Colossians 2
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all
principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by
the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from
the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all
trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us,
which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of
them openly, triumphing over them in it.
The act of Baptism includes profound symbolism, as outlined by David above, particularly the symbolism of death and rebirth, or burial and resurrection. However, Baptism cannot be merely symbolic, for Jesus would not have made a mere symbol a prerequisite for entering the kingdom ...
"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
... nor would Peter have connected a mere symbolic act with salvation ...
"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)
Peter 3
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now
save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ:
In Galatians 2:20, Paul says that he was "crucified with Christ."
When was he "crucified with Christ?"
The answer to this question can be found in Romans 6:6 where we are
"UNITED TOGETHER in the LIKENESS of HIS DEATH." (Emphasis mine).
Where did Jesus shed his blood?
In his DEATH of course!!!
Heb 9:14 says, "how much more shall the BLOOD OF CHRIST, who through
the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, CLEANSE YOUR
CONSCIENCE from dead works to serve the living God?" (Emphasis mine kw).
Notice how this is also said of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21, "There is
also an antitype which now saves us--BAPTISM (not the removal of the
filth of the flesh, but the ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE toward God),
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (Emphasis mine kw).
We are therefore UNITED with Jesus blood IN the waters of baptism.
Acts 11:16, Spirit baptism.
When you are baptized with the Spirit:
1. You are born again. His Spirit is engrafted into yours. This is
the rebirth that Jesus spoke of (Jn.3:5).
2. You are placed into the body of Christ (I Cor.12:13).
3. The righteousness of your faith is sealed (Eph.1:13; Rom.4:11).
4. You are now a child of God (Gal.4:1-6).
5. You are a partaker of the inheritance (Gal.4:1-6).
6. You are now sanctified (separated from the world unto God; II
Thes.2:13).
Baptism is symbolic only as far as that the person doesn't physically
die in the water. The heart doesn't stop beating, appearance is the
same as it was before baptized. Baptism does NOT symbolize something
that has already occured, but REPRESENTS what is being done, the
cleansing of sin. If baptism symbolized the washing away of sins that
a person had ALREADY received, then the act of baptism would be
optionaly, and only for public announcement, which has NO BIBLICAL
support. This would also nullify the command Jesus gave. A person is
not literally dead in the water, but a person IS washing away sin in
baptism.
Baptism sure does have some role in converting people. Those
who have "erased" their previous doctrine and theology have become
"baptized" into Christianity. Their acceptance of Christ has 'washed
away' sins and previous beliefs and thinking. The 'water' is a show
for all to see the 'bringing into' the Family of God. Baptism has a
purpose of bringing people into the "fold" at some point in the
person's life. Children are easily brought in--they are innocent.
Adults are either ignorant, disobedient, or stubborn. Once they make
that mental decision the believe, they are ready to be accepted into
the "fold". They are baptized and enter like 'children'. Some
believe that only "believers" are baptized. When I teach my children
about Jesus Christ and His Salvation for us, my kids believe. They
have no reason to reject or deny Christ--they're easy. Was Nicodemus
that easy? My kids are now 4 and 8 years old. They have faith.
I wrote, It is obvious that you believe that one is saved prior to
baptism despite what God has PLAINLY stated that baptism (in water) is
FOR the remission of sins. That is the problem with most people, they
would rather believe what someone has told them instead of what God
has PLAINLY revealed in His word. One CANNOT be saved UNTIL they have
WASHED AWAY their sins in the watery grave of baptism.
Faith replied, "Yes.., and the Bible is clear that only Jesus can do
this for us when we receive Him into our hearts and believe it. It is
His work mat the cross that accomplishes this."
You are indeed mistaken if you think that "faith alone" is what saves.
I guess you just skip over verses that say that we are saved by
"works" don't you Faith??? Jesus said in Luke 17:10, "So likewise you,
when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We
are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.'" It
is OBVIOUS from this verse that MORE than "faith alone" saves.
Where are your verse(s) that state one is saved by "faith alone"???
I agree that we are saved by faith, but were are most certainly NOT
saved by "faith alone".
I wrote, "John 3:16 does NOT support your position for this verse
states that those who believe in Him "SHOULD NOT PERISH", and NOT
"WILL NOT PERISH". Please notice verse 21, "But he who DOES THE TRUTH,
comes to the light, THAT HIS DEEDS MAY BE CLEARLY SEEN, that they have
been done in God." This is another verse that DESTROYS your assumption
that one is saved by "faith only" prior to one being baptized."
You chastized me on another thread for not answering what you wrote.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
I wrote, "1 John 5:13 also does NOT help your case because this was
written to those who were already CHRISTIANS. John was NOT writing to
tell them HOW to be saved, he was telling them that the things that he
wrote were EVIDENCE of the things that they were taught and that they
might CONTINUE to believe. He wrote to them so that, they might "KNOW"
that they have "ETERNAL LIFE"."
To which you replied, "Yes--because they believe. "I write these
things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you
may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:13"
Once again, you did NOT respond to what I wrote. I stated this was
written to those who were already CHRISTIANS. John was NOT writing to
them teaching them what they MUST DO to be saved.
I wrote, It is obvious that you believe that one is saved prior to
baptism despite what God has PLAINLY stated that baptism (in water)
is FOR the remission of sins. That is the problem with most people,
they would rather believe what someone has told them instead of what
God has PLAINLY revealed in His word. One CANNOT be saved UNTIL they
have WASHED AWAY their sins in the watery grave of baptism.
I think it's a communication problem Kevin. The reason I say this
is because I have clearly stated that I believe baptism is necessary.
However--I believe that this baptism occurs the moment that we
repent, confess and receive Jesus Christ. It is He who cleanses us.,
and it is He who renews us and gives us new birth. We are washed when
we are united with Christ when we are born-again. It is all very
simultaneous. The water ceremony that John brought was to represent
this truth which was to come. Now we continue the ceremony to
represent a deeper truth that has occured in us when we were washed
clean by Jesus in faith.
At this point, I am not expecting you to see it this way. But
understand that this is what I gleam from God's Word. This is what I
believe the Word of God to be revealing. We just need to agree to
disagree.
Faith replied, "Yes.., and the Bible is clear that only Jesus can do
this for us when we receive Him into our hearts and believe it. It is
His work at the cross that accomplishes this."
You are indeed mistaken if you think that "faith alone" is what
saves. I guess you just skip over verses that say that we are saved
by "works" don't you Faith??? Jesus said in Luke 17:10, "So likewise
you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded,
say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to
do.'" It is OBVIOUS from this verse that MORE than "faith alone"
saves.
Maybe to you it seems obvious. To me--Jesus is simply attacking
unwarrented self-esteem and spiritual pride! And this still does not
speak to salvation. No one would argue that as Christians we do not
need to obey Christ. Quite the contrary--it is our duty. But it is a
response to God--not a qualifier to being saved. If you don't see any
good fruit or service from someone who claims to love God and be a
follower--then most likely, they really aren't believers. Their faith
is dead--as James put it.
Where are your verse(s) that state one is saved by "faith alone"???
Read Romans 3:21-31
Then Romans chapter 4:1- reiterates:
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in
this matter?If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had
something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture
say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness.'
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift,
but as an obligation. However--to the man who does not work but
trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as
righteousness."
Since salvation is a gift from God, and we are made righteous my our
faith in Christ--I think it is pretty clear that we are saved by
faith alone.
You wrote, "I think it's a communication problem Kevin. The reason I
say this is because I have clearly stated that I believe baptism is
necessary. However--I believe that this baptism occurs the moment that
we repent, confess and receive Jesus Christ. It is He who cleanses
us., and it is He who renews us and gives us new birth. We are washed
when we are united with Christ when we are born-again. It is all very
simultaneous."
Where is your proof that "this baptism occurs the moment that we
repent, confess and receive Jesus Christ"??? This is definitely your
OPINION for the word of God does NOT state that all of this happens
"simultaneous". The Bible says that baptism is FOR the remission of
sins and since there is ONLY one baptism today, that baptism is IN
WATER just as the examples in the New Testament CLEARLY indicate.
You continued with, "The water ceremony that John brought was to
represent this truth which was to come."
So, you believe that baptism is only a "water ceremony"??? John's
baptism was also CLEARLY for the remission of sins, why is that so
hard for you to understand??? Was God not clear enough in His word
when He states this to be the truth???
You continued with, "Now we continue the ceremony to represent a
deeper truth that has occured in us when we were washed clean by Jesus
in faith."
There is NO PROOF that one is saved at the moment of "faith"
regardless of what you state for this is NOT what the word of God
states. We are saved by many things, but NOT anything ALONE: This is
some of the things that the we are saved by: The word of God - James
1:21; The Gospel - Romans 1:16; The Blood of Christ - Hebrews 9:14;
The Death of Christ - Romans 5:10; Heeding the Doctrine of God - 1
Timothy 4:16; Belief - John 3:16; Repentance - Luke 13:3; Confession
- Romans 10:10; Baptism - Mark 16:16; Works - James 2:24, Titus 2:7;
The Mercy of God - Titus 3:4-5; Hope - Romans 8:24; Grace - Ephesians 2:8.
You continued with, "At this point, I am not expecting you to see it
this way. But understand that this is what I gleam from God's Word.
This is what I believe the Word of God to be revealing. We just need
to agree to disagree."
Faith, this is what the denominational world teaches that one can
"agree to disagree" and nothing could be further from the truth. There
is ONLY one way to interpret the word of God and your interpretation
is NOT correct. The argument that one is saved before being baptized
IN WATER is a lie! The ONLY Christians are those who have obeyed the
gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). There are only 2
passages that tell us how to get "In Christ" and they are in Romans
6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27. One is NOT "In Christ" UNTIL they are
baptized INTO Christ and His death where He shed His blood.
Faith replied, "Yes.., and the Bible is clear that only Jesus can do
this for us when we receive Him into our hearts and believe it. It is
His work at the cross that accomplishes this."
You wrote, "Maybe to you it seems obvious. To me--Jesus is simply
attacking unwarrented self-esteem and spiritual pride! And this still
does not speak to salvation. No one would argue that as Christians we
do not need to obey Christ. Quite the contrary--it is our duty. But it
is a response to God--not a qualifier to being saved. If you don't see
any good fruit or service from someone who claims to love God and be a
follower--then most likely, they really aren't believers. Their faith
is dead--as James put it."
The apostle Paul put it this way: "For whosoever shall call upon the
name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in
whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom
they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And
how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and
bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the
gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing bythe word of God" (Romans
10:13-17).
Notice Faith that one must "call upon the name of the Lord" in order
to be saved (Romans10:13; Acts 2:21). How is this done? Read on. It
requires a preacher to preach the gospel in order that people might
"hear" and "call". (v. 14-15). Now, notice carefully verse 16. How do
we know who it is that has called upon the name of the Lord? Did they
just say one day, "Lord, save me?" Did they say some type of
"sinner's prayer?" Did they lay their hands on a TV, a radio, etc.?
"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who
hath believed our report?" Notice that these people had to OBEY
something! Here, we find faith and obedience joined together, just as
the body and spirit! They have not all obeyed, for Isaiah said who has
believed! When one truly believes the Lord,they will do what God has
told them to do.
How does one call upon the name of the Lord? Listen to what Ananias
told Paul: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). After
having heard the truth, believed, and repented, Paul was told to arise
and be baptized in order to WASH AWAY his sins. He wasn't told that
his sins were already forgiven and to SYMBOLICALLY wash away his sins
as evidence of a deeper truth, he told him PLAINLY that he needed to
be baptized IN WATER to have his sins WASHED AWAY. In doing so, he was
calling on the name of the Lord! Peter said a similar thing in Acts
2:21. In the context of Acts 2, he told the people to hear (v. 22),
believe (v. 36), repent and be baptized (v. 38). Yes, faith plays an
important role in man's salvation, for without faith one cannot be
saved. It is faith which motivates man to do what God said to DO and
be saved. If one does not believe, he will NOT obey, and as a result,
does not love the Lord (John 14:15, 23-24).
I wrote, "Where are your verse(s) that state one is saved by "faith
alone"???"
To which you replied, "Read Romans 3:21-31"
Let's see if this is true. Here is what these verses state: "But now
the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being
witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God,
through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For
there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a
propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His
righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins
that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His
righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who
has faith in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what
law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that
a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He
the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes,
of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the
circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then
make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we
establish the law."
These verses state that one is saved "THROUGH faith", but they do NOT
teach that one is saved through faith "alone" as you want everyone to
believe. Since Paul stated in verse 31 that, "we establish the law",
does that mean that the law is still in force??? Abraham who is the
FATHER of all (i.e. Jews and Gentiles), was justified by faith NOT
when he believed God, but when he ACTED on his faith. God did NOT say
that Abraham was justified by "faith alone", when was Abraham
justified? God says in James 2:21, "Was not Abraham our father
justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?" James,
speaking through the Holy Spirit continues in verse 22, "Do you see
that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was
made perfect?" This is where Scripture was FULFILLED in verse 23, "And
the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it
was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend
of God." That Faith, is how Abraham was said to have believed God, and
NOT by "FAITH ONLY".
Faith CANNOT SAVE until it OBEYS!!! A clear example of this is in
Romans 4:12, where Paul states that we "walk in the steps of the faith".
You continued with, "Then Romans chapter 4:1- reiterates:"What then
shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this
matter?If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something
to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say?
'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but
as an obligation. However--to the man who does not work but trusts God
who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as righteousness."
Please notice that Paul when he was speaking of being "justified by
works" was speaking of the works of the Law of Moses. Paul wrote in
the book of Romans of justification by faith in Christ (not faith
alone) as opposed to justification by the deeds of the LAW (of Moses).
Paul is focusing on Abraham "pertaining to the flesh" (Romans 4:1).
The Jew believed he could EARN salvation. In fact, if the Jew were to
be justified by the LAW, he would have to MERIT salvation, i.e.
PERFECT keeping of the law. If Abraham was justified by works, he had
something to boast about (verse 2). If one could acquire salvation
simply by "law keeping", God would OWE such one justification (verse
4). This is the PROBLEM with the denomination world, they claim that
one is not saved by WORKS, then they go hunting for justification to
PROVE their doctrine that one is saved by "faith alone". A CLEAR
reading of these verses show that the WORKS spoken of are the works of
the LAW OF MOSES and NOT the works that one must DO in order to be saved.
You ended with, "Since salvation is a gift from God, and we are made
righteous my our faith in Christ--I think it is pretty clear that we
are saved by faith alone."
I have shown in my posts above that one is NOT saved by "faith alone".
Please notice Faith that you ADD the word "ALONE" to the plan of
salvation. If the doctrine of "faith only" were not at stake and
people were not already biased against a SIMPLE reading of the Bible,
the role of baptism would have been accepted without question. For
example, if Mark 16:16 said, "He who believes and is baptized shall
receive one million dollars. He who disbelieves shall go to jail,"
people would be falling all over themselves to be baptized!
You believe that salvation is by faith "alone." I believe that
salvation is by faith, repentance, confession and baptism. You CANNOT
find one verse in all the Bible that says, "You are saved by faith
ALONE." In every verse in the New Testament where baptism and
salvation are mentioned together, in every single case baptism
precedes salvation: Mark 1:4; 16:16; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1
Peter 3:21.
