covenant with God, we see two things, 1. the means of entrance to the covenant, being faith and 2. the sign of the covenant, being baptism.

The means of entering the covenant is baptism, being also the sign of entering. I've already shown the scripture, but let's take a comparison to circumcision, which was both the means and sign of entering into the old covenant. In Colossians 2 we read

>In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The circumcision made without hands, the means of entering the covenant, is called here baptism. Not that faith isn't necessary, but it is baptism which enters you into the covenant.

> Therefore, His words "He who believes and is baptized" can be interpreted to mean "He who converts".

Had you not said so I would not, but you have a serious problem with eisegesis.

>But we can also understand His words to further mean "He who receives baptism in faith", that is, he who believes in the promises given in baptism. But one is covenanted to God by faith alone

I can only assume you have not cited scripture to support this position because you can't cite scripture to support it.

>There is nothing about a baptism of blood in the New Testament,

"He who loses his life for my sake will find it".

>Confirmation is not a sacrament, and it is blasphemous to transfer the work of the Holy Spirit to the oil of a chrism.

It's not any more blasphemous to say God may work through oil than saying God may work miracles through a staff or by having Moses raise his hands up.

>Baptism does not make one to walk in newness of life

On the contrary,

>We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

We were buried in baptism, so that we might walk in the newness of life. Baptism is what does this.

>Paul is saying the sacrament should move us to holiness by calling to remembrance our union with Christ, not that it magically makes us do so.

Paul is saying to remember the union with Christ attained in baptism, since he literally says "We were buried therefore with him by baptism".

>No, it is not. Paul speaks specifically of baptism into Christ, which is baptism received in faith.

A baptism into Christ is a baptism done with the proper form. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is a baptism into Christ.

>>590020

>These people just fail at basic logic. If you say one time you are saved in every case if X and Y are true and at another time you say you are saved in every case if X and Z are true, that means only X is required, it doesn't mean X, Y and Z are all required.

https://forallxremix.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/loftis-magnus-and-woods-2017-for-all-x-lorain-county-remix.pdf

This is the first copy I could find that was easily accessible. It's free. Please use it. There isn't any debate to be had here, what you said was simply objectively false.

>>590089

>This is the first copy I could find that was easily accessible. It's free. Please use it. There isn't any debate to be had here, what you said was simply objectively false.

This was less than charitable on my part. I apologize. I will explain why you are wrong and then again encourage you to read the book. It's fairly good.

Take an everyday example, you may be told you need a car and keys to go on a trip. You may then be told you need a car and gas to go on a trip. You cannot conclude you need only the car. Surely you need the gas and the keys as well. This is easy to show

1) A^B

2) A^C

——– Proof follows

3) A (Conjunction elimination, 1)

4) B (Conjunction elimination, 1)

5) C (Conjunction elimination, 2)

Therefore you really do get A and B and C as required. To show,

6) A^B (Reiteration, 1)

7) A^B^C (Conjunction introduction, 6, 5).

Therefore you do get all of them. This is a proof by intuition and logic to show that X and Y, and X and Z, does really mean X and Y and Z.

>>590089

>The means of entering the covenant is baptism

Then faith is reduced to nothing and the command rendered void.

>circumcision, which was both the means

I know you don't realize it, but you just contradicted Paul. See Romans 4:13-14

<For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

Paul says the means of entering the old covenant was specifically faith, not circumcision.

>The circumcision made without hands, the means of entering the covenant, is called here baptism

No, they are united but distinguished. Baptism being the circumcision made without hands would be a non sequitur, since baptism is performed with hands.

>the means of entering the covenant

Regeneration is not the means of entering the covenant, faith is. Again, read Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

>Not that faith isn't necessary

If baptism functions as Rome teaches, then faith is absolutely unnecessary. It teaches that baptism is always efficacious when an obstacle is not placed in front of it. This is in stark contrast with the bibles' teaching that baptism requires faith for efficacy.

