http://www.mediafire.com/?8ydnuutfcpafbj6
This debate took place on Paltalk starting from the carm boards with Limey Bob and moved to a discussion on micro-Phone Feb.14 2010 Limey being from UK and graciously hosting the discussion. Enjoy
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Part 1 Baptism of grace through faith and not Torah
Micahel Burgos writes
The United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest of the oneness denominations, contends that baptism in the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation. From their doctrinal statement: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. " (1) David Bernard, the leading UPCI theologian states "Baptism is important only because God has ordained it to be so. God could have chosen to remit sin without baptism, but in the New Testament church He has chosen to do so at the moment of baptism. Our actions at baptism do not provide salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death. When we submit to water baptism according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin. " (2) In light of these assertions we must ask ourselves does the word of God agree with Bernard and the UPCI?
Firstly, we must acknowledge that the basis upon which we either agree or disagree whether or not baptism is required must be from the entirety of the scriptures. That is, we cannot isolate passages of scripture from their context to support preconceived doctrines. Nor can we ignore the importance of the epistles at the expense of the narrative passages of scripture. This article is not going to be comprehensive by any means, but it will hit on many of the key texts that deal with the subject of baptism and how or if it relates to salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely we cannot Isolate passages of scripture from there context but this is exactly what the Trinitarain does continually with every doctrine they have devised and the doctrine of Baptisms id no different.
Notice our friend talks about the Epistles and this is the mistake that the Reformed continually make going there for their salvation plan when these are letters to churches who were already Baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost and every-time Paul talks about belief unto salvation or remission he is not speaking of any Reformed doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
Bernard's statement that "when we submit to water baptism...God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin" combines the act of baptism with the act of faith. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner. Or as the Apostle puts it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A command is a law of God, but not the Law of God(The Torah) that Paul refutes such works in all of his epistles. That is the great mistake of the Reformed. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace(Given by God himself) If it is of grace, it is not of the law!
There is also the law of love. (A command) Would the Trinitarian say that is a command from the Law? Is it of the law(The Torah?) No, they wrangle to try and maintain their false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.(esv)
Paul places a high priority on faith in the Lord Jesus that is apart from works. This is further emphasized in his discourse on justification in the epistle to the Romans:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is pure dishonesty no person is justified by the law(The law shows us we cannot do what God required under the law. Baptism in Jesus is not of the law it is of grace and love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Michael Burgos
Romans 4:4-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Certainly no one can argue that the high point or pinnacle of teaching on justification is Paul's discourse in Romans chapters 2-5. Yet, he does not touch on the topic of baptism until chapter 6. We see that Paul has concluded his writing on the topic of justification by the phrase "what shall we say then?"(Rom 6:1). The Apostle proceeds to address abstinence from sin and baptism without connecting the doctrine of baptism and to the salvithic process. Rather, he points to baptism as the symbol that demonstrates the reality of union with Christ in death burial, resurrection, and the newness of life. His words regarding baptism are relevant to the doctrine of sanctification rather than the remission of sins (Rom 6:1-4). The conclusion that we can draw from Romans is that baptism is the symbolic expression of authentic faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isolating one passage from all others as the Reformed do might so teach such nonsesne but we must take all of the word God in the New testament concerning the teaching Jesus himself teaches the apost6les were able to remit and with-hold remission of sins(John 20:23) Whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them. That is not even considered by the Reformed nor do they have a valid explanation of the passage , but rather one more contradiction after another one explanation I have heard is that it was preaching but they hold to the doctrine of God saving us before we were born or ever heard a message preached.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Michael Burgos
The demonstration of an individual's allegiance and recognition of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is best seen in baptism. It is in baptism that Christians may look back as a reminder of their union with Christ. It is in baptism that we are reminded of the hope of resurrection (Rom 6:5).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism In Jesus name is many things and some of the things Michael points out are true but what is absolutely not true is his inference that baptism in Jesus name does not remit(Wash away) sins. Baptism is as much apart of our faith as believing or repentance. Baptism without the name simply gets one wet and does absolutely nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
Typically, we see that there are parallels between the institution of circumcision and baptism (Gen 17:10/Matt 28:19). I would not go as far as to suggest that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant. When we examine the way in which the ritual of circumcision is treated in light of the doctrine of justification there are certain parallels that can and should be drawn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Read Col.2:11-12) The Male Jewish child was circumcised and named on the eighth day after his birth. John The Baptist was. (Luke 1:59) The same is true of the Christian babe. In the new covenant both male, and female, are circumcised(The old man is cut off) and named in a new beginning(The eighth day or first day) Again Baptism without the name does nothing but get one wet and is not of faith, but misplaced because of false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel Burgos
Romans 4:9-11 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had no Law of circumcision, he simply followed God of course he would be justified by faith. he stepped out when God told him to he did not say okay God I believe you and stayed put in Ur! That is not faith! Circumcision is not of the new covenant Baptism in Jesus name is God given and is of Grace and is through faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
The Apostles point is this; Abraham's obedience to the ordinance of circumcision was representative of an inward reality; Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing God did was call Abraham to come out of UR, he did not say okay I believe you God and stayed where he was at(That is not faith) but that is exactly the Kind of so called faith the Reformed prop up. (The circumcision is the shadow of the true) not the true. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace through faith. Belief is not mental ascent. An inward reality can be misplaced as such is the Reformed doctrine concerning Baptism in Jesus name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
The obedience to the ordinance did not effect whether or not Abraham was justified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham would not have been Justified if he said:" I believe you God" and stayed in UR, that is not faith but that is the kind of faith the Reformed again prop up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This principal can and should be rightly applied to our own understanding of how we are seen as righteous before God. It is our faith in Christ alone that is counted to us as righteousness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem our understanding and trying to make it mesh and not contradict what Paul says the problem is within their teaching of works by the law and their misunderstanding of all things God has given us by Grace such as Baptism in Jesus name which is grace through faith and not by works of the law. This is a false issue the reformed have propped up for years and have taught their masses but it is so easily contradicted when the Light of Gospel is shed upon the doctrine of their teachings.