The Scriptures do not instruct us to 'only believe'. Faith ALONE is
only mentioned to be CONDEMNED. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ has a
wide comprehensive meaning compared with that of the narrow,
bewildering 'only believe'. The phrase, 'the moment you believe'
conveys an idea that is NOT found in Scripture. Believing in Christ is
never represented as a sudden change in man, it comes by the HEARING
of the Word. We first hear the reasoned-out address, with proofs of
the resurrection and the divinity of Christ, and the believing follows
as a natural consequence. The Apostles, with many other words,
testified and exhorted them. Jesus DID NOT SAY one is saved the moment
they believe. Faith makes the great changes within us, but baptism
changes our state, takes us out of a state of condemnation into that
of salvation. We bury the old life and rise to the new. So says the
apostle Paul.
God has said that baptism is FOR the remission of sins, and you are
not arguing against me, but against God. We are not saved until we
comply with ALL of God's requirements for salvation.
God says: "He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved." (Mark 16:16)
Faith says: "He who believes is SAVED and should be baptized."
(Scripture Reference?).
I choose to believe God, it is obvious Faith that you do not.
To date, the passages that you have shown that one is saved by "faith
alone" I have CLEARLY shown how you have been misled.
Do you have some more passages that you would like to post that show
one is saved by "faith alone"???
Faith,
You wrote, "I think it's a communication problem Kevin. The reason I
say this is because I have clearly stated that I believe baptism is
necessary. However--I believe that this baptism occurs the moment
that we repent, confess and receive Jesus Christ. It is He who
cleanses us., and it is He who renews us and gives us new birth. We
are washed when we are united with Christ when we are born-again. It
is all very simultaneous."
Where is your proof that "this baptism occurs the moment that we
repent, confess and receive Jesus Christ"??? This is definitely your
OPINION for the word of God does NOT state that all of this
happens "simultaneous". The Bible says that baptism is FOR the
remission of sins and since there is ONLY one baptism today, that
baptism is IN WATER just as the examples in the New Testament CLEARLY
indicate.
You continued with, "The water ceremony that John brought was to
represent this truth which was to come."
So, you believe that baptism is only a "water ceremony"??? John's
baptism was also CLEARLY for the remission of sins, why is that so
hard for you to understand??? Was God not clear enough in His word
when He states this to be the truth???
You continued with, "Now we continue the ceremony to represent a
deeper truth that has occured in us when we were washed clean by
Jesus in faith."
There is NO PROOF that one is saved at the moment of "faith"
regardless of what you state for this is NOT what the word of God
states. We are saved by many things, but NOT anything ALONE: This is
some of the things that the we are saved by: The word of God - James
1:21; The Gospel - Romans 1:16; The Blood of Christ - Hebrews 9:14;
The Death of Christ - Romans 5:10; Heeding the Doctrine of God - 1
Timothy 4:16; Belief - John 3:16; Repentance - Luke 13:3; Confession -
Romans 10:10; Baptism - Mark 16:16; Works - James 2:24, Titus 2:7;
The Mercy of God - Titus 3:4-5; Hope - Romans 8:24; Grace - Ephesians
2:8.
All of those things Kevin..grace, mercy, works, baptism, hope, and
the blood of Christ--are found at the cross. Jesus accomplishes
salvation for us--it is a gift that we receive when we are born-
again.
You continued with, "At this point, I am not expecting you to see it
this way. But understand that this is what I gleam from God's Word.
This is what I believe the Word of God to be revealing. We just need
to agree to disagree."
Faith, this is what the denominational world teaches that one
can "agree to disagree" and nothing could be further from the truth.
There is ONLY one way to interpret the word of God and your
interpretation is NOT correct.
Well that is what you say--yet I feel I support my position in the
Word of God--even if you don't agree.
The argument that one is saved before being baptized IN WATER is a
lie! The ONLY Christians are those who have obeyed the gospel of
Christ (Rom. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). There are only 2 passages that
tell us how to get "In Christ" and they are in Romans 6:3-4 and
Galatians 3:26-27. One is NOT "In Christ" UNTIL they are baptized
INTO Christ and His death where He shed His blood.
Exactly--and this happens when we receive Christ as our Savior.
That is what the Bible reveals to me.
Faith replied, "Yes.., and the Bible is clear that only Jesus can do
this for us when we receive Him into our hearts and believe it. It is
His work at the cross that accomplishes this."
You wrote, "Maybe to you it seems obvious. To me--Jesus is simply
attacking unwarrented self-esteem and spiritual pride! And this still
does not speak to salvation. No one would argue that as Christians we
do not need to obey Christ. Quite the contrary--it is our duty. But
it is a response to God--not a qualifier to being saved. If you don't
see any good fruit or service from someone who claims to love God and
be a follower--then most likely, they really aren't believers. Their
faith is dead--as James put it."
The apostle Paul put it this way: "For whosoever shall call upon the
name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in
whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of
whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and
bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the
gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing bythe word of God" (Romans 10:13-
17).
Notice Faith that one must "call upon the name of the Lord" in order
to be saved (Romans10:13; Acts 2:21). How is this done?
By repenting, confessing and receiving Him.
Read on. It requires a preacher to preach the gospel in order that
people might "hear" and "call". (v. 14-15). Now, notice carefully
verse 16. How do we know who it is that has called upon the name of
the Lord? Did they just say one day, "Lord, save me?" Did they say
some type of "sinner's prayer?" Did they lay their hands on a TV, a
radio, etc.? "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias
saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?" Notice that these people
had to OBEY something! Here, we find faith and obedience joined
together, just as the body and spirit! They have not all obeyed, for
Isaiah said who has believed! When one truly believes the Lord,they
will do what God has told them to do.
The question is--what is it that the gospel asks us to do? What is
the good news? The gospel says that Christ died for our sin, in our
place., and rose on the third day., and that he will raise those of
us who believe.., on that last day. That is the good news..*Christ is
risen* believe and receive. Pick up His cross and follow him...That
is what we are to do and we are obeying....notice that we pick up the
cross after we believe....even baptism comes after we have believed.
We don't get baptised and then suddenly believe--do we? Why would we
get baptised if we didn't first believe.
Its like circumcision..., it was an outward sign of something
deeper....
How does one call upon the name of the Lord? Listen to what Ananias
told Paul: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16).
Yes look at how one gets baptised...he washes away his sins by
calling on Jesus. Paul had not done this yet. He experienced Jesus
but he had not asked Jesus into his heart yet. He was confused about
everything. He had not received Christ yet. That is the baptism that
Jesus offers us when we repent, confess and receive Him.
After having heard the truth, believed, and repented, Paul was told
to arise and be baptized in order to WASH AWAY his sins. He wasn't
told that his sins were already forgiven and to SYMBOLICALLY wash
away his sins as evidence of a deeper truth, he told him PLAINLY that
he needed to be baptized IN WATER to have his sins WASHED AWAY.
Wrong Kevin--there is no indication that Paul had repented, or
confessed anything until Ananias told him to. And there is no mention
that this baptism was a ceremony in some pool of water.
In doing so, he was calling on the name of the Lord! Peter said a
similar thing in Acts 2:21. In the context of Acts 2, he told the
people to hear (v. 22), believe (v. 36), repent and be baptized (v.
38).
Exactly-- the the baptism Jesus offers us when we repent, confess
and receive Him. No mention of a water ceremony needed to accomlish
this baptism.
Kevin I snipped the rest of your post because I think I made my
point. You disagree and there is no reason to keep rehashing the same
thing.
If you read on in Romans, you will find that Paul points out that
it was Abraham's faith that was credited to him as righteousness. Not
anything he did mattered. Even the command of circumcision didn't do
it. Under what circumstances was Abraham credited as righteous??
Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but
before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness that he had by faith before he was
circumcised....Romans 4 verses 9-14
You wrote, "All of those things Kevin..grace, mercy, works, baptism,
hope, and the blood of Christ--are found at the cross. Jesus
accomplishes salvation for us--it is a gift that we receive when we
are born- again."
Scripture please that states that "grace, mercy, works, baptism, hope,
and the blood of Christ--are found at the cross"???
I wrote, "Faith, this is what the denominational world teaches that
one can "agree to disagree" and nothing could be further from the
truth. There is ONLY one way to interpret the word of God and your
interpretation is NOT correct."
To which you replied, "Well that is what you say--yet I feel I support
my position in the Word of God--even if you don't agree."
My reply: No, you do NOT support your position with the word of God. I
have asked you several times to produce the passages that state that
one is saved by "faith only", and this you have FAILED to accomplish.
You may "feel" that you support your position in the word of God
however that is NOT the truth. You have been deceived.
I wrote, "One is NOT "In Christ" UNTIL they are baptized INTO Christ
and His death where He shed His blood."
To which you replied, "Exactly--and this happens when we receive
Christ as our Savior. That is what the Bible reveals to me."
My reply: Scripture please that states that one is "baptized INTO
Christ when they receive Christ as Savior"??? The Bible may "reveal"
that to you, but it is NOT what God has stated in His word. Until you
can PROVE that one is "baptized INTO Christ" only when one "believes",
then this is nothing more than your OPINION. If you can PROVE to me
through the word of God that this is indeed the case, then I will
change my position, however if I can PROVE that you are indeed WRONG
in your belief, are you willing to do the same??? Or are you going to
continue to say, "we must agree to disagree"???
I wrote, "Notice Faith that one must "call upon the name of the Lord"
in order to be saved (Romans10:13; Acts 2:21). How is this done?"
To which you replied, "By repenting, confessing and receiving Him."
My reply: Which one is it Faith??? First you say that one is saved by
"faith only", then you turn right around and say that one is saved by
"repenting, confessing and receiving Him"??? If one is saved by "faith
only" as you advocate, then there is NO ROOM for REPENTANCE,
CONFESSION or BAPTISM for according to you, this all happens
SIMULTANEOUSLY. You could NOT prove this happens SIMULTANEOUSLY if
your life depended on it and I challenge you to PROVE this to be the case.
You wrote, "The question is--what is it that the gospel asks us to do?
What is the good news? The gospel says that Christ died for our sin,
in our place., and rose on the third day., and that he will raise
those of us who believe.., on that last day. That is the good
news..*Christ is risen* believe and receive. Pick up His cross and
follow him...That is what we are to do and we are obeying....notice
that we pick up the cross after we believe....even baptism comes after
we have believed. We don't get baptised and then suddenly believe--do
we? Why would we get baptised if we didn't first believe. Its like
circumcision..., it was an outward sign of something deeper...."
Yes, faith comes first, but one does NOT have their sins WASHED away
UNTIL they have been baptized IN water FOR the remission of their
sins. If baptism does NOT wash away sins as God PLAINLY states that it
does, then why even bother to be baptized if it is only SYMBOLIC as
you state. Can one be saved without being baptized in water??? I never
said that one gets baptized first, then they believe for that is what
Catholics do when they baptize infants and that doctrine is NOT taught
in the word of God. God NEVER says, "believe and receive", the writer
of the book of Hebrews says that Jesus is, "the author of eternal
salvation to all who OBEY Him." (Hebrews 5:9). Faith "alone" NEVER
saved anyone regardless of your opinion.
As far as circumcision goes, Paul told the Corinthians, "Circumcision
is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments
of God is what matters." (1 Corinthians 7:19). To be "of Christ" one
has to be baptized "in the name of Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:12-13).
Anyone who believes that they are saved by "faith only" is NOT "of
Christ" and is therefore NOT a Christian.
I wrote, "How does one call upon the name of the Lord? Listen to what
Ananias told Paul: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)."
To which you replied, "Yes look at how one gets baptised...he washes
away his sins by calling on Jesus. Paul had not done this yet. He
experienced Jesus but he had not asked Jesus into his heart yet. He
was confused about everything. He had not received Christ yet. That is
the baptism that Jesus offers us when we repent, confess and receive Him."
My reply: Saul did NOT have his sins WASHED AWAY until he was baptized
IN WATER for it is in baptism that remission of sins is granted. Here
you go ADDING "repentance, and confession" to the plan of salvation.
Is one saved by "faith only", or are "repentance", "confession" and
"baptism" required??? If any one of those are required, then one is
NOT saved by "faith only". Asking Jesus in your heart NEVER saved
anyone without further acts of obedience.
I wrote, "After having heard the truth, believed, and repented, Paul
was told to arise and be baptized in order to WASH AWAY his sins. He
wasn't told that his sins were already forgiven and to SYMBOLICALLY
wash away his sins as evidence of a deeper truth, he told him PLAINLY
that he needed to be baptized IN WATER to have his sins WASHED AWAY."
To which you replied, "Wrong Kevin--there is no indication that Paul
had repented, or confessed anything until Ananias told him to. And
there is no mention that this baptism was a ceremony in some pool of
water."
My reply: Have you not read Faith that Saul in REPENTING of his sin
that, "he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
(Acts 9:9). If this is NOT repentance, please explain to me what TRUE
repentance is Faith??? Did Ananias tell Saul to CALL on the name of
the Lord??? Yes or No??? Where is your PROOF that this baptism was NOT
in water??? Scripture please?
I wrote, "In doing so, he was calling on the name of the Lord! Peter
said a similar thing in Acts 2:21. In the context of Acts 2, he told
the people to hear (v. 22), believe (v. 36), repent and be baptized
(v. 38)."
To which you replied, "Exactly-- the the baptism Jesus offers us when
we repent, confess and receive Him. No mention of a water ceremony
needed to accomlish this baptism."
My reply: Once again Faith, please provide the Scriptural references
that show that the baptism that Jesus offers us when we "repent,
confess and receive Him" is NOT water baptism. I have quoted Scripture
to you that PROVES that we are to follow in Jesus footsteps, (Matthew
16:24) and Jesus was baptized IN water.
I say again, baptism IN water is a BURIAL. Baptism in the Holy Spirit
that you advocate is NOT a BURIAL. One CANNOT be BURIED in the Spirit
and then RAISED in the Spirit. One CAN be BURIED in WATER and RAISED
to live a NEW life for this is EXACTLY what the Bible teaches. If one
is NOT baptized IN water FOR the remission of their sins then they are
NOT saved, they have been DECEIVED.
You wrote, "If you read on in Romans, you will find that Paul points
out that it was Abraham's faith that was credited to him as
righteousness. Not anything he did mattered. Even the command of
circumcision didn't do it. Under what circumstances was Abraham
credited as righteous?? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It
was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness that he had by faith before he was
circumcised....Romans 4 verses 9-14"
James 2:21-23 CLEARLY states that Abraham was NOT justified by faith
UNTIL he OFFERED his son Isaac on the altar. And verse 24 CONFIRMS
this fact that was stated in Romans chapter 4.
What if Abraham hadn't offered his son as a sacrifice as the Lord told
him to? What if Abraham thought his faith was enough? Only when
Abraham offered his son as a sacrifice to the Lord did he pass the
test God gave him. Abraham's obedience through faith (not faith alone)
made him righteous. (Hebrews 11:17-19).
So much for your justification by FAITH ONLY view.
If Abraham had not obeyed God--he would have revealed his lack of
faith--and therefore, he would not have been credited as righteous.
I believe scripture has a way of interpreting itself if we are
diligent and read it all and compare it against itself (word upon
word, precept upon precept.)
That is how I study Scripture and that is how I come to my
understanding.., as I am guided by the Holy Spirit.
I am not going to volley the same verses all over again with you.
You wrote, "If Abraham had not obeyed God--he would have revealed his
lack of faith--and therefore, he would not have been credited as
righteous."
I think you might be finally understanding what TRUE faith really
means. Your "faith alone" view would have Abraham being credited for
righteousness BEFORE he made the attempt to kill Isaac. The
denominational view of "faith alone" or "sola fide" as Catholics call
it is NOT the truth in light of the teaching of the entire word of
God. Not even in the Old Testament were people merely counted as being
righteous by "faith alone", but had to DO something in order to be
called FAITHFUL. Go back and re-read the 11th chapter of Hebrews.
