Regeneration before or after saving faith

Gup20 said:

If baptism is circumcision, as you claim, and if baptism is the seal, as you claim, you you must necessarily acknowledge that neither spiritual nor water baptism are required for salvation, but come AFTER one is made rightous for their faith.

[Eph 1:13-14 NASB] 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of [God's own] possession, to the praise of His glory.

[Rom 4:9-11 NASB] 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,​

Abraham was made righteous for his faith PRIOR to the sealing specifically WHILE UNCIRCUMCISED. The Holy Spirit indwells AFTER one has believed and been made righteous. Therefore, either you are not correct about circumcision and indwelling being baptism, or baptism is not required for salvation (being made righteous).

Click to expand...

This isn't a proper conclusion based on those passages. For one, I believe that the time of our sealing is at the time of our baptism. So Paul isn't in Ephesians telling those people that their sealing is something that happened at a different time than their baptism, just that it happened. Water and Spirit. Just like Jesus said.

The reason Paul there in Romans 4 is comparing Abraham's situation to the one's he's writing to, is that they believed that circumcision of the law of Moses was required by the Gospel. Paul is pointing out that Abraham was justified by his faith/obedience 430 years before that law was established.

To say that baptism is the circumcision not made with hands is not to say that in every way they equate. Circumcision did not remove Abraham's sin. Circumcision was however, the sign of Abraham's entering into a covenant with God. He obeyed God before he was circumcised, and was accounted righteous before there was even a requirement that he be circumcised. That physical circumcision was a sign for Abraham, does not then make baptism a sign for us in every single way that circumcision was for him. That's not even a point he's making here.

Hammster said:

Whether you call it Pelagianism or not, it’s what you hold to and it’s heretical.

Click to expand...

Original sin can't be found in scripture. I don't hold to Palagianism, I hold to scripture. You're just using a logical fallacy - guilt by association - loose at that - as a reason to call me a heretic. And that's ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

God said he doesn't charge the sons with the sins of the father. So he can't possibly then charge us with the sin of Adam and still be telling the truth. In fact, he said that believing such a thing is forbidden and it is faulty to think such a thing. It slanders God.

Al Touthentop said:

This isn't a proper conclusion based on those passages. For one, I believe that the time of our sealing is at the time of our baptism. So Paul isn't in Ephesians telling those people that their sealing is something that happened at a different time than their baptism, just that it happened. Water and Spirit. Just like Jesus said.

The reason Paul there in Romans 4 is comparing Abraham's situation to the one's he's writing to, is that they believed that circumcision of the law of Moses was required by the Gospel. Paul is pointing out that Abraham was justified by his faith/obedience 430 years before that law was established.

To say that baptism is the circumcision not made with hands is not to say that in every way they equate. Circumcision did not remove Abraham's sin. Circumcision was however, the sign of Abraham's entering into a covenant with God. He obeyed God before he was circumcised, and was accounted righteous before there was even a requirement that he be circumcised. That physical circumcision was a sign for Abraham, does not then make baptism a sign for us in every single way that circumcision was for him. That's not even a point he's making here.

Click to expand...

The point I'm making is regarding the sequence. Clearly, baptism is not a pre-requisite requirement for salvation (salvation defined as being made righteous) as Abraham was not baptized nor was he circumcised prior to being made righteous. You don't have to be baptized to be made righteous... in fact the Biblical evidence is that the righteousness comes before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and before "regeneration."

The Biblical evidence points to circumcision being a foreshadow or placeholder for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (Eph 1:13-14, Rom 4:9-11, Rom 2:28-29). The vast majority of adherants to the notion that "regeneration" comes before faith are calvinist, and the calvinist dogma is that the Holy Spirit first enters a person and enables their faith. Yet we see in the sequence in the verses above that is not the case. We are made righteous before circumcision... even before circumcision of the heart (or indwelling of the holy spirit, or regeneration, or baptism or what ever euphamism you want to use for "regeneration.")

Al Touthentop said:

But he's not talking about the belief inside their head, but "the faith" - the gospel. Clearly that's from God.

Click to expand...

Al, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I agree with you insofar as the context declares "the faith" to be the gospel message as in Philippians 1:27:


However, in Philippians 1:28, Paul specifically states that the courage of the Philippians

In other words, their steadfastness in "the faith of the gospel" is indicative of coming judgment upon their persecutors and is evidence of their salvation, which Paul affirms is "from God." He then proceeds in 1:29-30 to explain that both their belief in Christ and their suffering are "granted" by God.

