Mark 16:16~"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[dwight92070]

I meet weekly with two congregations of the Lord's Church, and when I travel I meet with different congregations. There are several small groups I also meet with for study, and mutual encouragement and edification.

1 Pet 3:21
Rom 6:1-7
Col 2:11-14

All three of these passages (along with many others) are quite explicit that the Holy Spirit removes our sins during baptism. I know you want to interpret them differently, but that is what the passages say.

Kudos for meeting with other believers. Do any of them agree with your stance on water baptism?

There are your "go to" verses again, which do not support what you teach. Salvation and forgiveness of sins occur BEFORE water baptism.
Peter specifically says that baptism is "not the removal of the filth of the flesh". It is not the point at which our sins are "removed" or forgiven.
1 Peter 3:21 "but an appeal to God for (or from) a good conscience THROUGH the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Prior to water baptism our sins are forgiven, giving us a good conscience. Then, having our sins forgiven, and given a good conscience, we obey the Lord and are baptized in water.
According to Colossians 2:11 "and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands (a spiritual removal, not a physical removal), in the removal of the body of the flesh (our sins were forgiven) by the circumcision of Christ."
Doug says this occurs at the same time that we are baptized in water by human hands. I don't think God would allow both things to happen at the same time - one spiritual and the other physical, because He doesn't share His glory with man. He is glorified first by a spiritual work that only God can do, i.e. without physical hands. - forgiving our sins. Second He is glorified by obeying the Lord in a physical work that only another man can do , i.e. with hands - water baptism.

 

[dwight92070]

Correct brother-it is what they call a synecdoche. I.e. not two separate concepts but ONE.
J.

"Synechdoche" is a figure of speech is used in which part of something is used to refer to the whole thing.

 

[Doug Brents]

No offense, But to me that sounds a lot like works salvation.

There is no such thing as "works salvation". No matter what we do, there is nothing that man can do to earn/deserve/merit salvation. And nothing we do can make God our debtor that He would owe us salvation. But He has said that if we do certain things of which we ARE capable, then He will respond and give us things we cannot get on our own. Just like Naaman could not get, did not deserve, and was completely incapable of being cleansed from leprosy, but the prophet gave him instruction from God to go and dip in Jordan 7 times. On the 7th dip, not the 1st or the 6th, but on the 7th dip, his skin was purified and made like a baby's. Did dipping in Jordan earn cleansing? No. Did dipping in Jordan force God to cleanse him? No. Was there any merit to dipping in Jordan? No. It was simply faith; trust in God to do what He said He would.

If baptism were a requirement for salvation, I would certainly say it was. But I can't support that knowing, for example, that the thief on the cross had no opportunity for baptism or church membership. Yet on his confession, paradise was secured. Jesus said to him, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise’ Luke 23:43”

Yes, the thief on the cross was saved. But he was saved during Jesus lifetime, before the Church came into being. Jesus had the power and authority to forgive sin at His discretion while He was in the flesh (Matt 9:6). He certainly still has that authority, but He has now laid out how forgiveness of sin is received, and it is through baptism that He says sin is not forgiven.

I understand the answer to the thief being forgiven is that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins. My question is why wouldn't that hold true with all new believers? Wouldn't you say that Jesus was setting the example? That you can be saved and go to heaven without being baptized.

No, that is not precedent setting. It occurred before the Church was established, before Christ died. After Jesus resurrection He established the rule by which we are saved (Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16), which the Apostles taught in the first sermon in the new Church (Acts 2:38), and which was demonstrated with the Eunuch in Acts 8 and with Saul in Acts 22 (among others).

For sure there are some Scripture verses which seem to indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation. That's what makes this topic difficult because on the other hand there are numerous Scripture references which clearly and explicitly state that salvation is received by faith, with no other requirement.

What is faith? James says that without action faith is dead/meaningless/worthless/empty. Without action there is no faith, and a dead/nonexistent faith does not/cannot save. Thus, baptism is an act of faith, an act of trust where we demonstrate our surrender to God, as Naaman did, in doing something that seems to us to be futile, but which He said He will respond to in giving us something that we cannot earn or acquire on our own.

What gets my goat is when we add baptism, or any other work, to the gospel is to say that Jesus' death on the cross was not sufficient to secure our salvation. To say we must be baptized in order to be saved is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ's death in order to make it sufficient for salvation.