You wrote, "I believe scripture has a way of interpreting itself if we
are diligent and read it all and compare it against itself (word upon
word, precept upon precept.)"
To this I agree, however, your interpretation of Scripture ADDS one
word to the plan of salvation, that of "faith ALONE". I challenge you
to search the Scriptures Faith, you will NOT find that added word
except to DENY this doctrine that has people walking on the broad road
that leads to destruction.
You wrote, "That is how I study Scripture and that is how I come to my
understanding.., as I am guided by the Holy Spirit."
If you claim that you a "guided by the Holy Spirit" outside of
Scripture, then you ought to be able to PROVE how this is the case.
The TRUTH of the matter is the Holy Spirit does NOT lead anyone
OUTSIDE of
the word of God.
You wrote, "I am not going to volley the same verses all over again
with you."
I see that you, just like David when you CANNOT support your view of
salvation through the word of God, merely give up. This is a typical
response from someone who does not have an answer to the truth of
God's word.
You ended with, "We just need to agree to disagree."
The word of God says "buy the truth and sell it not." The word of God
also says "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1
Peter 4:11a). "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of
the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him"
(Colossians 3:17). "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the
doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine, the
same hath both the Father and the Son" (2 John 9). Truly, if we love
the Word, we will neither "turn from it to the right hand or to the
left: (Joshua 1:7).
Salvation is "IN Christ Jesus." That is, it is in His body, the church
(Ephesians 1:22-23). One cannot be saved outside of that body or in
denominational bodies. To proclaim such is not legalistic but simply
not what the New Testament teaches.
We cannot show you 'one' verse that supports justification by faith
alone. You have to read the bible in context, sola scriptura and
tota scriptura, and not just prima facie. Your argument mirrors a
Roman Catholic, (i.e. show me 'one' verse that proves sola scriptura)
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in
the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of
God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(KJV)
You wrote, "What was it that saved Noah and his family? The water or
the ark? And did they enter the ark by faith?"
"Antitype" in this verse means something that is foreshadowed by a
"type or figure." So baptism is NOT the "figure or the type," it is
the thing being illustrated - the "antitype."
The flood is the "type," baptism is the "antitype." They share in
common - WATER. Those not OBEDIENT (and thus WITHOUT FAITH) were
drowned. (1 Peter 3:20). God's grace effectively used the obedient
faith of Noah to bring him safely through the flood.
This is why Peter in 1 Pet. 3:20-21 could say that just as WATER SAVED
(v 20) Noah and his family (by separating them from this sinful world)
that baptism in the same way (like figure) now SAVES US by separating
or CLEANSING US from our SINS (v 21).
Now it is your turn to answer a question: Does 1 Peter 3:21 say that
baptism saves? Yes or No??
You wrote, "I gave them to you Kevin. But you twisted them up and made
them into something I didn't recognize. Romans chapter 3,4,and 5 say
it all."
You didn't recognize what I wrote because it did NOT fit your FALSE
DOCTRINE of salvation by "faith only". Did you even bother to READ
what I wrote, or did you just skim over it and not pay any attention
to it because of what you have been taught??? For your information,
Romans chapter 3, 4 and 5 do NOT say that one is saved by "faith only"
NOR is salvation by anything "alone".
Why do you not believe what Jesus has said that baptism is FOR the
remission of sins??? Unfortunately, Jesus had this to say about those
who do not believe: "He who rejects Me, and DOES NOT RECEIVE MY WORDS,
has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him
in the last day." (John 12:48).
Did you answer my hypothetical question??? No, you didn't so why are
you complaining about my question if you aren't going to even bother
to answer it in the first place???
It is you that need to read the Bible in CONTEXT. The Bible teaches
that we are saved by FAITH, but NOT by "faith alone" as you and Faith
believe. Don't you think that it is interesting that you CANNOT even
PROVE your doctrine that one is saved by "faith alone" and there is
NOT one verse or verses that state this to be the TRUTH??? Doesn't
this bother you??? I just find it hard to understand why you REJECT
what God has PLAINLY revealed in His word what it is that saves.
Baptism is FOR the remission of sins and that is EXACTLY what the word
of God teaches.
Plus, David and Faith, you must reckon with James, and THERE IS NO
WAY YOU CAN reconcile James with "faith alone", because James spends
a whole chapter on the subject that deals explicitly with the concept
of faith alone.
We are not saved by works OF THE LAW. That is how it is reconciled
SCRIPTURALLY. Read Romans AGAIN. Read Ephesians AGAIN. Paul is
talking about JUDAISM . . . keeping the law of Moses will not and
cannot save.
Kevin, you are wrong about one tiny thing. The "alone" in "faith
alone" can be found in Luther's Bible, that is, his very own
personally translated German Bible. Now, I wonder why he would go
and do a thing like that! I must say that after 20 years in
evangelical churches, I was SHOCKED that there was no such Bible
verse! I had heard we were saved by "faith alone" so many times I
just assumed in was in the Bible. I guess that's why we shouldn't
ass/u/me anything when it comes to scripture.
David, just FYI, not all Protestants hold to the sola fida doctrine.
There are Protestants (not many) who do not hold to this view.
Gail says,"David, just FYI, not all Protestants hold to the sola
fida doctrine. There are Protestants (not many) who do not hold to
this view."
I am well aware of what other "Protestants" beliefs, and will remind
you that some Christians are "Protestants", but not
all "Protestants" are Christians. And I am aware of those who
believe in conditional security, etc.
Gail claims,"you must reckon with James, and THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN
reconcile James with "faith alone", because James spends a whole
chapter on the subject that deals explicitly with the concept of
faith alone."
James 2:14 is talking about those who claim to have faith (a dead
faith)
James 2:17 is talking about a real faith being accompanied by action
(agrees with Paul in Eph. 2:8-10)
James 2:18 he talks about showing his faith through his deeds, not
just talking about it
James 2:19 he shows how this type of faith (James 15-17) isn't much
differen't from the devils.
James is talking about 2 different kinds of faith. A dead faith (lip
service, [demons]) and an alive faith (obedient, [saving faith])
In verse 21-16, He tells us the examples of Abraham and Rahab who
demonstrated their faith by their actions (obedience).
James is not talking about salvation. He is talking about the
evidences of salvation. 'Justified' can mean "to show to be
righteous" or "to make righteous". [Dictionary.com]James 2:24 [means] 'to show to be
righteous' <---fits better in the context [with tota scriptura].
Kevin claims,"Don't you think that it is interesting that you CANNOT
even PROVE your doctrine that one is saved by "faith alone" and
there is NOT one verse or verses that state this to be the TRUTH???"
Don't you think it's interesting that you rewrite over 50 verses in
the bible, including the whole gospel of John (which I might add,
contains not a SINGLE DROP of water in the whole book), that makes Faith
the Sole condition for salvation? And don't you think it's
interesting that you cling to your 8 proof texts and just keep
reposting them over and over and over and over again? And don't you
think it's interesting your arguements against sola fide mirror that
of a Roman Catholic trying to 'disprove' sola scriptura? (i.e. "show
me ONE, just ONE verse that proves sola scriptura? oh you can't? you
see!!!! it's man made!!!" - typical Roman Catholic)
Kevin claims,"I just find it hard to understand why you REJECT what
God has PLAINLY revealed in His word what it is that saves. Baptism
is FOR the remission of sins and that is EXACTLY what the word of
God teaches."
Are you a Greek scholar? No I didn't think so. The word "FOR" in
the English language has more than one meaning.
Our salvation is secured by faith AND works, David.
For your information, our local Assembly of God Church teaches that
as well. Every act of OBEDIENCE is a work. When Christ offers
himself to us, and we receive Him, that is a WORK, an act. When He
tells us to receive baptism and we OBEY that is a WORK. We MUST
COOPERATE WITH GOD's grace. We must react to His grace in
OBEDIENCE. Without obedience our faith is VOID.
Christ himself says in the separation of the sheep and goats that are
divided according to what they did and didn't DO!
You simply cannot separate works of obedience from faith. They go
together like soul and spirit.
Hmm...."the will is strong , but the flesh is weak", why else would
Jesus have made such a comment? It deals with that very truth--Faith
without Works is dead.
Yes, David, that is right. God lavishes His grace -- His unmerited
favor -- upon us through Christ Jesus our Lord. We either accept His
mercy, or we reject it. It is an "act" of our will. God is not some
sort of cosmic rapist forcing Himself upon His creation.
The transaction is complete when we cooperate with His grace.
Thanks for pointing that out about Martin Luther, you are right, he
more than likely did write it in and he even took out the book of
James and placed it in the back of his Bible because it didn't fit his
FALSE DOCTRINE that one is saved by "faith alone".
David quoted my words concerning hypothetical situations and gave a
link from another thread and then he wrote, "If they do not prove a
thing, why do you use them?"
Please notice David that if you will go back and read what I wrote, I
did NOT ask anyone to answer this hypothetical question and I even
ANSWERED it myself. For you to claim that I cannot ask you to answer a
hypothetical question when I advised you not to use them is pure
NONSENSE for I didn't even ask anyone to answer this now did I David???
I wrote, "Kevin claims,"Don't you think that it is interesting that
you CANNOT even PROVE your doctrine that one is saved by "faith alone"
and there is NOT one verse or verses that state this to be the TRUTH???"
To which David replied, "Don't you think it's interesting that you
rewrite over 50 verses in the bible, including the whole gospel of
John (which I might add, contains not a SINGLE DROP of water in the
whole book), that makes Faith the Sole condition for salvation?"
I guess you haven't really read the book of John now have you David
especially when you say, "which I might add, contains not a SINGLE
DROP of water in the whole book". Please go back and re-read John 3:5
which states, "unless one is born of WATER and the Spirit, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God." So much for your theory that the book of
John does not contain a SINGLE DROP of water. Oh and by the way, I
NEVER said that "faith was the sole condition of salvation", YOU DO
everytime you state that one is saved by "faith alone", NOR did I
rewrite over 50 verses in the Bible. If I am guilty of such, then I
challenge you to produce what I wrote to PROVE that I have done such a
thing.
You wrote, "And don't you think it's interesting that you cling to
your 8 proof texts and just keep reposting them over and over and over
and over again? And don't you think it's interesting your arguements
against sola fide mirror that of a Roman Catholic trying to 'disprove'
sola scriptura? (i.e. "show me ONE, just ONE verse that proves sola
scriptura? oh you can't? you see!!!! it's man made!!!" - typical Roman
Catholic)"
David, I have yet to see you PROVE the verses that I use are NOT
speaking of baptism IN water that is FOR the remission of sins, NOR
have I seen you PROVE conclusively from your PROOF texts that
salvation is through "faith alone". If you CANNOT prove your doctrine,
then you need to CHANGE your belief because it is NOT in accordance
with the word of God.
I wrote, "Kevin claims,"I just find it hard to understand why you
REJECT what God has PLAINLY revealed in His word what it is that
saves. Baptism is FOR the remission of sins and that is EXACTLY what
the word of God teaches."
To which David replied, "Are you a Greek scholar? No I didn't think so."
No David, I NEVER said that I was a "Greek scholar" now did I??? But
since you MENTIONED Greek, let us take a look at a couple of Greek
words used in the New Testament.
David continued with, "The word "FOR" in the English language has more
than one meaning."
Then he quoted a dictionary to explain the use of the word "for".
Those who try to TWIST the Scriptures to justify their WRONG position
on baptism are DEFEATED by the very book they seek to pervert. In Acts
2:38, we find not just the preposition "eis" (which is our English
word FOR), but the entire prepositional phrase "eis aphesin
harmartion," which is rendered "FOR the remission of sins" by the
translators.
Fortunately, and to your downfall David, the Holy Spirit has
unquestionably fixed the use of this phrase, "eis aphesin harmartion"
(No, I am NOT a Greek Scholar) by allowing it to be used in a passage
in which its use CANNOT be doubted. In Matthew 26:28, Jesus made the
statement, "FOR this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed
for man for the remission of sins." This is the SAME prepositional
phrase that is used in Acts 2:38.
Therefore, since you state that the word FOR has different meanings,
in order to be CONSISTENT, you have to make Matthew 26:28 say that
Jesus shed His blood either "BECAUSE OF" the remission of sins (which
is what you say Acts 2:38 states), which would in essence, have the
Lord saying His blood would be shed for something already
accomplished. Wow? Who can believe it???
Was the Lord's blood shed "for," "unto," or "for the purpose of" the
remission of sins; or was it shed because the remission of sins had
already occurred? If it was shed "for," "unto," or "for the purpose
of" the remission of sins, as Matthew 26:28 CLEARLY teaches, then what
justification do you have for stating that the word FOR can mean
"because of" in Acts 2:38?
The ONLY reason I can think of is the justification of your FALSE
DOCTRINE.
Does the Bible contradict itself? Certainly not!!!
Kevin claims,"In Acts 2:38, we find not just the preposition "eis"
(which is our English word FOR), but the entire prepositional
phrase "eis aphesin harmartion," which is rendered "FOR the
remission of sins" by the translators."
Kevin also claims,"Therefore, since you state that the word FOR has
different meanings, in order to be CONSISTENT, you have to make
Matthew 26:28 say that Jesus shed His blood either "BECAUSE OF" the
remission of sins (which is what you say Acts 2:38 states), which
would in essence, have the Lord saying His blood would be shed for
something already accomplished. Wow? Who can believe it???"
Luke 5
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be
thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to
the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Then in order for YOU to be CONSISTENT, "for" in this passage MUST
mean "in order to obtain", Even though if you read the passage throughly, you will not come to that conclusion.
Matthew is a different book different chapter, the word FOR has different meaning, and does not always mean "in order to obtain."
Ex.
I praise a girl FOR her beauty (FOR in this case means 'because of', and I think you'd agree.)
I take an advil FOR my headache (because of)
But, how can we quate our modern usages of specific words to those two
thousands years old and older? Tiger Woods, "Fore!". Words do change
their meanings over time and cultures.
If you CHANGE the meaning of the word FOR in Acts 2:38, then you MUST
also CHANGE the meaning of the word FOR in Matthew 26:28. One does NOT
need to be a GREEK SCHOLAR to figure this out.
It is evident David that you believe that you are better than the
translators of the Bible when you attempt to CHANGE the meaning of the
word FOR in Acts 2:38. This is a typical response from someone who
CANNOT accept the TRUTH of God's word that baptism is FOR the
remission of sins.
The Bible does not say in Acts 2:38, "BECAUSE OF the remission of
sins." now does it??? Where is the reputable translation of the Bible
that does? The GREEK scholars who have translated the Bible have NOT
translated this phrase in Acts 2:38 as "BECAUSE OF the remission of
sins." I have several translations and have NEVER found one that said,
"BECAUSE OF the remission of sins." Why not? If, as some "scholars"
would like for us to believe, it is "just as good Greek," then why
have Bible translators not translated it that way?
The TRUTH of the matter is, the GREEK SCHOLARS translated the phrase
"FOR the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 because that is EXACTLY what
the word of God teaches that baptism is FOR or "in order to obtain"
the remission of sins.
You wrote, "Are you a Greek scholar? No? Thank you."
I stated in my last post that I was a "Greek scholar", was that too
hard for you to understand??? Why did you have to ask me the question,
"Are you a Greek scholar" when I had already answered this for you???
Did my quoting of the words in Greek make you THINK that I was a
"Greek scholar"???
You said in plain words,"I am NOT a Greek Scholar". So you expect
me to accept a Greek arguement from someone that doesn't have the
proper credentials?
