View Full Version : Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
This from a different thread ... still would like some feedback from the 3 steppers lurking about ...
--------------------------------------------------
Some say the thief on the cross was saved under the old covenant ... what does that mean to you,?
Some insist, that the covenant has no bite until the death of the testator yet the bible tells us Jesus promises the thief salvation before He (Jesus dies).
and ....
not to get too technical ....
the thief dies after Jesus dies ...
so to say that he is judged under the law ... is inaccurate then under your parameters.
You reiterate that a covenant comes into force with the death of the testator: "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Hebrews 9:16-17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Hebrews+9%3A16-17)).
but Jesus predeceased the thief ...
"Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs." (John 19:32-33 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+19%3A32-33)).
Legs were broken to finish the job ....
Thus the thief died, unbaptized ... much less using the right formula, under the new covenant.
If it is not possible for a new covenant believer to enter heaven without baptism...what's the thief doing in Paradise? ... Which I believe is Mike from Arkansas original question.
One writer on the subject states:
Quote:
Baptism was no more and no less expected in the thief's lifetime as it would later come to be. John's baptism was the will of God: "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." (Luke 7:3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Luke+7%3A3)). Jesus' followers also baptized: "After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized." (John 3:22 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+3%3A22)).
Astonishingly, some of the same people who will tell you that Jesus is telling Nicodemus about baptism in John 3:5 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+3%3A5), present-tense, will also tell you that...(Saving) Christian baptism was not instituted until the Day of Pentecost!Keep in mind Jesus promises his salvation knowing full well He would die before the thief ... He's omniscient as God. Are you suggesting Jesus didn't know that thief would enter his reward ... during the "new convenant" era ... that requires baptism to be saved???
Surely the thief could have cursed God and not believed in the hours that he languished after Christ's death ... yet salvation is granted to a new testament believer looking forward ... to a dispensation you view as grace through obeying 3 steps to enter the New Covenant.
Surely Jesus knew what He was doing, no?
Furthermore ...No one has ever been acquitted by the law ... correct?
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:15-16 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Galatians+2%3A15-16))
So when does the New Covenant have bite or go into effect??? Is it until He dies??, resurrects ???... the Day of Pentecost???
Did the thief still die under the Old Covenant ... and thus saved by the Old Covenant? Do you have Scripture to support this claim?
An answer to these questions is warranted ...
Who said the NT went into effect when Jesus died. Him dying isn't the Gospel. The Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Who said the NT went into effect when Jesus died. Him dying isn't the Gospel. The Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Right. The Gospel being the good news ....
RevDWW
07-01-2008, 11:05 PM
Right. The Gospel being the good news ....
Romans 1:16-18 ( KJV ) 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Romans 1:16-18 ( KJV ) 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Agreed .... so I must believe in the good news of Christ for salvation... and His righteousness is revealed from faith to faith ... we are justified and live by faith ... that is why the thief was awarded eternal life ... faith in Him ... looking forward to the salvation he would provide ....
This gospel of Christ brought the power of God's salvation to the Jew first ... then the Greek.
I'd like an answer to the questions posed about the thief, Dan.
Dan, the death of Jesus isn't the new testament. Who is saying that? Is this an attempt to justify your one step beliefs? This is what it has come to? Y'all are truly sick and bent on twisting the Word of God to fit your perverted notions about salvation. Which of your supposed PCI elders preached this ridiculous doctrine?
Rico ... if you can't enter this discussion without any theology or an honest attempt to answer the questions posed perhaps you can read the thread?
This will be my last communication directed towards you on this thread if you will not discuss the subject matter.
RevDWW
07-01-2008, 11:16 PM
Agreed .... so I must believe in the good news of Christ ... and His righteousness is revealed from faith to faith ... we are justified and live by faith ... that is why the thief was awarded eternal life ... faith in Him ... looking forward to the salvation he would provide ....
This gospel of Christ brought the power of God's salvation to the Jew first ... then the Greek.
I'd like an answer to the questions posed about the thief, Dan.
Concerning the thief that Jesus said would be with Him in paradise, he would not be under the new covenant because the Holy Ghost (the seal of the new covenant) had yet to be poured out.
2 Corinthians 1:20-22 ( KJV ) 20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. 21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Ephesians 1:12-14 ( KJV ) 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Thank you Dan for your response to the subject matter.
So the New Covenant officially begins at Pentecost, Dan?
Can you elaborate?
RevDWW
07-01-2008, 11:20 PM
Thank you Dan for your response to the subject matter.
You are most welcome Dan! Hope it cleared things up for you..........:toofunny
RevDWW
07-01-2008, 11:24 PM
Thank you Dan for your response to the subject matter.
So the New Covenant officially begins at Pentecost, Dan?
Can you elaborate?
What was it about the two texts I cited that you do not understand concerning the New Covenant? :winkgrin
Rico ... if you can't enter this discussion without any theology or an honest attempt to answer the questions posed perhaps you can read the thread?
This will be my last communication directed towards you on this thread if you will not discuss the subject matter.
Good, because I have nothing left to say to you. It's one thing to differ on when someone is saved or not. I know that there's plenty of room on this forum for one steppers, two steppers, three steppers, and more steppers. However, what you are proposing here is an outright LIE, plain and simple. Any lamebrained numbskull knows the new testament did not go into effect until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Bible is very clear on that and you have crossed over into promoting false doctrine. That makes you a false prophet, as far as I'm concerned and my eyes are closed to any more of the jibberish you like to pass off as truth. Good riddance.
Good, because I have nothing left to say to you. It's one thing to differ on when someone is saved or not. I know that there's plenty of room on this forum for one steppers, two steppers, three steppers, and more steppers. However, what you are proposing here is an outright LIE, plain and simple. Any lamebrained numbskull knows the new testament did not go into effect until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Bible is very clear on that and you have crossed over into promoting false doctrine. That makes you a false prophet, as far as I'm concerned and my eyes are closed to any more of the jibberish you like to pass off as truth. Good riddance.
Interestingly enough I have not offered when the New Covenant began ... read my post carefully but rather that some say it did not go into effect until His death ..
Part of my question was when 3 steppers thought it did ... His death? Resurrection? or Pentecost?
a. DWW believes it was at Pentecost.
b. From your insistent post I must surmise that you believe it did not go into effect until his resurrection ... (any lamebrained numbskull would know that ...)
c. and St. Matt ... who may be the real target of your ire towards "false" doctrine... believes:
Until the death of Christ, the new covenant had NO LEGAL bite. If anyone was "saved" prior to His death and blood offering, then it was either through the old covenant, or Jesus simply worked outside of the scope we understand. But the latter would have been an exception, and not the rule.
I believe you owe me an apology for calling me a false prophet on this one ... but I digress ...
My post was for those baptismal regenerationists who say that the New Covenant goes into effect at His death ... which apparently does not include you ... my brother ... I was using their logic as parameters for discussion and refutation.
Can you show why you believe that the New Covenant does not go into effect until his resurrection? How does this apply to the thief on the cross? Is he saved under the New Covenant, Old, other?
Pastor Keith
07-01-2008, 11:38 PM
This from a different thread ... still would like some feedback from the 3 steppers lurking about ...
--------------------------------------------------
Some say the thief on the cross was saved under the old covenant ... what does that mean to you,?
Some insist, that the covenant has no bite until the death of the testator yet the bible tells us Jesus promises the thief salvation before He (Jesus dies).
and ....
not to get too technical ....
the thief dies after Jesus dies ...
so to say that he is judged under the law ... is inaccurate then under your parameters.
You reiterate that a covenant comes into force with the death of the testator: "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Hebrews 9:16-17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Hebrews+9%3A16-17)).
but Jesus predeceased the thief ...
"Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs." (John 19:32-33 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+19%3A32-33)).
Legs were broken to finish the job ....
Thus the thief died, unbaptized ... much less using the right formula, under the new covenant.
If it is not possible for a new covenant believer to enter heaven without baptism...what's the thief doing in Paradise? ... Which I believe is Mike from Arkansas original question.
One writer on the subject states:
Quote:
Keep in mind Jesus promises his salvation knowing full well He would die before the thief ... He's omniscient as God. Are you suggesting Jesus didn't know that thief would enter his reward ... during the "new convenant" era ... that requires baptism to be saved???
Surely the thief could have cursed God and not believed in the hours that he languished after Christ's death ... yet salvation is granted to a new testament believer looking forward ... to a dispensation you view as grace through obeying 3 steps to enter the New Covenant.
Surely Jesus knew what He was doing, no?
Furthermore ...No one has ever been acquitted by the law ... correct?
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:15-16 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Galatians+2%3A15-16))
So when does the New Covenant have bite or go into effect??? Is it until He dies??, resurrects ???... the Day of Pentecost???
Did the thief still die under the Old Covenant ... and thus saved by the Old Covenant? Do you have Scripture to support this claim?
An answer to these questions is warranted ...
Does it matter? He was saved. He put faith in Jesus, that was all that matter, it is a totally isolated case. I heard one guy say that the only valid reason not to be baptized is being nailed to the cross, then you might have a case to argue exceptions.
Does it matter? He was saved. He put faith in Jesus, that was all that matter, it is a totally isolated case. I heard one guy say that the only valid reason not to be baptized is being nailed to the cross, then you might have a case to argue exceptions.
Chalk Keith4him to IT DOESN'T MATTER ...
Dan, save it, Bud. I'm done with you.
Dan, save it, Bud. I'm done with you.
I'm sorry you will not join this discussion about why you believe the New Covenant goes into effect at His resurrection as opposed to some of your soteriological cohorts who believe it has no legal bite until His death ... quoting Hebrews as substantiation.
It would been interesting to see your take in light of the Scriptures in opposition to the Pentecost theorists... Perhaps DWW can elaborate more on proving his view that it was the day of Pentecost.
It might prove fascinating if you decide to keep your hat in the ring ...to hear 3 steppers disagree on something for a change even if they are lamebrained numbskulls for not agreeing w/ your position on this matter.
