Justification By Faith (alone?)

[Jason B]

This thread is not meant to be continteous.

I am studying the overlooked subject of justification by faith amongst pentecostals. I do believe in justification by faith, as most do. However, I notice that the "evangelicals" are always pounding the drum for Justification by faith ALONE. Of which, I find no scripture for.

For example, if the pharisees belived John's preaching in the wilderness were they justified? Scripture seems to answer emphatically NO-see Luke 7:28-30.
True faith brings action (James 2).

It does seem to me that we are justifed by faith, but that it is based on our initial response to the gospel (not just a mental belief). I.E. faith, followed by repentance and repentance that is made perfect/whole through water baptism.

Also, according to Romans 6 & Colossians 2:11-13, water baptism seems to be the point that the blood is applied to our lives, and that we are made part of the church.

Now, please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying justification is a process of years. I think it is a short process. But I don't think it is 100% complete the moment someone believes. But I am not saying that someone has to be doing everything right in thier life to be justified. Please don't confuse justification and sanctification.

I am not being dogmatic, I am open to lively discussion. As for my beliefs on salvation, I am in the 3-stepper camp.

[mizpeh]

I understand "by faith" to be a means of getting from one place to another, so to speak. I believe there is a difference between justification BY faith and AT faith.

How do you define justification?

[Jason B]

I would define justification as the point at which one is considered to be declared righteous in God's eyes. Basically I believe that justification would happen at salvation. For how can one be justified, but not "saved", or else how can one be "saved" but not justified.

[Sam]

Bro. Bernie Gillespie spends lots of time discussing justification and faith at his site. You might want to go there and read some of his writings. He would be classified as a one-stepper. His site address is
http://www.inchristalone.org/

When we discuss/argue justification here on this site we some times go to extremes either way, from salvation by works to easy believism and often the discussions generate more heat than they do light.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I would define justification as the point at which one is considered to be declared righteous in God's eyes. Basically I believe that justification would happen at salvation. For how can one be justified, but not "saved", or else how can one be "saved" but not justified.

I believe salvation happens at justification.

I believe we are justified by faith.

I believe that justification is happens when we trust in Christ for our salvation, believing on Him as the scriptures have said.

I believe water baptism in the Name of Jesus is a matter of obedience, not a prerequisite for salvation.

I believe the infilling of the Holy Spirit is THE Promise from God for all who believe. Receiving this Promise hinges on your salvation, but your salvation does not hinge on receiving this Promise.

Repentance is active.
Baptism is active.

These are things you do in response to the Gospel Message.

Receiving the Holy Spirit is passive.

This is a gift, "that rest" that God gives to His children, those who believe on Him.

No where in the scriptures does anyone's salvation hinge on receiving the Promise. But there is verse after verse that show salvation hinging on believing.

By faith Abraham believed and his believing was credited as righteousness-- way before he ever received God's Promise.

I believe it is not different for us.

[PMBrown]

I second that, Bernie Gillespie's site is a good start.
www.inchristalone.org

[martha]

I believe salvation is based on Jesus Christ's commandment of the great commission and the commandment Peter gave on the day of pentecost when the people asked: "Men and brethern,what must we do to be saved". I believe that is as plain as it can get: "Then peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. Why do we look for another way when Peter answered the question directly what we must do to be saved? No one in the bible found any other way. The acts of the apostles is filled with it. This was the first church and our example. Of all that Apostle Paul preached, the account of Apostle Paul's own conversion was that he repented, got baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and received the holy ghost FIRST. Why do we look for another? Yes, faith, but repent, be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and receive the gift of the holy ghost, then continue in faith, not faith alone without repentence and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. That's not what the Apostle said. How do we "make" another way in the dispenstion of grace? All of Apostle Paul's ministry is about faith because without faith it is impossible to please him; without faith, all is lost because without faith, unbelief abounds. Therefore, faith is essential but baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ, and receiving the gift of the holy ghost is also essential. How do we propose to bypass baptism, in water, when it was commanded. Do we think Apostle Peter's answer to the people on the day of pentecost was just empty words without significance? Why do we think they were written "for our learning" if we are to disregard them and "devise" some other way that is not written? We are not authorized to rewrite the scriptures! Surely, of all that Apostle Paul preached about faith saving us, we would look at how Paul, himself, was saved and see he did nothing different than what Peter said on the day of pentecost. Everything in the new testament is by faith. We receive Jesus Christ's birth, death, burial, an resurrection, by faith and, by faith, we receive forgiveness of our sins (by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ) by our death, burial and resurrection in the water of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of our sins, just like Peter said, otherwise we are in unbelief. If we do not believe that what Jesus Christ and Peter said is true and go about to "devise" other ways (and we know whatever Peter said as the apostle of Jesus Christ was altogether the same as Jesus Christ, himself, speaking), and what all the apostles practiced (baptism), then we are in unbelief and therefore not in faith. Then, the entire argument of faith alone collapses because we are not in faith but in unbelief because we have not believed the word.

[Truthseeker]

I would define justification as the point at which one is considered to be declared righteous in God's eyes. Basically I believe that justification would happen at salvation. For how can one be justified, but not "saved", or else how can one be "saved" but not justified.




Passage Romans 4:5:

5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


Justifieth the ungodly not the saved????

[Truthseeker]

I believe water baptism in the Name of Jesus is a matter of obedience, not a prerequisite for salvation.





Can one have faith but disobey God?

[deltaguitar]

I believe salvation is based on Jesus Christ's commandment of the great commission and the commandment Peter gave on the day of pentecost when the people asked: "Men and brethern,what must we do to be saved". I believe that is as plain as it can get: "Then peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. Why do we look for another way when Peter answered the question directly what we must do to be saved? No one in the bible found any other way. The acts of the apostles is filled with it. This was the first church and our example. Of all that Apostle Paul preached, the account of Apostle Paul's own conversion was that he repented, got baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and received the holy ghost FIRST. Why do we look for another? Yes, faith, but repent, be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and receive the gift of the holy ghost, then continue in faith, not faith alone without repentence and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. That's not what the Apostle said. How do we "make" another way in the dispenstion of grace? All of Apostle Paul's ministry is about faith because without faith it is impossible to please him; without faith, all is lost because without faith, unbelief abounds. Therefore, faith is essential but baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ, and receiving the gift of the holy ghost is also essential. How do we propose to bypass baptism, in water, when it was commanded. Do we think Apostle Peter's answer to the people on the day of pentecost was just empty words without significance? Why do we think they were written "for our learning" if we are to disregard them and "devise" some other way that is not written? We are not authorized to rewrite the scriptures! Surely, of all that Apostle Paul preached about faith saving us, we would look at how Paul, himself, was saved and see he did nothing different than what Peter said on the day of pentecost. Everything in the new testament is by faith. We receive Jesus Christ's birth, death, burial, an resurrection, by faith and, by faith, we receive forgiveness of our sins (by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ) by our death, burial and resurrection in the water of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of our sins, just like Peter said, otherwise we are in unbelief. If we do not believe that what Jesus Christ and Peter said is true and go about to "devise" other ways (and we know whatever Peter said as the apostle of Jesus Christ was altogether the same as Jesus Christ, himself, speaking), and what all the apostles practiced (baptism), then we are in unbelief and therefore not in faith. Then, the entire argument of faith alone collapses because we are not in faith but in unbelief because we have not believed the word.

Martha, you might want to check Acts 2 again. It does not say, "what must we do to be saved."

Now, if you want to find a scripture where someone asks, "what must I do to be saved?" then read Acts 16:29-34 below.

29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.

[Pastor Keith]

This thread is not meant to be continteous.

I am studying the overlooked subject of justification by faith amongst pentecostals. I do believe in justification by faith, as most do. However, I notice that the "evangelicals" are always pounding the drum for Justification by faith ALONE. Of which, I find no scripture for.

For example, if the pharisees belived John's preaching in the wilderness were they justified? Scripture seems to answer emphatically NO-see Luke 7:28-30.
True faith brings action (James 2).

It does seem to me that we are justifed by faith, but that it is based on our initial response to the gospel (not just a mental belief). I.E. faith, followed by repentance and repentance that is made perfect/whole through water baptism.

Also, according to Romans 6 & Colossians 2:11-13, water baptism seems to be the point that the blood is applied to our lives, and that we are made part of the church.

Now, please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying justification is a process of years. I think it is a short process. But I don't think it is 100% complete the moment someone believes. But I am not saying that someone has to be doing everything right in thier life to be justified. Please don't confuse justification and sanctification.

I am not being dogmatic, I am open to lively discussion. As for my beliefs on salvation, I am in the 3-stepper camp.


Salvation has various aspects:

Justification
Union with Christ
Regeneration
Sanctification
Glorification

Just because someone has been declared right with God thorugh Justification does not mean the work of salvation is completed. Just because someone has been regenerated and had an experience with God does not mean the work of faith is complete.

I am saved, being saved and will be saved, if I keep believing and appropriating the Gospel to my life.

[martha]

Martha, you might want to check Acts 2 again. It does not say, "what must we do to be saved."

Acts 2:37: Now when they heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethern, what 'SHALL' we do?
Act 2:38: 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 you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"

The above "verbatim" scripture is listed in the KJV of the bible. My paraphrase of :Men and brethern what "must we do to be saved" says nothing different, especially in light of the FACT that THAT'S WHAT THEY ALL DID. It remains that THAT'S WHAT WE "MUST"' DO TODAY, if we want to be saved.

[martha]

29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.

Paul, Philip, Peter ALL record baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, alongside faith and belief as the PLAN OF SALVATION. It does not rest on baptism alone nor does it rest on faith alone but on both. When Paul preaches about faith, we have to have the understanding that Paul KNOWS that baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ is fundamental to their salvation because we know THAT'S WHAT HE HAD TO DO HIMSELF. The things that were written before times were written for our learning. We learned that Paul was baptized, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ and received the gift of the h oly ghost. How do we belileve that Paul preached salvation to others any different than his own salvation. We err in interpreting the scriptures when we do not place the message and the command Peter gave on the day of pentecost as the foundation of our faith. Again, this was the first church that Christ established in his own blood, the church that he said "the gates of hell would not prevail against". BUT PEOPLE WON'T ACCEPT IT. The gospel has been perverted since the days of the apostles and continues to this day. Antichrists existed then and they exist now, turning the plan of salvation into a fable and sending people to hell with "only believe". If they only believed, as the scripture has said, it would be alright. But they don't. Satan also believes but you won't get him in the water in the name of Jesus Christ unless he's going to throw you another curve ball that disrupts your salvation, like allowing you to have other marriage companions while your first husband/wife still lives. He's always perverted the way with lies and if we believe them, we are none of His (Christ's)

[deltaguitar]

29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.

Paul, Philip, Peter ALL record baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, alongside faith and belief as the PLAN OF SALVATION. It does not rest on baptism alone nor does it rest on faith alone but on both. When Paul preaches about faith, we have to have the understanding that Paul KNOWS that baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ is fundamental to their salvation because we know THAT'S WHAT HE HAD TO DO HIMSELF. The things that were written before times were written for our learning. We learned that Paul was baptized, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ and received the gift of the h oly ghost. How do we belileve that Paul preached salvation to others any different than his own salvation. We err in interpreting the scriptures when we do not place the message and the command Peter gave on the day of pentecost as the foundation of our faith. Again, this was the first church that Christ established in his own blood, the church that he said "the gates of hell would not prevail against". BUT PEOPLE WON'T ACCEPT IT. The gospel has been perverted since the days of the apostles and continues to this day. Antichrists existed then and they exist now, turning the plan of salvation into a fable and sending people to hell with "only believe". If they only believed, as the scripture has said, it would be alright. But they don't. Satan also believes but you won't get him in the water in the name of Jesus Christ unless he's going to throw you another curve ball that disrupts your salvation, like allowing you to have other marriage companions while your first husband/wife still lives. He's always perverted the way with lies and if we believe them, we are none of His.

The foundation of our salvation is not Acts 2:38. You can believe what you want but I find no scripture that tells me anywhere that Acts 2:38 is the foundation of our salvation.

I also find no scripture that says I have to speak in tongues to be saved.

Just look up the scriptures dealing with salvation and see what you find.

[martha]

Salvation has various aspects:

Justification
Union with Christ
Regeneration
Sanctification
Glorification

Just because someone has been declared right with God thorugh Justification does not mean the work of salvation is completed. Just because someone has been regenerated and had an experience with God does not mean the work of faith is complete.

I am saved, being saved and will be saved, if I keep believing and appropriating the Gospel to my life.

He that believes, AND IS BAPTIZED, (in water, in the name of Jesus Christ), shall be saved Mark 16:16.

[martha]

The foundation of our salvation is not Acts 2:38. You can believe what you want but I find no scripture that tells me anywhere that Acts 2:38 is the foundation of our salvation.

I also find no scripture that says I have to speak in tongues to be saved.

Just look up the scriptures dealing with salvation and see what you find.

Was the church established on the day of pentecost the first new testament church? Did Peter not preached the crucified Christ, repentence, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost? How then is that not the foundation for our belief and salvation.

[deltaguitar]

He that believes, AND IS BAPTIZED, (in water, in the name of Jesus Christ), shall be saved Mark 16:16.

But what does the rest of Mark 16:16 say? In no way does this scripture point that we have to believe AND be baptized for salvation. You also have to realize that the most early manuscripts do not have verses 9-20 included. These scriptures were added later as is noted by the NIV scholars.

[martha]

The foundation of our salvation is not Acts 2:38. You can believe what you want but I find no scripture that tells me anywhere that Acts 2:38 is the foundation of our salvation.

I also find no scripture that says I have to speak in tongues to be saved.

Just look up the scriptures dealing with salvation and see what you find.


Just look up the account of those who received the Holy Ghost and see if they did not ALL speak with tongues. You must receive the gift of the Holy Ghost because that's what the scripture said in Acts 2:38. Just ask anyone who ever received the Holy Ghost, for real.

[deltaguitar]

Was the church established on the day of pentecost the first new testament church? Did Peter not preached the crucified Christ, repentence, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost? How then is that not the foundation for our belief?

Well, the foundation of salvation is Jesus Christ and him crucified. Acts 2:38 is a part of a historical narrative and can't be relied upon by itself to construct doctrine. We must strive to take our doctrine from didactic text. It would be like trying to read a newspaper in order to learn something technical.

Read Acts 3:12-26 and Peter doesn't mentions baptism at all in his salvation sermon. Don't you think it would be important for him to do so I it was required?

[martha]

But what does the rest of Mark 16:16 say? In no way does this scripture point that we have to believe AND be baptized for salvation. You also have to realize that the most early manuscripts do not have verses 9-20 included. These scriptures were added later as is noted by the NIV scholars.

Yes, I've heard that one before. But bear in mind that if you want to start discounting scripture as not being original, you could probably whittle the whole bible away and be left with what people would like to have in the first place and that would be "nothing." I trust God enough to "believe" that His word, like his grace, is sufficient if we do what IT commands. Go ahead and throw out Mark 16:16 and what do you have left? Among other scriptures, you have Peter, on the day of pentecost, telling the people what they must do to be saved and that was repent, and be baptized, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the gift of the holy ghost. So nothing changes if you were to throw out Mark 16:16 as being something you are not responsible for.

[deltaguitar]

Yes, I've heard that one before. But bear in mind that if you want to start discounting scripture as not being original, you could probably whittle the whole bible away and be left with what people would like to have in the first place and that would be "nothing." I trust God enough to "believe" that His word, like his grace, is sufficient if we do what IT commands. Go ahead and throw out Mark 16:16 and what do you have left? Among other scriptures, you have Peter, on the day of pentecost, telling the people what they must do to be saved and that was repent, and be baptized, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the gift of the holy ghost. So nothing changes if you were to throw out Mark 16:16 as being something you are not responsible for.

I don't have to throw out Mark 16:16 but the guys who translated the NIV put a notation in there for a reason. They wanted the reader to have the truth.

There are many scriptures dealing with the gospel and they don't all deal with baptism. Now to get back on topic, if we are justified by faith then we are justified at the moment we place our faith in Christ. Baptism in Jesus name will follow as well as the gifts of the spirit.

[Shawn]

I couldn't understand not relying on Acts 2:38 and really the whole book of Acts.

It's like a 'cause and effect'

You have the great commision and then you have the Apostles carrying it out in Acts. That's our model. I don't see what Billy Graham does.....I don't see what Benny Hinn does and I don't see what the others do.....I see Acts 2:38.

[deltaguitar]

I couldn't understand not relying on Acts 2:38 and really the whole book of Acts.

It's like a 'cause and effect'

You have the great commision and then you have the Apostles carrying it out in Acts. That's our model. I don't see what Billy Graham does.....I don't see what Benny Hinn does and I don't see what the others do.....I see Acts 2:38.

Before I start reading the bible I have to have standards of interpreting the bible. Below is the way R. C. Sproul explains some principals of understanding the Bible;

http://www.nhpca.net/documents/practical_rules_of_biblical_interpretation.pdf

Rule 3: Historical narratives are to be interpreted by the didactic
a. Didactic literature is literature that teaches or explains. (For instance, Paul,
writing in the epistles, is didactic.)
b. The Gospels are a record of what Jesus did; the emphasis is on events. The
Epistles interpret the significance of what Jesus did. They are more
concerned with interpreting the significance of those events in terms of
doctrine, exhortation, and application to the believer's life.
c. A helpful hint: The Epistles should interpret the Gospels rather than the
Gospels interpreting the Epistles.

[martha]

Well, the foundation of salvation is Jesus Christ and him crucified. Acts 2:38 is a part of a historical narrative and can't be relied upon by itself to construct doctrine. We must strive to take our doctrine from didactic text. It would be like trying to read a newspaper in order to learn something technical.

Read Acts 3:12-26 and Peter doesn't mentions baptism at all in his salvation sermon. Don't you think it would be important for him to do so I it was required?

Didn't Peter preach the crucified Christ on the day of pentecost? Of course he did. Wasn't it after he'd preached the crucified Christ that the question was asked of him "What shall we do?" Faith comes by hearing.

