First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Dec 12

Royse City, TX

#1 Dec 27, 2012
Another verse, I believe that “may” be abused – is 1 Peter 3:21. In the past I have argued that Peter was saying baptism is done FOR a good conscience. In other words, baptism is a pledge FOR – to receive a good conscience. However, this view doesn’t make much sense given the fact that one’s conscience must be pure before he would desire to be baptized. Those in Acts 2 were cut to the heart and obviously possessed faith – all before repenting and baptism. Their conscience was good as evidenced by them asking what they needed to do. In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter was saying baptism is the (profession; pledge) of a pure heart and mind in response to God's grace. Baptism is not asking God for a good conscience; rather, it is out of a good conscience, or a pure heart, that a person submits to baptism. Peter was telling them that their baptism wasn’t merely some empty ritual of washing, (not the washing away of filth of the flesh) but rather a pledge/profession of faith, coming from a good conscience, in response to God's gift of salvation. In this sense baptism saves us but nothing in the water brings a soul to Christ. Baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. However NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH WATER REMITTING SINS – NOT THE WASHING OF FILTH FROM THE FLESH) Baptism saves in the sense that it comes from a conscience previously cleansed and already good.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#2 Dec 27, 2012
That seems off base, but is close. Submission to the commandment of promise brings the benefits per the very promise of God to Abraham.

We cannot have a 'pure' concience until we do what God told us to do.

Since: Dec 12

Royse City, TX

#3 Dec 27, 2012
Barnsweb wrote:
That seems off base, but is close. Submission to the commandment of promise brings the benefits per the very promise of God to Abraham.
We cannot have a 'pure' concience until we do what God told us to do.
When one repents (changes his mind and turns to Christ for salvation) is his conscience pure at that point or after he comes from the waters of baptism.

Since: Dec 12

Royse City, TX

#4 Dec 27, 2012
It seems when I read the Bible, that synecdoche is often used. I don’t understand why God would use synecdoche when it would have been easier to just state plainly the plan of salvation rather than use synecdoche. This is why some read 1 Peter 3:21 and create a doctrine of ‘baptismal regeneration.’ Peter says Baptism saves thus some conclude that BAPTISM has power to give grace/salvation. They believe the very ACT of baptism causes one to be saved. I know the church of Christ state they do NOT teach this yet it often is taken this way by people who hear sermons on baptism. Trust me, I know many people who consider the church of Christ a cult due to this. Again, “if” baptism be THE only point one is saved, there seems to be some merit to the allegations that the church of Christ are teaching ‘baptismal remission’ which is very close to ‘baptismal regeneration.’ Both positions declare one is forgiven IN BAPTISM. Both position declare salvation cannot exist apart from baptism.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#5 Dec 27, 2012
Try to shift your thought from 'plan' to 'promise'. Even with Abraham, becoming recipient of the promise was not at the first, but after God had proven Abraham to a certain degree regarding his hearing and doing what God said because of the faith he had in God.

Genesis 26:5 should be discussed more in some denominations.

CoC errs in concept of 'plan' VS 'promises of God' and if it were a simple matter of a five step plan, I'm sure God would have said so. There is a three step direction from Jesus in the great commission of Matthews gospel account, but it's simplicity has deep waters of life and faith and direction.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6 Dec 27, 2012
Barnsweb wrote:
Try to shift your thought from 'plan' to 'promise'. Even with Abraham, becoming recipient of the promise was not at the first, but after God had proven Abraham to a certain degree regarding his hearing and doing what God said because of the faith he had in God.

Genesis 26:5 should be discussed more in some denominations.

CoC errs in concept of 'plan' VS 'promises of God' and if it were a simple matter of a five step plan, I'm sure God would have said so. There is a three step direction from Jesus in the great commission of Matthews gospel account, but it's simplicity has deep waters of life and faith and direction.
So God had no plan of salvation?

www.roysecitycoc.org
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#7 Dec 27, 2012
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
So God had no plan of salvation?
www.roysecitycoc.org


Perhaps the issue is that the term "plan of salvation" is the language of Ashdod. Where is that phrase used?