ReddMann24
07-01-2008, 11:53 PM
in my humble opinion the thief was saved under the old covenant and the new covenant didnt take place until pentecost we all know that this is when peter was give the keys to the kingdom of heaven in the book of acts thus starting this grace dispensation ....i just recently read something in matthew 27:51-53..... does this mean that all the saints under the old covenant are in heaven? there sin sacrifice only rolled there sins ahead a year it didnt erase them
RandyWayne
07-01-2008, 11:54 PM
Does it matter? He was saved. He put faith in Jesus, that was all that matter, it is a totally isolated case. I heard one guy say that the only valid reason not to be baptized is being nailed to the cross, then you might have a case to argue exceptions.
While this isn't the ONLY time a death bed confession took place, to me it screams that GRACE is ultimately what saves and not idolizing a formula above all else. Does it happen often? Of course not. In fact, throughout history, true death bed confessions are probably VERY rare. I've just always held to the belief, which is reinforced by the thief next to Jesus, that someone who is in a situation where they do not have access to a pentecostal preacher to baptize them or shake their heads hard enough so something similar to tongues comes from their mouths, is saved if they simply ask God.
ReddMann24
07-01-2008, 11:55 PM
so jesus bieng the ultimiate sacrafice for our sins he sealed the old covenant and began ours ....i will have to do some scipture searching to provide evidence if i have mispoken please forgive my igornance
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 12:16 AM
Who said the NT went into effect when Jesus died. Him dying isn't the Gospel. The Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.Right, Actually his blood was necessary, but the covenant was not till Jesus sat on the right hand of the Father
Right, Actually his blood was necessary, but the covenant was not till Jesus sat on the right hand of the Father
Time out ... Rico believes it was at his Resurrection ... and you agreed?
Was this immediately out of the tomb?... are you stating that He sat on the right hand of the Father upon his initial resurrection ... or are you speaking of His ascension, Praxeas?
I know some believe he resurrected and went to heaven for a moment to present His sacrifice ... in between his apparition to Mary and Thomas??
Some clarification ... are you asserting that the New Covenant goes into effect ... at His ascension? Glorification? Exaltation? Pre-Pentecost?
How does your view apply to the thief???
James Griffin
07-02-2008, 12:26 AM
Dan, I was going to wait until morning and post a reasonably detailed response, but this is actually does not require that. In addressing the thief on the cross and whether saved under the law (OT) or gospel (NT).
The New Covenant could not exist without the gospel, and the gospel did not exist until the resurrection of Christ.
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 12:31 AM
Time out ... Rico believes it was at his Resurrection ... and you agreed?
Was this immediately out of the tomb?... are you stating that He sat on the right hand of the Father upon his initial resurrection ... or are you speaking of His ascension, Praxeas?
I know some believe he resurrected and went to heaven for a moment to present His sacrifice ... in between his apparition to Mary and Thomas??
Some clarification ... are you asserting that the New Covenant goes into effect ... at His ascension? Glorification? Exaltation? Pre-Pentecost?
How does your view apply to the thief???
I believe part of the covenant includes Jesus sitting on the throne and ruling. There would be no covenant if Jesus died. His blood ratifies it like all others covenants but was not active until Jesus sits down on the right hand of power. This shows his eternal Priesthood which is essential as part of the covenant.
So it was ratified at his death but not put into place until he ascended and sat next to the Father. I could be wrong but part of the element of the covenant was his eternal priesthood
Dan, I was going to wait until morning and post a reasonably detailed response, but this is actually does not require that. In addressing the thief on the cross and whether saved under the law (OT) or gospel (NT).
The New Covenant could not exist without the gospel, and the gospel did not exist until the resurrection of Christ.
This is Rico's position as of right now ... not St. Matt's ... DWW's .. Redmann's ... Waiting on Praxeas ... he apparently doesn't either.
So was the thief saved under the Old Covenant ... ? Why/how do you say so ...?
I know we've discussed the "in the mind of God" versus the necessity of the acts to happen for legal purposes ....
Care to explain why both the death and resurrection must occur for the New Covenant to be in effect? Again any ties you can bring in to the thief would be helpful.
Scripture would be vital.
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 12:34 AM
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having a high priest over the house of God;
I believe part of the covenant includes Jesus sitting on the throne and ruling. There would be no covenant if Jesus died. His blood ratifies it like all others covenants but was not active until Jesus sits down on the right hand of power. This shows his eternal Priesthood which is essential as part of the covenant.
So it was ratified at his death but not put into place until he ascended and sat next to the Father. I could be wrong but part of the element of the covenant was his eternal priesthood
So this would be at his exaltation ...correct ... after his ascension? How would you term it?
Do you have scripture to substantiate the eternal Priesthood aspect of your argument?
This would differ from saying it was in effect immediately after his resurrection ... I believe ... and prior to Pentecost.
Thoughts on the thief?
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 12:37 AM
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having a high priest over the house of God;
Bump and more
Heb 7:18 On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness
Heb 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Heb 7:20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath,
Heb 7:21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'"
Heb 7:22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Heb 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,
Heb 7:24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.
Heb 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
Heb 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 12:37 AM
So this would be at his exaltation ...correct ... after his ascension? How would you term it?
Do you have scripture to substantiate the eternal Priesthood aspect of your argument?
This would differ from saying it was in effect immediately after his resurrection ... I believe ... and prior to Pentecost.
Thoughts on the thief?
The thief was saved by faith in Christ apart from the works of the Law
The thief was saved by faith in Christ apart from the works of the Law
Thus was not saved by the Old Covenant?
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 12:40 AM
Thus was not saved by the Old Covenant?
Hebrews makes it clear BY the OT or the law of Moses nobody was saved
Hebrews makes it clear BY the OT or the law of Moses nobody was saved
Very vital point.
Galatians also.
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 12:43 AM
Very vital point.
Galatians also.
Exactly. We have patriachs being justified by faith before Moses gave the law and after Moses gave the law.
Praxeas... all others ... I would like to also ask:
are there .... is there ... requirement(s) to enter this New Covenant? What is it/are they?
Do these actions save us? How does New Birth enter this discussion of the New Covenant?
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 01:10 AM
Praxeas... all others ... I would like to also ask:
are there .... is there ... requirement(s) to enter this New Covenant? What is it/are they?
Do these actions save us? How does New Birth enter this discussion of the New Covenant?
I look at water baptism like OT circumcision. It was necessary to do. It did not necessarily bring you into covenant but it was a necessary sign or seal of the covenant.
Or maybe it was part of what brings one into covenant...even the NT speaks of saved and repentance, saved and confession, saved and baptism...I don't know how and it probably does not make much sense but maybe one is saved at faith...then saved at baptism etc etc.
Abraham had faith and was justified by faith but as James says we can see how he was justified by his works as well. God already know Abraham's heart...why allow him to go all the way to the top of Mt Moriah and nearly slay his son?
Anyone not circumcised was cut off from Israel.
This opens the door into what I read Dr Segraves once argue about the removal of the body of sins of the flesh.
Forgiveness or washing might be two pronged. There is God's heavenly accounting, but then there is our own conscious. Just some thoughts
Baron1710
07-02-2008, 05:34 AM
I think this thread has progressed enough that we can safely say that all who were saved under the Old Covenant were saved by faith and that their salvation was perfected in the death of Christ. The thief on the cross regardless of the covenant was saved by faith. The reason it doesn't matter is because people are saved on both sides of the death of Christ on the basis of their faith and His work. The Scripture is clear that the path to salvation has always been the same. Faith.
It is clear in Scripture that circumcision was about obedience. Circumcision alone however accomplished nothing. It was faith that was the issue, and people of faith under the Old Covenant were circumcised. People of faith under the New Covenant are baptized. Faith is the issue. Baptism does nothing on its own, it saves no one. Abraham was saved by faith apart from circumcision, but through obedience was circumcised. Believers today are saved through faith and are baptized out of obedience. The Thief is a perfect example, he was neither baptized nor circumcised after belief. Salvation is at faith under both Covenants.
Romans 4:3-13
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
mizpeh
07-02-2008, 05:49 AM
I believe part of the covenant includes Jesus sitting on the throne and ruling. There would be no covenant if Jesus died. His blood ratifies it like all others covenants but was not active until Jesus sits down on the right hand of power. This shows his eternal Priesthood which is essential as part of the covenant.
So it was ratified at his death but not put into place until he ascended and sat next to the Father. I could be wrong but part of the element of the covenant was his eternal priesthood
I believe you're right. Not only does Peter say Jesus sat on the right hand of God but that it was from there He sent forth the Holy Spirit, a promise of God prophesied by Joel. Acts 2, Jer 31
The new covenant went into effect on the day of Pentecost in Act 2. We are now all taught of the Lord. The Holy Spirit we receive by faith which is evidenced by tongues is our teacher.
mizpeh
07-02-2008, 05:51 AM
So this would be at his exaltation ...correct ... after his ascension? How would you term it?
Do you have scripture to substantiate the eternal Priesthood aspect of your argument?
This would differ from saying it was in effect immediately after his resurrection ... I believe ... and prior to Pentecost.
Thoughts on the thief?
He's an exception to the rule during a period of flux.
TRFrance
07-02-2008, 06:05 AM
Dan, maybe I missed it,but I didn't see you give your opinion on this yet.
So if you don't mind, can you tell us... when did the New Covenant take effect, in your view?
ManOfWord
07-02-2008, 06:05 AM
OK, I'll put in a few cents worth of thought:
When I was a "solid" 3 stepper, I used to say that we can't make a doctrine out of an exception, when it came to the thief on the cross. I now see that God was doing what He always has done, "having mercy on whom He will...."
First off, most Christians believe that the Jews have the same view of salvation that they do. i.e. that salvation takes place at a "point." Perhaps when one decides to become a Jew or at brit milah (circimcision) etc. The Jews didn't and don't have that type of view.
We superimpose our views, so many times, over upon Judaism as if we know what they believe. I am not a scholar when it comes to Judaism, but I have studied it for over 15 yrs. In my study, one thing which shocked me and caused me to do further reading was the fact that the Jews don't and haven't believed that obedience to the law "saves" them or ushers them into the afterlife.