Do you think he changed his mind from what he spoke on the day of pentecost in Acts 3:12-26, or anywhere else? No, he didn't, for in this same passage that you name is the message that :A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethern, like unto me; HIM SHALL YOU HEAR "IN ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER HE SHALL SAY UNTO YOU". "Whatsoever" did Jesus command his disciples to do on the Mount of Olives before his ascension? "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." And "Whatsoever" did Jesus Christ say by way of the Holy Ghost through Peter, on the day of pentecost? "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Again, speaking of any particular scripture as not being "reliable" is a very dangerous position to take because it's speaking against the Holy Ghost and we know that just as it is impossible for God to lie, the Holy Ghost cannot bear witness against its ownself. If we believe the scriptures to be the divine, inspired word of God, we can't go about doing our own carnal editing of it as if we're divinely inspired to do so. We aren't. The only thing we're divinely inspired to do is to obey it.

[deltaguitar]

Didn't Peter preach the crucified Christ on the day of pentecost? Of course he did. Wasn't it after he'd preached the crucified Christ that the question was asked of him "What shall we do?" Faith comes by hearing.

Do you think he changed his mind from what he spoke on the day of pentecost in Acts 3:12-26, or anywhere else? No, he didn't, for in this same passage that you name is the message that :A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethern, like unto me; HIM SHALL YOU HEAR "IN ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER HE SHALL SAY UNTO YOU". "Whatsoever" did Jesus command his disciples to do on the Mount of Olives before his ascension? "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." And "Whatsoever" did Jesus Christ say by way of the Holy Ghost through Peter, on the day of pentecost? "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Again, speaking of any particular scripture as not being "reliable" is a very dangerous position to take because it's speaking against the Holy Ghost and we know that just as it is impossible for God to lie, the Holy Ghost cannot bear witness against its ownself. If we believe the scriptures to be the divine, inspired word of God, we can't go about doing our own carnal editing of it as if we're divinely inspired to do so. We aren't.

Ok, if you want to consistently take a couple of scriptures and make those scriptures your foundation for all other doctrine then you will always interpret the Bible from those scriptures and will not come up with any other conclusion. There are rules for interpreting the bible that were put in place by men way smarter than any here.

We must interpret the bible with a proper understanding of the gospel with Christ as the foundation. If we don't do this then we will always be looking at things from OUR perspective and not necessarily the correct perspective.

As far as editing scripture I am just telling you what the authors of the NIV said, that earlier more reliable manuscripts do not have verses 9-20.

[martha]

I don't have to throw out Mark 16:16 but the guys who translated the NIV put a notation in there for a reason. They wanted the reader to have the truth.

There are many scriptures dealing with the gospel and they don't all deal with baptism. Now to get back on topic, if we are justified by faith then we are justified at the moment we place our faith in Christ. Baptism in Jesus name will follow as well as the gifts of the spirit.


When we get into the faith alone false doctrine, inevitably the true doctrine of Paul and Peter are put at odds because of Acts 2:38 which people want to make null and void in order to advance the false doctrine of faith alone; therefore, baptism is always at the very heart of the discussion. They have to get rid of Acts 2:38 some way and they find the most erroneous ways to do it. You can NEVER throw out any scripture thinking you can replace it with another and when you do, you don't have the understanding that the Holy Ghost gives.

To get back on topic, we are justified at the moment we place our faith in Christ and OBEY. The Holy Ghost may follow, or it may precede baptism, as we saw with the house of Cornelius but as we saw with the house of Cornelius, the Holy Ghost did not do away with the essentialness of baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, both past and future. If we want forgiveness of sins, we MUST avail ourselves to the blood of Jesus Christ they way HE SAID we must do it.

[martha]

Ok, if you want to consistently take a couple of scriptures and make those scriptures your foundation for all other doctrine then you will always interpret the Bible from those scriptures and will not come up with any other conclusion.


Martha: Didn't the scripture say: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses. . . . ." although there's others. These are just the ones that come to mind immediately. How else could you make conclusions about the scripture unless you started at the foundation? That's the problem with the faith alone false doctrine. They didn't start at the foundation. If the book of Acts were not in the bible, your argument "might" stand up to scrutiny, but since we have account of the first church, the foundation, (those things that were written aforetime were written for our learning) your argument is rendered null and void. Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar.


There are rules for interpreting the bible that were put in place by men way smarter than any here.

Martha: What does it matter how "smart" a man is when the scripture states: "The wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." The wisdom of God is not necessarily given to "smart" men as the world defines "smart". On the contrary, the assumption that one is "smart" is a stumbling block to the wisdom of God. And we know what God said about the wisdom of men.

We must interpret the bible with a proper understanding of the gospel with Christ as the foundation.

Martha: Christ has always been the foundation. We know that in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. And the word was made flesh and dwelt among men.


If we don't do this then we will always be looking at things from OUR perspective and not necessarily the correct perspective.

Martha: Our perspective must be based on the word, all the word, and nothing but the word, so help us God. The wisdom of "smart" men is not the wisdom of God.

As far as editing scripture I am just telling you what the authors of the NIV said, that earlier more reliable manuscripts do not have verses 9-20.

Martha: That really makes no difference.

[Neck]

There is no justification without faith.

Their is no sactification without Grace.

There is no salvation without Faith and Grace.

[deltaguitar]

Martha: That really makes no difference.

So thats it. Jesus came to die for our sins so that WE could get baptized for forgiveness and speak in tongues and be saved. IMO, it just doesn't line up with the word of God. Why do we have to have access to the blood through baptism? Why do we take one scripture, Acts 2:38, and create our own doctrine from it?

Here are just a few scriptures that mention salvation. I can't read these and somehow get the idea that baptism and speaking in tongues is required for salvation.

Acts 15:11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus
Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 2:21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 16:31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt
be saved.

Romans 10:10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 5:24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Acts 3:19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Galatians 2:16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

[Pastor Keith]

He that believes, AND IS BAPTIZED, (in water, in the name of Jesus Christ), shall be saved Mark 16:16.

Believes/Believeth is the key word, means continuing process.

I didn't say that baptism wasn't necessary or important.

If one believes then he will get baptized, but somebody who is baptized who doesn't keep believing will be lost. Faith save us, obedient faith to the Gospel.

We have two commands and one gift to be received in scripture regarding salvation, repent and be baptized. The gift to be received is the Holy Spirit.

[martha]

So thats it. Jesus came to die for our sins so that WE could get baptized for forgiveness and speak in tongues and be saved. IMO, it just doesn't line up with the word of God. Why do we have to have access to the blood through baptism? Why do we take one scripture, Acts 2:38, and create our own doctrine from it?

Martha: Jesus came to die for our sins so that through his name we could have forgiveness of sins by the blood of sacrifice he shed on Calvary. Of course it's all by faith, as is everything else in the new testament. Without faith it is impossible to please him. We use Acts 2:38 because they are the words of the Holy Ghost, given to the people, on the day of pentecost WHEN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH FIRST WAS ESTABLISHED BY GOD ALMIGHTY and it is WHAT ALL THE APOSTLES DID IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.

Here are just a few scriptures that mention salvation. I can't read these and somehow get the idea that baptism and speaking in tongues is required for salvation.

Acts 15:11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus
Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 2:21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.



Acts 16:31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt
be saved.

Romans 10:10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 5:24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Acts 3:19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Galatians 2:16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Martha: EVERY ONE OF THESE SCRIPTURES are premised on the foundation established on the day of pentecost. Peter didn't just preach Acts 2:38, he also preached the crucified Christ. We don't "create our own doctrine" from Acts 2:38. It was created by GOD ALMIGHTY. We can't establish another doctrine based on any other doctrine than what was written for the first church. That's where it began and it did not change, no matter who was preaching it. It was/is fundamental. You just can't get around that. It's like a child who goes to school and learns his A, B, C's. Then he learns to print them in big letters. Then he learns to write in cursive and spell. If at that point he sits down to write something, he doesn't go back to the large printed A, B, C,'s because that's FUNDAMENTAL to what he has ALREADY LEARNED. He writes in cursive, never giving the A, B, C,'s a thought. He has built on the foundation of having already learned his fundamental A, B, C's.

[martha]

Believes/Believeth is the key word, means continuing process.

I didn't say that baptism wasn't necessary or important.

If one believes then he will get baptized, but somebody who is baptized who doesn't keep believing will be lost. Faith save us, obedient faith to the Gospel.

We have two commands and one gift to be received in scripture regarding salvation, repent and be baptized. The gift to be received is the Holy Spirit.

It's not that one believes and then he will get baptized, it's that one believes and is commanded (not an option) to get baptized. You're exactly right that one who believes and is baptized, if he stops believing, will be lost. And one who believes and does not get baptized will be lost because his sins have not been placed under the blood of Jesus Christ.

[martha]

There is no justification without faith.

Their is no sactification without Grace.

There is no salvation without Faith and Grace.


And there is no remission of sin without applying the cleansing, saving blood of Jesus Christ to our hearts through water baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ. Recall in the old testament how the Hebrews "APPLIED" the blood of a first year lamb over the door posts and on both sides of the door so the angel of death would pass over their house. IF THEY HAD NOT APPLIED THE BLOOD over the door post and on both sides of the door, the death angel would not have passed over their house and their first born would have also been killed, the same as the Egyptians. But because they APPLIED THE BLOOD, they were spared and they were delivered out of the bondage of Egypt. We know that the first year lamb without spot or blemish in the old testament was a foreshadow of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, in the new testament and the blood of the lamb was the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary. We know, by faith, that it is the blood of Jesus Christ that saves us and without the shedding of blood there would be no remission of sins. But we too, have to APPLY THE BLOOD of the lamb of God (Jesus Christ) to the door of our houses (our hearts) in order to avail ourselves of its power of remission of sins and deliverance from the bondage of sin for if our sins are unremitted, we remain in bodage to sin and if we are in bondage of unremitted sin, we are not saved. The Hebrews were commanded to APPLY THE BLOOD over the door posts and on both sides of the door post; a physical act wherein the blood was visibly seen. In the new testament church we are commanded, to APPLY, BY FAITH, THE BLOOD that we can't see FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN AND DELIVERANCE FROM THE BONDAGE OF SIN BY BEING BAPTIZED, IN WATER, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST AND RECEIVING THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.

[Truthseeker]

There is no justification without faith.

Their is no sactification without Grace.

There is no salvation without Faith and Grace.


Don't forget obedience, but I guess faith is obedience, right?

[Truthseeker]

And there is no remission of sin without applying the cleansing, saving blood of Jesus Christ to ourselves through water baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ. Were it not for grace, Jesus would not have died for us and we would not believe. Were it not for faith and grace, we couldn't believe.



Can one Get the Holy Ghost before remission of sins?

[Neck]

And there is no remission of sin without applying the cleansing, saving blood of Jesus Christ to ourselves through water baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ. Were it not for grace, Jesus would not have died for us and we would not believe. Were it not for faith and grace, we couldn't believe.

Mercy and Grace are met at truth.

The place these meet are at the Cross.

Baptism in JN name is essential....

[martha]

Can one Get the Holy Ghost before remission of sins?

We know that the house of Cornelius got the Holy Ghost before being baptized for the remission of their sins, so Yes, people can get the Holy Ghost first. This happens because of faith. But. . . . we also know that the next thing out of Peter's mouth was: "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts 10:47

[martha]

Baptism in JN name is essential....

Martha: Amen! And Hallelujah!

[Sam]

We know that the house of Cornelius got the Holy Ghost before being baptized for the remission of their sins, so Yes, people can get the Holy Ghost first. This happens because of faith. But. . . . we also know that the next thing out of Peter's mouth was: "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts 10:47

A couple of questions:
1- Do you believe Cornelius and the others received the REAL Holy Ghost since the experience happened without their being baptized in water?
2- Do you believe others have received the REAL Holy Ghost since the experience happened without their being baptized in water?

[martha]

Don't forget obedience, but I guess faith is obedience, right?

No, I don't think so. Faith comes by hearing and obedience comes by acting on that faith. James 1:22 states: "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves."

[martha]

A couple of questions:
1- Do you believe Cornelius and the others received the REAL Holy Ghost since the experience happened without their being baptized in water?
2- Do you believe others have received the REAL Holy Ghost since the experience happened without their being baptized in water?

1. Absolutely! The scripture tells us they did. But it immediately tells us that they got baptized in water. It is because of faith and belief in Jesus Christ and his promise that you receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

2. I understand this question to say: Do you believe others who have not been baptized in water have also received the REAL Holy Ghost? If it happened with the house of Cornelius, I'm sure it's possible for it to happen with others as well. But anyone and everyone must be baptized, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ whether or not they have yet received the Holy Ghost. Of course we know that the Holy Ghost is evidenced by speaking in tongues. That's how Peter knew the house of Cornelius had received it.

[bkstokes]

1. Absolutely! The scripture tells us they did. But it immediately tells us that they got baptized in water. It is because of faith and belief in Jesus Christ and his promise that you receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

2. I understand this question to say: Do you believe others who have not been baptized in water have also received the REAL Holy Ghost? If it happened with the house of Cornelius, I'm sure it's possible for it to happen with others as well. But anyone and everyone must be baptized, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ whether or not they have yet received the Holy Ghost. Of course we know that the Holy Ghost is evidenced by speaking in tongues. That's how Peter knew the house of Cornelius had received it.


Nevertheless, Martha -- What Sam is getting at is the fact that some say a person is purified until they are baptized. Thus, how could God, pure and holy, abide in an unclean vessel -- unless the vessel was already purified?

[deltaguitar]

And there is no remission of sin without applying the cleansing, saving blood of Jesus Christ to our hearts through water baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ. Recall in the old testament how the Hebrews "APPLIED" the blood of a first year lamb over the door posts and on both sides of the door so the angel of death would pass over their house. IF THEY HAD NOT APPLIED THE BLOOD over the door post and on both sides of the door, the death angel would not have passed over their house and their first born would have also been killed, the same as the Egyptians. But because they APPLIED THE BLOOD, they were spared and they were delivered out of the bondage of Egypt. We know that the first year lamb without spot or blemish in the old testament was a foreshadow of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, in the new testament and the blood of the lamb was the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary. We know, by faith, that it is the blood of Jesus Christ that saves us and without the shedding of blood there would be no remission of sins. But we too, have to APPLY THE BLOOD of the lamb of God (Jesus Christ) to the door of our houses (our hearts) in order to avail ourselves of its power of remission of sins and deliverance from the bondage of sin for if our sins are unremitted, we remain in bodage to sin and if we are in bondage of unremitted sin, we are not saved. The Hebrews were commanded to APPLY THE BLOOD over the door posts and on both sides of the door post; a physical act wherein the blood was visibly seen. In the new testament church we are commanded, to APPLY, BY FAITH, THE BLOOD that we can't see FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN AND DELIVERANCE FROM THE BONDAGE OF SIN BY BEING BAPTIZED, IN WATER, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST AND RECEIVING THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.

1st. The blood was applied at Calvary. I see no where in scripture where WE have to apply the blood to our sin. Also, I have a hard time comparing the Hebrews applying blood over the door post and us applying the blood to our lives through baptism. How can we make this leap?

2nd. In Acts 2:38, when Peter says, "for the remission of sins" this doesn't mean that we get Baptized in order to wash our sins away but we get baptized because our sins have been washed away. Baptism is a picture of grace and our public comformation that we have taken on Christ.

Here is a video explaining Acts 2:38 in context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Urzmrq8zw

[Shawn]

In all due rescpect, if someone says to me 'here is some aspirin for your headache', I would use the aspirin for the specific reason of curing my headache. I don't take aspirin because my headache is gone away.


38Then 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.

[deltaguitar]

In all due rescpect, if someone says to me 'here is some aspirin for your headache', I would use the aspirin for the specific reason of curing my headache. I don't take aspirin because my headache is gone away.


38Then 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.



A more proper illustration would be, "I am taking some aspirin for a headache." You are not taking an aspirin in order to obtain a headache but BECAUSE of your headache.

There are many other scriptures that mention forgiveness of sins without baptism as I have mentioned in previous post.

[Sam]

In all due rescpect, if someone says to me 'here is some aspirin for your headache', I would use the aspirin for the specific reason of curing my headache. I don't take aspirin because my headache is gone away.


38Then 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.

We've had this discussion over and over again on this forum.

Acts 2:38 says "for the remission/forgiveness of sin..."
The Greek word translated "for" is "eis."

Just as the English word "for" can have more than one meaning, so can the Greek word "eis." Multitudes of Greek experts have been quoted and the results are still the same. Some Greek experts say "eis" means "in order to obtain" and other Greek experts say "eis" means "because of."

Acts 2:38 can be honestly translated "because of the remission/forgiveness of sins." I found a copy of the ISV a couple of years ago in a used book store. Acts 2:38 in there says "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ since your sins are forgiven..." but the accompanying CD says "for the forgiveness of sins." When I questioned the discrepancy between the printed version and the CD I was told that the CD was newer. The printed version said that sins sins had been forgiven prior to baptism but a newer printed version would go back to the standard reading of "for the forgiveness of sins." The reasoning for that change was that the word "eis" in Greek was just as ambiguous as the word "for" in English so they chose to use the ambiguous word "for" just like it reads in the Greek. Interpretation of whether that means "in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins" or "because of the forgiveness of sins" would be based on the teaching of other passages of Scripture.

We could use the word "for" in both meanings by quoting the old Wanted Poster which says a person is wanted "for" (because of) a crime with the instruction to go to the local marshal "for" (in order to obtain) the reward.

[Shawn]

I thought the illustration was quite clear....nobody takes aspirin to obtain a headache....that would be silly. So if anyone reads my illustration above it would be perfectly clear. And your Taking the aspirin for the sole perpuse of relieving the state of having a headache. Not merely because you have it...but because you want to relieve it.

[Sam]

Another thought on "for" the remission of sins.