I think this shows that the word FOR does have more than one meaning. If you cannot accept even this Kevin, then there is no further use in discussing this. You can read more about it at this site
Kevin claims,"If you CHANGE the meaning of the word FOR in Acts
2:38, then you MUST also CHANGE the meaning of the word FOR in
Matthew 26:28. One does NOT need to be a GREEK SCHOLAR to figure
this out."
I do not CHANGE the meaning of the word FOR! I acknowledge that the
word FOR has different meanings. And you still have not posted
anything that will make me believe your eisegesis.
If the word FOR has MORE than one meaning, then please explain why
these translators of the Bible did NOT use the words "because of" when
they were translating this verse???
If you CLAIM that the word FOR has MORE than one meaning in Acts 2:38,
then in order to be CONSISTENT, the SAME EXACT WORDING is found in
Matthew 26:28 where Jesus blood is said to be FOR the remission of
sins. Now are you going to say that Jesus blood was shed "BECAUSE OF
remission of sins", if this is the case, then Jesus would have had NO
reason to come to this earth to die on the cross.
Your attempt to CHANGE the word of God does NOT suprise me David for
Satan has been trying to do this very thing ever since Jesus triumphed
over him at the cross.
You David, like Satan perpretate the lie that Baptism is NOT for the
remission of sins. How do I know this is a lie? Because we are
COMMANDED to be baptized FOR the remission of sins.
Many people refuse to obey this simple command to be baptized FOR the
remission of sins because they like you David have believed another
LIE, namely, that one is saved by "faith only".
How do I know this is a lie? Because the Bible says EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE! "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT by
faith only" (James 2:24).
Who is one to believe David, God or you? God says we are NOT saved by
"faith only". You and the rest of the denominational world say we are
saved by "faith only". Because YOU have been deceived on this point,
YOU also REFUSE to obey the COMMAND of Peter: "Be baptized ... FOR the
remission of sins." As a consequence, denominational baptism, although
immersion, is INVALID because it is NOT done for the COMMANDED
purpose. It is an ineffectual ritual and does NOTHING except get
someone wet.
Even if you have been immersed David, if you were NOT baptized FOR the
remission of sins, you did NOT OBEY the command Peter gave on the Day
of Pentecost. You have been DECEIVED. You have believed a LIE.
Kevin claims,"If the word FOR has MORE than one meaning, then please
explain why these translators of the Bible did NOT use the
words "because of" when they were translating this verse???"
The translators, like the King James translators who translated by
formal equivalence, WERE NOT exegeting the Greek. they were
translating it.
Kevin claims,"If you CLAIM that the word FOR has MORE than one
meaning in Acts 2:38, then in order to be CONSISTENT, the SAME EXACT
WORDING is found in Matthew 26:28 where Jesus blood is said to be
FOR the remission of sins. Now are you going to say that Jesus blood
was shed "BECAUSE OF remission of sins", if this is the case, then
Jesus would have had NO reason to come to this earth to die on the
cross."
We know, with proper exegesis, that FOR in Matthew 26:28 ("For this
is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins.") means in order to obtain because of passages
like 1 John 1:7, Hebrews 9:22, 1 Peter 1:18-19, Eph. 1:7, Rev. 1:5,
and Heb. 9:14.
Kevin claims,"How do I know this is a lie? Because the Bible says
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! "You see then that a man is justified by
works, and NOT by faith only" (James 2:24)."
And how many times have you been corrected on that particular
passages? We know that James was talking about the evidences of
salvation, and certainly was not advocating working for salvation.
Why do you, as do typical Roman Catholics, continue to take this
passage out of context??
You wrote, "This is not another "faith only" conversation. There are
those who believe in conditional security, like Dan Corner, but still
reject your eisegesis."
I never said this was another "faith only" conversation. You are
BLINDED by your "faith only" doctrine because it does NOT allow one to
be baptized FOR the remission of sins. This also is NOT a "conditional
security" conversation and there is NO such thing as "conditional
security".
I wrote, "If the word FOR has MORE than one meaning, then please
explain why these translators of the Bible did NOT use the words
"because of" when they were translating this verse???"
To which you replied, "The translators, like the King James
translators who translated by formal equivalence, WERE NOT exegeting
the Greek. they were translating it."
Which is EXACTLY my point. Those who "translated" the Greek word "eis"
they used the English word FOR not only in Acts 2:38, but also in
Matthew 26:28 which is the SAME EXACT PHRASE. The translators did NOT
translate the word "eis" to mean "because of" remission of sins for
this is NOT what Peter told the Jews that they must DO in order to be
saved.
I wrote, "If you CLAIM that the word FOR has MORE than one meaning in
Acts 2:38, then in order to be CONSISTENT, the SAME EXACT WORDING is
found in Matthew 26:28 where Jesus blood is said to be FOR the
remission of sins. Now are you going to say that Jesus blood was shed
"BECAUSE OF remission of sins", if this is the case, then Jesus would
have had NO reason to come to this earth to die on the cross."
To which you replied, "We know, with proper exegesis, that FOR in
Matthew 26:28 ("For this is my blood of the new testament, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins.") means in order to obtain
because of passages like 1 John 1:7, Hebrews 9:22, 1 Peter 1:18-19,
Eph. 1:7, Rev. 1:5, and Heb. 9:14."
We also KNOW, with PROPER exegesis, ALSO that the word FOR in Acts
2:38 means that baptism is FOR the remission of sins, just as passages
like Matthew 28:18, Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4,
Galatians 3:26-27, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, 1
Peter 3:21.
The blood of Jesus was shed FOR the remission of sins.
Baptism is also FOR the remission of sins.
Please show me in the Bible where God ever commanded a "saved person"
to be baptized???
I wrote, ""How do I know this is a lie? Because the Bible says EXACTLY
THE OPPOSITE! "You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT
by faith only" (James 2:24)."
To which David replied, "And how many times have you been corrected on
that particular passages? We know that James was talking about the
evidences of salvation, and certainly was not advocating working for
salvation. Why do you, as do typical Roman Catholics, continue to take
this passage out of context??"
You most certainly have NOT done any correcting on these particular
passages. You may have attempted to EXPLAIN AWAY these passages, but
you can rest assured that your interpretation does NOT agree with the
word of God. Please explain David how you "know" that James was
talking about the "evidences of salvation" in this passage??? Does the
apostle James say that "faith WITHOUT WORKS is DEAD"??? How hard is it
for you to UNDERSTAND this passage??? If "faith only" saves WITHOUT
works, then God is a LIAR for Abraham CLEARLY was NOT justified by
"faith only", he was justified by WORKS when he offered his son Isaac
on the altar. (James 2:21). Are you ready to call God a LIAR David???
If you think that I am taking these passages "out of context", you are
sadly MISTAKEN. Can you not see with your own eyes that YOU are the
one who is GUILTY of taking these passages "out of context"??? Why do
you continue to OVERLOOK what God has PLAINLY revealed??? Go back and
re-read Hebrews chapter 11 where the great men and women of faith had
to DO something in order to have their faith credited to them for
righteousness.
You wrote, "Does the word FOR in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE always mean 'in
order to obtain'??? I challenge you to prove this.
I never said that I could PROVE the word FOR in the "ENGLISH LANGUAGE"
meant "in order to obtain". My POINT in this conversation on whether
or not baptism is symbolic is the FACT that Matthew 26:28 uses the
SAME EXACT phrase "for the remission of sins" that is used in Acts
2:38, and in order for one to be CONSISTENT the SAME method of
exegesis MUST be used in BOTH passages. The blood of Christ CLEARLY
washes away sins, and baptism also CLEARLY washes away sins. It is
UNETHICAL to state that these passages that have the EXACT same phrase
"for the remission of sins" do not mean the same thing in BOTH places.
You CANNOT honestly deny that both Christ's blood and Baptism are FOR
the same thing, the remission of sins for this is EXACTLY what the
Bible teaches. We contact the blood of Christ IN the watery grave of
BAPTISM for we are BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH, (Romans 6:4) where His
cleansing blood was shed. This is EXACTLY why Peter was able to say in
1 Peter 3:20-21 that just as WATER saved Noah and his family (Verse
20), in the same way BAPTISM saves us by cleansing us from our sins.
Does Paul teach in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 that to be "of Paul," Paul
would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would
have had to have been baptized in the name of Paul? Yes or No.
You wrote, "You said in plain words,"I am NOT a Greek Scholar". So you
expect me to accept a Greek arguement from someone that doesn't have
the proper credentials?"
Do you have access to a "Greek lexicon"??? One does NOT have to be a
"Greek Scholar" to argue from Greek NOR must they have the the "proper
credentials" in order to make this argument.
Gail said, " Kevin, you are wrong about one tiny thing.
The 'alone' in 'faith alone' can be found in Luther's Bible, that is,
his very own personally translated German Bible. Now, I wonder why he
would go and do a thing like that! I must say that after 20 years in
evangelical churches, I was SHOCKED that there was no such Bible
verse! I had heard we were saved by 'faith alone' so many times I
just assumed in was in the Bible. I guess that's why we shouldn't
ass/u/me anything when it comes to scripture."
Many protestants ignore Luther's addition while holding to their
interpretation of it. What is interesting is that even Luther himself
recognized that water baptism is essential to salvation, that he
understood "works" to mean works of human righteousness or the Law by
which one might earn salvation. Therefore, in true intent,
Luther's addition still does not change the meaning of Romans. If we
consider his moving the book of James into the appendix, we see he
probably just misunderstood the type of "works" that James meant. A
quick glance at the Lutherian denomination will reveal that they
practice baptism for the purpose of salvation, even unto infants.
So where do these other churches get this idea that "faith only"
rejects baptism and every other act of obedience? Luther never
intended this.
"For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by
men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by
human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this
fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work
than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work
greater than the work of God can we do?
"Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin
which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the
mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his
death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life,
and thereby to the fellowship of Christ."
Interesting that 2 key Reformers who helped invent "sola fide"
also knew exactly what baptism was for. So where did this other
nonsense come from that Baptism is not essential??
Kevin claims,"I never said this was another "faith only"
conversation. You are BLINDED by your "faith only" doctrine because
it does NOT allow one to be baptized FOR the remission of sins."
All I am saying is don't turn this into a justification by faith
alone argument. There are those who deny justification by faith
alone and still deny your eisegesis. The real issue here is Does
Baptism Justify?
Kevin also claims,"This also is NOT a "conditional security"
conversation and there is NO such thing as "conditional security".""
I never said it was a conditional security conversation. I just
mentioned that there are some who reject the justification by faith
alone position but still reject your eisegesis.
Kevin claims,"Do you have access to a "Greek lexicon"??? One does
NOT have to be a "Greek Scholar" to argue from Greek NOR must they
have the the "proper credentials" in order to make this argument."
Yes I have access to a Greek lexicon. But you still don't know
Greek. Plain and simple.
I am aware of the topic of this thread and I never said that I knew
Greek, and your claim that one must be "Greek Scholar" to argue using
Greek words is simply NOT true.
You wrote, "who sees that a man is justified by works? God or man?"
God AND man BOTH can PLAINLY see that a man is justified by works.
If the apostle Paul able to do see PLAINLY that some were justified by
works when he said in Romans 6:17, "But God be thanked that though you
were slaves of sin, yet YOU OBEYED FROM THE HEART THAT FORM OF
DOCTRINE TO WHICH YOU WERE DELIVERED." then WE are also able to do the
very same thing.
You wrote, "Who is the audience in the book of James?"
James 1:1 states, "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad"
The *form of teaching* delivered to them is the Good News that Jesus
died for their sins and was raised to give them new life. This
probably refers to the statement of faith found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-
11.
"Now, brothers, I wanted to remind you of the gospel I preached to
you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By
this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preach
to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was
buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the
Scripture, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve.
After that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at
the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen
asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last
of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
For I am the least of the apostles, and do not even deserve to be
called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the
grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without
effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the
grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this
is what we preach, and this is what you believed."
Yes, the "form of teaching" WAS the gospel which is the Death, Burial
and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
How was Paul able to know that the Romans had "obeyed the gospel" as
stated in Romans 6:17???
David,
You wrote, "But you post like you do. So, do you know Greek or not?
Yes or no?"
Because someone quotes a couple of Greek words, does that make them an
"expert" or a "Greek Scholar" as David seems to think???
If someone quotes another language, doe they have to "know" this
language in order to quote the words? Yes or no?
It matters NOT whether or not that I "know Greek".
How many words must one "know" before this qualifies them to "know"
any language???
Is it one, two, a thousand or more???
Of course this is WAY OFF of the subject of this conversation David,
and you have chided me for taking this thread off topic, do you not
realize that you are being very HYPOCRITICAL when you do the very same
thing???
Kevin claims,"Whether I "know Greek" or not is irrelevant."
No, it is very relevant to this thread. We are not talking about
single words here, we are talking sentences and phrases. You didn't
answer my question, do you know Greek yes or no?
David wrote, "No, it is very relevant to this thread. We are not
talking about single words here, we are talking sentences and phrases.
You didn't answer my question, do you know Greek yes or no?"
I gave you an answer, it just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.
David wrote, "No, but you are not just quoting, you are actually
trying to exegete it."
I will ask you this question again David, must one be an "expert" or a
"Greek Scholar" in order to be able to "exegete" certain words in
another language???
David wrote, "It matters very much, because you do not know what you
are talking about."
So, are you the "Greek Scholar" or "Expert" in the Greek Language
where you can make the ASSERTION that I "do not know" what I am
talking about???
Kevin claims,"So, are you the "Greek Scholar" or "Expert""
No I am not, and I admit it. But it is obvious you do not know
Greek, even a little to get you past this arguement (that can still
be made in English). You did you quote then?
Please explain to everyone here what Greek words I am guilty of
"exegeting" (since you KNOW that I don't know what I am talking about)
and how my exegesis DIFFERS from what the TRANSLATORS of the Bible
wrote???
Since you seem to KNOW more Greek than I do, I CHALLENGE YOU to find
an example of the Greek word "eis" which is translated as "because of"
in the New Testament.
Please note that David will NEVER find such a usage of the word "eis"
being translated as "because of" in the word of God and for this
reason he has focused on the English word "for" instead of the Greek
word "eis".
Do not be fooled by this argument, for the word of God states PLAINLY
that the blood of Jesus was shed "for the remission of sins" and
baptism is also stated to be for the exact same thing, "for the
remission of sins".
Kevin claims,"Dear readers,
Please note that David will NEVER find such a usage of the
word "eis" being translated as "because of" in the word of God and
for this reason he has focused on the English word "for" instead of
the Greek word "eis"."
Yes, and what does the word FOR mean? It does not always mean "in
order to obtain" as you seem to assert. Yes, "eis" was translated
as "for", which I'm not arguing about. But how many meanings does
the word FOR have? More than one, that's for sure.
Kevin claims,"Do not be fooled by this argument, for the word of God
states PLAINLY that the blood of Jesus was shed "for the remission
of sins" and baptism is also stated to be for the exact same
thing, "for the remission of sins"."
Oh, so "eis" means "for", so "for" must mean "in order to obtain"
right?
Kevin claims,"Since you seem to KNOW more Greek than I do, I
CHALLENGE YOU to find an example of the Greek word "eis" which is
translated as "because of" in the New Testament."
I never said I knew any Greek period, and I don't pretend to know
either. And you know very well the Word FOR has different meanings,
so I challge you to prove otherwise.
Kevin claims,"Please explain to everyone here what Greek words I am
guilty of "exegeting" (since you KNOW that I don't know what I am
talking about) and how my exegesis DIFFERS from what the
TRANSLATORS of the Bible wrote???"