Not at all. Naaman didn't add anything to God's power when he dipped in Jordan. He did not force God's hand, nor was he suddenly a righteous, upstanding man of worth that God should say, "My, what a good person. He should not suffer like that, so I should cleanse his disease." No, God offered a gift with a condition, and Naaman fulfilled the condition, so God fulfilled His promise. The same goes for us with salvation today. We do not add anything to Him or His work, but we also do not receive the fulfillment of the promise unless we meet the conditions He has set.

 

[Doug Brents]

Kudos for meeting with other believers. Do any of them agree with your stance on water baptism?

Many do. Some do not, but I am bringing them around to the truth one at a time. Like you, some believe Satan's lies. But many have come to believe God's truth.

There are your "go to" verses again, which do not support what you teach. Salvation and forgiveness of sins occur BEFORE water baptism.

In your imagination they do, but not in Scripture.

Peter specifically says that baptism is "not the removal of the filth of the flesh".

Exactly. It is not about removal of filth from the flesh (bathing after getting dirty from work), but is an appeal to God in order to receive a clean conscience.

It is not the point at which our sins are "removed" or forgiven.
1 Peter 3:21 "but an appeal to God for (or from) a good conscience THROUGH the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Prior to water baptism our sins are forgiven, giving us a good conscience. Then, having our sins forgiven, and given a good conscience, we obey the Lord and are baptized in water.

You are reversing the Scriptures. We receive a clean conscience in baptism because of the resurrection of Jesus. This is directly in line with what Paul says in Col 2 and Rom 6. It is in baptism, water baptism as Peter and Jesus both state, that our sins are forgiven and the Holy Spirit resurrects our spirit just like Jesus was resurrected.

 

[Horatius]

There is no such thing as "works salvation". No matter what we do, there is nothing that man can do to earn/deserve/merit salvation. And nothing we do can make God our debtor that He would owe us salvation. But He has said that if we do certain things of which we ARE capable, then He will respond and give us things we cannot get on our own. Just like Naaman could not get, did not deserve, and was completely incapable of being cleansed from leprosy, but the prophet gave him instruction from God to go and dip in Jordan 7 times. On the 7th dip, not the 1st or the 6th, but on the 7th dip, his skin was purified and made like a baby's. Did dipping in Jordan earn cleansing? No. Did dipping in Jordan force God to cleanse him? No. Was there any merit to dipping in Jordan? No. It was simply faith; trust in God to do what He said He would.

Yes, the thief on the cross was saved. But he was saved during Jesus lifetime, before the Church came into being. Jesus had the power and authority to forgive sin at His discretion while He was in the flesh (Matt 9:6). He certainly still has that authority, but He has now laid out how forgiveness of sin is received, and it is through baptism that He says sin is not forgiven.

No, that is not precedent setting. It occurred before the Church was established, before Christ died. After Jesus resurrection He established the rule by which we are saved (Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16), which the Apostles taught in the first sermon in the new Church (Acts 2:38), and which was demonstrated with the Eunuch in Acts 8 and with Saul in Acts 22 (among others).

What is faith? James says that without action faith is dead/meaningless/worthless/empty. Without action there is no faith, and a dead/nonexistent faith does not/cannot save. Thus, baptism is an act of faith, an act of trust where we demonstrate our surrender to God, as Naaman did, in doing something that seems to us to be futile, but which He said He will respond to in giving us something that we cannot earn or acquire on our own.

Not at all. Naaman didn't add anything to God's power when he dipped in Jordan. He did not force God's hand, nor was he suddenly a righteous, upstanding man of worth that God should say, "My, what a good person. He should not suffer like that, so I should cleanse his disease." No, God offered a gift with a condition, and Naaman fulfilled the condition, so God fulfilled His promise. The same goes for us with salvation today. We do not add anything to Him or His work, but we also do not receive the fulfillment of the promise unless we meet the conditions He has set.

I've seen it over and over that those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation are quick to argue that baptism is not a work that earns salvation, but rather is a work that God requires before He grants salvation. They contend that while baptism does not make us worthy of salvation, it is the act which results in salvation occurring. Which makes it at work. There is such a thing as "Work salvation" It's a false doctrine that includes acts done by man to ensure his salvation.