When the UPC was formed in 1945 there were differences of opinion among the ministers as to how a person was saved. Some believed a person was saved at repentance and was later baptized in water and in the Spirit. Others believed a person was not saved until after being baptized in water and in the Spirit. Bro. Witherspoon proposed the "fundamental doctrine" statement so that ministers of both opinions could agree on it and the merger could take place.

In 1973 the fundamental doctrine statement was revised to add the words "for the remission of sins." Bro. S.G. Norris made the motion to accept the revision. Bro. Norris believed that water baptism washed away sin and that the word "for" meant "in order to obtain." The motion was seconded by Bro. W.M. Greer but only after it had been made clear that interpretation of the meaning of the word "for" was to still remain up to the individual.

So, officially a UPC minister can believe "for" the remission of sins can mean "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or he/she can believe "for" the remission of sins can mean "because of" the remission of sins.

[Praxeas]

Nevertheless, Martha -- What Sam is getting at is the fact that some say a person is purified until they are baptized. Thus, how could God, pure and holy, abide in an unclean vessel -- unless the vessel was already purified?
I have a question....King Saul was said to have the Spirit and even prophesied...yet he was horribly backslidden. How can that be?

[Jack Shephard]

Justification by faith alone is right, but it is not a OSAS situation as you are not allowed to live how you want without limits from God. Faith in the redemptive work of the Cross of Christ is salvific, but not the end of it all.

[deltaguitar]

I have a question....King Saul was said to have the Spirit and even prophesied...yet he was horribly backslidden. How can that be?

Just like we know people who can speak in tongues, prophecy, and heal the sick and still be heathens. The gifts come without repentance.

[Praxeas]

We've had this discussion over and over again on this forum.

Acts 2:38 says "for the remission/forgiveness of sin..."
The Greek word translated "for" is "eis."

Just as the English word "for" can have more than one meaning, so can the Greek word "eis." Multitudes of Greek experts have been quoted and the results are still the same. Some Greek experts say "eis" means "in order to obtain" and other Greek experts say "eis" means "because of."

The problem is this seems to be one thought/clause..."Repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins". "Repent AND be baptized because of sins"

That would make Repentence non essential for forgiveness and means one can be forgiven though they don't have any intentions of turning away from sin.

what remains then is that those unbelieving Jews were in reality regenerated believers asking "what shall we do"...how odd is that?

They are asking what MUST we do now. You MUST repent and you MUST be baptized....honestly the REASONS should be irrelevant if you have truely seen the light. Ah but the carnal man must always argue about things.

I have noted that not once in Acts did anyone question "why"...not once did anyone refuse baptism only to do it later after a bible study...it was always an immediate response.

[Praxeas]

Just like we know people who can speak in tongues, prophecy, and heal the sick and still be heathens. The gifts come without repentance.
This will lead to another topic, but that verse doesn't actually apply to the gifts of the Spirit directly, though I believe it can indirectly.

However the point is it clearly says the Spirit entered into Saul.

[Praxeas]

The question must be asked, what is faith then? And what are works? You have to ask what are works because the context is "saved by faith...not of works"

Faith always implies a dependent trust. As seen by James and other verses , Faith includes obedience to the one trusted in.

Obedience is NOT necessarily works. Works means anything you can do apart from obedience to the gospel. The bible says obey the gospel. It does not say obey the law. In the context of the verse in question the word works applies to the law. The Judaizers were trying to force Gentiles to keep the law as a means of being saved.

Works can't be just "anything you can do" because that would make repentance a work...in fact that would make putting active faith IN someone a work

[deltaguitar]

Repentance is a turning or a change of heart. I don't see repentance as a work but a turning away from the things of the past and serving my new master.

True faith in God AND repentance will always bring about good works in time but how can repentance be a work when nothing actually happens. Repentance is a change of heart and willingness to follow after God, IMO.

[Praxeas]

Repentance is a turning or a change of heart. I don't see repentance as a work but a turning away from the things of the past and serving my new master.

True faith in God AND repentance will always bring about good works in time but how can repentance be a work when nothing actually happens. Repentance is a change of heart and willingness to follow after God, IMO.

Repentance is not a work. That is my point. If the word work means "anything YOU can DO" then repentance is a work. Thus works does NOT mean "anything you can do"

[martha]

So, officially a UPC minister can believe "for" the remission of sins can mean "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or he/she can believe "for" the remission of sins can mean "because of" the remission of sins.[/QUOTE]

How many do not recognize that this controversy of the meaning of the word "eis" is nothing more than a device of satan to rob people of their salvation? For if one believes, what great effort is involved in being baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ? It's no effort at all. You don't have to move mountains to get baptized. It's a very simple matter. But, if by refusing baptism or deeming it unessential, you lose your salvation, because your sins have not been remitted because you have not placed them under the blood of Jesus Christ in baptism, satan has accomplished his purpose. It would seem that Holy Ghost filled people would discern what "eis" is by reading the rest of the Acts of the apostles and seeing WHAT THEY DID, even if they didn't know the old testament shadow of it that I have already mentioned.

[bkstokes]

So, officially a UPC minister can believe "for" the remission of sins can mean "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or he/she can believe "for" the remission of sins can mean "because of" the remission of sins.

How many do not recognize that this controversy of the meaning of the word "eis" is nothing more than a device of satan to rob people of their salvation? For if one believes, what great effort is involved in being baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ? It's no effort at all. You don't have to move mountains to get baptized. It's a very simple matter. But, if by refusing baptism or deeming it unessential, you lose your salvation, because your sins have not been remitted because you have not placed them under the blood of Jesus Christ in baptism, satan has accomplished his purpose. It would seem that Holy Ghost filled people would discern what "eis" is by reading the rest of the Acts of the apostles and seeing WHAT THEY DID, even if they didn't know the old testament shadow of it that I have already mentioned.[/QUOTE]

No anymore

They "weeded" them out in the 70s and 90s with some resolutions.

[bkstokes]

Praxeas

By your interpretation of the preposition "for" in Acts 2:38 you ultimately place the blood being applied on the believer in Baptism. What do you do with Acts 10?

And how about Paul claiming Abraham just before his circumcision (baptism = circumcision of the NT)?

[martha]

A more proper illustration would be, "I am taking some aspirin for a headache." You are not taking an aspirin in order to obtain a headache but BECAUSE of your headache.

Martha: Your illustration is incorrect.

There are many other scriptures that mention forgiveness of sins without baptism as I have mentioned in previous post.

Martha: You have neglected to look at the foundation of the church. By foundation, I am talking about the first Church where it all began. And We all understand that Jesus Christ crucified is the foundation of the church, that's fundamental. Why do you discount the day of pentecost?

[Jason B]

We've had this discussion over and over again on this forum.

Acts 2:38 says "for the remission/forgiveness of sin..."
The Greek word translated "for" is "eis."

Just as the English word "for" can have more than one meaning, so can the Greek word "eis." Multitudes of Greek experts have been quoted and the results are still the same. Some Greek experts say "eis" means "in order to obtain" and other Greek experts say "eis" means "because of."

Acts 2:38 can be honestly translated "because of the remission/forgiveness of sins." I found a copy of the ISV a couple of years ago in a used book store. Acts 2:38 in there says "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ since your sins are forgiven..." but the accompanying CD says "for the forgiveness of sins." When I questioned the discrepancy between the printed version and the CD I was told that the CD was newer. The printed version said that sins sins had been forgiven prior to baptism but a newer printed version would go back to the standard reading of "for the forgiveness of sins." The reasoning for that change was that the word "eis" in Greek was just as ambiguous as the word "for" in English so they chose to use the ambiguous word "for" just like it reads in the Greek. Interpretation of whether that means "in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins" or "because of the forgiveness of sins" would be based on the teaching of other passages of Scripture.

We could use the word "for" in both meanings by quoting the old Wanted Poster which says a person is wanted "for" (because of) a crime with the instruction to go to the local marshal "for" (in order to obtain) the reward.

I guess i am the only one who thinks it is odd that it is so very hard to find any bible versions that read anything different than FOR (in order to obtain).
You could read the street version in ebonics,and it still say the same thing, how many versions do we need? Are we looking for 1 so that we can claim the rest of the versions,and the multitudes of scholars who translated it,did so wrongly?

Also, while I hav heard the claim that "eis" can be intepreted "because of", I have never actually seen a quote from any one (without an agenda) who is a scholar or has a degree in greek who claims that Acts 2:38 doesn't link baptism and remission of sins. On the other hand there have been several greek professors asked from SECULAR-NON RELIGIOUS schools to settle the debate,and all overwhelmingly (that I am aware of) say the grammatical structure can mean nothing but "in order to retain" in the context that it is written and used.

[Sam]

so wrongly?
...
Also, while I hav heard the claim that "eis" can be intepreted "because of", I have never actually seen a quote from any one (without an agenda) who is a scholar or has a degree in greek who claims that Acts 2:38 doesn't link baptism and remission of sins. On the other hand there have been several greek professors asked from SECULAR-NON RELIGIOUS schools to settle the debate,and all overwhelmingly (that I am aware of) say the grammatical structure can mean nothing but "in order to retain" in the context that it is written and used.

There have been Greek experts quoted here, quite a few, to support both positions. What it all boils down to is that it is not definite either way. Baptism can be for (in order to obtain) forgiveness of sins or it could equally be for (because of) forgiveness of sin. Since the verse is ambiguous, a doctrine should not be based on its interpretation.

[martha]

1st. The blood was applied at Calvary. I see no where in scripture where WE have to apply the blood to our sin. Also, I have a hard time comparing the Hebrews applying blood over the door post and us applying the blood to our lives through baptism. How can we make this leap?

Martha: The blood was shed on Calvary and made available to us to apply through baptism. (whosoever will let him come). If we come to be partakers of that blood, we have to do what Christ did; die to the old man of sin, bury the old man of sin, rise up with the new man who is like Christ and without sin. The scripture is replete with the message of the need for baptism for salvation but consider Apostle Paul's account here:

Martha: Apostle Paul discusses baptism in water in Romans 6. When we read these verses, we see that, although Apostle Paul has a different manner of speaking than Apostle Peter, he's saying the same thing. You just have to be able to "HEAR IT." "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism "into" his death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For 'IF' (Take note of the word "IF") we have been planted (buried in baptism) together in the likeness of his death, (applying the blood) we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (without sin because our sins have been removed/remitted by reason of the death and burial of our old man of sin). Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him (the old man of sin is dead--gone---and we are partakers of Christ's blood) that the body of sin might be destroyed (our sins are destroyed/remitted), that henceforth we should not serve sin. (our sins are destroyed once and for all) For he that is dead is freed from sin. Romans 6:4-7. "Likewise reckon (count yourself, consider yourself, judge yourself, ) you also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,(we are now dead unto sin, sin can have no dominion over us, because of the applied blood of Jesus Christ in the water of baptism) but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (We are now born of the water John 3:5) And when we're filled with the Holy Ghost, we will be born of the spirit.

Martha: You will note that Apostle Paul said "{IF} we have been planted together. . . . . ." The remainder of the verses hinge on the word {IF}.

Martha: Now how would it read {IF} we were not planted together, applying the blood of Jesus by being buried with him in baptism? We would still retain the old man of sin (bondage)
Also note that Apostle Paul does not say that baptism is not essential to salvation but rather he reinforces Peter's instruction on the day of pentecost that our sins are remitted through baptism. This should also put to rest the controversy over the meaning of the word "eis" in the Greek language of Acts 2:38.

2nd. In Acts 2:38, when Peter says, "for the remission of sins" this doesn't mean that we get Baptized in order to wash our sins away but we get baptized because our sins have been washed away.

Martha: That's not what Apostle Paul said. Apostle Paul said the old man of sin is crucified and buried in baptism and we rise up out of the water a new man without sin, like Christ. We are like Christ because our sins have been remitted. It is after we rise up out of the water that we have left behind the old man with the sins of the old man. He's dead and he that is dead is free from sin) That's why Apostle Peter said "FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS". You've got it backward, according to Apostles Peter and Paul.

Baptism is a picture of grace and our public comformation that we have taken on Christ.

Martha: Jesus Christ never told us to be baptized before "men" to show/prove we have taken on Christ. That's not written and what would it proft us or them and how would it glorify God? It makes no difference if we're baptized publicly or with only us and the one who baptizes us, like the Ethiopian Eunuch. Jesus said: "Let your LIGHT SO SHINE BEFORE "MEN" that they may see your GOOD WORKS and glorify your Father which is in heaven. This is the testimony we are to have before men.

[Praxeas]

Praxeas

By your interpretation of the preposition "for" in Acts 2:38 you ultimately place the blood being applied on the believer in Baptism. What do you do with Acts 10?

And how about Paul claiming Abraham just before his circumcision (baptism = circumcision of the NT)?
I didn't give an interpretation. I simply noticed the OTHER is problematic.

What about Acts 10? Abraham was justified by faith...something I never denied.

[martha]

Also, while I hav heard the claim that "eis" can be intepreted "because of", I have never actually seen a quote from any one (without an agenda) who is a scholar or has a degree in greek who claims that Acts 2:38 doesn't link baptism and remission of sins. On the other hand there have been several greek professors asked from SECULAR-NON RELIGIOUS schools to settle the debate,and all overwhelmingly (that I am aware of) say the grammatical structure can mean nothing but "in order to retain" in the context that it is written and used.

Martha: I have to say that only a satanic spirit could deny that baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ applies his cleansing blood to our lives and through baptism, we have remission of sins both past and future. Without baptism, in water, we retain our sins, both past and future. It is only by applying the blood of Jesus by being baptized in water in His name that sins are forgiven and we are made like Him. We must be born of the water and of the spirit; that is be baptized and receive the gift of the holy ghost according to John 3:5 to be saved. Apostle Paul said nothing different than
Apostle Peter, he was just more "elaborate". The bottom line of Romans 6 is "Repent and be baptized in water, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"; the same message Peter preached on the day of pentecost. If we do not believe this we are in gross error and darkness because we have not believed the scripture.

[bkstokes]

Also, while I hav heard the claim that "eis" can be intepreted "because of", I have never actually seen a quote from any one (without an agenda) who is a scholar or has a degree in greek who claims that Acts 2:38 doesn't link baptism and remission of sins. On the other hand there have been several greek professors asked from SECULAR-NON RELIGIOUS schools to settle the debate,and all overwhelmingly (that I am aware of) say the grammatical structure can mean nothing but "in order to retain" in the context that it is written and used.

Martha: I have to say that only a satanic spirit could deny that baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ applies his cleansing blood to our lives and through baptism, we have remission of sins both past and future. Without baptism, in water, we retain our sins, both past and future. It is only by applying the blood of Jesus by being baptized in water in His name that sins are forgiven and we are made like Him. We must be born of the water and of the spirit; that is be baptized and receive the gift of the holy ghost according to John 3:5 to be saved. Apostle Paul said nothing different than
Apostle Peter, he was just more "elaborate". The bottom line of Romans 6 is "Repent and be baptized in water, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"; the same message Peter preached on the day of pentecost. If we do not believe this we are in gross error and darkness because we have not believed the scripture.

Any doctrine that depends upon a single preposition and goes in the face of a multitud of statements throughout the NT can be considered heretical. I will not go so far as to call it that, but there are some that do. The mormons do the same with the one reference that is about baptizing the dead.

[martha]

There have been Greek experts quoted here, quite a few, to support both positions. What it all boils down to is that it is not definite either way. Baptism can be for (in order to obtain) forgiveness of sins or it could equally be for (because of) forgiveness of sin. Since the verse is ambiguous, a doctrine should not be based on its interpretation.


Martha: But Whose report will you believe?

John 12:38-40 That the saying of Isaiah which he spake, Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart and be converted and I should heal them."

Martha: 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 ALL SCRIPTURE is given by the inspiration of God, and IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEHOUSNESS THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS. That includes Acts 2:38.

[martha]

Any doctrine that depends upon a single preposition and goes in the face of a multitud of statements throughout the NT can be considered heretical. I will not go so far as to call it that, but there are some that do. The mormons do the same with the one reference that is about baptizing the dead.

You must believe what's written. You can't make up your own way of salvation by "shopping" the scripture. You have to buy all of it. And when you buy it all and know what you've bought you would see that the multitude of statements you mention throughout the new testament all agree in one plan of salvation because there is only one plan. No scripture flies in the face of another scripture if you have an understanding of what it's saying. When the scriptures says words like "IF" and "EXCEPT", that's what it means and you can't read anything else into it to change its meaning according to YOUR liking.

And let me add that when the scripture says it, it's the Holy Ghost, God himself, speaking.

Didn't the multitudes of Jesus Christ's day also call him a heretic?

[martha]

I have noted that not once in Acts did anyone question "why"...not once did anyone refuse baptism only to do it later after a bible study...it was always an immediate response.

Martha: NEVER did they do it! And Peter told them baptism was for the remission of sins for they all knew they had sinned. But after 2000 years of moving away from the gospel preached on the day of pentecost and the true new testament church, people have become hardened into "doing it their way" and "their way" is absolutely the "wrong way."

Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seems right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.

[deltaguitar]

I have noted that not once in Acts did anyone question "why"...not once did anyone refuse baptism only to do it later after a bible study...it was always an immediate response.

Martha: NEVER did they do it! And Peter told them baptism was for the remission of sins for they all knew they had sinned. But after 2000 years of moving away from the gospel preached on the day of pentecost and the true new testament church, people have become hardened into "doing it their way" and "their way" is absolutely the "wrong way."

Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seems right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Martha, you do realize that there is nothing difficult about being baptized. You act like people don't want to be baptized. This is not true. This is not some revelation that takes great understanding. No, it is easy. What you are saying is that Christ came to save us from our sins but only if we follow a specific formula down to the letter. Martha, I was raised UPC and didn't leave until I was 27 and I love the doctrine just like you but I had to be truthful to myself. The power of the gospel is that Christ came to save us from our sins not give us a three-step magic formula.