Kevin's statement: "Those who try to TWIST the Scriptures to
justify their WRONG position on baptism are DEFEATED by the very
book they seek to pervert. In Acts 2:38, we find not just the
preposition "eis" (which is our English word FOR), but the entire
prepositional phrase "eis aphesin harmartion," which is
rendered "FOR the remission of sins" by the translators.
Fortunately, and to your downfall David, the Holy Spirit has
unquestionably fixed the use of this phrase, "eis aphesin
harmartion" (No, I am NOT a Greek Scholar) by allowing it to be used
in a passage in which its use CANNOT be doubted"
"Those who try to twist the scriptures to justify their wrong
position on baptism are defeated by the very book they seek to
pervert. In Acts 2:38, we find not just the preposition eis, but the
entire prepositional phrase eis aphesin harmartion, which is
rendered “for the remission of sins” by the translators.
Fortunately, and to the downfall of those who would assert their
particular doctrine above that which is written, the Holy Spirit has
unquestionably fixed the use of eis aphesin harmartion by allowing
it to be used in a passage in which its use cannot be doubted. In
Matthew 26:28, Jesus made the statement, “For this is My blood of
the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
[emphasis mine—AT].” This is the same prepositional phrase that is
used in Acts 2:38. Therefore, those who support the “because of”
argument in Acts 2:38 would, in order to be consistent, have to make
Matthew 26:28 to be saying that Jesus shed His blood “because of”
the remission of sins, which would, in essence, have the Lord saying
His blood would be shed for something already accomplished. Who can
believe it? Was the Lord’s blood shed “for,” “unto,” or “for the
purpose of” the remission of sins; or was it shed because the
remission of sins had already occurred? If it was
shed “for,” “unto,” or “for the purpose of” the remission of sins,
as Matthew 26:28 clearly teaches, then what justification do our
Baptist friends have for translating the same prepositional phrase
as “because of” in Acts 2:38? The only reason I can think of is the
justification of their erroneous doctrine."
I wrote, "Dear readers, Please note that David will NEVER find such a
usage of the word "eis" being translated as "because of" in the word
of God and for this reason he has focused on the English word "for"
instead of the Greek word "eis"."
To which David replied, "Yes, and what does the word FOR mean? It does
not always mean "in order to obtain" as you seem to assert."
Here David goes again trying to argue that the word "for" means
"becaue of" just as I stated above.
David continued, "Yes, "eis" was translated as "for", which I'm not
arguing about. But how many meanings does the word FOR have? More than
one, that's for sure."
Why did the translators of the Bible NOT translate the Greek word
"eis" as being "because of" remission of sins as what you advocate in
your use of the word "for". If baptism is "because of" remission of
sins, then the EXPERTS would have TRANSLATED the Bible that way. Your
FALSE DOCTRINE is what causes you to TWIST and pervert Scripture to
make it say other than what is written. If the english word "for" in
Acts 2:38 means "because of", then why have you not CROSSED OUT this
word (like Luther moving the book of James to the Appendix) and ADDED
the words "because of"???
I wrote, "Do not be fooled by this argument, for the word of God
states PLAINLY that the blood of Jesus was shed "for the remission of
sins" and baptism is also stated to be for the exact same thing, "for
the remission of sins"."
To which David replied, "Oh, so "eis" means "for", so "for" must mean
"in order to obtain" right?"
The word "for" in Acts 2:38 means "in order to obtain".
Where is your Greek argument that shows that the word "eis" means
"because of" David???
I wrote, "Since you seem to KNOW more Greek than I do, I CHALLENGE YOU
to find an example of the Greek word "eis" which is translated as
"because of" in the New Testament."
To which David replied, "I never said I knew any Greek period, and I
don't pretend to know either. And you know very well the Word FOR has
different meanings, so I challge you to prove otherwise."
If you do NOT know Greek, then how can you state that I do not know
Greek??? Hello??? If the TRANSLATORS of the Bible MEANT for the Greek
word "eis" to mean "because of" which is what you are saying, then
this is how the word would have been translated. You can state that
the English word "for" has different meanings, but in this instance it
looks FORWARD to baptism and NOT backward as you have been duped into
believing. Your being dishonest with the text will not change the
truth of the matter.
I wrote, "Please explain to everyone here what Greek words I am guilty
of "exegeting" (since you KNOW that I don't know what I am talking
about) and how my exegesis DIFFERS from what the TRANSLATORS of the
Bible wrote???"
Then David quoted my words, "Those who try to TWIST the Scriptures to
justify their WRONG position on baptism are DEFEATED by the very book
they seek to pervert. In Acts 2:38, we find not just the preposition
"eis" (which is our English word FOR), but the entire prepositional
phrase "eis aphesin harmartion," which is rendered "FOR the remission
of sins" by the translators. Fortunately, and to your downfall David,
the Holy Spirit has unquestionably fixed the use of this phrase, "eis
aphesin harmartion" (No, I am NOT a Greek Scholar) by allowing it to
be used in a passage in which its use CANNOT be doubted"
Please notice dear readers that David though he did quote my words,
did NOT bother to say how my exegisis DIFFERS from what the
translators of the Bible wrote.
Then he mistakenly gives a web site (hoping to dispute what I have
wrote): http://www.allanturner.com/baptism.html not realizing that
Allan Turner is a member of the church of Christ and what he states is
EXACTLY what I have been saying all along.
Kevin claims,"Why did the translators of the Bible NOT translate the
Greek word "eis" as being "because of" remission of sins as what you
advocate in your use of the word "for"."
Because they were merely translating it and not corrupting it with
there personal biased views.
Yes, I did copy this from this website. He is a member of the church
of Christ and this does DEFEAT your doctrine. So are you going to say
that just because I did not write this myself, that the argument is
not valid??? I think not...
Kevin claims,"Where is your Greek argument that shows that the
word "eis" means "because of" David???"
Right
here
Acts 2:38
This important verse in our study reads, "Then Peter said unto
them, 'Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost.'" This verse, along with Mark 16:16, is probably
quoted more than any other
verse by the groups mentioned in the beginning of this study to
support the erroneous teaching
that water baptism plays some role in our soul's salvation. But does
it really teach such? Let's take
a close look at it. Bob Ross in his book, Acts 2:38 and Baptismal
Remission, pp.45-48 (Pilgrim
Publications, Pasadena, TX, 1976 edition) makes some important
points about this verse and its
three clauses:
"The American Standard Version (1901) renders Acts
2:38 as follows: Repent ye,
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto
the remission of your
sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
"... there are three clauses in this sentence, and
the modifying phrases must stand in
their respective, individual clauses, according to the rules of
grammar. Consequently, if
'repent' is in a distinct clause from 'be baptized for the remission
of sins,' the modifying
phrase cannot modify both 'repent' and 'be baptized'
"The three clauses are --
(1) 'Repent ye:'
'ye' -- subject, second person plural number.
'Repent' -- verb, second person plural number, aorist imperative
active voice.
(2) 'be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto
the remission of your sins:'
'be baptized' -- verb, third person singular number,
aorist passive imperative voice.
'unto the remission of your sins' -- modifying phrase.
(3) 'ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit:'
'ye' -- subject, second person plural number.
'shall receive' -- verb, second person plural number, future,
indicative voice.
'the gift of the Holy Spirit' -- direct object of verb.
"For the claims of Campbellism to be upheld, the first and
second clauses would have to
be connected so as to allow 'for the remission of sins' to modify
both 'repent' and 'be baptized.'
However, this presents the following grammatical problem: In the
first clause, the person and
number of the verb 'repent' do not agree with the verb 'be
baptized' in the second clause. 'Repent'
is second person plural number; 'be baptized' is
third person singular number.
"It is a rule of Greek grammar, as it is in English,
that the verb agrees with its
subject in person and number:" (emphasis his).
Ross then cites in his book a quote from Ray Summers,
Essentials of New Testament
Greek (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1950), p.12:
"Person is the quality of verbs which
indicates whether the subject is speaking
(first person), is being spoken to (second person), or is being
spoken of (third person) ...
"Number is the quality of verbs which
indicates whether the subject is singular or
plural" (emphasis his).
Ross goes on by citing yet another relevant quote from
Let's Study Greek by Clarence B.
Hale (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 9:
"If the subject of a verb is the person or the group
of persons speaking, the verb is
in the first person. If the subject of a verb is the person
or group of persons spoken to, the
verb is in the second person. If the subject of a verb
is the person or the thing or the group
spoken of, the verb is the third person" (emphasis his).
"These quotations from 'standard' Greek grammars
express the simple fact that
subjects and verbs agree with one another.
"It is evident, then, that repentance and baptism in
Acts 2:38 cannot be combined
so as to have both modified by the phrase, 'for the remission of
sins.' The proper
grammatical construction of the sentence forbids it ....
"The phrase, 'for the remission of sins,' stands and
modifies in only one of the
three clauses, namely, the second clause ..." (emphasis his).
Kevin claims,"Yes, I did copy this from this website. He is a member
of the church of Christ and this does DEFEAT your doctrine. So are
you going to say that just because I did not write this myself, that
the argument is not valid??? I think not..."
I'm just trying to show why I believe you don't know Greek.
Is this how it goes David, first you try and say that I don't know
what I am talking about, and then when this doesn't work, you go and
see if this was copied from another website, and then when you find
this website, you change your tune and just brush it off because the
argument came from someone else???
Whether I made the argument, or someone else made the argument does
NOT matter. The TRUTH is that with your use of the English word "for"
you CHANGE the word of God to state that baptism is "because of"
remission of sins where there is NOT one EXPERT Greek Scholar who will
translate this passage as "because of" remission of sins. No matter
whether these were someone else's words or NOT, you are still GUILTY
of ADDING to the word of God.
Kevin claims,"Kevin claims,"If you do NOT know Greek, then how can
you state that I do not know Greek??? Hello??? If the TRANSLATORS of
the Bible MEANT for the Greek word "eis" to mean "because of" which
is what you are saying, then this is how the word would have been
translated. You can state that the English word "for" has different
meanings, but in this instance it looks FORWARD to baptism and NOT
backward as you have been duped into believing. Your being dishonest
with the text will not change the truth of the matter.""
You asked for me to prove that you did not know Greek. I feel I
did. Copying someone elses Greek arguments is what it is. And I
said before, the Bibles using a formal translation do not have the
translators personal bias.
Kevin claims,"Whether I made the argument, or someone else made the
argument does NOT matter"
It matters very much because you said you do not have to be an
expert or scholar to use a greek argument. I guess you were semi-
right. But you still do not know greek.
Kevin claims,"So how does proving that I copied Greek words from
another web site
PROVE that I do not know Greek???"
Greek words? It was a Greek argument. Sorry, I don't know Greek and
what I most of what I read was in English.
Kevin's statement: "Do you have access to a "Greek lexicon"??? One
does NOT have to be a "Greek Scholar" to argue from Greek NOR must
they have the the "proper credentials" in order to make this
argument."
You wrote, "And I said before, the Bibles using a formal translation
do not have the translators personal bias".
Then please explain why the translators of the Bible did NOT translate
the word FOR in Acts 2:38 to mean "because of" in this passage since
this is what you are saying this passage states???
Faith,
Yes, the "form of teaching" WAS the gospel which is the Death, Burial
and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
How was Paul able to know that the Romans had "obeyed the gospel" as
stated in Romans 6:17???
Paul was talking to the church--a body of believers. Though I am sure
that there were unbelievers also mixed in the crowd. Baptism is a
testimony. So by testimony...we can see who has received Christ.
In the church of Paul
s day, as in many churches today, immersion was the usual form of
baptism--that is, new Christians were completely buried in water.
They understood this form of baptism to symbolize the death and
burrial of the old way of life. Coming up out of the water symbolized
resurrection to new life with Christ. If we think of our old, sinful
life as dead and buried--we have a powerful motive to resist sin. We
can consciously choose to treat the desires and temptations of the
old nature as if they were dead.
This is all very symbolic--for if water baptism was a literal burial
and resurrection--then we would literallly never sin again--yet we do.
Not until the real resurrection comes--will we truly be free from
sin. For now--we identify ourselves in Christ's resurrection by
faith.
I would like to know how St. Paul justifies immersion into water as a
for of baptism. In other words, how much of this doctrine is
actually Scriptural or Paulism?
If a "little splash" of water can do all that, hey, sink me head
first or toes first. My concern deals with whether this ritual is
truly part of Jesus' teachings or St. Paul's doctrine. Did Paul take
things into his "movement" against the Jews?
BTW, the recurring theme of "soul cleansing"--associated with water--
pre-dates Christianity. Hm.....the concept of "redemption"
and "weighing" of the soul also pre-dates Christianity. Do
misinterpret my post. I'm only looking at things through unfiltered
spectacles.
Faith, you need to have a look at Egyptian rituals in regards to the
soul, redemption, and water "cleansing". Then, we can have a look at
Gilgemesh, Noah, Moses, and John the Baptist and the sequences that
followed leading up to today's debates and confusion about Baptism.
BTW, it is something to be confused, yet an other to be totally lost
and dead wrong. It is a difficult thing to prove that one is correct;
it is equally difficult to actually say that one is wrong, much less
correct. The problem sits in the proof if it can be presented without
faith.
Faith makes things real, but not necessarily true. (I'm not talking
about "Faith the poster".) There is something called "blind faith".
Well, let's hope that somebody has taught those believers the
truth.
Do you not realize that although you said that you were not a "Greek
Scholar" or an "expert" in the Greek language, but yet when you change
the meaning of the word "for" in the text to mean "because of", you
are in FACT stating that you are more knowledgeable about the text
than those who translated the Bible. Those who translated the Bible
did NOT translate the word "eis" to mean "because of" for the very
reason that is NOT what the text implies. When you change the meaning
of the word "for" to "because of", you are indeed making the claim
that you are smarter than the translators.
You wrote, "This is all very symbolic--for if water baptism was a
literal burial and resurrection--then we would literallly never sin
again--yet we do."
Please show where the word of God states that baptism is "symbolic"???
Can one be "symbolicly" saved??? Where did you get your notion that,
"if baptism was a literal burial and resurrection--then we would
literally never sin again"??? Have you not read 1 John 2:1-2 and 1
John 1:7-10??? To claim that in a "literal burial and resurrection" we
would never sin is simply not true.
You wrote, "Not until the real resurrection comes--will we truly be
free from sin. For now--we identify ourselves in Christ's resurrection
by faith."
Have you not read Romans 8:13-14??? God says in 1 John 3:9, "Whoever
has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he
cannot sin, because he has been born of God."
The seed, is the word of God. (See Luke 8:11).
Psalm 119:11 states, "Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I
might not sin against You!"
Galatians 6:8 states, "For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh
reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap
everlasting life." (See also Ephesians 4:17-32, Colossians 3:1-17,
Romans 6:12).
The more Christlike we become by letting His word dwell in us richly
(Col 3:16), the more we get rid of the sin in our life, the more holy
we become. (See 1 Peter 1:16-19).
Baptism is a BURIAL. Your symbolic baptism before baptism in water is
NOT a BURIAL.
I wrote, "So how does proving that I copied Greek words from another
web site PROVE that I do not know Greek???"
To which David replied, "Greek words? It was a Greek argument. Sorry,
I don't know Greek and what I most of what I read was in English."
Ok, it was a "Greek argument", you still did not show that my cutting
and pasting of someone else's words is "proof" that I do not know any
Greek words. Your sentence structure in your reply does not make any
sense.
Then you quoted me when you said, "Kevin's statement: "Do you have
access to a "Greek lexicon"??? One does NOT have to be a "Greek
Scholar" to argue from Greek NOR must they have the the "proper
credentials" in order to make this argument."
However, you did not make any response??? Once again, this is not
"proof" that I do not know any Greek words.