The fact that salvation is by the grace of God and not by man’s works is a conclusion justly and explicitly drawn from Scripture.

For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8–9

James and Paul approached the topic of salvation from different directions; as a result, they have been accused of contradicting one another.

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” James 2:24
“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” Romans 3:28

Does James contradict Paul by teaching that salvation can be earned?

We must consider their different audiences and purposes for writing. Paul’s audience was inclined to think their good works earned their salvation; James’ audience was inclined to think their good works were unnecessary after salvation.

 

[Believe]

There is no such thing as "works salvation". No matter what we do, there is nothing that man can do to earn/deserve/merit salvation. And nothing we do can make God our debtor that He would owe us salvation. But He has said that if we do certain things of which we ARE capable, then He will respond and give us things we cannot get on our own. Just like Naaman could not get, did not deserve, and was completely incapable of being cleansed from leprosy, but the prophet gave him instruction from God to go and dip in Jordan 7 times. On the 7th dip, not the 1st or the 6th, but on the 7th dip, his skin was purified and made like a baby's. Did dipping in Jordan earn cleansing? No. Did dipping in Jordan force God to cleanse him? No. Was there any merit to dipping in Jordan? No. It was simply faith; trust in God to do what He said He would.

Yes, the thief on the cross was saved. But he was saved during Jesus lifetime, before the Church came into being. Jesus had the power and authority to forgive sin at His discretion while He was in the flesh (Matt 9:6). He certainly still has that authority, but He has now laid out how forgiveness of sin is received, and it is through baptism that He says sin is not forgiven.

No, that is not precedent setting. It occurred before the Church was established, before Christ died. After Jesus resurrection He established the rule by which we are saved (Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16), which the Apostles taught in the first sermon in the new Church (Acts 2:38), and which was demonstrated with the Eunuch in Acts 8 and with Saul in Acts 22 (among others).

What is faith? James says that without action faith is dead/meaningless/worthless/empty. Without action there is no faith, and a dead/nonexistent faith does not/cannot save. Thus, baptism is an act of faith, an act of trust where we demonstrate our surrender to God, as Naaman did, in doing something that seems to us to be futile, but which He said He will respond to in giving us something that we cannot earn or acquire on our own.

Not at all. Naaman didn't add anything to God's power when he dipped in Jordan. He did not force God's hand, nor was he suddenly a righteous, upstanding man of worth that God should say, "My, what a good person. He should not suffer like that, so I should cleanse his disease." No, God offered a gift with a condition, and Naaman fulfilled the condition, so God fulfilled His promise. The same goes for us with salvation today. We do not add anything to Him or His work, but we also do not receive the fulfillment of the promise unless we meet the conditions He has set.

11 But Naaman was angry and went away and said, Behold, I thought he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place and heal the leper.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.
13 And his servants came near and said to him, My father, if the prophet had bid you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, Wash and be clean?
14 Then he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, as the man of God had said, and his flesh was restored like that of a little child, and he was clean.
15 Then Naaman returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and stood before him. He said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel. So now accept a gift from your servant.
2 Ki 5:11–15.

Looks a lot worse than work salvation looks like he's offering a bribe. Elisha Wasn't having anything to do with it. He told him to kick rocks.

16 Elisha said, As the Lord lives, before Whom I stand, I will accept none. He urged him to take it, but Elisha refused.
2 Ki 5:16.

 

[dwight92070]

Paul knew there was more than one baptism. There was the water baptism of John the Baptist (obviously gone now), the baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, water baptism by a man in the name of Jesus Christ, being baptized in the Holy Spirit by Jesus, the baptism of suffering by the Father.
I see the Trinity here. A baptism by the Holy Spirit. A baptism by Jesus. And a baptism by the Father. Just as they are One, maybe we could call the baptisms "one" as well.

So which one is Paul speaking of in Ephesians 4:5? I think he is referring to the one baptism that started us on our spiritual journey, the baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, synonymous with being "born of the Spirit" in John 3:6, also called being born again. Without this baptism, we could not have the other two.