[martha]

Martha, you do realize that there is nothing difficult about being baptized. You act like people don't want to be baptized. This is not true. This is not some revelation that takes great understanding. No, it is easy. What you are saying is that Christ came to save us from our sins but only if we follow a specific formula down to the letter. Martha, I was raised UPC and didn't leave until I was 27 and I love the doctrine just like you but I had to be truthful to myself. The power of the gospel is that Christ came to save us from our sins not give us a three-step magic formula.

Martha: Yes, I have marvelled at the simplicity of baptism and even more that people don't believe it's essential for salvation or that they think Paul preached a different message of salvation than Peter.

[bkstokes]

You must believe what's written. You can't make up your own way of salvation by "shopping" the scripture. You have to buy all of it. And when you buy it all and know what you've bought you would see that the multitude of statements you mention throughout the new testament all agree in one plan of salvation because there is only one plan. No scripture flies in the face of another scripture if you have an understanding of what it's saying. When the scriptures says words like "IF" and "EXCEPT", that's what it means and you can't read anything else into it to change its meaning according to YOUR liking.

And let me add that when the scripture says it, it's the Holy Ghost, God himself, speaking.

Didn't the multitudes of Jesus Christ's day also call him a heretic?

Again you are focusing the pivotal point of your argument on conjunctions. The subject of Romans 6 is "Dead to Sin" Paul is telling them that the christians baptism is symbolic of his/her death with Christ. He or she should now consider himself/herself dead to sin. A person does not literally die niether does he to sin -- when he or she is baptized. The 7th chapter of Romans proves this -- Paul states "oh wicked man that I am, who shall save me..." THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. By faith we do all the things that are required of us. Neverthless, the blood of Christ is continually applied to us throught the process. From when the person first has faith in Jesus Christ through repentence and on and on. Paul writing about Abraham being justified BEFORE circumcision proves this point (Romans 4).

Once again, one cannot base his/her argument upon prepositions and conjunctions. Beside the point that this type of argument leads one to not focus on the main context of the scripture. If he or she make such an argument, then the gospel could lead to be one of works and not of grace.

[Praxeas]

Martha, you do realize that there is nothing difficult about being baptized. You act like people don't want to be baptized. This is not true. This is not some revelation that takes great understanding. No, it is easy. What you are saying is that Christ came to save us from our sins but only if we follow a specific formula down to the letter. Martha, I was raised UPC and didn't leave until I was 27 and I love the doctrine just like you but I had to be truthful to myself. The power of the gospel is that Christ came to save us from our sins not give us a three-step magic formula.

Martha: Yes, I have marvelled at the simplicity of baptism and even more that people don't believe it's essential for salvation or that they think Paul preached a different message of salvation than Peter.
Martha, can you please use the quote butten. Your posts are confusing

[Neck]

Any of the steps done with the absence of faith are done in vain.

So faith is the justification factor?

So we are justified by faith through our Lord Jesus Christ....

[staysharp]

Martha, you do realize that there is nothing difficult about being baptized. You act like people don't want to be baptized. This is not true. This is not some revelation that takes great understanding. No, it is easy. What you are saying is that Christ came to save us from our sins but only if we follow a specific formula down to the letter. Martha, I was raised UPC and didn't leave until I was 27 and I love the doctrine just like you but I had to be truthful to myself. The power of the gospel is that Christ came to save us from our sins not give us a three-step magic formula.

Martha: Yes, I have marvelled at the simplicity of baptism and even more that people don't believe it's essential for salvation or that they think Paul preached a different message of salvation than Peter.

Martha, from a biblical standpoint Peter did not have the understanding or intellect that Paul did. Peter was always trying to vacillate between Judaism and Grace. This is why Paul publicly rebuked him. Paul had the revelation of Grace given to the Gentile nations.

It's not a discrepancy and neither does it go to the heart of the true Gospel, but rather its just in reconciling the difference between two ministries. Peter was stuck in the past and Paul was called to bring the revelation of Grace to the world.

As for baptism, the ritual cleansing was not included at all in the Old Testament rituals, but rather instituted through the "traditional" customs of purification set out in the "Rabinnical law". You will not find the act of baptism in the Old Testament; however it was done, but not under the Mosaic law, this was originally a man made ritual.

Now, John was called the "baptist" because of his strict adherence to the tradition sect he was a part of who practiced this purification ritual. It was a part of their tradition.

Paul came along and while teaching the customs of Judaism to an extent was accused of by Peter and some of the other disciples of abandoning Judaic customs and made him act out in front of some of the "old timers" some Jewish temple customs.

I said all that to say this; when Paul said...Christ sent me not to baptize...but to preach the Gospel, he understood their faith was being placed in baptism and not the Gospel.

God's plan of salvation is not Acts 2:38, God's plan of salvation was to send His Son to die for the world. Those who place their faith in the Son, will be saved.

Baptism is important, but cannot biblicaly be mandated opposing faith. Now, modern Apostolic Scholars have called baptism a "step of faith" among many others. I've been in ministry a long time and can tell you when someone truly gives their heart to God, baptism is always a part of that experience, however we cannot condemn a heart of faith in Christ to eternal damnation just because a second person hasn't stood over them and pronounced a certain set of words.

Historically, baptism was done by another, but not necessarily mandated. Many baptized themselves. Paul himself was to baptize himself and call on the name of the Lord.

[bkstokes]

Martha, from a biblical standpoint Peter did not have the understanding or intellect that Paul did. Peter was always trying to vacillate between Judaism and Grace. This is why Paul publicly rebuked him. Paul had the revelation of Grace given to the Gentile nations.

It's not a discrepancy and neither does it go to the heart of the true Gospel, but rather its just in reconciling the difference between two ministries. Peter was stuck in the past and Paul was called to bring the revelation of Grace to the world.

As for baptism, the ritual cleansing was not included at all in the Old Testament rituals, but rather instituted through the "traditional" customs of purification set out in the "Rabinnical law". You will not find the act of baptism in the Old Testament; however it was done, but not under the Mosaic law, this was originally a man made ritual.

Now, John was called the "baptist" because of his strict adherence to the tradition sect he was a part of who practiced this purification ritual. It was a part of their tradition.

Paul came along and while teaching the customs of Judaism to an extent was accused of by Peter and some of the other disciples of abandoning Judaic customs and made him act out in front of some of the "old timers" some Jewish temple customs.

I said all that to say this; when Paul said...Christ sent me not to baptize...but to preach the Gospel, he understood their faith was being placed in baptism and not the Gospel.

God's plan of salvation is not Acts 2:38, God's plan of salvation was to send His Son to die for the world. Those who place their faith in the Son, will be saved.

Baptism is important, but cannot biblicaly be mandated opposing faith. Now, modern Apostolic Scholars have called baptism a "step of faith" among many others. I've been in ministry a long time and can tell you when someone truly gives their heart to God, baptism is always a part of that experience, however we cannot condemn a heart of faith in Christ to eternal damnation just because a second person hasn't stood over them and pronounced a certain set of words.

Historically, baptism was done by another, but not necessarily mandated. Many baptized themselves. Paul himself was to baptize himself and call on the name of the Lord.

You write like Antipas/Aquila.

[Sam]

...
Historically, baptism was done by another, but not necessarily mandated. Many baptized themselves. Paul himself was to baptize himself and call on the name of the Lord.

A couple of centuries BCE the Jews developed the mikveh which was a self immersion in water for ritual cleansing. There were rules about the water being "living" or moving, not stagnant. The person stepped into the pool or river and self-immersed three times. This was a practice among the Essenes and John the baptizer is thought to be from that group. When he came proclaiming that JYWH Messiah was coming, people were expected to self-immerse in preparation for that coming King and Kingdom.

The Mikveh ritual was practiced by Jesus and in the early church and has developed into what we call Christian baptism. In Acts 8 Philip went to Samaria and then to the desert to preach to the Ethiopian eunuch. This was probably the winter of 31/32 AD so the church during the ministry of Jesus and under the apostles after His ascension had been in existence for a few years. As Philip witnessed/preached/taught, the record says they came to a certain water. It is thought that this was the Wadi el-Hesi north of Gaza. The Ethiopia requested baptism/mikveh and Philip agreed but only if the man was a believer. After the Ethiopian made a profession of faith and Philip was satisfied that he had been converted/saved/ born again he agreed to the ritual of baptism. It is recorded in verse 38 that they both went down into the water. So, it seems here that this may not have been a self-immersion but that Philip immersed the Eunuch.

The traditional date for the conversion of Saul of Tarsus is January 25, AD 32. After his salvation experience on the road outside Damascus, Saul spent three days praying in the house of a disciple named Judas. God dealt with another disciple named Ananias to go visit Saul to lay hands on him and restore his sight. Ananias balked but then went. As he spoke to Saul he told him that the God of their fathers who had appeared to him outside Damascus had sent him so that Saul could receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. As he prayed, scales fell from Saul's eyes and we assume this is where and when Saul received the Holy Ghost Baptism. Ananias then said, "now why do you delay, get up and immerse yourself and have your sins washed away as you call upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). So here it seems that Saul did a three-fold self immersion as he called upon the Lord for his mikveh/baptism/ritual cleansing.

The Didache is a book of Christian instruction whose date of origin is not really determined. Some think it is the letter sent by the Apostles and Elders from Jerusalem after the conference of AD 49/50 recorded in Acts 15. One Bible, the ARSV includes the Didache in Acts 15:23-31. Others think the Didache is of later origin, somewhere between AD 60 and 125. This is how the Didache describes Christian baptism:
"And concerning baptism, you shall baptise in this manner:
Having first taught all of these things, baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
But if you have no living water , baptise in other water ((preferably cold)); and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm.
But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

[martha]

Martha, from a biblical standpoint Peter did not have the understanding or intellect that Paul did. Peter was always trying to vacillate between Judaism and Grace. This is why Paul publicly rebuked him. Paul had the revelation of Grace given to the Gentile nations.

It's not a discrepancy and neither does it go to the heart of the true Gospel, but rather its just in reconciling the difference between two ministries. Peter was stuck in the past and Paul was called to bring the revelation of Grace to the world.

As for baptism, the ritual cleansing was not included at all in the Old Testament rituals, but rather instituted through the "traditional" customs of purification set out in the "Rabinnical law". You will not find the act of baptism in the Old Testament; however it was done, but not under the Mosaic law, this was originally a man made ritual.

Now, John was called the "baptist" because of his strict adherence to the tradition sect he was a part of who practiced this purification ritual. It was a part of their tradition.

Paul came along and while teaching the customs of Judaism to an extent was accused of by Peter and some of the other disciples of abandoning Judaic customs and made him act out in front of some of the "old timers" some Jewish temple customs.

I said all that to say this; when Paul said...Christ sent me not to baptize...but to preach the Gospel, he understood their faith was being placed in baptism and not the Gospel.

God's plan of salvation is not Acts 2:38, God's plan of salvation was to send His Son to die for the world. Those who place their faith in the Son, will be saved.

Baptism is important, but cannot biblicaly be mandated opposing faith. Now, modern Apostolic Scholars have called baptism a "step of faith" among many others. I've been in ministry a long time and can tell you when someone truly gives their heart to God, baptism is always a part of that experience, however we cannot condemn a heart of faith in Christ to eternal damnation just because a second person hasn't stood over them and pronounced a certain set of words.

Historically, baptism was done by another, but not necessarily mandated. Many baptized themselves. Paul himself was to baptize himself and call on the name of the Lord.


Martha: We all understand that faith is an absolute "must". We can never oppose faith. And were it not for faith in Jesus Christ no one would be getting baptized, in water, in his hame, in the first place. When Jesus said "Go ye therefore and teach (faith comes by hearing) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy ghost." he gave a commandment. Do we consider a commandment of God to be baptized, in water, in His name something that we can take upon ourselves to deem an empty, unessential ritual without a redeeming purpose? What do we do with John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19, 1 John 5:6-8, Romans 6, Colossians 2:10-14? Apostle Paul states that he got his gospel, not from man (the other Apostles) but by revelation from God. And yet, we see Apostle Paul "commanding" baptism (John's disciples at Ephesus, Crispus and Gaius whom he personally baptized, the jailer and his house), just like Peter who had his understanding opened by Jesus Christ before he ascended on Mount Olivet. The fact that he preached the message of faith in Jesus Christ and the power of the gospel to save cannot negate the fact that Apostle Paul also baptized. And can we call baptism a man made ritual or "a man saying some words over you"? Is that "all" it is in light of all the above scriptures? Did Jesus give us commandments at any time that were without purpose and that we could treat as optional; as being not essential in the time that he gave them; in this case, in the dispensation of grace? Some have cited Abraham's faith saving him. But that was before the dispensation of grace, before the blood of Jesus Christ was made available as THE ONLY MEANS of salvation. And we know that without the blood of Jesus Christ being shed, we would have no remission of sins. If we have no remission of sins, we remain in our sins and therefore lost. And the heart of the matter now being that on the day of pentecost Peter preached baptism "for the remission of sins". Apostle Paul preached what baptism signifies in Romans 6(the death of sin and therefore remission of sin) and further reminds the Colossians what baptism "has accomplished" for them (the forgiveness of sins). Col. 2:13.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I guess i am the only one who thinks it is odd that it is so very hard to find any bible versions that read anything different than FOR (in order to obtain).
You could read the street version in ebonics,and it still say the same thing, how many versions do we need? Are we looking for 1 so that we can claim the rest of the versions,and the multitudes of scholars who translated it,did so wrongly?

Also, while I hav heard the claim that "eis" can be intepreted "because of", I have never actually seen a quote from any one (without an agenda) who is a scholar or has a degree in greek who claims that Acts 2:38 doesn't link baptism and remission of sins. On the other hand there have been several greek professors asked from SECULAR-NON RELIGIOUS schools to settle the debate,and all overwhelmingly (that I am aware of) say the grammatical structure can mean nothing but "in order to retain" in the context that it is written and used.




I used to be thoroughly convinced of this also.

However, using the idea that "scripture should interpret scripture" this interpretation does not hold water.

I'm sure it has been asked, but was Cornelius and his family forgiven of their sins before they spoke in tongues?

Did Paul and Peter preach two separate gospel messages? (Some say yes, but I believe they did not.)

What's the Bible proof that a person who professes saving faith in Christ-- the proof that without which, makes all other signs void?

Was the Phillipian jailer born again of the Spirit, or simply a misguided charismatic, deceived and on the way to hell?

Elaborate, if you can, on God's decision to only give the Ethiopian a few goose bumps without really saving him-- he was hungry and did do all he was instructed.




I don't mean to frustrate or shake your faith. These are some of the questions that led me away from UPCI.

[Praxeas]

I used to be thoroughly convinced of this also.

However, using the idea that "scripture should interpret scripture" this interpretation does not hold water.

I'm sure it has been asked, but was Cornelius and his family forgiven of their sins before they spoke in tongues?

Maybe they were. However that does not preclude the idea that Repentance and baptism result or are for somehow the remission of Sins...God could have exempted them for a special purpose. Or that there are two ways to be "forgiven"...one being our eternal record in God's mind and the other being our own conscious.

Next, I ask again, what of King Saul? He was backsliden and had the Spirit

Did Paul and Peter preach two separate gospel messages? (Some say yes, but I believe they did not.)
What do you mean? No of course they did not....they both taught jesus Christ, Faith in Him, Repentance, Baptism in Jesus name.

What's the Bible proof that a person who professes saving faith in Christ-- the proof that without which, makes all other signs void?
Huh?

Was the Phillipian jailer born again of the Spirit, or simply a misguided charismatic, deceived and on the way to hell?
Again....huh? What is the point(s) you are trying to make?

Elaborate, if you can, on God's decision to only give the Ethiopian a few goose bumps without really saving him-- he was hungry and did do all he was instructed.
Huh? Again what is your point? What do you mean without really being saved? WHo says he was not saved?

I don't mean to frustrate or shake your faith. These are some of the questions that led me away from UPCI.
You need to elaborate because I don't see any problems there in your questions...in fact I have no idea what point you are trying to make

[martha]

Again you are focusing the pivotal point of your argument on conjunctions. The subject of Romans 6 is "Dead to Sin" Paul is telling them that the christians baptism is symbolic of his/her death with Christ. He or she should now consider himself/herself dead to sin. A person does not literally die niether does he to sin -- when he or she is baptized. The 7th chapter of Romans proves this -- Paul states "oh wicked man that I am, who shall save me..." THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. By faith we do all the things that are required of us. Neverthless, the blood of Christ is continually applied to us throught the process. From when the person first has faith in Jesus Christ through repentence and on and on. Paul writing about Abraham being justified BEFORE circumcision proves this point (Romans 4).

Once again, one cannot base his/her argument upon prepositions and conjunctions. Beside the point that this type of argument leads one to not focus on the main context of the scripture. If he or she make such an argument, then the gospel could lead to be one of works and not of grace.

Martha: Conjunctions? Prepositions? Are you referring to the word "(IF)" in Romans 6:5?
"For {IF} we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."; the same (IF) that qualifies the statement? That's the same as saying {"IF"} you would believe, you should see the glory of God. John 11:40. The qualifier {IF} tells us that "unless" we do what the {IF} is referring to, the statement is without promise. In the case of Romans 6:5, it's talking about being baptized. The promise is "We shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection." Can we change it and remove the (IF) and make it say the same thing as what the Holy Ghost has already said? Everything a christian does toward God is by faith. There's no question about that. But it is because of "sin" and for the remission of sin that baptism is essential; and that's for sin both past and future and yes the blood of Jesus Christ goes on and on and on because once we're baptized, we forever have an advocate with the Father, by the blood of Jesus Christ, if we sin. 1 John 2:1. Baptism does not take the place of faith and faith does not negate the need for baptism, nor can we be saved without having availed ourselves to the blood of Jesus through baptism 1 John 5:6-8. We know Apostle Paul gave a detailed account of baptism in Romans 6 and in Colossians 2 and in both instances he called attention to the fact that AFTER BAPTISM, their sins were removed. If we are saved by faith alone, why mention baptism at all. But Apostle Paul goes into great explanation and detail of it whereas, Apostle Peter simply said "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins. . . ."