Remember, Judaism came FIRST and is the foundation that everything else is laid upon. No one in the Jewish community would have thought that the thief is finally saved because of the testator viewpoint. They would have thought that the thief was saved because of the mercy of God.
The Jews believed that one followed the law BECAUSE he/she was Jewish not to BECOME a Jew. So, following the "original intent," which is what I believe we should do, one gets baptized etc, BECAUSE they are a Christian not to BECOME one. In other words, they follow the Word not to BECOME a child of God, they do it because that is what a child of God does.
Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep my commandments."
I am not and never have been a proponent of "easy believism." If you are a child of God, you have surrendered your life to Him. If not, it doesn't matter how many times you get baptized or speak in tongues.
No relationship = you're TOAST
Relationship = salvation
Salvation = following Him
Revelationist
07-02-2008, 07:00 AM
Who said the NT went into effect when Jesus died. Him dying isn't the Gospel. The Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Rico's right, this is not a on like a light bulb type thing...
Heb 8:13
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
KJV
The Old Covenent was still in existence when Heb. was written. It wasn't gone, it was fading away.
deltaguitar
07-02-2008, 08:36 AM
There have been some really good posts on this thread so far.
I have to always keep in mind that it is only God who births us out of sin and death. Men have always been saved by faith, either in the promise that was to come or what has already been done.
The price has been paid for our salvation. It is up to us to accept what God has done for us.
We in our human nature just want to be able to have a formula or a checklist so that we can insure our salvation. I am sorry to say that following a three-step formula won't save you anymore than taking communion or going to confession. It is only by what Christ has done that we are saved and the faith in his finished work that will change our lives and allow the Holy Ghost to work in our lives.
Romans 9:6-18
6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b]
8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.
11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand:
12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d]
13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f]
16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g]
18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
I agree DG ... good discussion.
I think we need to examine what a covenant is ... before you throw the term around ...
and how are response to the gospel relates to the New Covenant.
Too many want to make their works causes for it.
TRFrance
07-02-2008, 09:22 AM
Dan, will you be answering the question I asked (in post #39) ?
Dan, will you be answering the question I asked (in post #39) ?
Maybe not now ... TR .. but I have thoughts on it.
I will remark that to most 1 steppers there is not the insatiable need to delineate dispensations since they believe OT and NT saints are saved by grace through faith yet dispensationalism is very important to many 3 steppers since they believe we can only enter the New Covenant by re-enacting the Gospel ... by 3 steps that they have linked to His Death, Burial and Resurrection through applying Acts 2:38 in their lives ... yet interestingly enough can't agree when it begins.
JTULLOCK
07-02-2008, 10:07 AM
I agree with MOW. God did and does what he always has. THat is why th theif was saved.
deltaguitar
07-02-2008, 10:11 AM
Here is a pretty good article, though 56 pages long, that outlines dispensationalism and it's influence on our thinking and reading of the Bible.
http://www.inchristalone.org/PDFiles/Everlasting.PDF
It would be interesting to hear Elder Epley's take ....
MikeinAR
07-02-2008, 02:02 PM
I think this thread has progressed enough that we can safely say that all who were saved under the Old Covenant were saved by faith and that their salvation was perfected in the death of Christ. The thief on the cross regardless of the covenant was saved by faith. The reason it doesn't matter is because people are saved on both sides of the death of Christ on the basis of their faith and His work. The Scripture is clear that the path to salvation has always been the same. Faith.
It is clear in Scripture that circumcision was about obedience. Circumcision alone however accomplished nothing. It was faith that was the issue, and people of faith under the Old Covenant were circumcised. People of faith under the New Covenant are baptized. Faith is the issue. Baptism does nothing on its own, it saves no one. Abraham was saved by faith apart from circumcision, but through obedience was circumcised. Believers today are saved through faith and are baptized out of obedience. The Thief is a perfect example, he was neither baptized nor circumcised after belief. Salvation is at faith under both Covenants.
Romans 4:3-13
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
First, this is a great thread and a lot of interesting points on all sides. I think the point made by Baron here is extremely important. The correlation between the obedience of circumcision in the OT and obedience of baptism in the NT is undeniable. Scripture bears that out plainly. The more OT I read concerning circumcision, the more I see the mirror image of the two in the OT and NT.
Just as plainly seen, is the point that faith was the central core of salvation that ties the OT and NT together. Faith's role in salvation in the OT is just as vital as it is in the NT. Without faith, I'll promise you no one went through the sacrifice rituals for the remission of sin. The correlation that Baron points out here is worth a lot of study and meditation by all of us.
If one accepts the faith to salvation in NT and OT, then the dispensationalists arguments concerning the thief, as intriguing as they are to me, lose their importance because faith was the key to his salvation regardless of the dispensation.
I think this thread has progressed enough that we can safely say that all who were saved under the Old Covenant were saved by faith and that their salvation was perfected in the death of Christ. The thief on the cross regardless of the covenant was saved by faith. The reason it doesn't matter is because people are saved on both sides of the death of Christ on the basis of their faith and His work. The Scripture is clear that the path to salvation has always been the same. Faith.
It is clear in Scripture that circumcision was about obedience. Circumcision alone however accomplished nothing. It was faith that was the issue, and people of faith under the Old Covenant were circumcised. People of faith under the New Covenant are baptized. Faith is the issue. Baptism does nothing on its own, it saves no one. Abraham was saved by faith apart from circumcision, but through obedience was circumcised. Believers today are saved through faith and are baptized out of obedience. The Thief is a perfect example, he was neither baptized nor circumcised after belief. Salvation is at faith under both Covenants.
...
In my opinion, that is a good, sound answer.
Hebrews 9:16-17 speaks of a testament being in force after the death of the testator. Hebrews 4:1-2 says that the Gospel was preached to us (NT) as well as unto them (OT).
Arguing over the sequence of the promise of Paradise to the repentant thief, the death of Jesus, then the death of the thief reminds me of a couple of deep, deep theological questions such as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and, "If God can do anything, can He create a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift?"
We need to avoid extremes. We all agree that salvation is by faith. We also agree that faith results in works. If we are not careful we can fall into an extreme position in which we over emphasize the faith aspect so strongly that we could view the Book of James as "an epistle of straw and destitute of evangelical character" as Martin Luther is alleged to have said and we could become loose and careless in our Christian walk. On the other hand, we can fall into another extreme position where unless certain works are accomplished in certain prescribed ways (and we are the ones who define which works and in which ways), the faith is not considered real or sufficient for salvation.
OK, I'll put in a few cents worth of thought:
When I was a "solid" 3 stepper, I used to say that we can't make a doctrine out of an exception, when it came to the thief on the cross. I now see that God was doing what He always has done, "having mercy on whom He will...."
First off, most Christians believe that the Jews have the same view of salvation that they do. i.e. that salvation takes place at a "point." Perhaps when one decides to become a Jew or at brit milah (circimcision) etc. The Jews didn't and don't have that type of view.
We superimpose our views, so many times, over upon Judaism as if we know what they believe. I am not a scholar when it comes to Judaism, but I have studied it for over 15 yrs. In my study, one thing which shocked me and caused me to do further reading was the fact that the Jews don't and haven't believed that obedience to the law "saves" them or ushers them into the afterlife.
Remember, Judaism came FIRST and is the foundation that everything else is laid upon. No one in the Jewish community would have thought that the thief is finally saved because of the testator viewpoint. They would have thought that the thief was saved because of the mercy of God.
The Jews believed that one followed the law BECAUSE he/she was Jewish not to BECOME a Jew. So, following the "original intent," which is what I believe we should do, one gets baptized etc, BECAUSE they are a Christian not to BECOME one. In other words, they follow the Word not to BECOME a child of God, they do it because that is what a child of God does.
Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep my commandments."
I am not and never have been a proponent of "easy believism." If you are a child of God, you have surrendered your life to Him. If not, it doesn't matter how many times you get baptized or speak in tongues.
No relationship = you're TOAST
Relationship = salvation
Salvation = following Him
Thanks, MOW, for those good words.
You said it better than I could.
MikeinAR
07-02-2008, 02:32 PM
In my opinion, that is a good, sound answer.
Hebrews 9:16-17 speaks of a testament being in force after the death of the testator. Hebrews 4:1-2 says that the Gospel was preached to us (NT) as well as unto them (OT).
Arguing over the sequence of the promise of Paradise to the repentant thief, the death of Jesus, then the death of the thief reminds me of a couple of deep, deep theological questions such as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and, "If God can do anything, can He create a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift?"
We need to avoid extremes. We all agree that salvation is by faith. We also agree that faith results in works. If we are not careful we can fall into an extreme position in which we over emphasize the faith aspect so strongly that we could view the Book of James as "an epistle of straw and destitute of evangelical character" as Martin Luther is alleged to have said and we could become loose and careless in our Christian walk. On the other hand, we can fall into another extreme position where unless certain works are accomplished in certain prescribed ways (and we are the ones who define which works and in which ways), the faith is not considered real or sufficient for salvation.
Sam, that's a great reminder to ALL of us no matter our positions. That post will preach on Sunday morning my friend!!
Sam what are your views on dispensationalism?
I'd have to agree that we have made the idea of covenant to mean salvation as getting into heaven ... when it always deal w/ relationship and union.
Sam what are your views on dispensationalism?
I pretty well agree with the 7 dispensations as taught by Scofield, Ironside, the Oneness Pentecostal Correspondence Course and others. It makes sense to me that God has dealt in different ways in different times and ages with different people. However, in my opinion, people have always been "saved" by just believing in God. That belief/faith/trust led to acting on the Word of God, but the salvation was based on the faith, not based on their actions.
Dispensationalism teaches that each dispensation ended with judgment and the law ended with judgment upon Jesus. Strong dispensationalists will say that the New Covenant/Testament or the Church Age or the Age of Grace began at Pentecost.
I have problems slicing it that thinly. I realize that when the fullness of times was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, but when Jesus was here in flesh, it was kind of a "mixed" period. I think Jesus acted and lived according to "the spirit of the law" but not according to the "traditional interpretation of the law" held by the scholars and religionists of His day. However, it is my understanding that folks were saved and even "born again" under His ministry before His death but not strictly according to the law.