 

[Obadiah]

11 But Naaman was angry and went away and said, Behold, I thought he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place and heal the leper.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.
13 And his servants came near and said to him, My father, if the prophet had bid you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, Wash and be clean?
14 Then he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, as the man of God had said, and his flesh was restored like that of a little child, and he was clean.
15 Then Naaman returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and stood before him. He said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel. So now accept a gift from your servant.
2 Ki 5:11–15.

Looks a lot worse than work salvation looks like he's offering a bribe. Elisha Wasn't having anything to do with it. He told him to kick rocks.

16 Elisha said, As the Lord lives, before Whom I stand, I will accept none. He urged him to take it, but Elisha refused.
2 Ki 5:16.

But wait isn't that before the cross and the resurrection? Before the church was established? And we're not even talking about children of Abraham that had the promise. Naaman was a Syrians. So it doesn't have anything to do with salvation he was healed of leprosy.

 

[Doug Brents]

I've seen it over and over that those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation are quick to argue that baptism is not a work that earns salvation, but rather is a work that God requires before He grants salvation. They contend that while baptism does not make us worthy of salvation, it is the act which results in salvation occurring. Which makes it at work. There is such a thing as "Work salvation" It's a false doctrine that includes acts done by man to ensure his salvation.

Did Naaman's dipping in Jordan contribute in any way to his cleansing?

The fact that salvation is by the grace of God and not by man’s works is a conclusion justly and explicitly drawn from Scripture.

For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8–9

That conclusion is based on a faulty understanding. Rom 10:9-10 makes it clear that there is an undeniably physical action that leads to (results in) receiving salvation. And that is just one of the physical actions that Scripture says lead to receiving salvation.

James and Paul approached the topic of salvation from different directions; as a result, they have been accused of contradicting one another.

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” James 2:24
“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” Romans 3:28

Does James contradict Paul by teaching that salvation can be earned?

No, there is no contradiction. Notice the caveat that Paul makes to clarify the understanding. It is not just any works (works of faith), but works of the Law which do not lead to salvation. Faith demands works, and if it does not have them then it does not really exist.

We must consider their different audiences and purposes for writing. Paul’s audience was inclined to think their good works earned their salvation; James’ audience was inclined to think their good works were unnecessary after salvation.

Certainly we must consider the audience. James was writing to the Jewish people who had been scattered because of the persecution of Saul and others like him. James wrote his letter (AD 44-49) before any Paul wrote any of his (his first being Galatians in 49 or 50, and Romans not written until 56). James was encouraging them to act out their beliefs. Paul was writing to tell people that even though they had to obey the Lord, they did not earn their salvation because of their obedience. One of Paul's biggest opponents were the Judaizers, who wanted the Church to have to continue (and the Gentiles begin) to obey the Old Testament Law in addition to Jesus' teaching. These, the works of the Law, are what Paul continually speaks against, not just any works whatsoever.

 

[Doug Brents]

Paul knew there was more than one baptism. There was the water baptism of John the Baptist (obviously gone now), the baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, water baptism by a man in the name of Jesus Christ, being baptized in the Holy Spirit by Jesus, the baptism of suffering by the Father.
I see the Trinity here. A baptism by the Holy Spirit. A baptism by Jesus. And a baptism by the Father. Just as they are One, maybe we could call the baptisms "one" as well.

So which one is Paul speaking of in Ephesians 4:5? I think he is referring to the one baptism that started us on our spiritual journey, the baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, synonymous with being "born of the Spirit" in John 3:6, also called being born again. Without this baptism, we could not have the other two.

Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit something you can do? No.
Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit something that requires water? No.
Then the baptism of the Holy Spirit does not fulfill Matt 28:19/Mark 16:16, or 1 Pet 3:21. So it cannot be the baptism that saves.

 

[TomL]

Is baptism "en" the Holy Spirit something you can accomplish? No. So the command in Matt 28:19 cannot be baptism "en" the Holy Spirit. And it is the baptism mentioned in Matt 28:19 which saves (Mark 16:16, 1 Pet 3:21). Baptism is not just a symbol, but is the act of faith during which the Holy Spirit takes action and accomplishes baptism "en" the Holy Spirit.

Um Mat 28:19 is not the verse under discussion and water baptism does not save

and without the indwelling of the Spirit you are not saved

not being Christ's


Romans 8:9 (UASV) — 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.