[bkstokes]

Martha: Conjunctions? Prepositions? Are you referring to the word "(IF)" in Romans 6:5?
"For {IF} we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."; the same (IF) that qualifies the statement? That's the same as saying {"IF"} you would believe, you should see the glory of God. John 11:40. The qualifier {IF} tells us that "unless" we do what the {IF} is referring to, the statement is without promise. In the case of Romans 6:5, it's talking about being baptized. The promise is "We shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection." Can we change it and remove the (IF) and make it say the same thing as what the Holy Ghost has already said? Everything a christian does toward God is by faith. There's no question about that. But it is because of "sin" and for the remission of sin that baptism is essential; and that's for sin both past and future and yes the blood of Jesus Christ goes on and on and on because once we're baptized, we forever have an advocate with the Father, by the blood of Jesus Christ, if we sin. 1 John 2:1. Baptism does not take the place of faith and faith does not negate the need for baptism, nor can we be saved without having availed ourselves to the blood of Jesus through baptism 1 John 5:6-8. We know Apostle Paul gave a detailed account of baptism in Romans 6 and in Colossians 2 and in both instances he called attention to the fact that AFTER BAPTISM, their sins were removed. If we are saved by faith alone, why mention baptism at all. But Apostle Paul goes into great explanation and detail of it whereas, Apostle Peter simply said "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins. . . ."

Three points:

The word "sin" (sinful, etc.) is mentioned 17 times in Romans 6. The word baptize (batized, etc) is mentioned TWICE. Do you think really think the subject of this chapter is about baptism?

Secondly, I have been baptized and I think a Christian should be baptized -- but that act did not save me -- The Lord Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross saved me.

Third, What is the gospel to you?

[Jason B]

There have been Greek experts quoted here, quite a few, to support both positions. What it all boils down to is that it is not definite either way. Baptism can be for (in order to obtain) forgiveness of sins or it could equally be for (because of) forgiveness of sin. Since the verse is ambiguous, a doctrine should not be based on its interpretation.

bro. sam,

one thing is for sure-BOTH positions are not correct. Also,what should we base doctrine on, is not the whole bible "ambiguous" everyone thinks it says something different,when it reality it is quite simple. For me, i just believe for means for. God is quite able to protect his word,whether in greek or english. He is not suprised that the version we use far and wide has this verse in this way in it.

[Sam]

... For me, i just believe for means for. ...


37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said vnto Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we doe?
38 Then Peter said vnto them, “Repent, and be baptized euery one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sinnes, and ye shal receiue the gift of the holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is vnto you, and to your children, and to all that are afarre off, euen as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
The Actes Of The Apoflles 2:37-39 KJV (1611 version)

Yes, we all agree that in the English it says "for" and we agree that "for" can have more than one meaning.

[martha]

Martha: Conjunctions? Prepositions? Are you referring to the word "(IF)" in Romans 6:5?
"For {IF} we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."; the same (IF) that qualifies the statement? That's the same as saying {"IF"} you would believe, you should see the glory of God. John 11:40. The qualifier {IF} tells us that "unless" we do what the {IF} is referring to, the statement is without promise. In the case of Romans 6:5, it's talking about being baptized. The promise is "We shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection." Can we change it and remove the (IF) and make it say the same thing as what the Holy Ghost has already said? Everything a christian does toward God is by faith. There's no question about that. But it is because of "sin" and for the remission of sin that baptism is essential; and that's for sin both past and future and yes the blood of Jesus Christ goes on and on and on because once we're baptized, we forever have an advocate with the Father, by the blood of Jesus Christ, if we sin. 1 John 2:1. Baptism does not take the place of faith and faith does not negate the need for baptism, nor can we be saved without having availed ourselves to the blood of Jesus through baptism 1 John 5:6-8. We know Apostle Paul gave a detailed account of baptism in Romans 6 and in Colossians 2 and in both instances he called attention to the fact that AFTER BAPTISM, their sins were removed. If we are saved by faith alone, why mention baptism at all. But Apostle Paul goes into great explanation and detail of it whereas, Apostle Peter simply said "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins. . . ."

Three points:

The word "sin" (sinful, etc.) is mentioned 17 times in Romans 6. The word baptize (batized, etc) is mentioned TWICE. Do you think really think the subject of this chapter is about baptism?

Secondly, I have been baptized and I think a Christian should be baptized -- but that act did not save me -- The Lord Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross saved me.

Third, What is the gospel to you?


Martha: Why wouldn't sin and be mentioned, that's what baptism is all about; for the remission of sin. Paul starts this chapter talking about baptism making us "dead to sin." We're dead to sin because after we're baptized, sin can't "hold" us anymore because we have remission and forgiveness of sin under the blood of Jesus Christ by being baptized in his name. Jesus died once to cover our sins forever. We're baptized in his name once and our sins are covered forever. "Sin shall not have "dominion" over you for you are not under the law but under grace" Romans 6:14. We're free! And if the son makes you free you're free indeed John 8:36. Hold on a minute while I get my shout on ! ! ! ! ! ! Romans 6:1-11 especially deals with baptism freeing us from sin. And note that in Romans 6:5 Paul states: "WE SHALL BE also in the likeness of his resurrection", NOT, "WE ARE ALREADY" in the likeness of his resurrection. The reason we're "not already" in the likeness of his resurrection is because we have to be baptized to be in the likeness of his resurrection. You have previously stated that we don't "surely" die nor do we die to sin when we're baptized and you cited Romans 7:14 as proof. But Apostle Paul also states in Romans 7:14: "Who shall deliver me from this body of death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." He thanks God because it's already done. He's already free because he's been baptized in his name and His blood has already delivered him. And John said in 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS." But its because we've been buried with him in baptism and he has made us free through his blood. You're not making the connection between the water and the blood (cross). Didn't you read those supporting scriptures I gave you? The erroneous interpretation of "for" as "because of" is definitely not accurate in this case. We don't get baptized "because of" remission of sins. And I can only conclude that "someone" has proposed that to advance the faith only doctrine. It's like the Jehovah's Witness bible. In order to advance their doctrine that Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, they altered their bible to read: "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was "a" God. . . ." If they had said: ". . .And the word "was" God", it would have messed up their doctrine and they couldn't let that happen. I guess it didn't matter how ridiculous it sounded, it was enough to throw the verse off and put it in error. But when you see other witnesses that proves your doctrine wrong, you have to go with the witnesses if you want to be in accordance with the word of God, or alter your bible if you just want to advance "YOUR DOCTRINE."

What is the gospel to me? When it comes to salvation, it's all gospel.

[shag]

Just catchin the tale-end of this discussion, so if this has already bee mentioned, then sorry.

The primary scripture that I have trouble escaping the necessity of "connecting" thru baptism, with the remission that took place on the cross. I believe Jesus remits our sin, and/but because of this particular verse, I believe we must contact that remission thru baptism, because even the great apostle Paul was told by Ananias to "wash away thy sins". Why did Ananias tell Paul to wash away his sins? "Because of "his sins had alreay been washed away at the point he believed? I have trouble believeing that in this particular instance, tho I may stand corrected in my thinking here..

Acts 22:16 (Ananias to Paul)And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Why did Ananias tell Paul to "wash away his sins?


Because of Acts 22:16, could it not be that we must connect with the remission that took place on the cross, thru being baptised, and that is why Peter commanded baptism (Acts 10:48)?

[staysharp]

Just catchin the tale-end of this discussion, so if this has already bee mentioned, then sorry.

The primary scripture that I have trouble escaping the necessity of "connecting" thru baptism, with the remission that took place on the cross. I believe Jesus remits our sin, and/but because of this particular verse, I believe we must contact that remission thru baptism, because even the great apostle Paul was told by Ananias to "wash away thy sins". Why did Ananias tell Paul to wash away his sins? "Because of "his sins had alreay been washed away at the point he believed? I have trouble believeing that in this particular instance, tho I may stand corrected in my thinking here..

Acts 22:16 (Ananias to Paul)And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Why did Ananias tell Paul to "wash away his sins?


Because of Acts 22:16, could it not be that we must connect with the remission that took place on the cross, thru being baptised, and that is why Peter commanded baptism (Acts 10:48)?

The word "sin" in the original ancient greek does not necessarily mean "a transgression which damns your soul". It has many meanings and can even be described as "missing the mark" as an archer misses the mark.

Baptism was a ritual cleansing. This cleansing was customary and done on a regular basis. People baptized themselves over and over and over, whenever they needed to be cleansed.

Many "mikvah's" were built on the temple mount and one would immerse before entering the temple.

If baptism washes away sins post Calvary, then one would need to continuously do this act to remain saved and the finished work of the cross would be in vain.

Proponents of baptismal regeneration say that once your are initially baptized, "God will deal with your sins accordingly". They have no specific way to remove sins once they're committed after the original baptism.

[shag]

My question remains:

Why did Ananias say to Paul to ..."be baptised and wash away his sins, if baptism has nothing to do with the necessity of "connecting" to the remission of sins that took place on the cross?

[bkstokes]

What is the gospel to me? When it comes to salvation, it's all gospel.

You have been quick to point to say things our "my" doctrine. I have simply pointed out factual information.

Paul says in I Corithians 15 what the gospel is:


1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

A question, what does Paul place emphais on here -- that the corinthians believe that a man born of God, who is sinnless, died on the cross, and was raised from the dead on the third day OR that someone go down in water?

[bkstokes]

[QUOTE=martha;637017] And I can only conclude that "someone" has proposed that to advance the faith only doctrine. It's like the Jehovah's Witness bible. In order to advance their doctrine that Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, they altered their bible to read: "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was "a" God. . . ." If they had said: ". . .And the word "was" God", it would have messed up their doctrine and they couldn't let that happen. I guess it didn't matter how ridiculous it sounded, it was enough to throw the verse off and put it in error. [QUOTE]

This type of argument can be aptly called an Ad hominem argument. Simply put, one tries to attack the charater of another -- instead of addressing the issue at hand. Just because someone does not agree with you -- it does not mean that the person in question is a heretic, etc.

[LUKE2447]

Nevertheless, Martha -- What Sam is getting at is the fact that some say a person is purified until they are baptized. Thus, how could God, pure and holy, abide in an unclean vessel -- unless the vessel was already purified?


See here is the false premise. The Bible does not say that directly. Also the Spirit of God moved on people of old BEFORE the D,B,R of Jesus. The only thing that is needed for God to move on you is a willing heart that is not at enmity or stands in opposition to him. Does not mean they have received the atonment of Christ through baptism yet. That is the point of Peter's message these who God gave witness through his Spirit.... why should we deny baptism into Christ and his death etc... Did the blood of Christ save those in the OT through faith? They looked forward in faith with expectation but unless they obeyed they really did not have faith. Those of us now realize this through faith in the working of God in baptism.

That is why there hearts where purified by faith(proper response)! They were in proper standing of heart to receive and be united in atonement in baptism. Does not mean they have been united with Christ yet but now are "turned" to offer there gift at the alter which is "with" Christ to be united in his death.

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Repentance or turning in response is to bring one in RIGHT(heart condition) condition to God. It does not though mean one has been united in Christ's death/blood and justice has been declared. You cannot offer petition or appeal unto God unless one's heart is not at enmity. It is as one that stands before the Judge who asks for mercy. The turning brings forth the proper appeal. Thus one can be declared innocent by uniting himself with the witness of Christ on the alter/cross in baptism.

1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

To be united with Christ is clearly taught in scripture at "one" point and that is baptism. This is through faith(proper response) in the Gospel that is preached. One cannot be saved without the motion toward and finshed through Christ which is turn (repent) and be united(baptized).

[LUKE2447]

1st. The blood was applied at Calvary. I see no where in scripture where WE have to apply the blood to our sin. Also, I have a hard time comparing the Hebrews applying blood over the door post and us applying the blood to our lives through baptism. How can we make this leap?

2nd. In Acts 2:38, when Peter says, "for the remission of sins" this doesn't mean that we get Baptized in order to wash our sins away but we get baptized because our sins have been washed away. Baptism is a picture of grace and our public comformation that we have taken on Christ.

Here is a video explaining Acts 2:38 in context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Urzmrq8zw

OH please why don't you watch the whole debate on YOUTUBE which that comes from. That argument had been shotdown and the Church of Christ destroy the non essential belief of baptism.

2) No the sacrifice was made at calvary. That which stands today as the cross/death/blood is baptism. Romans 6 is clear when one is united in his death/blood/cross. That is what the baptism stands for and is the time when one's appeal of clear conscience by repentance is made so one can be united with Christ in baptism.

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Thus one stands at appeal in one motion REPENT(turn) AND BE BAPTIZED(UNITED) Thus it is one motion to do so or appeal. In which the Judgment can be given of innocent do to the righteousness of Christ. As now you are IN HIM or united with him on the alter! Just as eight souls where saved by water. The eight are in the ARK which is Christ in which the water judges and purifies/seperates all that are in the ark from the sin that was around them(old man/world).

[bkstokes]

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Luke you use this scripture to talk about baptism. However, the context of these verses have nothing to do with baptism. Jesus is speaking to the jews and talking about ceremonial offerings that were done under the levitical law.

[LUKE2447]

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Luke you use this scripture to talk about baptism. However, the context of these verses have nothing to do with baptism. Jesus is speaking to the jews and talking about ceremonial offerings that were done under the levitical law.

The point of the scripture is "order" I never said it had to do with baptism directly in that text but it is about how one operates before God. It points though to "type" and how things are done. When one looks at the meanings it is a clear teaching of what I said.

[LUKE2447]

Three points:

The word "sin" (sinful, etc.) is mentioned 17 times in Romans 6. The word baptize (batized, etc) is mentioned TWICE. Do you think really think the subject of this chapter is about baptism?

Secondly, I have been baptized and I think a Christian should be baptized -- but that act did not save me -- The Lord Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross saved me.

Third, What is the gospel to you?


Yes, and you are united in his sacrifice at baptism which is the appointed time. As you offer yourself(gift) to be united in death/sacrifice/blood with him and the old man is destroyed so that you can be declared right by your faith(proper response) in the working of God at baptism. Baptism is God's appointed time!

[martha]

You have been quick to point to say things our "my" doctrine. I have simply pointed out factual information.

Paul says in I Corithians 15 what the gospel is:


1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

A question, what does Paul place emphais on here -- that the corinthians believe that a man born of God, who is sinnless, died on the cross, and was raised from the dead on the third day OR that someone go down in water?

Martha: I'm aware of what Apostle Paul says the "gospel" is in Corinthians 15 Apostle Paul has given us the BASIS of the Christian faith in his description of what is the gospel. THIS IS 'WHY' WE BELIEVE. This is the REASON OF OUR HOPE THAT IS IN US 1 Peter 1:15. But we do not dwell on the "terminology" but on the "substance". And this definition of what is the gospel does not justify a faith alone doctrine. If it did, Apostle Paul could have said no more and just let "the gospel" and Corinthians 15 stand alone. But he didn't. That's why I said "it's all gospel."

Now as being quick to point out things about "YOUR" doctrine, I did not conclude from your post to me that you even held the faith alone doctrine, so it's not "YOUR" doctrine that I was speaking of, except in the most general sense that applies to anyone who holds that doctrine.

As regards to what Apostle is placing emphasis on in 1 Corinth 15, he's giving us the BASIS OF OUR FAITH and that's what he's emphasizing. But 1st Corinthians 15 is not EVERYTHING that Paul said. We can't rest on this scripture alone, just like we can't rest on faith alone. First of all it's against the very principle of God who said that we are to live by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD Mat 4:4. Therefore, when we take every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, that has been given to us, for we know that not everything that Jesus said and did is recorded John 21:25, and we are not responsible for that which was not given to us, then we know we have take all that was given to us.

[bkstokes]

Martha: I'm aware of what Apostle Paul says the "gospel" is in Corinthians 15 Apostle Paul has given us the BASIS of the Christian faith in his description of what is the gospel. THIS IS 'WHY' WE BELIEVE. This is the REASON OF OUR HOPE THAT IS IN US 1 Peter 1:15. But we do not dwell on the "terminology" but on the "substance". And this definition of what is the gospel does not justify a faith alone doctrine. If it did, Apostle Paul could have said no more and just let "the gospel" and Corinthians 15 stand alone. But he didn't. That's why I said "it's all gospel."

Now as being quick to point out things about "YOUR" doctrine, I did not conclude from your post to me that you even held the faith alone doctrine, so it's not "YOUR" doctrine that I was speaking of, except in the most general sense that applies to anyone who holds that doctrine.

As regards to what Apostle is placing emphasis on in 1 Corinth 15, he's giving us the BASIS OF OUR FAITH and that's what he's emphasizing. But 1st Corinthians 15 is not EVERYTHING that Paul said. We can't rest on this scripture alone, just like we can't rest on faith alone. First of all it's against the very principle of God who said that we are to live by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD Matt 4:4. Therefore, when we take every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, that has been given to us, for we know that not everything that Jesus said and did is recorded John 21:25, and we are not responsible for that which was not given to us, then we know we have take all that was given to us.

You are putting words in my mouth. Luke and you are under the pressumption that I am against baptism. I have in fact been baptized both in the name of F, S, and HG and later in Jesus name. Obviously if I were against baptism I would have not been baptized at all. I have never advocated a faith alone doctrine. A christian should be baptized. My original point Again -- was the fact that God considered Abraham justified when he first believed. Abraham was later circumcised. Nevertheless, God did not wait to justify Abraham until the circumcision, he did it before (see Romans 4). God does not change. If Abraham, who is the father of the faith/those who believe, was first justified when he believed, then we also are the same justified when we first believe. Should the Christian be baptized afterwards, yes. Should they be filled with the Holy Spirit, yes (why wouldn't one want it).

[bkstokes]

Martha

I was not denying any part of the word of God. However you stated that all of it was gospel. I was simply pointing out that the Apostle Paul did not agree with you on this point. Yes -- in a overarching sense all of God's words are "good news". Nevertheless, I was talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have found that when one asks many oneness believers what the gospel is the oneness believers will go directly to Acts 2:38. While this is the proper response to the gospel it is not the gospel. Many times people who are not familiar with the oneness believers get confused because of this.