It was started because of their fights with the Catholics, who Both the Catholics, and the Reformed teachings were wrong, but some great truths sprung from those debates..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
Baptism is the sign of that reality, but not the means of that reality.
It seems as though Acts 2:38 is the resounding mantra of Oneness Pentecostalism. When we examine that text in isolation as it is often presented, it does seem to mean exactly what our oneness friends contend it to mean.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (esv, bold mine)
The word "for" used in this verse is the Greek word "eis." This word can mean “because” or “on behalf of.” In light of that definition, it seems as though this text is a detractor of oneness soteriology. In addition, there is another interesting dynamic in the verse. The verb for "be baptized" in the Greek (baptizo) is in the singular, whereas the word for "repent" (metanoeo) is in the plural. The manor in which the text goes from a plural ("repent") to a singular ("be baptized") to plural ("your") suggests that "the forgiveness of sins" is a result of repentance and not baptism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem and now we are in the heart of the matter Michael is using this argument because it suits his doctrine.
What about Math.26:28 This is my blood of the new testament,which is shed for(because of) many for(Because of)the remission of sins(were already remitted?)
What about Romans 3;25? Jesus Christ whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,to declare his righteousness for(Because of) the remission (because of )sins already past?
a man is not justified by Keeping the Law(Torah) but is justified by faith. (What the Reformed does is make anything we do because of the grace of God through faith and the law of Love) Anytime they see *Law or works* it means any thing we do but not what Paul knew as Law (The Torah) (Abraham could not leave Ur then.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest of the oneness denominations, contends that baptism in the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation. From their doctrinal statement: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. " (1) David Bernard, the leading UPCI theologian states "Baptism is important only because God has ordained it to be so. God could have chosen to remit sin without baptism, but in the New Testament church He has chosen to do so at the moment of baptism. Our actions at baptism do not provide salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death. When we submit to water baptism according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin. " (2) In light of these assertions we must ask ourselves does the word of God agree with Bernard and the UPCI?
Firstly, we must acknowledge that the basis upon which we either agree or disagree whether or not baptism is required must be from the entirety of the scriptures. That is, we cannot isolate passages of scripture from their context to support preconceived doctrines. Nor can we ignore the importance of the epistles at the expense of the narrative passages of scripture. This article is not going to be comprehensive by any means, but it will hit on many of the key texts that deal with the subject of baptism and how or if it relates to salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely we cannot Isolate passages of scripture from there context but this is exactly what the Trinitarain does continually with every doctrine they have devised and the doctrine of Baptisms id no different.
Notice our friend talks about the Epistles and this is the mistake that the Reformed continually make going there for their salvation plan when these are letters to churches who were already Baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost and every-time Paul talks about belief unto salvation or remission he is not speaking of any Reformed doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
Bernard's statement that "when we submit to water baptism...God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin" combines the act of baptism with the act of faith. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner. Or as the Apostle puts it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A command is a law of God, but not the Law of God(The Torah) that Paul refutes such works in all of his epistles. That is the great mistake of the Reformed. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace(Given by God himself) If it is of grace, it is not of the law!