Thus in scripture we see men saved previous to water baptism as well men water baptized but not saved

There are indeed "baptisms" (plural), but there is only one of any importance in the NT Church, as Eph 5:4-6 states. And that one baptism requires water, and is something that man does. It is that one baptism (which includes action of man and the Spirit) that saves.

Nope it is the baptism en the Holy Ghost which places a man in Christ

1 Corinthians 12:13 — 13 For en one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

There is a connection because God says there is. Yes, the passage concerns death to sin, because we must die to sin in order to live to Christ. We die to sin in baptism, and are raised to new life in Christ during baptism.

Sorry no It is only through the work of the Spirit that one can die to sin

water will not do so

It is both a physical and a spiritual matter. We die to sin spiritually when we are buried physically in water. It is through physical action that our faith is demonstrated, we are immersed in the blood of Christ, and emerge united with Christ and dead to sin.

Buried in water or baptism into water are phrases which never appear in scripture

He appealed to Romans 6:3, 4, 5, and fought it desperately to hold the fort, as here was the Gibraltar of their views. But we showed that it was spiritual engrafting, as into Jesus Christ, that it was no allusion to water, or water baptism at all. So Beza, Hodge, Stuart held also. We then proved that baptized into Christ spiritually resulted in our spiritual incorporation with him, we die daily, are crucified with him, conformed to his death, which was by crucifixion; were “buried by the baptism”of the Spirit into his death, were planted, (Greek) born together, “engrafted together in the likeness of his death,” which is spiritual crucifixion. That is not a dip under water. Hence, 2 Corinthians 4:10, 11, “we who live are always delivered eis into death” by being thus crucified or engrafted together in the likeness of his death. The word in the Greek is never modal, and never implies burial or immersion, the word rendered plant, while a man “was buried with the burial of an ***, drawn forth and cast beyond the gates of Jerusalem,” Jeremiah 22:19, left to be eaten of dogs, no envelopment. Yet these two words were their only hope. We have followed the Doctor as closely as death its victim in every attempted argument, while he has really made no effort even to meet or offset the terrible array of facts, laws of language and authorities we have adduced against them. Graves – Ditzler debate

 

[Doug Brents]

11 But Naaman was angry and went away and said, Behold, I thought he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place and heal the leper.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.
13 And his servants came near and said to him, My father, if the prophet had bid you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, Wash and be clean?
14 Then he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, as the man of God had said, and his flesh was restored like that of a little child, and he was clean.
15 Then Naaman returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and stood before him. He said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel. So now accept a gift from your servant.
2 Ki 5:11–15.

Looks a lot worse than work salvation looks like he's offering a bribe. Elisha Wasn't having anything to do with it. He told him to kick rocks.

16 Elisha said, As the Lord lives, before Whom I stand, I will accept none. He urged him to take it, but Elisha refused.
2 Ki 5:16.

Naaman was not trying to offer a bribe. He had already been cleansed. He was offering a praise offering to the prophet, and through him to God. Naaman was trying to repay the prophet for what God had done. Frequently God caused his prophets to accept the gifts in response to what had been done for them. But He did not allow the prophet to accept Naaman's gift.

 

[dwight92070]

Matthew 28:19 is not the rule by which we are saved. It is rather the great commission to go into all the world and make disciples - that means they are saved. (Acts 11:26 " ... and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.") THEN after that we are commanded to baptize them. This clearly tells us that salvation precedes baptism.
The story of the Ethiopian eunuch does not support your doctrine. Again, he believed first, i.e. he was saved first, and THEN he was baptized.
"Disciples" used in reference to Jesus in the New Testament always refers to genuine believers and followers of Jesus. To say otherwise is a lie.

 

[Aeliana]

Naaman was not trying to offer a bribe. He had already been cleansed. He was offering a praise offering to the prophet, and through him to God. Naaman was trying to repay the prophet for what God had done. Frequently God caused his prophets to accept the gifts in response to what had been done for them. But He did not allow the prophet to accept Naaman's gift.

And it has nothing to do with being baptized or being saved. But it does have something to do was trying to pay for what God has done.

 

[Believe]

Naaman was not trying to offer a bribe. He had already been cleansed. He was offering a praise offering to the prophet, and through him to God. Naaman was trying to repay the prophet for what God had done. Frequently God caused his prophets to accept the gifts in response to what had been done for them. But He did not allow the prophet to accept Naaman's gift.