"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ forbecause of the remission of
sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Faith,
You wrote, "This is all very symbolic--for if water baptism was a
literal burial and resurrection--then we would literallly never sin
again--yet we do."
Please show where the word of God states that baptism
is "symbolic"??? Can one be "symbolicly" saved??? Where did you get
your notion that, "if baptism was a literal burial and resurrection--
then we would literally never sin again"??? Have you not read 1 John
2:1-2 and 1 John 1:7-10??? To claim that in a "literal burial and
resurrection" we would never sin is simply not true.
Kevin--I mean that the water ritual is symbolic. I did not say
that baptism itself is symbolic., it is just that the water ritual
symbolizes the real baptism that takes place spiritually.. You limit
baptism to some ritualistic act by man. I see baptism as being of
Jesus. It is that real baptism that John was preparing us for that is
important.
You wrote, "Not until the real resurrection comes--will we truly be
free from sin. For now--we identify ourselves in Christ's
resurrection by faith."
Have you not read Romans 8:13-14??? God says in 1 John 3:9, "Whoever
has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and
he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."
So, you think that Christians cannot sin? That doesn't seem to be
how it plays out this side of heaven, Kevin.
The seed, is the word of God. (See Luke 8:11).
Psalm 119:11 states, "Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I
might not sin against You!"
Galatians 6:8 states, "For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh
reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit
reap everlasting life." (See also Ephesians 4:17-32, Colossians 3:1-
17, Romans 6:12).
I like those verses Kevin.
The more Christlike we become by letting His word dwell in us richly
(Col 3:16), the more we get rid of the sin in our life, the more holy
we become. (See 1 Peter 1:16-19).
Yeah.., your point?
Baptism is a BURIAL. Your symbolic baptism before baptism in water is
NOT a BURIAL.
Lol!! You are a little confused Kevin. The baptism that takes
place in the heart--when we are born again., is not the baptism I
refer to. The symbolic baptism is what comes after we are born
again.., when we emmerse ourselves in the water to represent what has
taken place in Jesus Christ.
Please show me where it says in Scripture that "the water ritual is
symbolic"????
Please also show me where Scripture states, "the water ritual
symbolizes the real baptism that takes place spiritually"???
You wrote, "You limit baptism to some ritualistic act by man."
Baptism is not a "ritualistic act by man", it was ordained by God that
we should be baptized IN water FOR the remission of our sins.
You wrote, "I see baptism as being of Jesus. It is that real baptism
that John was preparing us for that is important."
The baptism of the Holy Spirit as I have told you before ONLY happened
TWICE in the New Testament, and Jesus was the ONLY one who was able to
give this baptism. There is NO SUCH THING as Holy Spirit baptism today.
You wrote, "So, you think that Christians cannot sin? That doesn't
seem to be how it plays out this side of heaven, Kevin."
Did I say that "Christians cannot sin" Faith??? Yes, Christians sin,
but as I pointed out, we are to let the word of God dwell in us so
that we will not sin. This is the ONLY way we can get rid of sin.
I wrote, "The more Christlike we become by letting His word dwell in
us richly (Col 3:16), the more we get rid of the sin in our life, the
more holy we become. (See 1 Peter 1:16-19)."
To which you replied, "Yeah.., your point?"
Once again, we are to let the word of God dwell in us so that we will
not sin.
You wrote, "Lol!! You are a little confused Kevin. The baptism that
takes place in the heart--when we are born again., is not the baptism
I refer to. The symbolic baptism is what comes after we are born
again.., when we emmerse ourselves in the water to represent what has
taken place in Jesus Christ."
Again I will ask you where it states that there is a "baptism that
takes place in the heart", and where it states there is a "symbolic
baptism" that takes place "after we are born again"???
Faith,
Please show me where it says in Scripture that "the water ritual is
symbolic"????
Please Kevin.., it is a theme revealed throughout Scripture. Not
just about baptism.., but even with circumcision.., or how about the
bread of life? Does Jesus ever say that he is speaking symbolically
in this? No. But we still get it, right? Well, at least, most do.
Please also show me where Scripture states, "the water ritual
symbolizes the real baptism that takes place spiritually"???
This is where I get a clue, Kevin: "John the baptist said, "I
baptize you with water for repentance" This to me, means that water
baptism is announcing that we repent, and we turn.., we recognize
that we are sinners.
He goes on to say, But after me will come one who is more powerful
than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry." So here we have a mere
man, who tells us he is nothing. Do you trust a baptism from man to
save you? Really?
John then tells us that the One to come, "He will baptize you with
the Holy Spirit and with fire."
So we can see that the true baptism is in Jesus Christ. What has the
Bible revealed is the way to be born again? Through John's water
baptism? I don't think so. It is by receiving Christ.
You wrote, "You limit baptism to some ritualistic act by man."
Baptism is not a "ritualistic act by man", it was ordained by God
that we should be baptized IN water FOR the remission of our sins.
No., I just disagree here Kevin. The Bible reveals that Jesus
forgives our sins by way of the cross. "This is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins>"
Matt 26:28. When we repent, confess and receive Him--we are forgiven.
It is clearly a matter of the heart. It is spiritual.
You wrote, "I see baptism as being of Jesus. It is that real baptism
that John was preparing us for that is important."
The baptism of the Holy Spirit as I have told you before ONLY
happened TWICE in the New Testament, and Jesus was the ONLY one who
was able to give this baptism. There is NO SUCH THING as Holy Spirit
baptism today.
Do you have Scripture verses that say John did not mean what he
said when he said that the One to come would come to baptise with the
Holy Spirit and fire--only twice? Just because we see two examples in
Scripture--doesn't mean that it has stopped. Jesus' sacrifice at the
cross continues to save everyday--even though it only happened
once.
You wrote, "So, you think that Christians cannot sin? That doesn't
seem to be how it plays out this side of heaven, Kevin."
Did I say that "Christians cannot sin" Faith??? Yes, Christians sin,
but as I pointed out, we are to let the word of God dwell in us so
that we will not sin. This is the ONLY way we can get rid of sin.
Don't get mad at me Kevin. But if you are going to take the water
ritual as being the thing that literally saves you...then literally
you need to take the rest of that Scripture the same way as well. And
it says you were buried to sin and can sin no more. Obviously, I
think that that verse is simply stating that we are sinless in Christ-
-and are not judged guilty anymore. But complete sinlessness won't
occur until Christ returns to establish His kingdom.
I wrote, "The more Christlike we become by letting His word dwell in
us richly (Col 3:16), the more we get rid of the sin in our life, the
more holy we become. (See 1 Peter 1:16-19)."
To which you replied, "Yeah.., your point?"
Once again, we are to let the word of God dwell in us so that we will
not sin.
I do not argue with you about this, so what is your point?
You wrote, "Lol!! You are a little confused Kevin. The baptism that
takes place in the heart--when we are born again., is not the baptism
I refer to. The symbolic baptism is what comes after we are born
again.., when we emmerse ourselves in the water to represent what has
taken place in Jesus Christ."
Again I will ask you where it states that there is a "baptism that
takes place in the heart", and where it states there is a "symbolic
baptism" that takes place "after we are born again"???
We see it played out in the Scriptures. People didn't believe and
accept Christ as their Savior after water baptism. They believed
first. then they were baptised.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), April 08, 2004.
I wrote, "Faith, Please show me where it says in Scripture that "the
water ritual is symbolic"????"
To which you replied, "Please Kevin.., it is a theme revealed
throughout Scripture. Not just about baptism.., but even with
circumcision.., or how about the bread of life? Does Jesus ever say
that he is speaking symbolically in this? No. But we still get it,
right? Well, at least, most do."
My reply: Was circumcision "symbolic"??? Circumcision and the "bread
of life" have NOTHING to do with you PROVING that baptism is
"symbolic". I asked you for the Scripture references that states that
"the water ritual is symbolic" and I am still waiting for you to post
them.
I wrote, "Please also show me where Scripture states, "the water
ritual symbolizes the real baptism that takes place spiritually"???"
To which you replied, "This is where I get a clue, Kevin: "John the
baptist said, "I baptize you with water for repentance" This to me,
means that water baptism is announcing that we repent, and we turn..,
we recognize that we are sinners. He goes on to say, But after me will
come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to
carry." So here we have a mere man, who tells us he is nothing. Do you
trust a baptism from man to save you? Really?"
No Faith, you have it wrong for water baptism does NOT announce that
"we repent", for Scripture CLEARLY indicates that baptism is FOR the
remission of sins. Just because John stated that he was not able to
carry Jesus sandals does NOT mean that his baptism was NOT for the
remission of sins for Scripture CLEARLY indicates that even the
baptism of John was FOR the remission of sins. (See Luke 3:3).
John (the Baptist) went BEFORE Jesus to PREPARE His ways for Luke 1:77
states that he was, "To give knowledge of salvation to His people, By
the remission of their sins". The "remission of their sins" was given
THROUGH one being baptized IN water that was FOR the remission of
their sins. This is why John told Jesus in Matthew 3:14, "I need to be
baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"
You continued with, "John then tells us that the One to come, "He will
baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." So we can see that
the true baptism is in Jesus Christ. What has the Bible revealed is
the way to be born again? Through John's water baptism? I don't think
so. It is by receiving Christ."
I have told you before Faith that the baptism of the Holy Spirit ONLY
happened TWICE in the New Testament, and this baptism is NOT for
today. The baptism with FIRE has NOT yet happened for this baptism
will take place when Jesus returns. Those who are in denominations
throw out Matthew 3:11, but NEVER quote Matthew 3:12 which states,
"His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out
His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn, but He will
burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." This will happen in the
future on JUDGMENT DAY for this is EXACTLY what Matthew 13:38-43
teaches. Baptism IN water is FOR the remission of sins, whether you
choose to believe it or not.
I wrote, "Baptism is not a "ritualistic act by man", it was ordained
by God that we should be baptized IN water FOR the remission of our sins."
To which you replied, "No., I just disagree here Kevin. The Bible
reveals that Jesus forgives our sins by way of the cross. "This is my
blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins>" Matt 26:28. When we repent, confess and receive
Him--we are forgiven. It is clearly a matter of the heart. It is
spiritual."
Yes Faith Jesus forgave us of our sins by shedding His blood on the
cross and I have YET to see you show through Scripture (I am still
waiting) where it states "When we repent, confess and receive Him?we
are forgiven". Nor have I seen you show through Scripture where it
states "It is spiritual"??? Scripture please!!!
I wrote, "The baptism of the Holy Spirit as I have told you before
ONLY happened TWICE in the New Testament, and Jesus was the ONLY one
who was able to give this baptism. There is NO SUCH THING as Holy
Spirit baptism today."
To which you replied, "Do you have Scripture verses that say John did
not mean what he said when he said that the One to come would come to
baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire--only twice? Just because we see
two examples in Scripture--doesn't mean that it has stopped. Jesus'
sacrifice at the cross continues to save everyday--even though it only
happened once."
I explained this for you earlier in this post. Please go back and
re-read what I wrote. (See Matthew 3:12).
I wrote, "Did I say that "Christians cannot sin" Faith??? Yes,
Christians sin, but as I pointed out, we are to let the word of God
dwell in us so that we will not sin. This is the ONLY way we can get
rid of sin."
To which you replied, "Don't get mad at me Kevin. But if you are going
to take the water ritual as being the thing that literally saves
you...then literally you need to take the rest of that Scripture the
same way as well. And it says you were buried to sin and can sin no
more. Obviously, I think that that verse is simply stating that we are
sinless in Christ- -and are not judged guilty anymore. But complete
sinlessness won't occur until Christ returns to establish His kingdom."
No, I am not mad at you Faith. Please show me where it states that
"you were buried and can sin no more" as you state above??? Does the
word of God state that one is "buried to sin and can sin no more"???
The word of God states that we "die to sin", NOT that we were "buried
to sin". We "die to sin" when we REPENT of our sins and decide that we
are going to TURN from them. When one REPENTS of their sins, they are
said to have "died to sin", then when one has DIED, they are suitable
candidates for a burial. One does NOT bury a LIVE man, but a DEAD one.
Once one has DIED to sin (in repentance), then they CONFESS the fact
that Jesus is the Son of God, then they are BURIED with Him in the
watery grave of baptism where their sins are WASHED away by the blood
of Christ. When one comes up OUT of the water, this is their
RESURRECTION, for they are RAISED to walk a NEW life which is EXACTLY
what the Bible teaches. (See Romans 6:3-23). When someone obeys the
gospel (the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ), they come up
out of the water a NEW CREATION. (See 2 Corinthians 5:17). Once one
has had their sins washed away, then they are to begin "work out"
their "salvation with fear and trembling" as Philippians 2:12 states.
Yes, we are CLEANSED by the "blood of Christ", but ONLY if we "walk in
the light". (See 1 John 1:7).
I wrote, "Again I will ask you where it states that there is a
"baptism that takes place in the heart", and where it states there is
a "symbolic baptism" that takes place "after we are born again"???"
To which you replied, "We see it played out in the Scriptures. People
didn't believe and accept Christ as their Savior after water baptism.
They believed first. then they were baptised."
Please show me Faith where someone first "believed in Christ", then
they REJOICED in their salvation BEFORE they were baptized IN water???
Yes, they first BELIEVED, then they were BAPTIZED however, Scripture
does NOT state that one is saved BEFORE they are baptized.
I will ask you again, where does it state in the Bible that there is a
"baptism that takes place in the heart", and also where Scripture
states there is a "symbolic baptism" that takes place "after we are
born again"???
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before
Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must
I do to be saved?"
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you
and your household."
Notice that they didn't include baptism?
Verse 34:
"The Jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them;
he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--
he and his whole family."
Notice again that it doesn't say he was filled with joy because they
were baptised--which is mentioned in verse 33. It is not the
significant point of these verses. Believing is....
Baptism is something we do to represent a deeper truth that takes
place when we believe.
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to
all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and
washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his,
straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he
set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his
house.
Notice that the jailor inquired as to salvation and then
Paul spoke the Gospel. It is this same gospel which was given
by Jesus Christ to his apostles, that we should become
disciples of him by being baptized into, not because of,
his name.
Verse 30 the jailor asks "what must I do?"
Verse 31 " Believe and you shall be saved."
Verse 32 Paul preaches the gospel.
Verse 33 Jailor and family are baptized.
Verse 34 he rejoices because he has come to believe in
God.
"Baptism is something we do to represent a deeper truth that
takes place when we believe. " --Faith
Did Israel march around Jericho as a representation of a city
already fallen? No! Did Noah build the ark as a representation of
the saving he had already received? No! Did Rahab assist the
spies because she had already been spared? No! And we are
not baptized because of a salvation we have already received.
"and also where Scripture states there is a "symbolic baptism" that
takes place "after we are born again"???" - kevin
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth
also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection
of Jesus Christ: (KJV)
Kevin claims,"Do you not realize that although you said that you
were not a "Greek Scholar" or an "expert" in the Greek language, but
yet when you change the meaning of the word "for" in the text to
mean "because of", you are in FACT stating that you are more
knowledgeable about the text than those who translated the Bible.
Those who translated the Bible did NOT translate the word "eis" to
mean "because of" for the very reason that is NOT what the text
implies. When you change the meaning of the word "for" to "because
of", you are indeed making the claim that you are smarter than the
translators."
I agree with the translators when they put the word "For" in the
text. I just don't agree with your interpretation of the
word "for". Why didn't the translators translate the Greek
word "eis" to mean "in order to obtain"??? The same thing you
accuse me of can also be said of you. (i.e., you claim you are
smarter than the translators)
Kevin also claims,"Ok, it was a "Greek argument", you still did not
show that my cutting and pasting of someone else's words is "proof"
that I do not know any Greek words."