The Bible says that the law and the prophets (Old Testament?) were until John and after that the Kingdom is preached. Jesus told some that "The Kingdom is among/within you." In my opinion, the kingdom was already starting (and I think the Church also) when John the Baptizer pointed his disciples to Jesus and they left John started following Jesus.
In one way, the church began in the ageless past when we were seen in God's plan (Ref Ephesians 1:3-6) before the foundation of the world.
Believing that the church began when people started following Jesus and submitted to His leadership as a teacher/master does not fit into a neat theological/dispensational package. But, based on His later words in Matthew 18:20 about being with any two or three who were gathered in His name, I think that when Jesus and His motley crew wandered through Israel, they were the church. He was with them in flesh and is now with us in Spirit.
As a side note, when Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, "I WILL build my church," the will does not necessarily mean that since will can be future tense the church had to be future tense at that time. That's how some dispensationists teach it --that by saying "I will" proves that the church wasn't here yet. "I will" could be a statement of intent, meaning I intend to build up my church. And the word translated build is also translated edify in other places so Jesus could just be saying that He intended to build up/edify/strengthen His assembly/church/group of disciples.
Sorry this got so long and that it doesn't fit into a neat package but that's how I see it.
In my opinion, the disciples were saved as they followed Jesus and therefore did not get saved (again) at Pentecost. My belief about the Holy Ghost Baptism or "Pentecostal Experience" is that it is an empowerment or equipping for service promised to a child of God.
I pretty well agree with the 7 dispensations as taught by Scofield, Ironside, the Oneness Pentecostal Correspondence Course and others. It makes sense to me that God has dealt in different ways in different times and ages with different people. However, in my opinion, people have always been "saved" by just believing in God. That belief/faith/trust led to acting on the Word of God, but the salvation was based on the faith, not based on their actions.
Dispensationalism teaches that each dispensation ended with judgment and the law ended with judgment upon Jesus. Strong dispensationalists will say that the New Covenant/Testament or the Church Age or the Age of Grace began at Pentecost.
I have problems slicing it that thinly. I realize that when the fullness of times was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, but when Jesus was here in flesh, it was kind of a "mixed" period. I think Jesus acted and lived according to "the spirit of the law" but not according to the "traditional interpretation of the law" held by the scholars and religionists of His day. However, it is my understanding that folks were saved and even "born again" under His ministry before His death but not strictly according to the law.
The Bible says that the law and the prophets (Old Testament?) were until John and after that the Kingdom is preached. Jesus told some that "The Kingdom is among/within you." In my opinion, the kingdom was already starting (and I think the Church also) when John the Baptizer pointed his disciples to Jesus and they left John started following Jesus.
In one way, the church began in the ageless past when we were seen in God's plan (Ref Ephesians 1:3-6) before the foundation of the world.
Believing that the church began when people started following Jesus and submitted to His leadership as a teacher/master does not fit into a neat theological/dispensational package. But, based on His later words in Matthew 18:20 about being with any two or three who were gathered in His name, I think that when Jesus and His motley crew wandered through Israel, they were the church. He was with them in flesh and is now with us in Spirit.
As a side note, when Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, "I WILL build my church," the will does not necessarily mean that since will can be future tense the church had to be future tense at that time. That's how some dispensationists teach it --that by saying "I will" proves that the church wasn't here yet. "I will" could be a statement of intent, meaning I intend to build up my church. And the word translated build is also translated edify in other places so Jesus could just be saying that He intended to build up/edify/strengthen His assembly/church/group of disciples.
Sorry this got so long and that it doesn't fit into a neat package but that's how I see it.
In my opinion, the disciples were saved as they followed Jesus and therefore did not get saved (again) at Pentecost. My belief about the Holy Ghost Baptism or "Pentecostal Experience" is that it is an empowerment or equipping for service promised to a child of God.
I have to leave and get to church and teach midweek Bible Study (in sandals, shorts, and a Tee shirt). I would think that any theologian would find sufficient stuff in my post to refute, so have at it.
P.S. I don't intend to argue about this. I've stated my opinion.
stmatthew
07-02-2008, 05:18 PM
Daniel,
Though I gave some rough thoughts, I do not believe I can say that I clearly dealt with this subject and gave an answer as to what I believe.
I think the 1st thing we should do if we are going to identify when the New Covenant took effect is to identify what the New Covenant is. This "New Covenant" is first mentioned by name in Jeremiah Chapter 31.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Several points to make in this is:
This "new" covenant was originally to be made with the House of Israel and Judah
It would be different than the old covenant that Moses presented
Gods Law would no longer be on the hard tables of stone, but the soft tables of mans heart
Hebrews 8 brings this same text forward and gives greater clarity as to the mediator of this "new" covenant.
Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
There are many things to consider in Hebrews 8. Again, a few points to highlite are:
Our high priest, Jesus Christ, is sitting in a place of authority (right hand) in the heavens
The high priest of necessity had to be IN the holiest of all in order for the sacrifice to be offered upon the mercy seat. Thus our high priest, who offered the sacrifice in the heavens, had to be in the holiest of all in the heavens to offer His blood sacrifice upon the mercy seat in the heavens.
the first covenant had fault, the new covenant was better, and had better promises
maybe more later...
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 06:24 PM
First, this is a great thread and a lot of interesting points on all sides. I think the point made by Baron here is extremely important. The correlation between the obedience of circumcision in the OT and obedience of baptism in the NT is undeniable. Scripture bears that out plainly. The more OT I read concerning circumcision, the more I see the mirror image of the two in the OT and NT.
Just as plainly seen, is the point that faith was the central core of salvation that ties the OT and NT together. Faith's role in salvation in the OT is just as vital as it is in the NT. Without faith, I'll promise you no one went through the sacrifice rituals for the remission of sin. The correlation that Baron points out here is worth a lot of study and meditation by all of us.
If one accepts the faith to salvation in NT and OT, then the dispensationalists arguments concerning the thief, as intriguing as they are to me, lose their importance because faith was the key to his salvation regardless of the dispensation.
Gee...someone else mentioned OT circumcision and NT baptism just before Baron, but I can't remember the name.....hmmmmmm :bliss
stmatthew
07-02-2008, 06:32 PM
Hey Prax,
I know we discussed a little bit back whether there was a remission of sins in the old testament. I believe your view was that sins were not remitted in the old testament. Can you talk to me about how this verse fits into your view. It seems to indicate that the blood of the bulls and goats could purity the flesh.
Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Praxeas
07-02-2008, 06:35 PM
Hey Prax,
I know we discussed a little bit back whether there was a remission of sins in the old testament. I believe your view was that sins were not remitted in the old testament. Can you talk to me about how this verse fits into your view. It seems to indicate that the blood of the bulls and goats could purity the flesh.
Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
It made them ritually clean, their flesh. It did not make them spiritually clean.
pelathais
07-02-2008, 06:57 PM
This from a different thread ... still would like some feedback from the 3 steppers lurking about ...
--------------------------------------------------
Some say the thief on the cross was saved under the old covenant ... what does that mean to you,?
Some insist, that the covenant has no bite until the death of the testator yet the bible tells us Jesus promises the thief salvation before He (Jesus dies).
and ....
not to get too technical ....
the thief dies after Jesus dies ...
...
heh! You said, "technical"... heh!
It is interesting to argue this from a dispensational or even anti-Dispensational point of view. But what if dispensationalism had never been invented?
My only point in arguing here is to say that anyone who was ever "saved" from anything was saved by the grace of God. Remember, even Noah was "saved" by grace (Genesis 6:8). "Oh," you say (well not "you" but "they"), Noah was "saved" by building the ark! Works!
Not so, at least I don't think so. Where does it say that Noah was "saved" by that boat? 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that it was the "longsuffering of God that waited..." and then attributes Noah's salvation not to the boat, but to the flood. The "eight souls" were "saved by water..."
Ah, ha! Water "saves" us? No, for Peter tortuously goes on to say that the obvious effects of the water are in fact meaningless. What ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).
So after all of that, I would say that the thief was "saved" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his faith in that event. The thief himself said, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom..."
The Dispy style arguments, in my view, fail here. What ultimately matters was that the thief had faith in Jesus Christ, and the fact that Jesus Himself was able to prove Himself faithful.
mizpeh
07-02-2008, 09:19 PM
heh! You said, "technical"... heh!
It is interesting to argue this from a dispensational or even anti-Dispensational point of view. But what if dispensationalism had never been invented?
My only point in arguing here is to say that anyone who was ever "saved" from anything was saved by the grace of God. Remember, even Noah was "saved" by grace (Genesis 6:8). "Oh," you say (well not "you" but "they"), Noah was "saved" by building the ark! Works!
Not so, at least I don't think so. Where does it say that Noah was "saved" by that boat? 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that it was the "longsuffering of God that waited..." and then attributes Noah's salvation not to the boat, but to the flood. The "eight souls" were "saved by water..."
Ah, ha! Water "saves" us? No, for Peter tortuously goes on to say that the obvious effects of the water are in fact meaningless. What ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).
So after all of that, I would say that the thief was "saved" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his faith in that event. The thief himself said, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom..."
The Dispy style arguments, in my view, fail here. What ultimately matters was that the thief had faith in Jesus Christ, and the fact that Jesus Himself was able to prove Himself faithful.
Does that mean Jesus' death on the cross and the blood He shed for us was without effect as well without the resurrection?
1Cor 15:13-17 .....and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins.
Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
The fact that Christ rose from the dead doesn't take away from the salvific nature of water baptism but reinforces it!
Scott Hutchinson
07-02-2008, 09:26 PM
Jesus being God manifest in human flesh could forgive sins,but if I understand correctly the resurrection and ascension of Jesus bodily had to occur before the new covenant could be instituted because the Holy Spirit had to be given for personal regeneration.I understand the Holy Spirit according to John 7:37,38,39 was not given till after the ascension.
Of course a question we must settle is when did the Christian church begin ?
Sam what are your views on dispensationalism?