He wasn't baptized unto salvation. So the prophets were like TV evangelist selling prayer cloths.

I looked it up and I actually couldn't find anything about them exception gifts maybe you could point me in the right direction.

How did biblical prophets support their families? We don’t know many details about the prophets' personal lives, but here is my analysis. The cost of living would be food. There are no electric bills, nor credit card bills, nor cell phone bills. Give them food and they can survive.

The two that you specifically mentioned, Ezra and Ezekiel are easy, because both of those guys are Levites. The tithe was for the support of Levites because they were not given a land inheritance. The tithe was not cash, it was agricultural produce (grains, vegetables, animal meat and skin, etc). Each Levitical family would receive a distribution which could be eaten or bartered. It is a meager life, and this is subsistence level of survival only. Other Levitical prophets who would be tithe supported include Jeremiah, a priest from Anathoth (Jere 1:1), and Ahijah from Shiloh (1Kings 11:29).

During the time of David and Solomon, and later during Hezekiah and probably Josiah, there appears to be a state supported class of court prophets. These men would be supported from the king's table. This only occurred when there was a God fearing king on the throne. Receiving a salary or being paid is an anachronistic way to express their compensation, they probably quite literally ate from the King's household and took leftovers home. Nathan the prophet appears to be of this type (2Sam 7:2, 12:15).

For example, Elijah was an inhabitant of Tishbeh of Gilead (1Kings 17:1). We don’t really know, but many scholars assume that Elijah was from the either the tribe of Manasseh or Gad, since they received the Gilead region. Elijah travels a lot from Zarephath, north of Israel in Tyre region to Wadi Chorath, SE somewhere near Moab, to Mt Sinai in the deep Southern desert. He makes appearance in Carmel (1K 18:19), Beersheba (1K 19:3), Damascus (1K 19:15), and generally all over Israel. This travel is not consistent with a farming lifestyle, which requires daily maintenance. Elijah is probably mendicant.

Elisha, the son of Shaphat from village of Abel-Meholah (1Kings 19:17) is probably from Issachar tribe and also wanders about a lot. They both appear to spend their lives traveling around preaching and teaching and serving the people. They were probably mendicant, itinerant prophets. 2Kings 4:10 tells of a wealthy couple from Shunem in Issachar who supported Elisha.

Ancient Israel was an agricultural society. Most people are directly involved with farming of some type (crops or livestock). Amos is our best example of this. He was a shepherd of Tekoa (Amos 1:1). He appears to be bi-vocational. He supports his family with sheep ranching, and writes scathing reprimands of surrounding nations and Judah's own sinfulness during his spare time. Jonah the prophet was from Gath-hepher in Galilee (2Kings 14:25). This is grape vineyard country, it is likely that Jonah was a field worker. He possibly took a season off for his adventures toward Tarshish and Nineveh. Another small town prophet was Micah of Moresheth in Southern region of Judah. Since this is a rural area, it is likely that Micah was also involved with farming or husbandry.

Isaiah was a resident of Jerusalem, so probably from the tribe of Judah. He has incredible access to the kings and the palace, so he is probably related to the royal family.

He may have come from an upper class family and was basically independently wealthy. Likewise Zephaniah was a great grandson of good King Hezekiah, making him a cousin to the ruling royal family. He probably comes from money.

Daniel, Nehemiah, and Mordecai all became administrators within the government. They had a day job. Huldah the prophetess was married to a guy who worked as a middle manager inside the palace (2Kings 22:14).

Other prophets, like Joel, Hosea, and Habakkuk, we simply don’t know much of any biographical information. But they probably fit into one of the types above.

So in conclusion, prophets of ancient Israel supported their families in various ways: priests receive the tithe, court prophets were supported by the king (when there was a righteous king in office), some were farmers and wrote Scripture in their spare time, some came from wealthy classes and likely had family money, some had administrative positions within the government, and others were wandering indigents and relied on the generosity of fellow countrymen.

What Does the Bible Say About Prophets Reward?

Bible verses about Prophets Reward

www.openbible.info

 

[mailmandan]

I've seen it over and over that those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation are quick to argue that baptism is not a work that earns salvation, but rather is a work that God requires before He grants salvation. They contend that while baptism does not make us worthy of salvation, it is the act which results in salvation occurring. Which makes it at work. There is such a thing as "Work salvation" It's a false doctrine that includes acts done by man to ensure his salvation.