>Had you not said so I would not, but you have a serious problem with eisegesis.

I don't see it as eisegetical to consider the historical context and parallel passages. This is why Jesus recognizes only two categories, those who convert and those who reject the message.

>I can only assume you have not cited scripture to support this position because you can't cite scripture to support it.

I'm afraid you'll have to clarify. Support what position? My interpretation of Mark 16:16?

>"He who loses his life for my sake will find it".

The life which they will find is eternal life in paradise. The key is that is for His sake, i.e., they have faith. The one who trusts in Christ and dies for Him will be saved through their death, not that by dying they earn eternal life.

>It's not any more blasphemous to say God may work through oil than saying God may work miracles through a staff or by having Moses raise his hands up.

But it is blasphemous to annex what explicitly belongs to the Holy Spirit to oil

>Paul is saying to remember the union with Christ attained in baptism

No, he's saying to remember union with Christ by baptism. It puts the grace of God in Christ before us as an increase and confirmation of faith.

>since he literally says "We were buried therefore with him by baptism".

And immdediately before that he says "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death", so he means in the sense of a sign and seal, not the thing in itself.

>A baptism into Christ is a baptism done with the proper form

And where does Paul so define it?

>>590095

You completely misread my statement. I said if you are saved IN EVERY CASE WHERE X and Y are true, then that excludes any possibility of requiring Z. Or else there would be cases where having X and Y isn't enough, namely not having Z, thus rendering the first statement false.

>>590166

And this is of course following the assumption that X, Y and Z are not actually the same thing.

>>590115

Are Catholics saved then?

Assuming that infant baptism is valid and/or baptism is not required for salvation, they're as saved as the rest of us.

>>590166

No, it doesn't. I just showed you the proof. X^Y, X^Z does create X^Y^Z. I'll provide another example, if someone is going on a trip you would tell them

1) Check your bags

2) Make sure you have your ticket

3) Make sure the lights are turned off

But if you tell them in the morning (Have your bags? How about your ticket?) and then later you tell them (Are your lights turned off?) and then later you say (Did you check your bags? Did you turn off your lights?) you haven't someone eliminated the necessity of these checks to just (lights turned off) or just (checking your bags). A person can and does speak of individual elements without reference to the rest even when the rest are required, because it puts emphasis on the element you single out. Again, that does not eliminate the necessity of the rest.

>>590167

To believe is different than to be baptized, since the eunuch first believed and was then baptized(Acts 8:36-38). It may be inconvenient if you don't want to admit the necessity of baptism, but to believe is very different than to be baptized.

>>590102

>I know you don't realize it, but you just contradicted Paul. See Romans 4:13-14

No. The promise of Abraham is that "His children will number as the stars". This promise is not realized through circumcision but by faith. However, the old covenant is most definitely entered by circumcision. That's why we are in the new covenant, where Abrahams promise is realized by faith, because the old covenant was never meant to fulfill the promise, but to bring the messiah.

>Baptism being the circumcision made without hands would be a non sequitur, since baptism is performed with hands.

The primary work of baptism is regeneration, which is done by God through the water, which is a new and clean heart, a circumcision of the heart, which is not done by hands.

>If baptism functions as Rome teaches, then faith is absolutely unnecessary.

You clearly don't understand Catholic teaching on baptism then.

>This is in stark contrast with the bibles' teaching that baptism requires faith for efficacy.

Without faith there is nothing gained by regeneration since the gift is immediately discarded. It wouldn't benefit without faith since in the same moment the change is brought it is discarded.

>I don't see it as eisegetical to consider the historical context and parallel passages

It alone would not be, however you fail to limit yourself there, since you go further to state

>This is why Jesus recognizes only two categories, those who convert and those who reject the message.

Which the text does not state. You read in to the text that "believe and baptized" is just all converts, but you simply work to ignore the "and baptized" part, and deal with an entire different sentence that Jesus didn't say to avoid the conclusion, however uncomfortable it may be to you, that baptism is as much a requirement as faith.