I think I've given my views on dispensationalsm in an earlier post.
This is lesson 4 from the Pentecostal Bible Study Course. It is called Seven Ages. In the old Oneness Pentecostal Correspondence Course which this replaced, this lesson was called The Seven Dispensations. It is my understanding that at one time this course was required reading for those who had not gone to Bible school but were applying for ministerial papers with the UPC.
Lesson 4
Seven Ages
I. Human Innocence
This age began at the creation of man and extended until Adam and Eve yielded to the voice
of the tempter and sinned (Genesis 3:6). During this time, they were sinless, not even having the
knowledge of good and evil.
The age of innocence, like the others, ended in judgment. In this instance, God drove Adam
and Eve from the Garden of Eden. This judgment included God cursing the ground with thorns
and thistles and making people earn their bread by the sweat of their brows (Genesis 3:17-19).
Death, which was unheard of before, now entered the world and passed on to all humanity.
II. Conscience
This age extended from the fall of humanity until Noah’s flood. God gave humans a conscience,
which is an instinctive knowledge of good and evil. Without the written Word of God, people
relied primarily on conscience to govern their behavior.
During this period, human wickedness became so great that God “repented . . . that he had
made man” and ended this age with the judgment of the great flood.
III. Human Government
This age covered the time between the flood and the building of the Tower of Babel. Since it
appears that God did not govern humanity directly through prophets or priests during this time,
we can call this period the age of human government.
This age ended when God thwarted the building of the Tower of Babel, confused mankind’s
languages, and scattered the people across the face of the earth (Genesis 11:7-8).
IV. Promise
During this period, we read of God’s promises, by which God led His people. We note especially
God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (See Galatians 3:16.)
This age ended when the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites. Canaan was the land of promise,
and trouble was inevitable when they left the land God had given them to settle in Egypt. Similarly,
we Spirit-filled Christians dwell in the “land of promise,” and if we are not continually led by the
Spirit, we will be enslaved by Satan.
V. Law
The law covered the time from God giving the law to Moses until the crucifixion of Christ.
During this time, Israel was governed by the old covenant.
At the end of this period, judgment fell upon Christ, thus ending the old covenant, or the law.
Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us, taking upon Himself the penalty that belonged to
those who had transgressed the law. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every
one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). (See
Romans 5:6; Hebrews 9:28; I Peter 2:24.)
VI. Grace
We are now living in the age of grace. It extends from the Day of Pentecost, when the new
covenant church began and when the full message of grace was first preached, until the second
coming of our Lord. We are saved by grace and not by works. “For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast”
(Ephesians 2:8-9). (See Romans 11:6.)
Judgment will fall on the earth at the close of the church age, or age of grace, during the
Tribulation. “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world
to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matthew 24:21). (See Luke 21:25-28.)
VII. The Kingdom
This is the period of a thousand years called the Millennium that will follow the second coming
of the Lord in the clouds (I Thessalonians 4:16-17). (See Revelation 20:5.) During the
Millennium, Jesus will reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. “The government shall be upon
his shoulder” (Isaiah 9:6), and righteousness shall cover the earth as waters cover the sea. “And
the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one”
(Zechariah 14:9). (See II Timothy 2:12; Isaiah 65:18-25; Jeremiah 31:34.)
This age shall end with the Great White Throne judgment: “Because he hath appointed a day,
in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained” (Acts
17:31). “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). (See
Revelation 20:12.)
These diagrams show the 7 dispensations as usually taught.
stmatthew
07-02-2008, 11:22 PM
heh! You said, "technical"... heh!
It is interesting to argue this from a dispensational or even anti-Dispensational point of view. But what if dispensationalism had never been invented?
My only point in arguing here is to say that anyone who was ever "saved" from anything was saved by the grace of God. Remember, even Noah was "saved" by grace (Genesis 6:8). "Oh," you say (well not "you" but "they"), Noah was "saved" by building the ark! Works!
Not so, at least I don't think so. Where does it say that Noah was "saved" by that boat? 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that it was the "longsuffering of God that waited..." and then attributes Noah's salvation not to the boat, but to the flood. The "eight souls" were "saved by water..."
Ah, ha! Water "saves" us? No, for Peter tortuously goes on to say that the obvious effects of the water are in fact meaningless. What ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).
So after all of that, I would say that the thief was "saved" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his faith in that event. The thief himself said, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom..."
The Dispy style arguments, in my view, fail here. What ultimately matters was that the thief had faith in Jesus Christ, and the fact that Jesus Himself was able to prove Himself faithful.
Does that mean Jesus' death on the cross and the blood He shed for us was without effect as well without the resurrection?
1Cor 15:13-17 .....and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins.
Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
The fact that Christ rose from the dead doesn't take away from the salvific nature of water baptism but reinforces it!
Why did the Thief ask Jesus to remember him "WHEN HE CAME INTO HIS KINGDOM, if the kingdom of God was already there, as some have surmised?
The Kingdom of God was established at Pentecost. This "Feast of Weeks" was viewed by many Jews as the conclusion of the Passover celebration. It is also to be noted that many Jews believe that God gave Moses the Law during this "Feast". If that be the case, then as a glove in a hand the old and new show unity. God revealed His glory to Moses on Mt Sinai. God revealed His glory (Holy Ghost) in his Church upon Mt Zion. God wrote the old upon tables of stone with His finger, he wrote the new upon the hearts of his people with His spirit.
Just some thoughts
Kingdom of God established at Pentecost??? What?
Please clarify.
Matt, do you have Scripture for this?
Is this related to Peter getting the keys to unlock the Kingdom?
Why is it timelines like this are so essential to some of you?
The fact that Christ rose from the dead doesn't take away from the salvific nature of water baptism but reinforces it!
So the Resurrection actually reinforces the salvific nature of water baptism?
It's a subset ... ? His resurrection gives support/assists water baptism saving me?
Mizzy?
Tangentially, Isn't baptism ... the burial in re-enactment theology???
mizpeh
07-03-2008, 07:35 AM
Kingdom of God established at Pentecost??? What?
Please clarify.
Matt, do you have Scripture for this?
Is this related to Peter getting the keys to unlock the Kingdom?
Why is it timelines like this are so essential to some of you?
I believe Matt is talking about types and shadows in the old covenant that bear a striking resemblance to the new covenant.
God is amazing in that respect. How He sets into array figures of things to come. Does God do anything on a whim?
mizpeh
07-03-2008, 07:54 AM
So the Resurrection actually reinforces the salvific nature of water baptism?
It's a subset ... ? His resurrection gives support/assists water baptism saving me?
Mizzy?
Tangentially, Isn't baptism ... the burial in re-enactment theology???
I know folks like to put everything in one box but sometimes things can be more than one thing. Baptism is first and foremost for the remission of sins and then our participation in the gospel of Christ (specifically the burial), part of the new birth, and a Spiritual circumsicion, and baptism INTO Christ or into the body of Christ. There's probably more that can be gleaned from the OT tabernacle but I'm not very knowledgable about the tabernacle types.
Without the resurrection, if only Christ died, in 1Cor 15, Paul says we would still be in our sins. And our being baptized for the dead and judgement would be of no effect except the dead RISE. But because Christ rose from the dead, we will rise also with assurity that His work on the cross is salvific.
pelathais
07-03-2008, 11:41 AM
Does that mean Jesus' death on the cross and the blood He shed for us was without effect as well without the resurrection?
How can you possibly take that from what I said?
I said: The effects of the cross were benficial and accounted even before Calvary.
You then ask: Are you saying the cross has no benefit at all?
Either you're not paying attention or you're deliberately attributing the exact opposite to what I say.
I deeply resent what appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine my preaching of the Gospel.
I said: The cross perhaps has a greater benefit than what we've considered.
You respond by saying: "Pelathais says the cross has no benefit at all?"
No hard feelings intended here, but I just can't escape feelings of resentment over such a gloss.
1Cor 15:13-17 .....and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins.
Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
The fact that Christ rose from the dead doesn't take away from the salvific nature of water baptism but reinforces it!
I never said "the resurrection take[s] away from the salvific nature of water baptism..." I quoted the very words of Peter himself when I said "that baptism doth now save us... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." That's what the Book says (1 Peter 3:20-21).
Since the discussion involved the "salvation" sought for and apparently found by the Thief on the Cross, and the fact that this Thief was never baptized caused me to look for similarities between those who are "saved" and baptized and those who are "saved" and not baptized in the Bible. One similarity that leaps from the pages of the Bible is the hope for and faith in the resurrection of the Savior.
Add to this the fact that no one has even attempted to disprove my assertion that John's baptism was "for the remission of sins..." and that this "remission of sins" was accounted before the cross. The only response I get from that point is "Nuh-uh." No one has even attempted to address Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; and Luke 3:3.
The people who responded to John's preaching received "the remission of sins" before the cross. And those are Mark's and Luke's words, not mine. The whole purpose of John's ministry was "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins..." Those were the words that Luke attributes to the Holy Spirit speaking through the priest Zacharius, John's father.
Q: When did the people receive this "knowledge of salvation?"
A: When they heard John's preaching - before the cross.
Q:When did the people receive "remission of sins?"
A: When they came to John, confessed their sins and were baptized by John and his disciples and later by the disciples of Jesus Christ Himself (John 4:1-2) before the cross.
Q: Why is this important?
A: Because by looking at baptism both before and after the events at Calvary we can compare and contrast the different time periods and see what was "different" about after the cross.
Essentially, the "only" thing that was "different" was that Jesus had completed the promised work for our salvation. AND NOTE: I put the word "only" in the scary "QUOTE" marks to emphasize the fact that this event was a pretty big deal in my opinion. However, the "only" difference remains one of timing.
Those born and saved before the cross were no less fortunate than ourselves, except they didn't have power lawn mowers. But when it comes to salvation- they were saved by the same means and with the same hope that we today possess.
Dedicated Mind
07-03-2008, 12:09 PM
If the thief on the cross died under the old covenant, why was he promised "paradise" which is the new covenant reward? I think the new covenant doesn't take effect practically until Pentecost. No one was baptized after the death of christ until pentecost.