Since: Dec 12

Royse City, TX

#8 Dec 28, 2012
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the issue is that the term "plan of salvation" is the language of Ashdod. Where is that phrase used?
BINGO!
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#9 Dec 28, 2012
Barnsweb wrote:
Try to shift your thought from 'plan' to 'promise'. Even with Abraham, becoming recipient of the promise was not at the first, but after God had proven Abraham to a certain degree regarding his hearing and doing what God said because of the faith he had in God.
Genesis 26:5 should be discussed more in some denominations.
CoC errs in concept of 'plan' VS 'promises of God' and if it were a simple matter of a five step plan, I'm sure God would have said so. There is a three step direction from Jesus in the great commission of Matthews gospel account, but it's simplicity has deep waters of life and faith and direction.
I like this thought. Think I will use the term "promises" more often. After all, He has promised us eternal life if we abide in Him. Good point BW.
Mike Conner

Lockhart, TX

#10 Dec 31, 2012
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the issue is that the term "plan of salvation" is the language of Ashdod. Where is that phrase used?
In Romans 6:17 Paul days to obey that FORM of doctrine. In 1 timothy 1:13 he says hold fast to the FORM of sound words.
The word FORM-is the Greek word TUPOS-which is pattern or frame or mould.
Would not "plan" fit with these meanings? Plan of salvation?
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#11 Dec 31, 2012
If one is serious about "speaking where the Bible speaks", then use the "form, frame, mould, pattern" of salvation. It's just that no phrase really appears in that manner either.

Just to be honest here, I do believe the argument is a bit of nit-picking. But instead of talking about a plan of salvation, or the "five finger exercise", why not just simply state what Jesus and the apostles said, and explain it? Do we really need catchy catchphrases and slogans to present Bible truth?
Mike Conner

Lockhart, TX

#12 Dec 31, 2012
New Guy wrote:
If one is serious about "speaking where the Bible speaks", then use the "form, frame, mould, pattern" of salvation. It's just that no phrase really appears in that manner either.
Just to be honest here, I do believe the argument is a bit of nit-picking. But instead of talking about a plan of salvation, or the "five finger exercise", why not just simply state what Jesus and the apostles said, and explain it? Do we really need catchy catchphrases and slogans to present Bible truth?
Speaking where the bible speaks is not saying we only teach what is explicitly stated and if it doesn't explicitly say this or that then we reject it. I haven't heard anyone say that.

Speaking where the bible speaks is teaching what the bible teaches explicitly or implicitly. Saying plan of salvation is not a "catchy catchphrase." The Lord set a plan out in the bible for people to obey and be saved.

Since: Dec 12

Royse City, TX

#13 Dec 31, 2012
Mike Conner wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking where the bible speaks is not saying we only teach what is explicitly stated and if it doesn't explicitly say this or that then we reject it. I haven't heard anyone say that.
Speaking where the bible speaks is teaching what the bible teaches explicitly or implicitly. Saying plan of salvation is not a "catchy catchphrase." The Lord set a plan out in the bible for people to obey and be saved.
You and New Guy seem to be saying the same thing, really. Perhaps from a different angle, though. I think he is wanting to stay clear of ‘formulas’ and such and preach the gospel in manner that convicts one to respond biblically without following some word step formula. When Peter preached in Acts 2, he didn’t lay out no 5 step PLAN. He merely preached the gospel. He didn’t have to tell them –“first you must hear the gospel, then believe it, then confess Jesus, then repent, then be baptized.” After hearing the gospel, as evidenced by their pricked hearts, they had faith and “acknowledged” Jesus for who He was/is – then repented and were baptized. Peter had no need for formulas or 5 step plans.
Mike Conner

