If one believes that baptisim is essential for salvation, is he damned

Exactly right.

 

For statements such as these (which is pure Calvinism) an entire forum was closed (Cal/Arm). I believe it to be entirely unbiblical, and would use a much stronger word if allowable. This is not what the Scriptures teach and cannot be supported by the Bible. Eph.1:3 is written to Christians, about the Christian life, about Christian blessings, entirely about Christian blessings received after salvation. To read into that verse anything that happens before salvation is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is the equivalent of the RCC proving infant baptism because there must have been infants in the jailer's household. "Rightly dividing the word" doesn't work that way; neither does applying good hermeneutical principles.

 

Infant baptism is presented based on the Abrahamic covenant and not the Jailer's family. It is based on circumcision in proper Calvinistic theology, but not the Calvinist doctrines of Baptists, which adhere to Baptism as a symbol and not an act of grace.

Also, the acts of regeneration, conversion and even repentance are divine acts. We may even view them as one act of grace, but as theologians, we like to break them down as different acts. There is a definite order in the decrees, but they all culminate in the born again person. So we may also say one is unsaved or saved, period.

Cheers,

Jim

 

To whom was the Epistle to the Romans written?

 

That's not why the forum was closed down, friend.

"Entirely unbiblical" is a bit strong. Most Calvinists would agree that conversion is necessary and inevitable because of regeneration.

 

It was probably shut down because down because of heated arguments which led to unnecessary innuendos, name-calling, etc., which could not be controlled by the moderators, but were no doubt based on statements on this which were hotly disputed by others.

RAdams clear statement in post #4 is
"He gives you the faith to believe."

Faith is a spiritual gift, like the gift of preaching, of an evangelist, of prophesying, or even in Biblical times--the gift of an apostle. God does not give gifts to unregenerated men; he never has. This is totally against Scripture. Do we have spiritually-gifted pastors, evangelists, etc., in our pulpits today? Perhaps you may agree with that, but I do not. Spiritual gifts (and that is what faith is), is given only to saved individuals.

Also:
Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
--It is a fruit of the Spirit. God does not give the fruit of the Spirit before salvation. You are putting the cart before the horse. Such thinking is way off base.

How are we saved:
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
--We are saved and regenerated at the same time.
Paul may have said "We are saved by the power of his blood," another statement just as true, and the construction just the same. The two happen simultaneously. There is no evidence that there is a two step process of salvation.

It is the statement that RAdam made that has been discussed throughout this thread. Calvinism, per se, was not meant to brought into this thread--Only whether faith was possible to come from God before salvation or came only after salvation. I believe the latter and have given my reasons why.

 

The namecalling was a factor, but as much or moreso was people making accusations about what others believed. In this case, agree or disagree, RAdams was stating his own belief. He should be allowed to do so.

I saw that and started to respond, but was staying out of it. But, to the point, Phil 1:29 declares that faith is a gift of God. That should end the discussion. The spiritual gift of faith is not the same as saving faith.

Again, that's a bit simplistic, and doesn't deal with the full range of biblical data.

Again, simplistic. Scripture uses the word saved (and its cognates) in various ways, past, present, and future. Furthermore, in teh doctrine of soteriology, "saved" is used to describe the whole process, while regeneration describes one part of it. These are common distinctions in theological literature based on the need to account for all the Bible's teaching.

Again, simply two simplistic. Calvinists speak of "steps" as logical, not chronological. Calvinists typically don't believe that a person is regenerated and then later (minutes or hours or days) comes to faith and repentance. It is a logical order ... what causes the other. Disagree if you like, but at least recognize what Calvinists are saying.

Which is fine. And others have given their view as well. I think the biblical evidence rules out your view. You think it rules out mine. That's fine.

 

One of my topics of study in college was Reformed Theology. The concept of salvation based on faith alone is an essential in reformed theology, which includes mainline Calvinism. Hypercalvinists, though, often reject the concept, based on their extremist predestination position.

Yes, exactly right. Calvinistm doesn't view salvation as an action-reaction process which takes place on a linear timeline.

 

What is this extreme predestination position you speak of?

 

Does it matter? Context gives meaning to words.

 

1. The rich young addressed Jesus as "Good Master."
Jesus rebuked him--not because he was wrong, but because he needed to know who he was talking to.
If Christ was good then he was God.
If he was not good then he was not God. Only God is good. (Rom.3:10-12)

2. Jesus told him to keep the law, and then listed some of them.
The young man said: "All these have I kept from my youth up."
This was a lie. No man can keep the law. We break the law every day.
James 2:10; Gal.3:10; 1John 3:4; 1John 1:8,10; Rom.3:4; Rom.3:23
--Jesus proceeds to show how wrong this man is.

3. First note he loves him. "Beholding him, he loved him, and said:"
Then he said to sell all that he had, give to the poor and come and follow him.
The reason for the command was to show how he broke the law, not how to be saved. In other words a man must be shown that he is a sinner before he can be shown that he needs a Saviour. One of the 10 Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Covet." He coveted his riches more than he coveted ("desired") Christ.

Therefore, he chose his riches over Christ, and went away sorrowful "for he had many riches." He made the decision. He chose his material possessions and rejected Christ. His own covetousness won out. He would rather have riches than Christ.

 

JOHNNY WROTE

Show me a passage from the Book of Acts or any conversion after the Day of Penecost who waited months, and years to be baptized.

 

DARRON STEELE WROTE:

I was not disagreeing with you that baptism is a privilege, I was just pointing out that it is a command, which makes it essential.

Some commands are directly pointed at Christ's followers as being required.

I did not mean to suggest what you are saying that I have suggested. I do not think that silmply understanding and obeying baptism falls in the realm life long drudgery (sp?) trying to merit God's blessings.

Are we not striving for Holiness through God?

 

"Look, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
"If thou believeth will all thine heart thou mayest."
And he said: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

The last statement is only a reaffirmation of what he already believed. Who knows how many "hours" before this time Philip had already led him to the Lord. No doubt he had already believed a few hours before this time. Now he sees water. Knowing the command to be baptized was the first command for a believer after salvation he asks Philip if there is anything now prohibiting him from being baptized. Philip reassures him that no, as long as he believes in his heart, he may. The simple statement by Philip "believe with all thine heart," without further defining what he should believe in, suggests that the gospel had been fully explained and that the Eunuch had already been saved. How long previous to that we don't know--5 minutes or 5 hours--the account doesn't say.

 

It was precisely that he didn't believe in Jesus ... He didn't believe eternal life in Jesus was more valuable than his riches. Jesus was pointing out the nature of saving faith ... that it is total trust in Jesus, not trust in other things as well.

 

Read Mat.28:19,20
We are baptized because we are commanded to be baptized to.
What it represents is secondary.