>The life which they will find is eternal life in paradise.

Yes, martyrdom does this. Martyrdom is a baptism of blood. I thought you were familiar with the term, I apologize.

>But it is blasphemous to annex what explicitly belongs to the Holy Spirit to oil

This does not occur except in your imagination. If the Holy Spirit wants to work through oil who can complain, seeing God worked through a staff or Moses raising his hands?

>so he means in the sense of a sign and seal, not the thing in itself.

I can't show it more clearly.

>>589241

>>589244

Believe in Christ means obedience to Christ and his teachings.

It's not possible to claim you believe in Christ (john 3:16) yet you don't perfectly obey him and repent immediately when you screw up.

>>590219

>The promise of Abraham is that "His children will number as the stars"

Yes, that is my point. One is a child of Abraham by divine covenant. The promise being made void is the covenantal promises to Abraham and his children. So if one enters said covenant by baptism and not faith, everything Paul here says is false and he is wrong. Paul's whole point is that the covenant is by faith, not circumcision.

>That's why we are in the new covenant, where Abrahams promise is realized by faith, because the old covenant was never meant to fulfill the promise, but to bring the messiah.

Paul's argument presupposes that the old covenant and the new covenant are according to substance the same covenant.

>The primary work of baptism is regeneration, which is done by God through the water, which is a new and clean heart, a circumcision of the heart, which is not done by hands.

Now you must make a choice. Either baptism effects regeneration, in which case it is a circumcision made with hands, since baptism does not happen without men, or baptism corresponds to regeneration as a sign and seal.

>You clearly don't understand Catholic teaching on baptism then.

Canon 6 of Session 7 of the Council of Trent

<If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.

I think that's rather clear; Faith is unnecessary, and you are anathema if you dare say otherwise.

>Without faith there is nothing gained by regeneration since the gift is immediately discarded. It wouldn't benefit without faith since in the same moment the change is brought it is discarded.

I do not mean as in an unbelieving adult receiving it, but a non-believing infant, who while not rejecting the gospel also does not possess a fiducious assensus. What of them? Do they immediately lose the benefit since they lack faith?

>You read in to the text that "believe and baptized" is just all converts, but you simply work to ignore the "and baptized" part

I do not. Again, while belief is entrance to the Church, baptism is the ceremony of induction into the Church, and therefore part of the process of conversion, wherefore conversion may properly be called faith and baptism.

>and deal with an entire different sentence that Jesus didn't say to avoid the conclusion, however uncomfortable it may be to you, that baptism is as much a requirement as faith.

No, what I do is read the whole sentence and recognize its context, that is, I allow the fact the only categories are those who believe and are baptized (converted) and those who do not believe (unconverted), and the fact this is not a description of how to be saved, but a command to evangelism.

>Yes, martyrdom does this. Martyrdom is a baptism of blood. I thought you were familiar with the term, I apologize.

I know what baptism of blood means, and I think you misunderstood me. The teaching of Christ is not that one who is unable to be baptized will still receive its efficacy by martyrdom. There is no efficacy to martyrdom at all. His teaching is that they who believe should not be afraid to die for Him, because if they so do they shall soon find true life.

>If the Holy Spirit wants to work through oil who can complain, seeing God worked through a staff or Moses raising his hands?

Those two were not magic. They did not themselves work any power, they corresponded to God's work (Numbers 20:6-12). So it is blasphemous to steal from the Holy Spirit and give His virtue to this oil which is unknown to the New Testament.

>>590219

You fail at basic logic, and if you can't see it but need to keep replacing what I said with what I didn't say, then go for it. You have not even addressed what I actually said. Assume you are saved in every case where X and Y are true (every case includes cases where X and Y are true but Z is not true). Then, Z being a requirement instantly contradicts this, assuming these three are all different, independent facts. Proof by contradiction.

>>590227

>believe doesn't mean believe, believe neans do works.