[LUKE2447]

Here are several Greek scholars who deal with the issue poined out above by Delta...


Baptism For The Remission Of Sins
by David Padfield
Just seven weeks after Christ's death on the cross the first gospel sermon this side of Calvary was preached. After Peter accused his audience of crucifying the Son of God, they cried out "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Peter announced the terms of Divine pardon: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). This passage makes an inseparable connection between baptism and the remission of sins. It makes the remission of sins depend upon baptism in the same sense as it is made to depend upon repentance. Through the years, many attempts have been made to negate the force of this passage.

I have never understood how Baptist preachers can make repentance a condition for salvation and then exclude baptism. They usually claim that repentance is "for" ("in order to obtain") the remission of sins and baptism is for ("because of") the remission of sins. However, the preposition "for" cannot express two different relationships to the two words-what it means to baptism it means to repentance. If repentance is essential to salvation, then so is baptism.

In several debates with Baptist preachers I have illustrated this verse with a chart showing two box cars on a train track. "Repentance" is one car and "baptism" is the other. They are joined by a small coupler -- the word "and." Because these cars are joined by the coupler, whatever direction one car travels, the other has to move in the same direction. If baptism is "because of" the remission of sins, then so is repentance. If repentance is "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, then so is baptism.

A parallel passage can be found in Acts 3:19, "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Repentance occupies the same place in both passages. In Acts 3:19 "be converted" occupies the place that "be baptized" is given in Acts 2:38. They are therefore identical in act and purpose-whatever baptism is for in Acts 2:38, conversion is for in Acts 3:19.

We have all been told "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Some commentators have apparently followed this advice when dealing with Acts 2:38. A. T. Robertson, the world renowned Baptist scholar, sought to avoid the issue in his Word Pictures In The New Testament (Broadman Press, 1930). In Volume III, on pages 35 and 36, while commenting on the phrase "for the remission of sins," as used in Acts 2:38, he wrote, "This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology ...One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." But, while explaining the same phrase in Matthew 26:28, he wrote in Volume I, page 210, "This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as a basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins."

Another smoke screen often used to get around Acts 2:38 is the argument that since the words "repent" and "be baptized" are different in both person and number in the original text, the phrase "for the remission of sins" cannot refer to both verbs.

A few years ago I wrote to several prominent Greek scholars to see if the above line of reasoning was valid. The question I sent to them was as follows: "Is it grammatically possible that the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion,' 'for the remission of sins,' as used in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, 'repent ye and be baptized each one of you,' even though these verbs differ in both person and number?" The following men responded to my inquiry. I will give their qualifications along with their response to my question.

Bruce Metzger was the editor of the Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. He is currently teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey. He wrote, "In reply to your recent inquiry may I say that, in my view, the phrase 'eis aphesin hamartion' in Acts 2:38 applies in sense to both of the preceding verbs."

F. W. Gingrich was a professor of New Testament Greek at Albright College in Reading, Pennsylvania. Gingrich, along with William Arndt, published A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature in 1957. He wrote, "The difference in person and number of 'repent' and 'be baptized' is caused by the fact that 'repent' is a direct address in the second person plural, while 'be baptized' is governed by the subject 'every one of you' and so is third person singular. 'Every one of you' is, of course, a collective noun."

Arthur L. Farstad was the chairman of the New King James Executive Review Committee and general editor of the NKJV New Testament. The NKJV was translated by over 120 Greek scholars, many of whom teach in Baptist schools. He wrote, "Since the expression 'eis aphesin hamartion' is a prepositional phrase with no verbal endings or singular or plural endings. I certainly agree that grammatically it can go with both repentance and baptism. In fact, I would think that it does go with both of them."

John R. Werner is the International Consultant in Translation to the Wycliffe Bible Translators. He was also a consultant to Friberg and Friberg with the Analytical Greek New Testament. From 1962 to 1972 he was professor of Greek at Trinity Christian College. He said, "Whenever two verbs are connected by kai 'and' and then followed by a modifier (such as a prepositional phrase, as in Acts 2:38), it is grammatically possible that modifier modifies either both the verbs, or only the latter one. This is because there is no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts, so we don't know whether the author intended to pause between the first verb and the 'and.' It does not matter that, here in Acts 2:38, one of the verbs is second person plural ("y'all") and the other is third-person singular ("is to"). They are both imperative, and the fact that they are joined by kai 'and' is sufficient evidence that the author may have regarded them as a single unit to which his modifier applied."

Barclay Newman and Eugene Nida edited The Translator's Handbook On The Acts Of The Apostles. This book, published by the United Bible Societies, says on page 60: "So that your sins will be forgiven (literally 'into a forgiveness of your sins') in the Greek may express either purpose or result; but the large majority of translators understand it as indicating purpose. The phrase modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins and be baptized."

The New Testament plainly teaches that accountable people have to be baptized into Christ in order to have their sins remitted. Have you been baptized for the remission of sins? "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16).

http://www.padfield.com/1995/sins.html

You can download a book on this from the link above...

[LUKE2447]

You are putting words in my mouth. Luke and you are under the pressumption that I am against baptism. I have in fact been baptized both in the name of F, S, and HG and later in Jesus name. Obviously if I were against baptism I would have not been baptized at all. I have never advocated a faith alone doctrine. A christian should be baptized. My original point Again -- was the fact that God considered Abraham justified when he first believed. Abraham was later circumcised. Nevertheless, God did not wait to justify Abraham until the circumcision, he did it before (see Romans 4). God does not change. If Abraham, who is the father of the faith/those who believe, was first justified when he believed, then we also are the same justified when we first believe. Should the Christian be baptized afterwards, yes. Should they be filled with the Holy Spirit, yes (why wouldn't one want it).


Yes but you make baptism something it is not! Also you fail the point of Abraham PER what James says.... Abraham was justified before God before Gen 15:6. The only reason Gen 15:6 is pointed out about righteousness is because it is a narrative comment to what was to come and the promise of God being given. Also the OT saints walked in faith to what God said thus that was there GOSPEL. As Hebrews points out clearly they had the Gospel as well. That Gospel is to walk by faith(proper response) to the Word of God. The NEW covenant is no different but we now see the realization of the promise in the atoning death of Christ of which the OT saints anticipated. Thus we repent and are baptized to be united with Christ to realize the atonement. Not just offer sacrifice but to be united IN SACRIFICE with him.

Thus James points out that one must follow the leading of God to be justified which is by proper response(faith/works) to God's Word/Gospel.

God's word came forth Gen 15:6 and the narrative points out that Abraham believed God.... When? What does James say? When was his "believed" fulfilled?

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
Jas 2:23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.


Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.


Gen 22:16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,
Gen 22:18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

God took upon the covenant due to Abraham's faithfulness! Thus he SWORE!

As we turn/repent and stand at the alter/cross/baptism to be united with Christ, so are we through this proper response to his Word/Gospel declared justified.

[bkstokes]

That Gospel is to walk by faith(proper response) to the Word of God.

Luke, I cannot find any verse in the Bible that defines the "gospel" this way. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I do not disagree with you that each person is to respond to God and be obediant to His word.

However, when one says that the gospel is our proper response to His word -- then that person is partly making himself/herself -- his/her own personal savior.

I really think the difference in how you and I view baptism is based upon this: you seem to view with the "eyeglasses" of dispensationalism and I wiew it with the "eyeglasses" of covenant theology.

[martha]

[QUOTE=martha;637017] And I can only conclude that "someone" has proposed that to advance the faith only doctrine. It's like the Jehovah's Witness bible. In order to advance their doctrine that Jesus Christ is not God Almighty, they altered their bible to read: "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was "a" God. . . ." If they had said: ". . .And the word "was" God", it would have messed up their doctrine and they couldn't let that happen. I guess it didn't matter how ridiculous it sounded, it was enough to throw the verse off and put it in error. [QUOTE]

This type of argument can be aptly called an Ad hominem argument. Simply put, one tries to attack the charater of another -- instead of addressing the issue at hand. Just because someone does not agree with you -- it does not mean that the person in question is a heretic, etc.


Martha: No personal "attack" intended. My apologies if you consider it personal.

[bkstokes]

Martha: No personal "attack" intended. My apologies if you consider it personal.

No worries,

I just didn't want it to get on personal level because that is when people start to write things that they could latter regret.

[LUKE2447]

You are putting words in my mouth. Luke and you are under the pressumption that I am against baptism. I have in fact been baptized both in the name of F, S, and HG and later in Jesus name. Obviously if I were against baptism I would have not been baptized at all. I have never advocated a faith alone doctrine. A christian should be baptized. My original point Again -- was the fact that God considered Abraham justified when he first believed. Abraham was later circumcised. Nevertheless, God did not wait to justify Abraham until the circumcision, he did it before (see Romans 4). God does not change. If Abraham, who is the father of the faith/those who believe, was first justified when he believed, then we also are the same justified when we first believe. Should the Christian be baptized afterwards, yes. Should they be filled with the Holy Spirit, yes (why wouldn't one want it).

Also you though not a "easy believism" type still are faith alone.

Question...

1) Does one HAVE TO confess to be saved?
2) Does one HAVE TO repent to be saved?

If any of the above is true then you have proven the above argument incorrect. As Faith is contextual upon what God says! The Gospel is Repent and be Baptized....

Baptism is no different than any of the above it serves a purpose to God. You make baptism a display unto the people and that is said NOWHERE in scripture as a public profession. Col 2 clearly shows it is display unto God and as 1 Peter 3:21 shows again unto God of proper response!!!

Also Abraham was not into covenant UNTIL he did or responded to what God commanded him. Neither are we except we properly respond to his Word/Gospel/

[LUKE2447]

That Gospel is to walk by faith(proper response) to the Word of God.

[QUOTE]Luke, I cannot find any verse in the Bible that defines the "gospel" this way. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I do not disagree with you that each person is to respond to God and be obediant to His word.

I agree it is D,B,R but you fail to realize WHEN those things are realized.

However, when one says that the gospel is our proper response to His word -- then that person is partly making himself/herself -- his/her own personal savior.
No they are not! So you are saying Saved by Grace THROUGH FAITH is not part of Gospel in general terms? What Grace? The provision of the atonement of Christ that is offered to all that RESPOND! Are you saying we play NO PART AT ALL in salvation? If you think that then you do not know what faith is. Grace ALONE does not save! Grace allowed the provision! It takes our response to his provision to turn away and be united with Christ in baptism and receive the HS. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word/Gospel of God! You cannot respond unless you hear. It takes response from you to be saved by HIS graceful provision of Christ!

I really think the difference in how you and I view baptism is based upon this: you seem to view with the "eyeglasses" of dispensationalism and I wiew it with the "eyeglasses" of covenant theology.

Uh NO what I have said is nowhere NEAR dispensationalism. Neither view makes a issue of it.

[bkstokes]

Baptism is no different than any of the above it serves a purpose to God. You make baptism a display unto the people and that is said NOWHERE in scripture as a public profession. Col 2 clearly shows it is display unto God and as 1 Peter 3:21 shows again unto God of proper response!!!

When did I say that baptism was for a public confession?

[LUKE2447]

Baptism is no different than any of the above it serves a purpose to God. You make baptism a display unto the people and that is said NOWHERE in scripture as a public profession. Col 2 clearly shows it is display unto God and as 1 Peter 3:21 shows again unto God of proper response!!!

When did I say that baptism was for a public confession?

Then what is it? Not many things you can make it. Either it is uniting with Christ or not. I also was arguing in general and in principle.

[bkstokes]

Luke

The first place that God made a covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15.

5And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and (G)count the stars, if you are able to count them " And He said to him, "(H)So shall your descendants be."

6(I)Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying,
"(X)To your descendants I have given this land,
From (Y)the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

There is no mention of circumsicion in this chapter or in this encounter with God. Abraham was also considered righteous before God because he believed. Later, when Abraham was 99, God confirmed his covenant with Abraham by appearing to him again -- Abraham was told that he and his male descendants needed to be circumcised.

My point is that he was considered righteous with God before the circumsicion.

[LUKE2447]

Luke

The first place that God made a covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15.

5And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and (G)count the stars, if you are able to count them " And He said to him, "(H)So shall your descendants be."

6(I)Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying,
"(X)To your descendants I have given this land,
From (Y)the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

There is no mention of circumsicion in this chapter or in this encounter with God. Abraham was also considered righteous before God because he believed. Later, when Abraham was 99, God confirmed his covenant with Abraham by appearing to him again -- Abraham was told that he and his male descendants needed to be circumcised.

My point is that he was considered righteous with God before the circumsicion.

I do believe I pointed out Gen 15. I also said nothing about circimcision! This also has nothing to do with my other points on James of which James points to WHEN Gen 15:6 was considered fulfilled. Gen 15:6 referes to something different than later in the chapter.

Notice also after Gen 15:6 God speaks again and tells him to do something and then gives him a covenant of land. Even then God still does the same thing of speaking/word going forth and waiting for response. conditions must be met before a covenant can be established which is contractual law.

The promise right before Gen 15:6 is not the one later in the chapter as they are two different things. Notice the language used in Gen 22

Gen 22:16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
Gen 22:17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,
Gen 22:18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

and then notice the direct language.


Gen 15:3 And Abram said, "Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir."
Gen 15:4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: "This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir."
Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

As James points out this aspect of being declated loyal and friend and just comes into reality here and is declared righteouss Gen 22. No covenant was made concerning this before only a promise. One was a covenant of land the other of offspring to the blessing of earth.

Also by definition of faith, circumcision is proper response to God. Did the circumcision itself save or the judgment of loyalty by God by proper response. Just as I have said in other threads. Faith, Repentance, Baptism etc... in themselves do not save but they are the vehicle or medium in which God declares us loyal or just or righteouss. It is his judgment by witness of faith(proper response) that saves not the act in itself of faith. Thus it is by Grace through faith. Conditions must be met before God can do that. That is what we see in the life of Abraham.

[shag]

Not lookin to interupt, but how do some of you feel about the verse where Ananias told Paul to be baptised and wash away his sins...(Acts 22:16)

We're his sins already remitted before, or did they get remitted after he obeyed what Ananias said?

Just wonderin others' viewpoints on it.

[LUKE2447]

Luke

The first place that God made a covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15.

5And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and (G)count the stars, if you are able to count them " And He said to him, "(H)So shall your descendants be."

6(I)Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying,
"(X)To your descendants I have given this land,
From (Y)the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

There is no mention of circumsicion in this chapter or in this encounter with God. Abraham was also considered righteous before God because he believed. Later, when Abraham was 99, God confirmed his covenant with Abraham by appearing to him again -- Abraham was told that he and his male descendants needed to be circumcised.

My point is that he was considered righteous with God before the circumsicion.

Also my point is one is only considered righteous until God declares so by evidence of proper response(faith) to whatever he asks.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Thus every word is life and this is also law.

[LUKE2447]

How do you guys feel about the verse where Ananias told Paul to be baptised and wash away his sins...(Acts 22:16)

We're his sins already remitted before, or did they get remitted after he obeyed what Ananias said?

Just wonderin others' viewpoints on it.

When he faithfully called upon the name of the Lord in baptism. Pretty clear statement as repentance and faith had already been displayed to do what he did yet the statement was still made.

[Sam]

I view the washing/bathing/cleansing of baptism/mikveh as symbolic only, just as I view the cracker/matzo/bread and wine/grape juice as the body and blood of Jesus.

When I serve communion, I say this is the body of Christ which was broken for you and then this is the blood of Jesus freely given for the forgiveness of your sin.

I do not believe in transubstantiation i.e. that the physical elements actually turn into the physical body and blood of Jesus. Nor do I believe that water baptism actually cleanses from sin. Both are symbolic of great spiritual experiences and meaning. But, they are visible memorials pointing back to and illustrating a reality.

[staysharp]

I view the washing/bathing/cleansing of baptism/mikveh as symbolic only, just as I view the cracker/matzo/bread and wine/grape juice as the body and blood of Jesus.

When I serve communion, I say this is the body of Christ which was broken for you and then this is the blood of Jesus freely given for the forgiveness of your sin.

I do not believe in transubstantiation i.e. that the physical elements actually turn into the physical body and blood of Jesus. Nor do I believe that water baptism actually cleanses from sin. Both are symbolic of great spiritual experiences and meaning. But, they are visible memorials pointing back to and illustrating a reality.

Exactly! A mere shadow and remembrance of what was to come and what has already come...Messiah!

[bkstokes]

Also my point is one is only considered righteous until God declares so by evidence of proper response(faith) to whatever he asks.

Luke -- Abraham was righteous before circumcision. It is clear in the scripture. It simply says Abraham believed God, and He reconkoned it to him as righteouness. You can believe it or not -- it is your decision.

[martha]

When he faithfully called upon the name of the Lord in baptism. Pretty clear statement as repentance and faith had already been displayed to do what he did yet the statement was still made.

Luke, does baptism remove the sin of people who have been baptized but don't believe that it does?
There's millions of people who don't know or believe that baptism is for the remission of sin. I would think it still does but I never really thought about before.

Both you and I have presented the word of God that baptism is for the remission of sins and you can't be saved without it, you more fully and coherently than I, and now what more can be said? I have enjoyed your commentaries on this subject.

[staysharp]

Not lookin to interupt, but how do some of you feel about the verse where Ananias told Paul to be baptised and wash away his sins...(Acts 22:16)

We're his sins already remitted before, or did they get remitted after he obeyed what Ananias said?

Just wonderin others' viewpoints on it.

As stated earlier, these men were Jews whose custom was to immerse regularly. It would have been normal to immerse after such an experience. It was a form of cleansing.

The revelation of Grace had not been given or understood by the Jewish believers. God revealed this to the Apostle Paul later in his ministry. It was only in moving past the religious institution of Judaism that Paul was able to fully understand what Christ had done.

[martha]

Not lookin to interupt, but how do some of you feel about the verse where Ananias told Paul to be baptised and wash away his sins...(Acts 22:16)

We're his sins already remitted before, or did they get remitted after he obeyed what Ananias said?