Baron1710
07-03-2008, 12:22 PM
If the thief on the cross died under the old covenant, why was he promised "paradise" which is the new covenant reward? I think the new covenant doesn't take effect practically until Pentecost. No one was baptized after the death of christ until pentecost.
Jesus' disciples were baptizing people before he was crucified according to John 4:2.
Dedicated Mind
07-03-2008, 12:28 PM
Jesus' disciples were baptizing people before he was crucified according to John 4:2.
Were the people baptized before the death of Christ baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or John's baptism? If the new covenant doesn't take effect until the death of Christ and practically at pentecost then, were those believers rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ like the disciples of John from Acts 19?
Baron1710
07-03-2008, 12:30 PM
Were the people baptized before the death of Christ baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or John's baptism. If the new covenant doesn't take effect until the death of Christ and practically at pentecost then, were those believers rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ like the disciples of John from Acts 19?
It makes no sense for them to be baptized with John's baptism the Scripture makes a clear distinction. You bring the supposition to the Scripture that they needed to be rebaptized.
Dedicated Mind
07-03-2008, 12:37 PM
It makes no sense for them to be baptized with John's baptism the Scripture makes a clear distinction. You bring the supposition to the Scripture that they needed to be rebaptized.
How were the disciples baptizing before the death of Christ? If it wasn't in the name of Jesus then I believe they were all rebaptized at Pentecost in the name of Jesus.
Baron1710
07-03-2008, 12:46 PM
How were the disciples baptizing before the death of Christ? If it wasn't in the name of Jesus then I believe they were all rebaptized at Pentecost in the name of Jesus.
It would make sense that it was in the name of Jesus. The practice was to be baptized in the name of the one you followed.
Dedicated Mind
07-03-2008, 12:52 PM
It would make sense that it was in the name of Jesus. The practice was to be baptized in the name of the one you followed.
You may be right, but I don't see how they would identify with the death and burial of Christ before He died and was buried. I think they were baptized unto repentance and at Pentecost in the name of Jesus. jmho
Dedicated Mind
07-03-2008, 01:27 PM
It would make sense that it was in the name of Jesus. The practice was to be baptized in the name of the one you followed.
were John's disciples baptized in the name of John? I think not. If John's disciples needed to be rebaptized then I think those baptized by the disciples of Christ were rebaptized also.
JTULLOCK
07-03-2008, 01:37 PM
were John's disciples baptized in the name of John? I think not. If John's disciples needed to be rebaptized then I think those baptized by the disciples of Christ were rebaptized also.
I don't think that John made a decalaration of 'in the name of John' or 'in the name of Jesus' when baptizing. There is no scriptural evidence of either, but it is natural to assume that they were baptized unto John baptism, which by scripture we know was repentance. I believe that John baptized the people for their conversion to the saviour. If he were to make a declaration in baptism it might have been in the name of God, the Lord or the Saviour. Remember John did not personally know Jesus, but He knew Jesus as the Saviour of the world when he saw Him. 'Behold the Lamb of God!'
I do beleive that the ones John baptized did not need to be rebaptized after the death and Pentecost. They were baptized as an acknowledgment of whom they followed. We assume they were baptized in John's name, but a person he baptized was unto the Saviour cause that is who John taught about. Once Jesus was on the scene people were then baptized into Jesus' name I surmize because He was the one they followed. The ones John baptized followed Johns teaching ABOUT the saviour they did not follow John's doctrine but the doctrine about the Saviour
LUKE2447
07-03-2008, 02:51 PM
THe new covenant could not take place until at least the resurrection of the Messiah. He had to be ALIVE again for the Bride. Christ was the OT husband that had a harlot for a wife. According to law she could not remarry her first husband again if she had received a certificate of divorce from her first husband and then married another. Thus the only way Christ could make her his bride again was for the husband(Messiah) to die thus cancel the contract. Thus he died for his bride taking upon the shame of the harlot. Thus when he was alive again he could take his bride again. So to have a new contract that which was dead had to become alive. You cannot have a new contract until that person could agree to it. Christ was not resurrected yet. So to say the thief was under the new covenant would be incorrect. As several have said the new covenant is the DEATH BURIAL "AND" RESURRECTION!
Praxeas
07-03-2008, 02:59 PM
If the thief on the cross died under the old covenant, why was he promised "paradise" which is the new covenant reward? I think the new covenant doesn't take effect practically until Pentecost. No one was baptized after the death of christ until pentecost.
That is if paradise refers to heaven and not to the place of the righteous dead
Praxeas
07-03-2008, 03:01 PM
It would make sense that it was in the name of Jesus. The practice was to be baptized in the name of the one you followed.
Exactly. When one reads note it says "Jesus made more disciples than John" also when Paul found the disciples he first asked if they had received the Spirit, when they said they did not even know about it Paul asked how they were baptized.
scotty
07-03-2008, 03:25 PM
Lets see, where do I start.....well start with some common sense scripture. First we will do away with trying to disect it to the point that some try to make it confusing by starting with this verse.
Isaiah 35:8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
God did not give his Word to confuse or alienate people. He gave it to show us the way and give us true light and understanding. Even a fool will stand before God without excuse.
I don't believe that salvation comes with a few lines of scripture that tell us to simply believe. There are many commands and teachings from Jesus and the apostles concerning how salvation works. Believing is more than just a thought or speaking.
1 John 3
18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.
19 This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence
The very grace that brings salvation can only happen through obedience. Many will say that this is mans way of saving himself, that I am trying to save myself through my own works. I tell you that my salvation is laid down in scripture for all to see.
Hebrews 5
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
John 14
23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
There are many scriptures that speak of " believe on Him and you shall be saved", but what does it mean to believe on Him ? I believe Love and thus obedience must both be a part of that belief as stated above. Lets look at obedience...
Genesis 26
4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,
5 because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."
Well, so much for sin and the Ten Commandments. Oh how many times I have heard people say, "the Bible doesn't say its a sin, it just says its a shame". Above we see Abraham was blessed not only because he kept Gods commandments but because he obeyed His requirements, decrees and laws.
Revelations 14
11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."
12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.
Here we see that obedience is a must in order to be in Gods favor, from Abraham in Genesis to the Revelation saints. The word "obedience" in all of its forms appears 432 times in the Word of God. Let's see how obedience works with salvation.
1 Peter 1
21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.
23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
What's that? Obeying the truth purifies us ?? We are "born again" by living and enduriing the Word of God ? Hmmm.
Romans 16
25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him—
27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.
What a statement, the revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed and made known , why ? So that all nations might , just believe ? No...believe and obey !!
So whats Love got to do with it ? (no not the song)http://www.faithlight.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
1 John 4
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
There are many others I could quote here, but this pretty much is all inclusive. Now, lets see how the Word of God shows us that love and obedience are essential to salvation.
Daniel 9
4 I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed:
"O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands,
5 we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws.
John 14
15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.
21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
John 15
9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love.
10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.
11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete
1 John 2
4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him:
6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
scotty
07-03-2008, 03:25 PM
So if we seek salvation, we must believe on God with love and obedience to His Word. So then what does His Word tell us to do in order to be saved ?
Acts 2
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 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.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Looks like more that just believing is required here. Water and Spirit baptism are a must.
John 3
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Mark 16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Also notice how whenever "believers" had not fulfilled all that was commanded for salvation the Apostles were quick to correct them and fulfill the will of God.
Acts 8
14 ¶ Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
These were not only believers, but believers who had been baptized. If they were saved at this point, then why the rush to pray for the Holy Ghost ? If one recieves the Spirit of God upon belief as some say then would not these believers already have it ?
Acts 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
These were believers. If belief is all it takes then why bother with baptism in Jesus Name ? And once again , believing does not mean you have recieved the Holy Ghost.
How can so many plans of salvation be wrong ? I say they are not wrong as they stand on scripture, yet I do say they are incomplete. Do we take a job at entry level and become content to stay there ? Of course not. We strive, work, study and push with all we have to move up, better ourselves and become all we can in our line of work. Why should our salvation be any different ? Why would we not do all we can to fully experience and become all that God expects us to. Is it enough to just believe ? The Bible says you must be more than just rooted in Christ.
Luke 3
8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
From here Jesus proceeded to tell them that other works relating to loving others and working for the body of Christ are expected. He says it is not enough to say "I know the Father". That only gives you root in the Truth. If you do not obey and thus grow and produce fruit, then you will be cut away.
Praxeas
07-03-2008, 03:43 PM
Scotty I have a question for you. God told Abraham to go sacrifice his son on a mountain of Moriah...he had to obey we all agree.
But was he believing God before he got to the Mt or was he believing only after he finished doing what God said?
Why can't someone be a believer before baptism with the full intent on obeying the command to be baptized and they go through with it?
Clearly if someone says they believe but do not obey they never were believing
scotty
07-03-2008, 03:46 PM
As for the theif/death bed gimmics I’m not going to be full of scripture with this one. Just going to try and invoke some common Holy Ghost sense here. I do believe you must repent, be baptized in Jesus name and be filled with the Holy Ghost by evidence of speaking in tongues in order to be saved by the grace of God. Now, about the “death bed scenarios”.
1. Has anyone ever personally experienced (in the third person of course) a person who has repented on their death bed? If no, then step away from the keyboard. If yes then,
2. Did this person go on to receive the Holy Ghost by evidence of speaking in other tongues? If no, then step away from the keyboard. If yes then,
3. Did same person go on to the grave or did their situation turn back to the living?
I may be wrong, but I would be willing to say that few made it past #2 and if so I would be interested in their answer to #3. Thing is people, we are above this and God is definitely far above this. God knows the heart. Is that person in repentance because of their situation ? Who wouldn’t be ? If so, will God honor repentance then?
Do we really think God is this shallow? I don’t think so, I think God is far from the thinking of the flesh that started this thread. We are putting Him in a box with His own Word and not stopping to think….He is God.