Kevin, just admit you do not know Greek (by 'know', I mean enough
to get you past this argument). If you did, you wouldn't have had
to copy a Greek argument from someone else, and you would have made
one of your own.
Kevin says,"Shouldn't he have said, "!!!!BECAUSE OF!!!!"??? "
If it weren't obvious by now, I am mocking you.
Kevin also says,"Here is David's translation of Acts 2:38:
"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for because of the remission of
sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." "
And here is your translation of Acts 2:38
"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ forin
order to obtain the remission of sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Kevin claims,"I have told you before Faith that the baptism of the
Holy Spirit ONLY happened TWICE in the New Testament, and this
baptism is NOT for today"
Romans 8:6-11 For the mind set on the flesh is (15) death, but the
mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is (16) hostile toward God;
for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even
able to do so,
8 and those who are (17) in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not (18) in the flesh but in the Spirit, if
indeed the Spirit of God (19) dwells in you. But (20) if anyone does
not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
10 (21) If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of
sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of Him who (22) raised Jesus from the dead
dwells in you, (23) He who raised (24) Christ Jesus from the dead
will also give life to your mortal bodies [1] through His Spirit who
dwells in you.
Kevin claims,"There is NO PROOF that one is saved at the moment
of "faith" regardless of what you state for this is NOT what the
word of God states"
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, (67) the Holy
Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 (68) All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were
amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been (69) poured out
on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them (70) speaking with tongues and
exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 "(71) Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be
baptized who (72) have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can
he?"
48 And he (73) ordered them to be baptized (74) in the name of
Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Kevin claims (in response to Romans 4:1),"Please notice that Paul
when he was speaking of being "justified by works" was speaking of
the works of the Law of Moses"
Abraham was justified by Faith BEFORE the Law of Moses was in effect.
"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you
were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of
our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession,
to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13-14)
Kevin claims,"In Galatians 2:20, Paul says that he was "crucified
with Christ."
When was he "crucified with Christ?"
The answer to this question can be found in Romans 6:6 where we
are "UNITED TOGETHER in the LIKENESS of HIS DEATH." (Emphasis mine)."
This verse (Romans), and chapter does not mention water baptism anywhere. It
is talking about spirit baptism. If you do take it as water
baptism, How are you going to be crucified with him?
Kevin says in reply to Faith,"I guess you just skip over verses that
say that we are saved by "works" don't you Faith???"
I'm sure you are not promoting a works-based salvation plan. But we
must compare those "verses that say that we are save by 'works'" in
the context of ALL scripture.
Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior
appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done,
but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth
and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously
through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by
his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
David wrote, "Do we have to be baptized by someone from your
church to be saved? Or can anybody baptize you as long as you believe
in "FOR!!!!"???"Mark 16:15-16 states, "Go into all the world and PREACH the gospel
to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but
he who does not believe will be condemned"
I wrote, "and also where Scripture states there is a
"symbolic baptism" that takes place "after we are born again"???"
To which David replied, "1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto
even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ: (KJV)"
I have already discussed 1 Peter 3:21, which you conveniently
IGNORED, so here it is again for you:
"Antitype" in this verse means something that is foreshadowed by a
"type or figure." So baptism is NOT the "figure or the type," it is
the thing being illustrated - the "antitype."
The flood is the "type," baptism is the "antitype." They share in
common - WATER. Those not OBEDIENT (and thus WITHOUT FAITH) were
drowned. (1 Peter 3:20). God's grace effectively used the obedient
faith of Noah to bring him safely through the flood.
This is why Peter in 1 Pet. 3:20-21 could say that just as WATER SAVED
(v 20) Noah and his family (by separating them from this sinful world)
that baptism in the same way (like figure) now SAVES US by separating
or CLEANSING US from our SINS (v 21).
Now it is your turn to answer a question: Does 1 Peter 3:21 say that
baptism saves? Yes or No??"
I wrote, "Do you not realize that although you said
that you were not a "Greek Scholar" or an "expert" in the Greek
language, but yet when you change the meaning of the word "for" in the
text to mean "because of", you are in FACT stating that you are more
knowledgeable about the text than those who translated the Bible.
Those who translated the Bible did NOT translate the word "eis" to
mean "because of" for the very reason that is NOT what the text
implies. When you change the meaning of the word "for" to "because
of", you are indeed making the claim that you are smarter than the
translators."
To which David replied, "I agree with the translators when they put
the word "For" in the text. I just don't agree with your
interpretation of the word "for". Why didn't the translators translate
the Greek word "eis" to mean "in order to obtain"??? The same thing
you accuse me of can also be said of you. (i.e., you claim you are
smarter than the translators)"
No, you are in fact CHANGING the word of God to say something that
the translators did NOT intend for the text to mean. The translators
did NOT change the Greek word "eis" to mean "in order to obtain"
because this is the SAME EXACT WORD that is used in Matthew 26:28. No
David, you can CLAIM that I am using the same tactic, but you are
indeed being DISHONEST with the word of God. If you CLAIM that the
word FOR in Acts 2:38, then the same thing goes for Matthew 26:28 for
it is the same EXACT phrase. Your TWISTING of the word of God does NOT
change the fact that baptism is FOR the remission of sins.
I wrote, "Ok, it was a "Greek argument", you still
did not show that my cutting and pasting of someone else's words is
"proof" that I do not know any Greek words."
To which David replied, "Kevin, just admit you do not know Greek
(by 'know', I mean enough to get you past this argument). If you did,
you wouldn't have had to copy a Greek argument from someone else, and
you would have made one of your own."
It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE whether I used an argument from
somewhere else or gave you my own argument, that still does NOT prove
that I do not know any Greek words.
David wrote, "And here is your translation of Acts 2:38
"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for in order to obtain the
remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit."
No, I do NOT add the words "in order to obtain" David, I merely
believe that the text MEANS WHAT IT SAYS, just as the text in Matthew
26:28 states that Jesus blood was shed "FOR the remission of sins".
You are the ONLY one who is doing the ADDING to the text. I believe
what God has revealed in His word, it is obvious that you do NOT.
I wrote, "Psalm 119:11 states, "Your word I have
hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You!"
To which David replied, "I would like to know why you are quoting
an Old Testament passages? Is there a New Testament passage that
supports this?"
See 1 John 3:9-10 and Luke 8:11.
I wrote, "I have told you before Faith that the
baptism of the Holy Spirit ONLY happened TWICE in the New Testament,
and this baptism is NOT for today"
To which David replied, "Romans 8:6-11 For the mind set on the
flesh is (15) death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is (16) hostile toward God; for it
does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to
do so, 8 and those who are (17) in the flesh cannot please God. 9
However, you are not (18) in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed
the Spirit of God (19) dwells in you. But (20) if anyone does not have
the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 (21) If Christ is
in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is
alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who (22)
raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, (23) He who raised (24)
Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies
[1] through His Spirit who dwells in you."
LOL, this does NOT prove you doctrine of Holy Spirit baptism.
Please go back and read Romans 8:13 and Luke 8:11. One does NOT get
the Holy Spirit by some miraculous means separate and apart from the
word of God and if this is the case, then you ought to be able to
PROVE it David!!! How does one get faith David??? Is it by some
miraculous event that the Holy Spirit comes upon someone and allows
them to have faith???
I wrote, "There is NO PROOF that one is saved at the
moment of "faith" regardless of what you state for this is NOT what
the word of God states"
To which David replied, "44 While Peter was still speaking these
words, (67) the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to
the message. 45 (68) All the circumcised believers who came with Peter
were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been (69) poured
out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them (70) speaking
with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "(71) Surely no
one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who (72) have
received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48 And he (73)
ordered them to be baptized (74) in the name of Jesus Christ. Then
they asked him to stay on for a few days."
LOL, once again this passage does NOT PROVE that one is saved at
the moment of "faith". Just because they received the GIFT of the Holy
Spirit "speaking in tongues", does NOT PROVE that they were saved when
they received the Holy Spirit. Is God a "respecter of persons"????
David seems to think so, for he claims that one is saved BEFORE one is
baptized IN water. David is PLAINLY defeated by the very book he
perverts for if you will look at Acts chapter 8, verses 9-17 you will
CLEARLY see that there were some who were BAPTIZED and yet did NOT
receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles could come down and LAY
THEIR HANDS ON THEM.
I wrote, "Please notice that Paul when he was
speaking of being "justified by works" was speaking of the works of
the Law of Moses"
To which David replied, "Abraham was justified by Faith BEFORE the
Law of Moses was in effect."
The apostle James clears up this quibble from David in James
2:21-24 when he says, "21 Was not Abraham our father justified by
works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that
faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made
perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he
was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified
by works, and not by faith only."
David wrote, "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed,
you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee
of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession,
to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13-14)"
The Holy Spirit is NOT given to those who believe through "faith
only" please go back and re-read Acts 5:32 along with Acts 2:41. Here
is another example in Acts 19:1-6 that PROVES that one is NOT given
the Holy Spirit when they ONLY "believe".
I wrote, "In Galatians 2:20, Paul says that he was
"crucified with Christ." When was he "crucified with Christ?" The
answer to this question can be found in Romans 6:6 where we are
"UNITED TOGETHER in the LIKENESS of HIS DEATH." (Emphasis mine)."
To which David replied, "This verse (Romans), and chapter does not
mention water baptism anywhere. It is talking about spirit baptism. If
you do take it as water baptism, How are you going to be crucified
with him?"
How does "spirit baptism" wash away our sins David??? Did Jesus
shed His blood ON THE CROSS when He died??? Yes or No??? Romans 6:3
states that we are "baptized INTO Jesus death" and the very next verse
states that we are "buried with Him THROUGH BAPTISM into death". Since
we are baptized IN water, that is where we contact the "blood of
Jesus". I have explained this to you before, the gospel = Jesus Death,
Burial and Resurrection, we obey the gospel when we repent of our
sins, that is our Death, we are buried with Him IN the watery grave of
baptism which is our Burial, and we are raised to walk a new life when
we come up out of the water which is our Resurrection. I will ask you
again how can one be Buried in the Spirit and Raised in the Spirit???
David wrote, "I'm sure you are not promoting a works-based
salvation plan. But we must compare those "verses that say that we are
save by 'works'" in the context of ALL scripture. Titus 3:4 But when
the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not
because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He
saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our
Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become
heirs having the hope of eternal life."
Not works of MERIT David where we EARN our salvation, but works of
OBEDIENCE. What does Hebrews 5:8-9 say???David wrote, "Philippians 2 13 for it is (1) God who is at work in
you, both to will and to work (2) for His good pleasure"
"what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?"
(1 Peter 4:17). See the answer in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.
I wrote, "Do we have to be baptized by someone from your church to
be saved? Or can anybody baptize you as long as you believe
in "FOR!!!!"???"
Kevin replied,"Mark 16:15-16 states, "Go into all the world and
PREACH the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized
will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned"
Do we have to be baptized by someone from your building callled
the church of christ to be saved? Yes or No? Can an atheist baptize
me so long as I believe in "FOR!!!!"? I don't see how your verse
answered my questions.
Kevin claims,"LOL, this does NOT prove you doctrine of Holy Spirit
baptism. Please go back and read Romans 8:13 and Luke 8:11. One does
NOT get the Holy Spirit by some miraculous means separate and apart
from the word of God and if this is the case, then you ought to be
able to PROVE it David!!!"
Wow, I don't know what you think "Holy Spirit Baptism" is...
Would you please explain to everyone what is this "Holy Spirit
Baptism" you keep insisting I believe. Anyways, I'm talking about
receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (what I called Spirit
baptism). Romans 8:9 says,"if anyone does not have the Spirit of
Christ, he does not belong to Him".
Kevin added,"How does one get faith David??? Is it by some
miraculous event that the Holy Spirit comes upon someone and allows
them to have faith??? "
God appoints people to believe (Acts 13). God grants the act of
believing (Phil 1). Faith is a gift from God (Eph 2).
David, from previous posts we know you believe in
predestination and irresistable grace. I really wish that you would
consider John 6
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that
meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man
shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father
sealed.28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do,
that we might work the works of God?29Jesus
answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath sent.
and also 1 John 3
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because
we keep his commandments, and do those things that are
pleasing in his sight.23 And this is his commandment,
That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ,
and love one another, as he gave us
commandment.24And he that keepeth his
commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we
know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Faith is not a passive reception of God's god's gift. If God had
preelected those of us who will be saved and those who won't
be, then the command is futile.
David wrote, "Do we have to be baptized by someone from your
building callled the church of christ to be saved? Yes or No? Can an
atheist baptize me so long as I believe in "FOR!!!!"? I don't see how
your verse answered my questions."One must first be TAUGHT (whether by Preaching or Reading the word
of God with the correct understanding). I have answered this question
for you before David, NO one does NOT have to be baptized by someone
from "my building called the church of Christ to be saved" Yes, even
an "athiest" can baptized someone as long as there are witnesses to
the good confession that one MUST make. (See Acts 8:37).
David wrote, "Wow, I don't know what you think "Holy Spirit
Baptism" is... Would you please explain to everyone what is this "Holy
Spirit Baptism" you keep insisting I believe. Anyways, I'm talking
about receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (what I called Spirit
baptism). Romans 8:9 says,"if anyone does not have the Spirit of
Christ, he does not belong to Him"."
Ok David, I mistook your belief and what Faith has stated her
beliefs are to be the same. Whether you believe as Faith believes or
not really does NOT matter for there is still NO such thing as Holy
Spirit baptism. Romans 8:9 is NOT speaking of NON-Christians. The
"gift" of the Spirit ? i.e. the gift of prophecy, speaking in tongues,
the working of miracles etc. have all CEASED. We have had this
discussion before, but this thread is NOT the appropriate thread to
discuss them in detail.
I wrote, "Kevin added,"How does one get faith David??? Is it by some
miraculous event that the Holy Spirit comes upon someone and allows
them to have faith???"
To which David replied, "God appoints people to believe (Acts 13).
God grants the act of believing (Phil 1). Faith is a gift from God
(Eph 2)."
David unfortunately you are MISTAKEN once again. Faith ONLY comes
by "HEARING", and "hearing by the word of God". (Romans 10:17). One
can either ACCEPT the gospel message of salvation (See Romans 1:16),
or REJECT the gospel message of salvation at their own peril. (See 2
Thessalonians 1:7-9).
Yes, Faith is a gift from God, however, please explain how God "grants
the act of believing"???
Luke wrote, "Faith is not a passive reception of God's gift. If God
had preelected those of us who will be saved and those who won't be,
then the command is futile."Yes this is TRUE, if God destined some to be saved and others to be
lost, then God would be a "respecter of persons" and would CLEARLY
violate passages such as Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Those who believe such nonsense are basically calling God a LIAR.
Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say that faith is the gift. It says that
salvation is the gift.
"For it is by grace you have been saved--through faith--and
this (salvation) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by
works, so that no one can boast.
"For it is by grace you have been saved--through faith--and this not
of yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one
can boast."
...tells us that salvation is the gift.
If you insist that this verse means that *faith* is the gift...then
you must follow through and also conclude that this *faith* is not by
works so that no one can boast. Yet we all seem to agree that
salvation is what is meant when the verse finishes off by saying that
it is not by works.
A car does not move by gasoline; it moves when the driver steps on the
acceleration pedal.
The verse in question does not say that "works" is not needed. If one
does "works" without faith, it is all in vain and to no effect. The
same goes that if one has only faith, what good is faith without
"works"? This is much like the car that has no gasoline; we can step
on the gas pedal and get no where. We can fill the gas tank, but
never step on the gas pedal. Same thing, we get no where.