Just wonderin others' viewpoints on it.

Jesus Christ sent Paul/Saul to Ananias so that Ananias could 'TELL HIM WHAT HE MUST DO". Ananias didn't tell him to be baptized and wash away his sins for nothing nor did Peter tell the people to be baptized on the day of pentcost for nothing. It was by the inspiration of God Almighty that he told him to "be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord" Some of us seem to forget whose word we're dealing with. To paraphrase Peter after he went to the house of Cornelius, Who are we that we should withstand God? Acts 11:17. If God said we must be baptized, we must be baptized.

[bkstokes]

Who are we that we should withstand God?

This particular phrase deals with Peter and his friends prejudice. It was very hard for them to get over the fact that God could give his Spirit to the gentiles.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Well I wholeheartedly believe in justification by faith alone.

I also believe every Christian believer must participate in baptism by immersion (if for no other reason) than to simply obey the Bible and the biblical examples we have clearly described.


I also believe that every Christian believer must participate in communion.


For those who refuse these sacraments, I question the sincerity of their faith.

For those who are taught otherwise, I pray for God's mercy.


Speaking of biblical examples, if baptism washes away sins, explain the Cornelius experience.


Also, most who believe that water baptism literally washes away the sinner's sin, also believe that same sinner must speak in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance in order for them to be saved.


Can a person be sinless and not saved?

[martha]

Who are we that we should withstand God?

This particular phrase deals with Peter and his friends prejudice. It was very hard for them to get over the fact that God could give his Spirit to the gentiles.


Yes, in that particular instance that's what it was referring to but in my case, I'm talking about "who are we" to circumvent God's word with ours, i.e., who are we to withstand God. Same principle, different issue.

[bkstokes]

To paraphrase Peter after he went to the house of Cornelius, Who are we that we should withstand God? Acts 11:17. If God said we must be baptized, we must be baptized.

Yes, in that particular instance that's what it was referring to but in my case, I'm talking about "who are we" to circumvent God's word with ours, i.e., who are we to withstand God. Same principle, different issue.

Actually that is not what you were doing -- you used Peter phrase to imply that he was specifically talking about the issue of baptism. He was not. He was talking about the fact that his fellow jews needed also to accept them because God accepted them, so they were baptized into Christ. Just as when someone wanted to become a Jew in the OT he had to be circumcised or he would be cut off from the jewish people.

All of this still does not change the fact that Paul points out what happened in Genesis 15 -- Abraham was first justified when he believed God's word. Abraham offered a sacrifice to God in this first encounter (blood).

Some have asked, what would have happened if Abraham would have not circumcised himself in Genesis 17 (where he was again confirmed his covenant with God). If this were the case, IMHO Abraham would have then drawn back from God. The blood of Jesus is continually applied to the believer throughout his relationship with God.

[shag]

I believe that only Jesus can wash away and forgive our sins.

But, at the same time, I also can not get around the fact that Ananias told Paul to "arise, and be baptised and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord."

Unless baptism is where we "contact", and receive the blood washing of sin that took place on the cross for all mankind, then it looks to me like Ananias should have worded it a little different, maybe put a "because of" in there somewhere.

I do not believe Paul washed away his own sin, no matter what Ananias said, because he was not sinless. But I do believe it is possible that he could contact, and receive Jesus' bloodwashing remission, thru burial with him in baptism.

[Sam]

I believe that only Jesus can wash away and forgive our sins.

But, at the same time, I also can not get around the fact that Ananias told Paul to "arise, and be baptised and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord."

Unless baptism is where we "contact", and receive the blood washing of sin that took place on the cross for all mankind, then it looks to me like Ananias should have worded it a little different, maybe put a "because of" in there somewhere.

I do not believe Paul washed away his own sin, no matter what Ananias said, because he was not sinless. But I do believe it is possible that he could contact, and receive Jesus' bloodwashing remission, thru burial with him in baptism.

My opinion is that water baptism is a ritual or symbolic cleansing, not an actual cleansing. My opinion is that the initial cleansing comes when we turn to Jesus by faith and that cleansing happens again whenever we confess our sins afterward per 1 John 1:9.

To me the cleansing or washing of baptism is symbolic just like the elements of communion are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus.

[martha]

Actually that is not what you were doing -- you used Peter phrase to imply that he was specifically talking about the issue of baptism. He was not. He was talking about the fact that his fellow jews needed also to accept them because God accepted them, so they were baptized into Christ. Just as when someone wanted to become a Jew in the OT he had to be circumcised or he would be cut off from the jewish people.

All of this still does not change the fact that Paul points out what happened in Genesis 15 -- Abraham was first justified when he believed God's word. Abraham offered a sacrifice to God in this first encounter (blood).

Some have asked, what would have happened if Abraham would have not circumcised himself in Genesis 17 (where he was again confirmed his covenant with God). If this were the case, IMHO Abraham would have then drawn back from God. The blood of Jesus is continually applied to the believer throughout his relationship with God.

Martha: This was my statement:
"To paraphrase Peter after he went to the house of Cornelius, Who are we that we should withstand God? Acts 11:17. If God said we must be baptized, we must be baptized."

In that statement I am referring to the FACT and the PRINCIPLE that NO ONE CAN WITHSTAND GOD. If God said it, that's the FINAL WORD. It makes no difference what he said, that's the final word on the subject, whatever the subject may be. It is the uncontestability of God's word that I am referring to. When we contest God's word, we are withstanding God. When we assign things to God that he has not said and disregard what he did say, we are withstanding God. My point in that statement was that God said we MUST be baptized for the remission of sins and we cannot withstand God by saying that we don't. Peter understood this PRINCIPLE AND FACT. The FACT that Peter was talking about salvation being extended to the Gentiles in Acts 11:17 WAS NOT THE EMPHASIS OF MY STATEMENT, but the FACT that Peter said: "What was I that I could withstand God" and the PRINCIPLE he was standing on that NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY to say or do anything differently than what God has said, or to disregard anything God has said. I meant exactly what I said: "If God said we must be baptized (for the remission of sins) we must be baptized (for the remission of sins) Who are we that we should withstand God." How much plainer can I make it. Salvation coming to the Gentiles is nowhere in the subject of my statement or the discussion at hand, but the UNCONTESTABILITY OF GOD'S WORD REGARDING ANY SUBJECT WHATSOEVER.

[bkstokes]

I believe that only Jesus can wash away and forgive our sins.

But, at the same time, I also can not get around the fact that Ananias told Paul to "arise, and be baptised and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord."

Unless baptism is where we "contact", and receive the blood washing of sin that took place on the cross for all mankind, then it looks to me like Ananias should have worded it a little different, maybe put a "because of" in there somewhere.

I do not believe Paul washed away his own sin, no matter what Ananias said, because he was not sinless. But I do believe it is possible that he could contact, and receive Jesus' bloodwashing remission, thru burial with him in baptism.

This was a command to express faith. the sins would be washed away through calling on the Lord's name, however, not by the water of baptism. As 1 Peter 3:21 brings out, the waters of baptism cannot wash away any of the filthiness of the flesh (that is, of the old nature). Rather, they are an answer (appeal, pledge) of a good conscience that has already been cleansed by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ (see also Rom. 10:9-10).

[LUKE2447]

This was a command to express faith. the sins would be washed away through calling on the Lord's name, however, not by the water of baptism. As 1 Peter 3:21 brings out, the waters of baptism cannot wash away any of the filthiness of the flesh (that is, of the old nature). Rather, they are an answer (appeal, pledge) of a good conscience that has already been cleansed by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ (see also Rom. 10:9-10).

That is not what he is saying. The flesh he is talking about physical. You destroy the whole point of BAPTISM DOTH NOW SAVE US! He is saying it's not about physical cleaning but an answer or appeal of good conscience just like I pointed out in Matt....

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

A person CANNOT come to God in baptism/alter/cross unless he is of toward mind or face God in pureness of heart which is on repentance. You try to negate CLEAR teaching constantly throughout scripture regarding baptism and it's relationship to salvation of forgiveness of sins.

One comes to God in good conscience by turning away. DOES not mean the sacrifice or uniting of oneself has been made on the alter. The scripture above shows again the "order" in which this happens and validates Acts 2:38!


Show me where it says what you said here...

"that has already been cleansed by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ "

It does not say that! Romans 6 points to when the blood is applied...BAPTISM!

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Did it say REPENT INTO HIS DEATH? NO! Turning to Christ is essential but it is still not "into his death'.

Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

By Baptism "IN ORDER THAT!" That is clear statement! The point of saying "in order that" is to gain, receive or acquire. Thus when we are INTO HIS DEATH WE RECEIVE, GAIN or ACQUIRE..... NEWNESS OF LIFE! You can't say "in order that" if it has already happened.

Few things I see as a telling sign of a persons ability to simply ignore clear scripture. Baptism is one of them. Sad, Sad, Sad.

[bkstokes]

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Luke, your reliance upon scriptures that deal with the levitical law, show what state of belief you hold.

[martha]

This was a command to express faith. the sins would be washed away through calling on the Lord's name, however, not by the water of baptism. As 1 Peter 3:21 brings out, the waters of baptism cannot wash away any of the filthiness of the flesh (that is, of the old nature). Rather, they are an answer (appeal, pledge) of a good conscience that has already been cleansed by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ (see also Rom. 10:9-10).

Martha: This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say we cannot withstand God. You're assigning things to him that he did not say and disregarding what he did say.

[LUKE2447]

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Luke, your reliance upon scriptures that deal with the levitical law, show what state of belief you hold.


Are you joking me? Jesus is teaching principle which goes beyond bounds of any covenant! You seriously need to think how poor of a argument you just laid out it, is. BECAUSE IT'S Levitical?!?!? WOW! LOL! For Jesus to be a proper sacrifice he had to fulfill law and do it the RIGHT way according to God's precept and ordinances. The law was structure of God's divine dealings with man. Truth is truth no matter the covenant. The OT gave order by which man could be justified through LAW. Jesus thus fulfilled it to make way for salvation. In the law it taught about order. God's order is still order. To say what you just said really amazes me. God did not just give out law to just throw out stuff or be mean but to teach us his ways.

The belief I hold is God gives order in his teaching. Jesus taught this for a reason and it was to show how one must come to God in order that your sacrifices are suitable to him. This still applies today in all aspects of life and it applies how one comes in relationship to achieve atonement through Christ. One must come to him reconciled/repentant/changed of mind in order to be united with him. If not you are at enmity of heart and baptism means nothing.

[bkstokes]

Martha: This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say we cannot withstand God. You're assigning things to him that he did not say and disregarding what he did say.

No, I am using scripture to interpret scripture. This is the only interpretation that has these two stances not in contradiction. (Acts 22 and Romans 10)

Why would Paul place intial justification at the point of baptism, then turn around and place it at the intial confession/repentance portion of conversion?

Intial justification is an "either or" situation. Either one is justified when he first calls upon the Lord or he is not.

If he is not justified when he first calls upon the Lord and it takes baptism for intial justification, then virtually what you are saying is one of three things:
1. Paul changed his opinion later on -- and one of the times he was not inspired by God.
2. Luke's book of Acts had at least portions that were uninspired.
3. Paul was uninspired when he wrote the book of Romans.

Since I believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God, I say that Paul was inspired by God on both occassions and both he and Luke made sure that it was recorded without error.

[martha]

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Luke, your reliance upon scriptures that deal with the levitical law, show what state of belief you hold.


Martha: And you're bringing Abraham back from before the law who was justified by faith and trying to make his salvation exactly the same as salvation under grace, before the blood of Jesus was shed. You can't do that. That's why Jesus Christ went down into "hell", the graves and preached salvation while his body was lying in the tomb. The old testament saints. had to hear the word preached. And don't tell me Jesus Christ couldn't preach to dead people. Why do you think he descended into hell and preached?

[bkstokes]

Martha: And you're bringing Abraham back from before the law who was justified by faith and trying to make his salvation exactly the same as salvation under grace, before the blood of Jesus was shed. You can't do that.

Jesus said, Abraham saw my day and rejoiced. :snapout There are not various ways that someone can be saved throughout the annals of time. All come to God via the blood of Jesus Christ.

ACTUALLY, I didn't bring Abraham back. The Apostle Paul, the guy who went to the third heaven and came back, brought him back and called him the father of the faith. :whistle

[martha]

:teaseNo, I am using scripture to interpret scripture. This is the only interpretation that has these two stances not in contradiction. (Acts 22 and Romans 10)


Why would Paul place intial justification at the point of baptism, then turn around and place it at the intial confession/repentance portion of conversion?


Martha: Paul is not speaking two different things. You insist on rendering null and void the message of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. If one is not baptized, they remain in their sins, period! They remain in their sins because they have not availed themselves to the forgiveness provided in the blood of Jesus Christ through baptism in his name that was shed for the remission of sins. Unless you've done this, all the other scriptures are of no use to you. You've exempted yourself from any promises offered on the basis of faith in Romans 10. You forgot that Romans 10 was not the only epistle/sermon that Paul originated and communicated, whether written in his own hand. delivered personally, or written by someone else. And you chose to bury the ones you didn't want to hear and build your own way of salvation which is less than worthless and a perversion of the word of God. You're like the wedding guest in Matthew 22 who went to the wedding without a wedding garment {You have not put on Christ Gal 3:27} and was cast out (because you have no right to be there without repentence, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which gives you remission of sins and being filled with the Holy Ghost) No one who remains in sin will be justified, at any time while they remain in sin. And they will remain in sin until they are baptized, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins according to Acts 2:38 and others scriptures that I have already cited in previous posts. Those who believe in the faith alone doctrine refuse to believe the word of God but want to "fix" it like they want it. But Acts 2:38 is their main target scripture. They have to render it null and void because it speaks so clearly and still they don't believe. Unbelief , by its very nature, is unforgivable, as long as one remains in it. I used the pronoun "YOU" in this post to refer, in a generic and collective sense, to anyone who advances the faith alone doctrine and not specifically to you, personally.

If he is not justified when he first calls upon the Lord and it takes baptism for intial justification, then virtually what you are saying is one of three things:
1. Paul changed his opinion later on -- and one of the times he was not inspired by God.
2. Luke's book of Acts had at least portions that were uninspired.
3. Paul was uninspired when he wrote the book of Romans.

Since I believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God, I say that Paul was inspired by God on both occassions and both he and Luke made sure that it was recorded without error.

Paul never changed his doctrine (not opinion) and he was always inspired by God. Luke's book of Acts, which gives details of baptism without hesitation or question as well as its necessity is also the divine, inspired word of God and Apostle Paul's account in Romans did not deviate one iota from anything he preached anywhere else. You just don't have (and it appears you refuse to have) understanding of what's written. "YOU" in this case does refer to you personally.

[bkstokes]

:tease

Paul never changed his doctrine (not opinion) and he was always inspired by God. Luke's book of Acts, which gives details of baptism without hesitation or question as well as its necessity is also the divine, inspired word of God and Apostle Paul's account in Romans did not deviate one iota from anything he preached anywhere else. You just don't have (and it appears you refuse to have) understanding of what's written. "YOU" in this case does refer to you personally.

Martha

You have not addressed the issue. It is very easy to call the other person who does not agree with you ignorant. It is a defensive reaction which tells that you are not open to talk about the issue sensibly.

Once again, I believe each person who believes in Jesus Christ should be baptized because the Word of God says so.

Nevertheless, the issue is when does initial justification take place. I am open to read what you have to say. How do you reconcile Acts 22 with Romans 10? This was the main point of my post.

[martha]

Jesus said, Abraham saw my day and rejoiced. :snapout There are not various ways that someone can be saved throughout the annals of time. All come to God via the blood of Jesus Christ.

ACTUALLY, I didn't bring Abraham back. The Apostle Paul, the guy who went to the third heaven and came back, brought him back and called him the father of the faith. :whistle

Martha: John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad." What does this have to do with Jesus Christ's salvation in the dispensation of grace? We know that Abraham saw his day because Jesus Christ is God Almighty, without mother, without father, without beginning of days or end of life, a priest, forever, after the order of Melchizedek (And Melchizedek was Jesus Christ). It was Jesus Christ who dealt with Abraham, in Abraham's day, whom Abraham believed and by whom Abraham was accounted righteous. But the blood of Jesus Christ was not shed in Abraham's day. The blood was not made available to Abraham's dispensation. If it had been, there would have been no need for the cross.(DUH!)

[martha]

Martha

You have not addressed the issue. It is very easy to call the other person who does not agree with you ignorant. It is a defensive reaction which tells that you are not open to talk about the issue sensibly.

Once again, I believe each person who believes in Jesus Christ should be baptized because the Word of God says so.

Nevertheless, the issue is when does initial justification take place. I am open to read what you have to say. How do you reconcile Acts 22 with Romans 10? This was the main point of my post.

Martha: I don't believe I called you "ignorant". Those are your words. I have told you what is true and you say that I "am not open to talk about the issues sensibly" because you refuse to believe the truth of what the word says.

Justification takes place when we obey God, just like it did when Abraham obeyed God. Had Abraham not obeyed God, he would not have been justified either. Obeying God includes doing what God said: Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. Reconciling Acts 22 where Paul is converted on the road to Damascus and Obeys God in that he wastes no time being baptized and Romans 10 where Paul says: "But if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved" ; "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."; and does not mention baptism does not abolish Romans 6 or Acts 2:38. Why do you keep trying to throw these scriptures away? These verses out of Romans 10 are built upon the premise of baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ, of which Apostle Paul is well aware because he was commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to "wash away his sins". Does Apostle Paul have to repeat baptism in every epistle for us to know that he's already preached it, that he's already been a partaker of it himself? At what point will we realize that Apostle Paul preached baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and when will we realize that we MUST HAVE REMISSION OF SINS IF WE WANT TO BE SAVED? Every scripture that mentions faith that leads to salvation is premised on the fact that we have been baptized, or will be baptized. Romans 10 doesn't just talk about faith either: "But they HAVE NOT ALL OBEYED THE GOSPEL." Did you catch the word OBEYED, obeyed, OBEYED. "For Isaiah says, Lord who has believed, BELIEVED, believed our report?" "But I say have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world. Did not Israel know?