First off, If one truly repents from their heart, they will receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, it is promised. Now, that being said, the question is , “what about water baptism?”. Well to be honest with you , I don’t know. But I have to ask, do we really think for one minute that if baptism is required of that person in order for their salvation to be complete that God is going to fill them with the Holy Ghost and then just leave them there to die without the chance of water baptism? Since when did we start believing that death is victorious over God? Is He not able to bring one back from a death bed? Would He not do so in order that one could be saved who is now willing with a repentant heart?
We are trying to mold water. If you had read the Bible front to back having never read it before, would you have been waiting on Paul to be struck down with fire or lightening at some point? I was. God fooled me too. He proved that He does not think as I do, nor does He work as I do.
Jesus made an exception on the cross. Can He make an exception on the death bed ? Sure, He is God. Do I throw away all the scripture telling me to obey the Word of God and what it says I am to do to be saved ? Not hardly. To do so would be to say that I am one of God's exceptions. Maybe some are Godly enough to make that claim. I myself don't plan on being so foolish as to make that claim.
On the broader, more general discussion. We have seen this thread a million times. It has been rehashed and ressurected in hundreds of different styles using hundreds of different scenerios. They all end the same. So what exactly is the point here ? Why keep bringing them up?
What tv shows rate the highest ?
Why do are some people addicted to tabloids?
Why do some insist on starting threads that are divisive?
How do those same ones actually call themselves teachers?
Credibility and good willed discussion for the purpose of lifting each other up is all but lost. Keep leading Dan, I don't know where your going. But this road you always take us down is so full of discontent and strife that it always ends in the same. Think I'll take a different road, find a different teacher. We will be known by our fruits, yours just never seem to be any good.
Good day and God bless,
scotty
07-03-2008, 03:51 PM
Scotty I have a question for you. God told Abraham to go sacrifice his son on a mountain of Moriah...he had to obey we all agree.
But was he believing God before he got to the Mt or was he believing only after he finished doing what God said?
Why can't someone be a believer before baptism with the full intent on obeying the command to be baptized and they go through with it?
Clearly if someone says they believe but do not obey they never were believing
That is a question I have pondered myself. Did he go up on the mountain believing God would spare his son or did he go up out of pure obedience, ready to accept whatever God chose?
I may not be understanding what it is your asking, I do not see why someone can not believe prior to baptism. But I also do not think that believing alone will save you.
Praxeas
07-03-2008, 03:54 PM
That is a question I have pondered myself. Did he go up on the mountain believing God would spare his son or did he go up out of pure obedience, ready to accept whatever God chose?
I may not be understanding what it is your asking, I do not see why someone can not believe prior to baptism. But I also do not think that believing alone will save you.
My point is Abraham believed even before he finished doing what God commanded. The fact he was going to do what God commanded was evidence he DID believe.
So a person can be a believer even before the do "Everything" that the bible says to do, yet are doing them/in the process of doing them.
mizpeh
07-03-2008, 04:04 PM
How can you possibly take that from what I said?
I said: The effects of the cross were benficial and accounted even before Calvary.
You then ask: Are you saying the cross has no benefit at all?
Either you're not paying attention or you're deliberately attributing the exact opposite to what I say.This is exactly what you said, Pel:
My only point in arguing here is to say that anyone who was ever "saved" from anything was saved by the grace of God. Remember, even Noah was "saved" by grace (Genesis 6:8). "Oh," you say (well not "you" but "they"), Noah was "saved" by building the ark! Works!
Not so, at least I don't think so. Where does it say that Noah was "saved" by that boat? 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that it was the "longsuffering of God that waited..." and then attributes Noah's salvation not to the boat, but to the flood. The "eight souls" were "saved by water..."
Ah, ha! Water "saves" us? No, for Peter tortuously goes on to say that the obvious effects of the water are in fact meaningless. What ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).
So after all of that, I would say that the thief was "saved" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his faith in that event. The thief himself said, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom..."
The Dispy style arguments, in my view, fail here. What ultimately matters was that the thief had faith in Jesus Christ, and the fact that Jesus Himself was able to prove Himself faithful.
My response was to your post that is in quotes above.
I deeply resent what appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine my preaching of the Gospel.The effects of the cross were benficial and accounted even before Calvary.
Where did you say "I said: The cross perhaps has a greater benefit than what we've considered.? Are you confusing another post with the one I was responding to? How was I suppose to come to the conclusion from what you posted that "the cross perhaps has a greater benefit than what we've considered"?
And I resent that you think Peter is saying water baptism is "meaningless" and that what ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection"
Because of which I responded "Does that mean Jesus' death on the cross and the blood He shed for us was without effect as well without the resurrecton?"
IMO, you are saying we are saved by the resurrection alone and denying that Peter said baptism saves us because of the resurrection which is the total opposite of what Peter, in my mind, is saying. And that you were disannuling what Peter said about baptism completely and agreeing with what Paul teaches that without the resurrection, and if there be not resurrection, then Christ's death was in vain, our faith is in vain, and we are still sinners! Which is saying the cross is of none effect and no consequence if Christ was not raised from the dead. And then you are taking this argument to say that baptism is meaningless when in fact the resurrection affirms or confirms the cross and in 1Pet 3:21 the resurrection affirms water baptism...we are baptized for the dead...meaning when we die and are judged for the deeds we did in the flesh, the remission of sins we received at baptism and the continued benefit of the blood of Christ after baptism through repentance will have been what keeps us from condemnation while standing before the throne of Christ.
I also added a couple of verses that shows the necessity of the resurrection and made an additional comment that the resurrection reinforces the salvific nature of water baptism.
1Cor 15:13-17 .....and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins.
Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
The fact that Christ rose from the dead doesn't take away from the salvific nature of water baptism but reinforces it!
You respond by saying: "Pelathais says the cross has no benefit at all?"
No hard feelings intended here, but I just can't escape feelings of resentment over such a gloss. Sorry, I caused you to feel resentment over something I wasn't accusing you of saying and likewise that you misunderstood me. You may need to read some of 1 Cor 15 to see where I'm coming from and why I thought you were talking along these lines in your post esp in regards to Peter implying that the resurrection ultimately saves us, which it does.
I never said "the resurrection take[s] away from the salvific nature of water baptism..." I quoted the very words of Peter himself when I said "that baptism doth now save us... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." That's what the Book says (1 Peter 3:20-21).
You also said this: Ah, ha! Water "saves" us? No, for Peter tortuously goes on to say that the obvious effects of the water are in fact meaningless. What ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).
And I'm contending that yes, ultimately the resurrection saves us but it does not render meaningless water baptism but on the contrary it reinforces it! And I believe that is exactly what Peter is saying as well...baptism saves because Christ rose from the dead. If He wasn't resurrected the cross and the blood shed on the cross would be of none effect, we would still be in our sins and when we meet death, we would be found lacking.
Since the discussion involved the "salvation" sought for and apparently found by the Thief on the Cross, and the fact that this Thief was never baptized caused me to look for similarities between those who are "saved" and baptized and those who are "saved" and not baptized in the Bible. One similarity that leaps from the pages of the Bible is the hope for and faith in the resurrection of the Savior. I haven't read the whole thread but I believe the thief was an exception in a time of flux between the two testaments and Jesus had the power to forgive sins by His word. I wasn't addressing this part of your post. I was mostly addressing the 1 Peter 3:21 verse. I do agree with you that the thief seemed to believe that Jesus was the Christ and would live again to rule a kingdom. I would speculate the same as you that faith saved the thief but I wouldn't go to the lengths you went to to disprove the salvific nature of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 and the further implications you are trying to bring about through that.
Add to this the fact that no one has even attempted to disprove my assertion that John's baptism was "for the remission of sins..." and that this "remission of sins" was accounted before the cross. The only response I get from that point is "Nuh-uh." No one has even attempted to address Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; and Luke 3:3.Are you saying no one in this thread or no one ever has attempted to address those verses in this forum. I would disagree with you as would Matt, MFBlume, and perhaps Prax if you are sayng no one on this forum ever...
I will agree with you again that John's baptism for the remission of sins is a BAPTISM ....remission happened at the BAPTISM by faith. Remission of sins was accounted for before the cross with a clear looking forward to of Him that was to come. And once Jesus came they needed to believe on Him and be rebaptized and recieve the Holy Spirit, just like the Ephesus believers in Acts 19. To me this is intertestamental exceptions to the rule, because without the shedding of blood the new testament/covenant is not in effect.
The people who responded to John's preaching received "the remission of sins" before the cross. And those are Mark's and Luke's words, not mine. The whole purpose of John's ministry was "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins..." Those were the words that Luke attributes to the Holy Spirit speaking through the priest Zacharius, John's father.
I'm not arguing against you here, Pel. My concern was with your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21.
Q: When did the people receive this "knowledge of salvation?"
A: When they heard John's preaching - before the cross.
Q:When did the people receive "remission of sins?"
A: When they came to John, confessed their sins and were baptized by John and his disciples and later by the disciples of Jesus Christ Himself (John 4:1-2) before the cross.
Q: Why is this important?
A: Because by looking at baptism both before and after the events at Calvary we can compare and contrast the different time periods and see what was "different" about after the cross.
Thank you for simple explanation of your reasoning which I truly don't have much of a problem with considering the lengthy, exhaustive discussion we had on another thread with Matt, Blume, and Prax. As you can see I agree with much of what you say EXCEPT your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21.
What do you think of this verse? Does it fit in with the rest of your reasoning?
Luke 11:12-13 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
What does it mean "...and the law prophesied UNTIL John"
Essentially, the "only" thing that was "different" was that Jesus had completed the promised work for our salvation. AND NOTE: I put the word "only" in the scary "QUOTE" marks to emphasize the fact that this event was a pretty big deal in my opinion. However, the "only" difference remains one of timing. [/CENTER]I never meant to imply this event wasn't a BIG deal for you!
scotty
07-03-2008, 04:06 PM
My point is Abraham believed even before he finished doing what God commanded. The fact he was going to do what God commanded was evidence he DID believe.
So a person can be a believer even before the do "Everything" that the bible says to do, yet are doing them/in the process of doing them.
Ok...now , teach me something..
What exactly did Abraham "believe" ?