David.., I think that the verse in Ephesians is saying the salvation
is the gift.
I also think that "believing" in Phil.1:29 as your Bible says--is
refering to trusting. We have been given the priviledge of not only
trusting him (as believers)...but suffering for him also--which is
really the point of the passage in Philippians 1:29.
That does not speak to faith as being a gift. Faith is the result of
believing, and it comes from hearing the gospel.
Also--I don't really say "spirit baptism." I don't think there is
more than one baptism. I just think the water baptism is symbolic of
a deeper truth that first takes place when we repent, confess and
receive Christ. It is at that moment that we are born again. That is
the saving moment or baptism. That is when we are washed clean and
renewed. That is when we are buried with Christ. I think the water
rit8al is important because it is a testimony to what has taken place
in us spiritually. I believe we should do this because the Bible
clearly indicates that it is something we should do. But I don't
believe that this symbolic act is what saves us.
God sends His Word in many forms. Water Baptism is how He delivers
His personal Word/Symbol/Mark of forgiveness to each of us
individually.
Those who believe Baptism is just a work of man and a "mere Symbol"
will always stumble on the Holy Scriptures and try to fiddle with
them so they somehow fit with their doctrine.
There are also those who are so legalistic as to believe that there
is absolutely no salvation outside of receiving this Symbol. This is
also an error that turns men into self-righteous pricks and violates
the "faith-only" principle that is vital to the Gospel.
Baptism saves just as preaching and reading symbols in the Bible
saves. In Baptism, though, we become intimately united with the
Symbol/Word of God.
So, yeah Baptism is a Symbol, but it's no "mere Symbol." It's a
Symbol/Word from God.
"There are also those who are so legalistic as to believe that there
is absolutely no salvation outside of receiving this Symbol. This is
also an error that turns men into self-righteous pricks and violates
the "faith-only" principle that is vital to the Gospel. " - Max
Darity
Looks like an intense debate on that thread, David.
It seems there are two extremes.
Some think Baptism is absolutely necessary - absolutely no exceptions
to the rule. The claim is: "Faith in the Blood of Christ is not
sufficient. You must also be dunked under water in order to attain
eternal life."
Others are at the other extreme and see Baptism as nothing more than
an outward profession of faith on the part of the one being Baptized.
I guess I'm in the middle. I respect that the Scriptures clearly
state that forgiveness of sins is formally expressed to the sinner
who is Baptized. However, I do not accept the legalistic view that
the believer isn't considered righteous by God until they have
completed their Baptism.
Justification comes by faith alone. God reckons us righteous the
moment we believe, even before Baptism, even before we begin
renouncing our evil ways and making restitution to those we've
harmed, etc.
Repentance from dead works and evil deeds is a result of salvation
more than a prerequisite. This is a life-long process. What we
repent of for salvation is our disbelief in Jesus. Peter, no doubt,
was speaking to plenty of moral upright Jewish citizens on Pentecost,
but when he called them to repent, he was not telling them to stop
sinning against the Law. He was calling them to repent of the sin of
disbelieving in Jesus (the reason their hearts were pricked.)
Negative Command: STOP disbelieving in Jesus. (Repent)
Positive Command: START believing in Jesus. (Believe)
Just as Abraham was reckoned righteous before he was circumcised and
was considered to be a friend of God... we are reckoned as righteous
and friends of God even before we are Baptized.
Baptism is the formal expression of God's forgiveness to us as
individuals.
God RECKONS you righteous the instant you believe - like Abraham.
He DECLARES you righteous through Baptism.
(Notice Abraham didn't have to go through a sinner's prayer and
repenting of sins and all sorts of man-made hoops. Simple faith.)
There's a difference between RECKONING, DECLARING and JUDGING.
The JUDGING is yet to come. . .
Anyway, don't make Baptism a legalistic requirement in order to enter
the Kingdom, otherwise you'll end up defending baptism as your source
of righteousness more than glorying in the Cross of Christ.
...and don't turn Baptism into a mere man-made profession of faith.
otherwise you'll cheat yourself out of the assurance that comes
through the Promise given to you by God in your Baptism.
Both are errors of extreme that are contrary to Scripture.
How do you explain the repentant sinner who was crucified along with
Christ? He was not baptised in a water ritual--yet he is in paradise
with Jesus.
What did he do to be saved that was different than the other thief
who was not saved? Remember that there were two criminals along with
Jesus who were crucified? Both of them asked Jesus to save them.
(copied and pasted from the other thread where you brought this up.)
Great example!!! Jesus Himself delivered to this sinner on the cross,
individually and personally, the Word of forgiveness and Promise of
Eternal Life.
Don't you wish Jesus would openly express to you, personally and
individually, the promise of forgiveness and heaven like He did the
sinner on the cross?
ACTUALLY! Jesus already HAS expressed this personal Promise to you,
through Baptism. Baptism is Christ's personal Word of forgiveness to
you. Value it as more than "mere" and thank Him for it. ;)
>Yes--but that baptism is of the heart and enters by the Holy Spirit
that comes into you the moment you believe....<
I'm speaking of actual physical water Baptism, where God openly (not
secretly int he heart) declares you forgiven. Yes, faith "purifies"
your heart and can be spoken of as a Baptism, but I'm speaking of
Water Baptism here.
>And like I said--you wouldn't know about baptism without the
Scriptures either--so I don't think you make a point. <
Actually, I'm not sure what your point is here. ;)
Of course, we would not necessarily know for sure the Promises of God
connected with Baptism without the scriptures. But, theoretically,
it's possible that a sect could pass the Gospel down through the ages
without scripture, but not likely. For example, what if Paul planted
a Church and this church was never sent copies of the New Testament
writings? Would that make it's oral traditions any less true? No.
But, of course, this scenario never happened.
The Scriptures, created by the apostles, transmit Christ's Promises.
How much more should we consider Baptism, which was instituted by
Christ Himself, transmit His Promises?
Jesus never wrote a book, but He instituted Baptism and attached very
specific promises to it.
But did Christ institute water baptism for salvation? No..,
God sent John the baptist to pave the way-- to perform the water
baptism symbolically representing the real baptism of the Holy Spirit
to come.
It all points to Jesus...it all points to the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ.
>But did Christ institute water baptism for salvation? No..<
Water Baptism saves, according to Jesus' Apostle Peter. The promise
of forgiveness is given in Baptism.
The problem you're having is that you are in the habit of thinking
that Baptism is a work that man does more than a work that God does.
As long as you see it in this "backwards" way, you'll never see it
the way it's intended in scripture... as a life-giving Word of
forgiveness from God. The Word of God always saves those who believe.
>God sent John the baptist to pave the way-- to perform the water
baptism symbolically representing the real baptism of the Holy Spirit
to come. <
But, even those who were Baptized unto John's Baptism were re-
Baptized unto the Baptism of Jesus. I'm assuming you know this
scripture already.
>It all points to Jesus...it all points to the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ. <
Yes! The Symbol points to the Reality - the death and resurrection of
Jesus... (not some subjective experience inside man's heart.)
When you come under this Symbol you are united to that Reality behind
it.
The problem you're having is that you are in the habit of thinking
that Baptism is a work that man does more than a work that God does.
As long as you see it in this "backwards" way, you'll never see it
the way it's intended in scripture... as a life-giving Word of
forgiveness from God. The Word of God always saves those who
believe.
No., actually I see the baptism that God does as a spiritual work of
God's that we then signify with our performance in the water--a
symbolic gesture representing what has already happened in the heart
of each true believer...
Peter agrees with this....
Acts 10:43-48
"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in
him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on
all who heard the message.
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished
that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the
Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
(notice that they had not yet been baptised in physical water.., yet
they were forgiven in Jesus Christ by hearing the message and
believing.)
Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized
with water? They have (past tense) received the Holy Spirit just as
we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ.
>No., actually I see the baptism that God does as a spiritual work of
God's <
Yes, there is a "spiritual baptism" of the soul. I'm not denying
that work of God. However, we're speaking of physical water Baptism
and the work that God does there. You deny that God does anything
for our benefit in water Baptism. I disagree, based on all the
scriptures that refer to water Baptism.
>that we then signify with our performance in the water<
We don't perform anything in the water, except be still. Being still
is not performing anything.
>-a symbolic gesture representing what has already happened in the
heart of each true believer...<
The scriptures teach that Baptism represents the Reality of Christ's
work 2000 years ago: His death and Resurrection.
Scripture nowhere teaches that water Baptism is meant to represent
what occurs in our hearts.
>Peter agrees with this.... Acts 10:43-48
"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him
receives forgiveness of sins through his name." While Peter was
still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the
message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were
astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even
on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising
God. (notice that they had not yet been baptised in physical
water.., yet they were forgiven in Jesus Christ by hearing the
message and believing.) Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these
people from being baptized with water? They have (past tense)
received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So he ordered that they be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. <
I agree 100% that some receive faith before Baptism. Some receive
true faith during Baptism. Some are Baptized without actual faith
and come to a true faith later. Before, during, after. There's
still only one Baptism.
I also agree that some receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with
evidence of tongues and prophecy and praising God before water
Baptism. Not all. Some later. Some never. You can be a believer, be
baptized, and still not have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Did you notice in that scripture you quoted how that Peter
immediately thought of water Baptism and didn't want to delay this
Privilege from these new believers?
And why did Peter say, "Can anybody keep these people from being
baptized in water?" if Baptism did not hold any benefits or gifts or
privileges or was not something of true worth? Obviously Peter did
not feel Baptism was simply a "mere" symbol or just a really nice way
to publicly profess faith. It held God's outward Promise of
forgiveness, just as he preached on Pentecost.
This does not mean the believers were not considered forgiven before
Baptism. They just were not yet outwardly declared, by Christ, to be
forgiven.
There is true value in the outward declaration of forgiveness. You
can forgive someone in your soul, but telling them in person is
obviously where forgiveness occurs in time and space.
And why did Peter say, "Can anybody keep these people from being
baptized in water?" if Baptism did not hold any benefits or gifts or
privileges or was not something of true worth?
Why can't it simply mean that they could not be prevented because
they were truly saved believers and had every right to profess this
in public--just as much right as the Jews. That is *why* Peter felt
some would protest--because they weren't Jews.
Obviously Peter did not feel Baptism was simply a "mere" symbol or
just a really nice way to publicly profess faith. It held God's
outward Promise of forgiveness, just as he preached on Pentecost.
I would need further Scripture to support your opinion.....can you
provide the Scripture that declares baptism hold's God's outward
promise of forgiveness????
>I would need further Scripture to support your opinion.....can you
provide the Scripture that declares baptism hold's God's outward
promise of forgiveness???? <
"outward promise of forgiveness"
By this term I mean the Promise of God expressed physically, not just
inwardly in our hearts.
When Jesus spoke to the sinner on the cross, that's an example of a
Promise of God expressed physically.
Water Baptism is done in the Name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of sins. (You're a Bible student. You've read the verses that state
this.)
God's work is both an inward and outward work. The (inward) heart
receives Christ by faith. The (outward) body receives Christ through
Baptism.
I hope you can see this distinction and not neglect one for the
other. TO God, both the inward and the outward are important.
I think you are making this stuff up because it sounds right to you.
But I am not familiar with Scripture that declares that water baptism
is done for the forgiveness of sins.
Can you support your claim with Scripture verses? And remember that
*baptism* in the Scriptures isn't always meant as *water* baptism in
the physical sense....
Please provide the Scripture where God talks about two different
promises of forgiveness--one inward and one outward....
>But I am not familiar with Scripture that declares that water
baptism is done for the forgiveness of sins. <
That may be the problem here. You're not familiar with the Word.
>Can you support your claim with Scripture verses? And remember that
*baptism* in the Scriptures isn't always meant as *water* baptism in
the physical sense.... <
When you stumble on a statement about Baptism, remember back to our
discussion and consider that the views I'm expressing may be the
solution.
>Please provide the Scripture where God talks about two different
promises of forgiveness--one inward and one outward.... <
I think that by *be baptised* means to be born-again., to die and be
raised with Christ--through repentance, confession and the receiving
of Jesus Christ...by faith.., something that occurs the moment you
have heard the message and you believe. Then the Holy Spirit comes to
you. This is the baptism that Jesus brings....
...which we then signify with our water ceremony.
Acts 10:43-48
"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes
in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit
came on all who heard the message.
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished
that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the
Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
(notice that they had not yet been baptised in physical water.., yet
they were forgiven in Jesus Christ by hearing the message and
believing.)
Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized
with water? They have (past tense) received the Holy Spirit just as
we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ.
*********
To me--this shows the order of events--and that the real baptism that
Jesus Christ brings--is spiritual baptism of the heart...
>The problem for you is that I know the Word all to well. <
That's precisely why I do not overly quote scripture here, because
you know it so well you're likely impervious to it. But, reasoning
helps you if you wonder about seeming contradictions in the Word.
>You won't post supporting Scripture because you either know you are
speaking off the top of your head--or you don't know how to find what
you need.<
I'm very familiar with the Scriptures. I don't need to prove it. I
could list verse after verse. My words here are meant to help others
(not just you) to see that it's not contradictory to accept
that "Baptism saves and forgives sin" and that "salvation is by faith
alone." Those familiar and honest with the Word know what I'm saying
and this may help them solve these issues in their mind.
>Let me assure you that there is no support in the Bible for the
notion that water baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. <
ACTS 2:38 states specifically that water baptism (spirit baptism
isn't mentioned here) is for the forgiveness of sins. Really Ms.
Faith, it can't be any clearer than that.
How much clearer would Luke need to write that verse in order for you
to believe water baptism is for the forgiveness of sins? I can't
imagine a sentence written any clearer than this, even when you look
at the Greek.
Some try to fiddle with the Greek, but these sorts end up making the
verse non-sensical.
So tell me, since you esteem Scripture so highly, how much more
clearly would Luke have to write this verse in order for your mind to
change on the subject?
Like I said in another thread--by baptism is meant the spiritual kind
that occurs when we repent, confess and receive Jesus.., and then the
Holy Spirit. That is baptism.
You need to harmonize all Scripture verses to understand what is
meant by baptism.
Acts 2:38 does not say water baptism either....but when you
understand it in light of Scripture like these:
Luke 3:16
John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more
powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not
worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with
fire.
and.....
Acts 10:43-48
All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him
receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on
all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come
with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been
poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in
tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized
with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So
he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then
they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
...you can begin to see the picture in full.......
Isolating verses that say what you think they do--at the loss of
those verses that contradict your idea--will never lead you to God's
truth.
>Like I said in another thread--by baptism is meant the spiritual
kind that occurs when we repent, confess and receive Jesus.., and
then the Holy Spirit. That is baptism. <
No offense, but you need to honestly reconsider verses IN CONTEXT
that speak of Baptism. You'll discover that it's impossible for them
to mean "spiritual baptism" at every instance that seems inconvenient
to your personal theology.
>You need to harmonize all Scripture verses to understand what is
meant by baptism. <
I agree.
>Isolating verses that say what you think they do--at the loss of
those verses that contradict your idea--will never lead you to God's
truth. <
I agree.
Also, if your view is a relatively new view within the general Church
(as it is) you may want to honestly consider that you may be
mistaken. :)
Perhaps there is more to baptism than I am acknowledging--though I do
recognize its importance enough that I needed to experience it as an
adult--even though I was already baptised as a baby. And I also seem
to have this inborn understanding that I need to lead each of my
children towards baptism as well.
If I don't think its that important, I have to wonder why I have this
desire...
As long as we seem to agree that it isn't what saves us--I have no
problem and am willing to look at it more..I seem to be caught
inbetween you and Kevin on this.