Lockhart, TX

#14 Dec 31, 2012
_Randy_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You and New Guy seem to be saying the same thing, really. Perhaps from a different angle, though. I think he is wanting to stay clear of ‘formulas’ and such and preach the gospel in manner that convicts one to respond biblically without following some word step formula. When Peter preached in Acts 2, he didn’t lay out no 5 step PLAN. He merely preached the gospel. He didn’t have to tell them –“first you must hear the gospel, then believe it, then confess Jesus, then repent, then be baptized.” After hearing the gospel, as evidenced by their pricked hearts, they had faith and “acknowledged” Jesus for who He was/is – then repented and were baptized. Peter had no need for formulas or 5 step plans.
So, I guess we don't need to say FORM of doctrine or FORM of sound words then? "Plan" would be appropriate in the light of the meaning of form.

I'm a little confused why you two do not like plan of salvation.
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#15 Dec 31, 2012
_Randy_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You and New Guy seem to be saying the same thing, really. Perhaps from a different angle, though. I think he is wanting to stay clear of ‘formulas’ and such and preach the gospel in manner that convicts one to respond biblically without following some word step formula. When Peter preached in Acts 2, he didn’t lay out no 5 step PLAN. He merely preached the gospel. He didn’t have to tell them –“first you must hear the gospel, then believe it, then confess Jesus, then repent, then be baptized.” After hearing the gospel, as evidenced by their pricked hearts, they had faith and “acknowledged” Jesus for who He was/is – then repented and were baptized. Peter had no need for formulas or 5 step plans.
That's pretty much correct. If one says "You need to obey the plan of salvation" you open up opponents to start trouble like what we've been discussing. Keep it simple.
Mike Conner

Lockhart, TX

#16 Dec 31, 2012
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's pretty much correct. If one says "You need to obey the plan of salvation" you open up opponents to start trouble like what we've been discussing. Keep it simple.
What is not simple about saying "obey the plan of salvation" then showing the person from the bible what it is?

Since: Dec 12

Royse City, TX

#17 Dec 31, 2012
Mike Conner wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I guess we don't need to say FORM of doctrine or FORM of sound words then? "Plan" would be appropriate in the light of the meaning of form.
I'm a little confused why you two do not like plan of salvation.
Nobody is denying ‘conditions’ as it applies to FORM of doctrine concerning how to be saved.

Since: Dec 12

Royse City, TX

#18 Dec 31, 2012
Mike Conner wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I guess we don't need to say FORM of doctrine or FORM of sound words then? "Plan" would be appropriate in the light of the meaning of form.
I'm a little confused why you two do not like plan of salvation.
What must I do to be saved? How did Paul answer? Did he give a lesson on the 5 step plan? No, he took their minds to Jesus Christ then after they believed they were baptized. Is that too simple?
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#19 Dec 31, 2012
Mike Conner wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I guess we don't need to say FORM of doctrine or FORM of sound words then? "Plan" would be appropriate in the light of the meaning of form.
I'm a little confused why you two do not like plan of salvation.
Here's an example of what I mean. When I reach the 'invitation' point of the message (real Biblical too isn't it), I don't say anything about "God's plan of salvation". I basically say that if anyone wants to become a Christian, here's what the Bible says we need to do. We talk of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. The term plan of salvation is just 'churchspeak' for the initiated. Simply saying what needs to be said is good enough. How many times have we as the coc been attacked for using terms that we came up with? Why give the opposition fuel for the fire?
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#20 Dec 31, 2012
_Randy_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What must I do to be saved? How did Paul answer? Did he give a lesson on the 5 step plan? No, he took their minds to Jesus Christ then after they believed they were baptized. Is that too simple?
The crowd on Pentecost asked, "What shall we do?" The Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" That's a good place to start.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) 23 hr mpetershat 3,276
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May 17 Anonymous 38
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) May 6 William 29
thomas jefferson edwards Apr 28 nuks67 2
Norm Fields – FORMER employee of Johnny Robertson (Feb '12) Apr '16 GunFighter 29
Stop erasing my comments! Apr '16 Truth teller 1
stp 500 Apr '16 Dale 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Martinsville Mortgages