There is also the law of love. (A command) Would the Trinitarian say that is a command from the Law? Is it of the law(The Torah?) No, they wrangle to try and maintain their false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.(esv)
Paul places a high priority on faith in the Lord Jesus that is apart from works. This is further emphasized in his discourse on justification in the epistle to the Romans:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is pure dishonesty no person is justified by the law(The law shows us we cannot do what God required under the law. Baptism in Jesus is not of the law it is of grace and love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Michael Burgos
Romans 4:4-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Certainly no one can argue that the high point or pinnacle of teaching on justification is Paul's discourse in Romans chapters 2-5. Yet, he does not touch on the topic of baptism until chapter 6. We see that Paul has concluded his writing on the topic of justification by the phrase "what shall we say then?"(Rom 6:1). The Apostle proceeds to address abstinence from sin and baptism without connecting the doctrine of baptism and to the salvithic process. Rather, he points to baptism as the symbol that demonstrates the reality of union with Christ in death burial, resurrection, and the newness of life. His words regarding baptism are relevant to the doctrine of sanctification rather than the remission of sins (Rom 6:1-4). The conclusion that we can draw from Romans is that baptism is the symbolic expression of authentic faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isolating one passage from all others as the Reformed do might so teach such nonsesne but we must take all of the word God in the New testament concerning the teaching Jesus himself teaches the apost6les were able to remit and with-hold remission of sins(John 20:23) Whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them. That is not even considered by the Reformed nor do they have a valid explanation of the passage , but rather one more contradiction after another one explanation I have heard is that it was preaching but they hold to the doctrine of God saving us before we were born or ever heard a message preached.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Michael Burgos
The demonstration of an individual's allegiance and recognition of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is best seen in baptism. It is in baptism that Christians may look back as a reminder of their union with Christ. It is in baptism that we are reminded of the hope of resurrection (Rom 6:5).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism In Jesus name is many things and some of the things Michael points out are true but what is absolutely not true is his inference that baptism in Jesus name does not remit(Wash away) sins. Baptism is as much apart of our faith as believing or repentance. Baptism without the name simply gets one wet and does absolutely nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
Typically, we see that there are parallels between the institution of circumcision and baptism (Gen 17:10/Matt 28:19). I would not go as far as to suggest that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant. When we examine the way in which the ritual of circumcision is treated in light of the doctrine of justification there are certain parallels that can and should be drawn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Read Col.2:11-12) The Male Jewish child was circumcised and named on the eighth day after his birth. John The Baptist was. (Luke 1:59) The same is true of the Christian babe. In the new covenant both male, and female, are circumcised(The old man is cut off) and named in a new beginning(The eighth day or first day) Again Baptism without the name does nothing but get one wet and is not of faith, but misplaced because of false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel Burgos
Romans 4:9-11 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had no Law of circumcision, he simply followed God of course he would be justified by faith. he stepped out when God told him to he did not say okay God I believe you and stayed put in Ur! That is not faith! Circumcision is not of the new covenant Baptism in Jesus name is God given and is of Grace and is through faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
The Apostles point is this; Abraham's obedience to the ordinance of circumcision was representative of an inward reality; Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing God did was call Abraham to come out of UR, he did not say okay I believe you God and stayed where he was at(That is not faith) but that is exactly the Kind of so called faith the Reformed prop up. (The circumcision is the shadow of the true) not the true. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace through faith. Belief is not mental ascent. An inward reality can be misplaced as such is the Reformed doctrine concerning Baptism in Jesus name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
The obedience to the ordinance did not effect whether or not Abraham was justified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham would not have been Justified if he said:" I believe you God" and stayed in UR, that is not faith but that is the kind of faith the Reformed again prop up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This principal can and should be rightly applied to our own understanding of how we are seen as righteous before God. It is our faith in Christ alone that is counted to us as righteousness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem our understanding and trying to make it mesh and not contradict what Paul says the problem is within their teaching of works by the law and their misunderstanding of all things God has given us by Grace such as Baptism in Jesus name which is grace through faith and not by works of the law. This is a false issue the reformed have propped up for years and have taught their masses but it is so easily contradicted when the Light of Gospel is shed upon the doctrine of their teachings.
It was started because of their fights with the Catholics, who Both the Catholics, and the Reformed teachings were wrong, but some great truths sprung from those debates..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
Baptism is the sign of that reality, but not the means of that reality.
It seems as though Acts 2:38 is the resounding mantra of Oneness Pentecostalism. When we examine that text in isolation as it is often presented, it does seem to mean exactly what our oneness friends contend it to mean.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (esv, bold mine)
The word "for" used in this verse is the Greek word "eis." This word can mean “because” or “on behalf of.” In light of that definition, it seems as though this text is a detractor of oneness soteriology. In addition, there is another interesting dynamic in the verse. The verb for "be baptized" in the Greek (baptizo) is in the singular, whereas the word for "repent" (metanoeo) is in the plural. The manor in which the text goes from a plural ("repent") to a singular ("be baptized") to plural ("your") suggests that "the forgiveness of sins" is a result of repentance and not baptism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem and now we are in the heart of the matter Michael is using this argument because it suits his doctrine.
What about Math.26:28 This is my blood of the new testament,which is shed for(because of) many for(Because of)the remission of sins(were already remitted?)
What about Romans 3;25? Jesus Christ whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,to declare his righteousness for(Because of) the remission (because of )sins already past?
a man is not justified by Keeping the Law(Torah) but is justified by faith. (What the Reformed does is make anything we do because of the grace of God through faith and the law of Love) Anytime they see *Law or works* it means any thing we do but not what Paul knew as Law (The Torah) (Abraham could not leave Ur then.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)