The fact that salvation is by the grace of God and not by man’s works is a conclusion justly and explicitly drawn from Scripture.

For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8–9

James and Paul approached the topic of salvation from different directions; as a result, they have been accused of contradicting one another.

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” James 2:24
“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” Romans 3:28

Does James contradict Paul by teaching that salvation can be earned?

We must consider their different audiences and purposes for writing. Paul’s audience was inclined to think their good works earned their salvation; James’ audience was inclined to think their good works were unnecessary after salvation.

The harmony of Romans 4:2-3 and James 2:24 in regard to faith alone is seen in the differing ways that Paul and James use the term "justified." Paul, when he uses the term, refers to the legal (judicial) act of God by which He accounts the believer as righteous. James, however, is using the term to describe those who would show the genuineness of their faith by the works that they do.

James is not using the word "justified" in James 2:24 to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God. (Romans 4:2-3)

 

[mailmandan]

11 But Naaman was angry and went away and said, Behold, I thought he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place and heal the leper.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.
13 And his servants came near and said to him, My father, if the prophet had bid you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, Wash and be clean?
14 Then he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, as the man of God had said, and his flesh was restored like that of a little child, and he was clean.
15 Then Naaman returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and stood before him. He said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel. So now accept a gift from your servant.
2 Ki 5:11–15.

Looks a lot worse than work salvation looks like he's offering a bribe. Elisha Wasn't having anything to do with it. He told him to kick rocks.

16 Elisha said, As the Lord lives, before Whom I stand, I will accept none. He urged him to take it, but Elisha refused.
2 Ki 5:16.

I have often heard those who support salvation by water baptism (typically Campbellites) use the healing of Naaman when he dipped in the Jordan river 7 times as an example of cleansing taking place in the water in order to support cleansing of sins taking place in water baptism. Yet in the first place, if being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case that reveals one can be saved without any water. We can read about it in Luke 5:12-15. No water is found here.

Second, Naaman was not even a believer until after dipping in Jordan. He said "NOW" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him. (vs. 17) If we follow this "example," we will have to baptize unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (not eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times, but no sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.

The Bible uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, and not salvation by H20. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with supporting cleansing of sins in water baptism but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out. (2 Kings 5:15)

 

[Johann]

I have often heard those who support salvation by water baptism (typically Campbellites) use the healing of Naaman when he dipped in the Jordan river 7 times as an example of cleansing taking place in the water in order to support cleansing of sins taking place in water baptism. Yet in the first place, if being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case that reveals one can be saved without any water. We can read about it in Luke 5:12-15. No water is found here.

Second, Naaman was not even a believer until after dipping in Jordan. He said "NOW" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him. (vs. 17) If we follow this "example," we will have to baptize unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (not eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times, but no sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.

The Bible uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, and not salvation by H20. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with supporting cleansing of sins in water baptism but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out. (2 Kings 5:15)

How I wish we can get past this brother--

Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Heb 6:3 And this will we do, if God permit.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Heb 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
Heb 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Heb 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
Heb 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

 

[Believe]

I have often heard those who support salvation by water baptism (typically Campbellites) use the healing of Naaman when he dipped in the Jordan river 7 times as an example of cleansing taking place in the water in order to support cleansing of sins taking place in water baptism. Yet in the first place, if being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case that reveals one can be saved without any water. We can read about it in Luke 5:12-15. No water is found here.

Second, Naaman was not even a believer until after dipping in Jordan. He said "NOW" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him. (vs. 17) If we follow this "example," we will have to baptize unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (not eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times, but no sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.

The Bible uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, and not salvation by H20. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with supporting cleansing of sins in water baptism but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out. (2 Kings 5:15)

Thank you for that information. The funny part is people that use the example of Naaman Probably Have heard a reply Like yours over and over And yet have no problem with misinforming people to prove their pet doctrine.

 

[Believe]

How I wish we can get past this brother--

Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Heb 6:3 And this will we do, if God permit.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Heb 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
Heb 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Heb 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
Heb 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Okay then what would you like to talk about. What's the weather like over there in South Africa? What kind of sports do they play over there soccer?