On the other part, like I said , I do think one can believe prior to fulfilling Gods will. Still does not make them saved until they fulfill Gods will.
If I repent and am filled with Holy Ghost and believe. I still do not think I am saved until I get to the water. For those who are going to scream "what if you die before you get there?"...well guess what, I have that same "believe" you want me to have that says God is not that simple in His ways...
Praxeas
07-03-2008, 05:07 PM
Ok...now , teach me something..
What exactly did Abraham "believe" ?
On the other part, like I said , I do think one can believe prior to fulfilling Gods will. Still does not make them saved until they fulfill Gods will.
If I repent and am filled with Holy Ghost and believe. I still do not think I am saved until I get to the water. For those who are going to scream "what if you die before you get there?"...well guess what, I have that same "believe" you want me to have that says God is not that simple in His ways...
Not "what did he believe"...Abraham had Faith. He was a believer. He truested God. He believed God though as to His promises.
What exactly is "saved" then? Was Abraham unsaved until he finally tied up his son and prepared to swing the axe?
I look at saved like I look at Faith. Faith is not something you once did. In the bible the word believing or believeth means a continuing relation.
bishoph
07-03-2008, 05:54 PM
Last night Dan asked me (by PM) what my thoughts were on this subject matter, so here was my response.
I personally believe that just as Abraham believed God (faith) and it was counted (imputed) to him for/as righteousness, (Romans 4) likewise, the thief believed in the Lordship of Christ and it was counted/imputed to him as righteousness.Yet if Christ had not died both would have perished, (eternally lost) as the writer of Hebrews reminds us by saying; “these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:” (Heb. 11:39) Had the imputed righteousness (as a result of Abrahams belief/faith) been adequate for salvation, then the belief/faith of the thief would have been sufficient as well. Belief/faith, however, demands a response/action.
So, Where I differ from others (possibly you???) is that I do not believe that his imputed righteousness alone "saved" him.
Paradise was/is (Also called Abraham's Bosom) not what we consider heaven or the eternal abode of those who are "saved." According to the Jews it was merely a temporary place where the souls of just/righteous men were held until the resurrection.
With that said, Jesus did not tell him that he (the thief) would be with him (Jesus) in heaven today. To make paradise heaven, would create a theological train-wreck, as we know that Jesus had not yet been to "heaven" three days later when he spoke with Mary after the resurrection. Rather Jesus acknowledged his faith, and imputed it to him as righteousness, otherwise he would not have qualified to go to paradise. This placed him where the shed blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world could flow backward, abolishing the sins that had been rolled head in anticipation of this promised redemption.
stmatthew
07-03-2008, 09:11 PM
Ok...now , teach me something..
What exactly did Abraham "believe" ?
On the other part, like I said , I do think one can believe prior to fulfilling Gods will. Still does not make them saved until they fulfill Gods will.
If I repent and am filled with Holy Ghost and believe. I still do not think I am saved until I get to the water. For those who are going to scream "what if you die before you get there?"...well guess what, I have that same "believe" you want me to have that says God is not that simple in His ways...
Let me draw this thought that I believe Prax is bring to its natural conclusion. He can correct me if it is not his conclusion.
IF while Abraham was on his way to sacrifice Issac he was run over by a stampede of Camels, God would have counted his faith as full credit for the job done.
My problem with this conclusion is that James gives the balance that unless there are corresponding works to faith, the faith is dead (invalid). Faith and works are inseparable. You cannot have faith without works, and it be valid. Likewise your works without faith will be invalid. Remember, faith is a verb. It denotes action. If there is no action, it becomes a noun, and is not alive. To me, it is much like the Word and the Spirit.
Were the people baptized before the death of Christ baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or John's baptism? If the new covenant doesn't take effect until the death of Christ and practically at pentecost then, were those believers rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ like the disciples of John from Acts 19?
John baptized lots of people and he also baptized Jesus. John pointed some disciples to Jesus in John 1:35-51 and they in turn brought others. Is there any place in the New Testament that tells us that Jesus and His disciples who were originally baptized by John were later baptized again?
P.S. I'm not speaking about the group of a dozen or so in Ephesus that Paul baptized approximately 23 years after the cross (Acts 19:1-7). I'm speaking of before the cross.
stmatthew
07-03-2008, 09:14 PM
Not "what did he believe"...Abraham had Faith. He was a believer. He truested God. He believed God though as to His promises.
What exactly is "saved" then? Was Abraham unsaved until he finally tied up his son and prepared to swing the axe?
I look at saved like I look at Faith. Faith is not something you once did. In the bible the word believing or believeth means a continuing relation.
I thought you said that no one in the old testament was saved?
How were the disciples baptizing before the death of Christ? If it wasn't in the name of Jesus then I believe they were all rebaptized at Pentecost in the name of Jesus.
Do you actually believe that the apostles and others that made up the 120 who received the Holy Ghost baptism on the Day of Pentecost were rebaptized in water on that day? Were they among the 3000 mentioned in Acts 2:41 who received Peter's word (Peter received his own word?) and were baptized? Wasn't their previous baptism under the ministry of John or Jesus sufficient?
mizpeh
07-03-2008, 09:31 PM
Let me draw this thought that I believe Prax is bring to its natural conclusion. He can correct me if it is not his conclusion.
IF while Abraham was on his way to sacrifice Issac he was run over by a stampede of Camels, God would have counted his faith as full credit for the job done.
My problem with this conclusion is that James gives the balance that unless there are corresponding works to faith, the faith is dead (invalid). Faith and works are inseparable. You cannot have faith without works, and it be valid. Likewise your works without faith will be invalid. Remember, faith is a verb. It denotes action. If there is no action, it becomes a noun, and is not alive. To me, it is much like the Word and the Spirit.
Matt, why do you say that faith is a verb? According to esword and the Greek Stephans text, faith in James 2: 17 and 18 are nouns as it the word, faith, in Hebrews 11: 1.
Believe is a verb but faith is a noun.
stmatthew
07-03-2008, 09:40 PM
Kingdom of God established at Pentecost??? What?
Please clarify.
Matt, do you have Scripture for this?
Is this related to Peter getting the keys to unlock the Kingdom?
Why is it timelines like this are so essential to some of you?
Dan,
I believe that Pentecost was the beginning of the New Covenant, and the New testament Church. I am sure that is no surprise to you. MOST scholars, whether Oneness or Trinity, agree that the beginning of the New Testament Church was at Pentecost. This is where the earnest of the inheritance (eternal life) is given. It is where God begins to write into mens hearts his Law. Isn't it strange that until Pentecost, there is not talk of the disciples being lead of the Spirit. Jesus said it was needful that he went away. They had to have the comforter within. Those of you that want to give folks the spirit prior to the ascension have a problem, because Jesus HAD to go away before the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, could come.
Pentecost is where God came and took up His abode (tabernacled, or took up residence) in men. We became the "temple" of God. The power and might of Pentecost can only be measured in that what God did was multiply Christ many times over from what he was as he walked upon this earth. NOW ARE WE THE SONS OF GOD!!!
stmatthew
07-03-2008, 09:47 PM
Matt, why do you say that faith is a verb? According to esword and the Greek Stephans text, faith in James 2: 17 and 18 are nouns as it the word, faith, in Hebrews 11: 1.
Believe is a verb but faith is a noun.
You are right! I should have looked it up before spouting off.
FAITH - pistis (pē'-stēs)
Part of Speech - feminine noun
1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
a) relating to God
1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
b) relating to Christ
1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
c) the religious beliefs of Christians
d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
a) the character of one who can be relied on
Mrs. LPW
07-03-2008, 10:01 PM
With that said, Jesus did not tell him that he (the thief) would be with him (Jesus) in heaven today. To make paradise heaven, would create a theological train-wreck, as we know that Jesus had not yet been to "heaven" three days later when he spoke with Mary after the resurrection. Rather Jesus acknowledged his faith, and imputed it to him as righteousness, otherwise he would not have qualified to go to paradise. This placed him where the shed blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world could flow backward, abolishing the sins that had been rolled head in anticipation of this promised redemption.
Thanks.
bishoph
07-04-2008, 02:15 AM
Thanks.
Your Welcome! (I think):D
scotty
07-04-2008, 09:07 AM
Let me draw this thought that I believe Prax is bring to its natural conclusion. He can correct me if it is not his conclusion.
IF while Abraham was on his way to sacrifice Issac he was run over by a stampede of Camels, God would have counted his faith as full credit for the job done.
.
Here is where I lose intrest. In this one sentence we put God in a box. Would God allow Abraham at this point to be stampeded by camels ? NO...so the point is ?
We are splitting hairs as if God can only work within the guidlines that we create...
staysharp
07-04-2008, 09:31 AM
Well, who is to say that Paradise was heaven? Many believe Paradise was Abraham's bosom waiting for the resurrection, others believe Paradise to be the holding ground before final judgment ie. the concept of Purgatory.
Was the thief really eternally saved? Maybe he was saved like saving money at the grocery store...less than what it should have been...maybe he went with Jesus to paradise to await his final judgment for his sin? Maybe he was sentenced to a brief stint in "hell" then allowed to meet Peter at the pearly's ultimately reconciled?
Theoretically speaking any of the above could've happened...like most doctrinal errancy formulated by the ignorance of mans assumptive leaps of suppositionial theology.
How's that for input. lol
TRFrance
07-04-2008, 09:59 AM
Were the people baptized before the death of Christ baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or John's baptism?
It would make sense that it was in the name of Jesus. The practice was to be baptized in the name of the one you followed.
This is purely speculative.
Besides...
1... There's nothing in scripture that says a man would be "baptized in the name of the one he followed"
2... If that was indeed the case, those baptized by John would have been baptized in the name of John, an idea not found anywhere in scripture. Scripture says those baptized by him were baptized unto repentance. If they were baptized in the name of John, why wouldnt the scripture just say so?
3... Baptism into the name of Jesus was not shown as having taken place at any time before the day of Pentecost. So we really can't go around claiming, or implying, that it took place before then just because we think "it makes sense" to us.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.