[bkstokes]

Martha: I don't believe I called you "ignorant". Those are your words. I have told you what is true and you say that I "am not open to talk about the issues sensibly" because you refuse to believe the truth of what the word says.

Justification takes place when we obey God, just like it did when Abraham obeyed God. Had Abraham not obeyed God, he would not have been justified either. Obeying God includes doing what God said: Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the holy ghost. Reconciling Acts 22 where Paul is converted on the road to Damascus and Obeys God in that he wastes no time being baptized and Romans 10 where Paul says: "But if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved" ; "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."; and does not mention baptism does not abolish Romans 6 or Acts 2:38. Why do you keep trying to throw these scriptures away? These verses out of Romans 10 are built upon the premise of baptism, in water, in the name of Jesus Christ, of which Apostle Paul is well aware because he was commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to "wash away his sins". Does Apostle Paul have to repeat baptism in every epistle for us to know that he's already preached it, that he's already been a partaker of it himself? At what point will we realize that Apostle Paul preached baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and when will we realize that we MUST HAVE REMISSION OF SINS IF WE WANT TO BE SAVED? Every scripture that mentions faith that leads to salvation is premised on the fact that we have been baptized, or will be baptized. Romans 10 doesn't just talk about faith either: "But they HAVE NOT ALL OBEYED THE GOSPEL." Did you catch the word OBEYED, obeyed, OBEYED. "For Isaiah says, Lord who has believed, BELIEVED, believed our report?" "But I say have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world. Did not Israel know?

Your argument is circular. Do you always write or speak down to people that don't agree with you?

[LUKE2447]

bkstokes,

What is baptism for or what does it do?

[deltaguitar]

This is a good thread.

[martha]

Your argument is circular. Do you always write or speak down to people that don't agree with you?

Martha: I speak to you according to what you have demonstrated to me that it takes for you to understand what's being said. In your case, you're looking for little meanial things (like how I speak or what specifically is designated as the gospel) to focus on so that you can downplay, move to the background, or do away with altogether, the really essential things. That's what we call smoke screening.(LOL< LOL)

[bkstokes]

bkstokes,

What is baptism for or what does it do?

Luke

Let's arrive at the answer together. :friend How about we employ the socratic method. What do you think was the purpose of John's baptism of repentance?

[LUKE2447]

Your argument is circular. Do you always write or speak down to people that don't agree with you?

No actually her points are very good. As a lover of debates in the sense of professional(moderator, crowd, structure etc..) I have found it amazing how poorly Baptist or Faith Only groups do in them. Romans 10 gets blown out of the water as a "this is the steps" argument. Not because what I believe but the end result of how they must defend it as they must abandon certain teachings. I can see a good argument for what it's worth and even see arguments in areas of Trinitarianism etc... The baptism debate though. Sorry but I have never seen a debate even among the best go good for the baptism is not essential group. This is why you have a move to a hyper dispensational thought by many as they must make the gospel evolve to negate scripture on baptism, law, works etc.. Also break the tension between was Jesus, and the Apostles the Apostles taught with Paul.

Romans 10 in part is called synecdochic. I can preach and say Faith saves to my church and everyone would understand my context as it meaning more than mental assent. They would understand faith that saves is faith that obeys. As you cannot seperate faith from response. In it they would understand that when I say faith I am uncluding a whole concept. I may speak in one aspect without negating the whole of faith. This is seen all throughout scripture. In this it can work in our view of faith. Yet when it comesto teaching on baptism it won't work for "faith Only" groups. As you can't say it from a synecdochical standpoint that baptism saves. You can't say "in order to obtain remission" is synecdochical. When one is baptized he is baptized "into" eis "for the purpose of" or "in order to obtain" his death.

Faith only argument cannot stand within a synecdochic context as it has to be "only". Repent and be baptized.... in Acts 2:38 does not mention belief yet we understand that is part of the equation. He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved.... Does not mention repent yet we know it is part of the context of believe or faith. Yet this whole verse does not mention confess either per your Romans 10. Yet I can understand confession in baptism and all throughout the life of one coming to Christ and to the end of his life. We also know the context of believe is a continual or on going response per the Greek. Which would clearly show a desire to fulfill context or bring about the whole of meaning.

[bkstokes]

Martha: I speak to you according to what you have demonstrated to me that it takes for you to understand what's being said. In your case, you're looking for little meanial things (like how I speak or what specifically is designated as the gospel) to focus on so that you can downplay, move to the background, or do away with altogether, the really essential things. That's what we call smoke screening.(LOL< LOL)

Martha

I am in no means trying to be trivial, just exact. Jesus said that it was the little foxes that destroy the vine. Obviously, the details of matter are important even to our LORD and Savior.

[LUKE2447]

Luke

Let's arrive at the answer together. :friend How about we employ the socratic method. What do you think was the purpose of John's baptism of repentance?


I just feel the love.... LOL!

No, I want to know what "your" view of baptism is. What does it mean on the area of coming to God. What purpose does God give to it. You can talk philosophy but I want scripture as well.

What is it for and what does it do.

You talk...

[bkstokes]

No actually her points are very good. As a lover of debates in the sense of professional(moderator, crowd, structure etc..) I have found it amazing how poorly Baptist or Faith Only groups do in them. Romans 10 gets blown out of the water as a "this is the steps" argument. Not because what I believe but the end result of how they must defend it as they must abandon certain teachings. I can see a good argument for what it's worth and even see arguments in areas of Trinitarianism etc... The baptism debate though. Sorry but I have never seen a debate even among the best go good for the baptism is not essential group. This is why you have a move to a hyper dispensational thought by many as they must make the gospel evolve to negate scripture on baptism, law, works etc.. Also break the tension between was Jesus, and the Apostles the Apostles taught with Paul.

Luke

For lack of time, I will only address this portion. First, I am not here to debate. I concur with the statement of Thomas Jefferson, when he said that he had never seen anyone who participated in debate changed to the other side. I come to any talk of God as the bereans did -- looking to study it out.

Second, where have I ever denied baptism? Believing that intial justification takes place when a person turns to God -- does not mean that person wants to do away with baptism.

Thrid, I do not deny the law or works -- the ceremonial law was completed/fulfilled in the sacrifice of the cross. The moral law still abides in all our hearts. The works/acts that I do for God are done because the unmerited favor of God gives me the strength/desire to do them.

[LUKE2447]

No actually her points are very good. As a lover of debates in the sense of professional(moderator, crowd, structure etc..) I have found it amazing how poorly Baptist or Faith Only groups do in them. Romans 10 gets blown out of the water as a "this is the steps" argument. Not because what I believe but the end result of how they must defend it as they must abandon certain teachings. I can see a good argument for what it's worth and even see arguments in areas of Trinitarianism etc... The baptism debate though. Sorry but I have never seen a debate even among the best go good for the baptism is not essential group. This is why you have a move to a hyper dispensational thought by many as they must make the gospel evolve to negate scripture on baptism, law, works etc.. Also break the tension between was Jesus, and the Apostles the Apostles taught with Paul.

Luke

For lack of time, I will only address this portion. First, I am not here to debate. I concur with the statement of Thomas Jefferson, when he said that he had never seen anyone who participated in debate changed to the other side. I come to any talk of God as the bereans did -- looking to study it out.

Second, where have I ever denied baptism? Believing that intial justification takes place when a person turns to God -- does not mean that person wants to do away with baptism.

Thrid, I do not deny the law or works -- the ceremonial law was completed/fulfilled in the sacrifice of the cross. The moral law still abides in all our hearts. The works/acts that I do for God are done because the unmerited favor of God gives me the strength/desire to do them.

I did not say you disregarded Baptism as something we should not do... Baptists teach baptism is not essential and say it is something you should as it is commanded but in reality they give no meaning to it and purpose except public profession. Which would not confession do the same thing in there understanding? The problem is you disregard it for the purpose it was intended. You relegate it to no real purpose in the work of God. To just do is not a purpose. It is the point in which the condition of faith is met in which we realize the uniting of Christ and justice is done. We baptized "into" which in meaning is "in order to obtain" his death or Christ.

My point on law and works was general, not not necessarily to you. I would disagree with your point on ceremonial though but that is for another subject and time. I also disagree with the inability to understand anything or do anything. I don't subscribe to that type of reformed theology. We have certain natural abilties as we are created in his image. Thus we can respond to God if he speaks. Does God help us? Yes, he speaks and reveals and protects but in the end it is our choice to do. (if your are not saying the above and I misunderstood just ignore it)

Also concerning Thomas Jefferson.... He is wrong I know of several debates that have changed mens lives. I also know some people on this board will be turned one way or another due to arguments presented. It is a natural aspect of hearing and contemplating.

[bkstokes]

I just feel the love.... LOL!

No, I want to know what "your" view of baptism is. What does it mean on the area of coming to God. What purpose does God give to it. You can talk philosophy but I want scripture as well.

What is it for and what does it do.

You talk...

Well, I am trying to find some common ground on the subject, so we talk about it. So I asked what was the purpose of John's baptism?

[LUKE2447]

It doesn't matter what I think or whether we need common ground. It's your view of the purpose of baptism. What does it do. Why should it be done. Just because it is commanded is not a reason of intent by God.

I am a new convert explain WHY does God command us to be baptized and to baptize... What is the divine purpose of such a request.

[bkstokes]

It doesn't matter what I think or whether we need common ground. It's your view of the purpose of baptism. What does it do. Why should it be done. Just because it is commanded is not a reason of intent by God.

I am a new convert explain WHY does God command us to be baptized and to baptize... What is the divine purpose of such a request.

Refering to your earlier comment about Jefferson -- the essense of what he said was -- the two who were in the heat of debate; the one could not change the other (He was not talking about bystanders). When we become very emotional, we are less apt to reason clearly. We take a defensive/unopen stance.


Concerning baptism -- brevity is the soul of wit.

Colossians 2
11and in Him (AA)you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of (AB)the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

12having been (AC)buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also (AD)raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who (AE)raised Him from the dead.

Baptism is to the New Testament what Circumcision is to the Old Testament.

[LUKE2447]

Refering to your earlier comment about Jefferson -- the essense of what he said was -- the two who were in the heat of debate; the one could not change the other (He was not talking about bystanders). When we become very emotional, we are less apt to reason clearly. We take a defensive/unopen stance.


Concerning baptism -- brevity is the soul of wit.

Colossians 2
11and in Him (AA)you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of (AB)the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

12having been (AC)buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also (AD)raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who (AE)raised Him from the dead.

Baptism is to the New Testament what Circumcision is to the Old Testament.

Baptists have argued that it is not the New Covenant circumcision.

Yet you make it that!

[bkstokes]

Baptists have argued that it is not the New Covenant circumcision.

Yet you make it that!

Who said I was baptist?

[LUKE2447]

Who said I was baptist?

Doesn't matter if you are or not. They have produced pretty much every argument and reason it's not essential. In all the arguments and debates I have seen and that is a lot. They have always argued it is not the new covenant circumcision as the implication of what you just said is devastating to the argument it is not essential to salvation.

[bkstokes]

Doesn't matter if you are or not. They have produced pretty much every argument and reason it's not essential. In all the arguments and debates I have seen and that is a lot. They have always argued it is not the new covenant circumcision as the implication of what you just said is devastating to the argument it is not essential to salvation.

My point in this whole talk has been when intial justification takes place. A man/woman must continue to walk with God and respond to the revelation that God gives him (see Gen. 15 and Gen 17). If you read Romans 3-4, Paul specifically talks about circumcision being made uncircumcision and uncircumcision being made circumcision. The pivotal point in this whole writing is the just shall live by faith. Thus, in the question of baptism -- if one knows to be baptized and he doesn't -- I would question the sincerity of his/her faith.

It seems to me that oneness pentecostals have been wrongly attacked for their stance of Baptism in Jesus name. Due to this attack, they have drawn in and place almost all their attention on this issue. I have heard very few death, burial, and resurrection sermons from oneness preachers. In an evangelism meeting, what do normally hear preached?

[martha]

My point in this whole talk has been when intial justification takes place. A man/woman must continue to walk with God and respond to the revelation that God gives him (see Gen. 15 and Gen 17). If you read Romans 3-4, Paul specifically talks about circumcision being made uncircumcision and uncircumcision being made circumcision. The pivotal point in this whole writing is the just shall live by faith. Thus, in the question of baptism -- if one knows to be baptized and he doesn't -- I would question the sincerity of his/her faith.

It seems to me that oneness pentecostals have been wrongly attacked for their stance of Baptism in Jesus name. Due to this attack, they have drawn in and place almost all their attention on this issue. I have heard very few death, burial, and resurrection sermons from oneness preachers. In an evangelism meeting, what do normally hear preached?

Martha: And that leaves you exactly where in your position as to whether or not baptism is essential to salvation?

[bkstokes]

I believe these two posts answer your question.

Refering to your earlier comment about Jefferson -- the essense of what he said was -- the two who were in the heat of debate; the one could not change the other (He was not talking about bystanders). When we become very emotional, we are less apt to reason clearly. We take a defensive/unopen stance.


Concerning baptism -- brevity is the soul of wit.

Colossians 2
11and in Him (AA)you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of (AB)the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

12having been (AC)buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also (AD)raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who (AE)raised Him from the dead.

Baptism is to the New Testament what Circumcision is to the Old Testament.

My point in this whole talk has been when intial justification takes place. A man/woman must continue to walk with God and respond to the revelation that God gives him (see Gen. 15 and Gen 17). If you read Romans 3-4, Paul specifically talks about circumcision being made uncircumcision and uncircumcision being made circumcision. The pivotal point in this whole writing is the just shall live by faith. Thus, in the question of baptism -- if one knows to be baptized and he doesn't -- I would question the sincerity of his/her faith.

It seems to me that oneness pentecostals have been wrongly attacked for their stance of Baptism in Jesus name. Due to this attack, they have drawn in and place almost all their attention on this issue. I have heard very few death, burial, and resurrection sermons from oneness preachers. In an evangelism meeting, what do normally hear preached?

[LUKE2447]

I believe these two posts answer your question.

So does one have to confess to be saved?

[Praxeas]

Is a person saved at the moment of justification? If so what verse and define "saved".

[LUKE2447]

Not sure what I got this from but I have always thought it was interesting.

The Word of God says:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved “ (Mark 16:16)

Denominations teach:

He who believes and is saved, should be baptized


The Word of God says:

“Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38)

Denominations teach:

Repent and be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven


The Word of God says:

‘Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5)

Denominations teach:

Baptism is not essential for salvation. This “birth of water” is natural childbirth.


The Word of God says:

“We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)

Denominations teach:

We were buried therefore with him by belief into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

The Word of God says:

“…who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you - not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”(1Peter 3:21)

Note: Look at the above verse carefully. It teaches the water of Noah’s flood is a symbol of baptism--and baptism saves us. The “it” in the phrase “it saves you” is referring to baptism…So this verse actually states two times that baptism saves us!

Denominations teach:

Baptism does not save you--baptism is merely a symbol.


The Word of God says:

“and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:12)

Denominations teach:

Baptism is a work of Man.

The Word of God says:

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27)

Denominations teach:

Baptism does not put us into Christ--belief alone does.


The Word of God says:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Denominations teach:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, telling them to pray for me to come into their life, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

The Word of God says:

“Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.” (Acts 8:36-39)

Denominations teach:

Baptism is required, but not in water. Baptism is in “spirit”.

And if water is used, sprinkling or pouring is ok.

And candidate for baptism need not believe (such as with infants).

The Word of God says:

“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

Denominations teach:

Paul had been praying and fasting for three days at this point, and called Jesus “Lord”, so he was already saved. Baptism had nothing to do with having his sins washed away.

The Word of God says:

“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Denominations teach:

We are justified by faith alone.

[martha]

Not sure what I got this from but I have always thought it was interesting.

The Word of God says:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved “ (Mark 16:16)

Denominations teach:

He who believes and is saved, should be baptized


The Word of God says:

“Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38)


Denominations teach:

Repent and be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven


The Word of God says:

‘Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5)

Denominations teach:

Baptism is not essential for salvation. This “birth of water” is natural childbirth.


The Word of God says:

“We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)

Denominations teach:

We were buried therefore with him by belief into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

The Word of God says:

“…who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you - not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”(1Peter 3:21)

Note: Look at the above verse carefully. It teaches the water of Noah’s flood is a symbol of baptism--and baptism saves us. The “it” in the phrase “it saves you” is referring to baptism…So this verse actually states two times that baptism saves us!

Denominations teach:

Baptism does not save you--baptism is merely a symbol.


The Word of God says:

“and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:12)

Denominations teach:

Baptism is a work of Man.

The Word of God says:

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Galatians 3:26-27)

Denominations teach:

Baptism does not put us into Christ--belief alone does.


The Word of God says:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Denominations teach:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, telling them to pray for me to come into their life, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

The Word of God says:

“Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.” (Acts 8:36-39)

Denominations teach:

Baptism is required, but not in water. Baptism is in “spirit”.

And if water is used, sprinkling or pouring is ok.

And candidate for baptism need not believe (such as with infants).

The Word of God says:

“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

Denominations teach:

Paul had been praying and fasting for three days at this point, and called Jesus “Lord”, so he was already saved. Baptism had nothing to do with having his sins washed away.

The Word of God says:

“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Denominations teach:

We are justified by faith alone.

Martha: "Denominations" make up their own scripture to fit their preconceived beliefs and to keep fellowship within their "denomination".

[bkstokes]

Martha: "Denominations" make up their own scripture to fit their preconceived beliefs and to keep fellowship within their "denomination".

Yes Martha

All of them do it.

[bkstokes]

Is a person saved at the moment of justification? If so what verse and define "saved".
prax
I believe there many verses that answer this. I am using my palm so I can't paste them. I would say the book of romans demonstrates this. however the person must continue on with god as abraham did.