How unusual to our ears. But if we recall from Matthew 5:10-12, the persecuted are said to be blessed.


Putting the pieces together, Paul's opening to the Philippians is indicating that salvation and the means of salvation (faith) are granted by God to his elect.

Al Touthentop said:

Our own personal belief is not forced on us. We were given the gospel message and all of its instructions. That's from God. Our reaction to it is ours alone.

Click to expand...

I agree that our believing in Christ is not "forced on us"! I think that maybe the misunderstanding is due to a different view of God's effectual calling. I believe the Scriptures teach that the natural man, fallen in Adam, is incapable, not merely unwilling, of doing that which pleases God as in Romans 8:5-8.


Then is faith something that pleases God? The author of Hebrews indicates so in 11:4-6 when speaking of the faith of Abel.


If saving faith, which pleases God, is impossible for the natural man in the flesh to express, then how is it that any are saved? The answers must be that faith is granted as a gift from God. So then does God force us to believe against our will? No, rather the Holy Spirit quickens us to spiritual life, exchanging our heart of stone for a heart of flesh, changing our nature and by consequence our desires. It is God who changes our hearts so that we willfully love him, desire him, and seek to obey him. In this manner we can truly say that all who believe in the Son have believed of their own will, but only after God brought them to life in the Spirit according to his will and changed their disposition from being enemies of God to friends of God.

I hope this clarifies things! Thanks for engaging.

Yesha said:

I agree that our believing in Christ is not "forced on us"! I think that maybe the misunderstanding is due to a different view of God's effectual calling. I believe the Scriptures teach that the natural man, fallen in Adam, is incapable, not merely unwilling, of doing that which pleases God as in Romans 8:5-8.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.​

Then is faith something that pleases God? The author of Hebrews indicates so in 11:4-6 when speaking of the faith of Abel.

By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.​

If saving faith, which pleases God, is impossible for the natural man in the flesh to express, then how is it that any are saved? The answers must be that faith is granted as a gift from God. So then does God force us to believe against our will? No, rather the Holy Spirit quickens us to spiritual life, exchanging our heart of stone for a heart of flesh, changing our nature and by consequence our desires. It is God who changes our hearts so that we willfully love him, desire him, and seek to obey him. In this manner we can truly say that all who believe in the Son have believed of their own will, but only after God brought them to life in the Spirit according to his will and changed their disposition from being enemies of God to friends of God.

I hope this clarifies things! Thanks for engaging.

Click to expand...

I call your attention this:


In the verse you give from Romans 8, we see just prior (in red above) that we can set our minds on the things of the spirit for a better experience. The following verse doesn't exclude the ability to set our minds on good, it just says those who's mind set is on the flesh are not able to set their minds on good. But it just got done saying (twice) that those who set their minds on the things of the spirit are able to do good. Combine this with what Romans 2 says:


So the unbeliever is able to know good, and is able to set their minds on good, and have God's good law on their heart. Sounds like men are not as depraved as is suspected. Additionally, Able was never made righteous, nor regenerated, yet unlike Cain his faithful offering was pleasing to God.

But the Bible has a whole chapter that deals with Calvinism in a direct way. It is all but ignored.


What does this passage say? 3 times it tells us life and death are a choice God sets before man (and tells us to choose). It says this command is not too difficult for us, nor out of our reach (there goes Total Depravity). It says this decision is NOT made in heaven. It even goes so far as to say we don't need anyone to go get it for us or hear it for us (another common claim of Calvinists).

The only argument Calvinists can make against this passage is that it is part of the law and doesn't refer to salvation by faith (only applies to Israel). But thankfully, Paul sets the record straight:


Here we see Paul quote heavily from Deuteronomy 30 and say "the righteousness based on faith says it like this." Paul says DONT EVEN SAY in your heart that man is too depraved to believe for himself!! A direct command from Paul not to believe in the ideals of calvinism.

The next time you hear a calvinist or reformed theologian say you need the Holy Spirit to enable you to hear the gospel, think of Deuteronomy 30 and Romans 10 where it says DO NOT EVEN SAY that in your heart! It is not too difficult for us to make the choice, the choice is not out of our reach. It is near to us.

Finally, have a look at Deuteronomy 30:19. This is the Bible's statement on synergism vs monergism.


"I call Heaven (God) and earth (man) to witness..." This mirrors what Paul says in Romans 8:


Here we see that The Spirit (Heaven) and our spirit (earth) testifies (bares witness) to the choice we make for blessing or cursing, life or death.

Gup20 said:

The point I'm making is regarding the sequence. Clearly, baptism is not a pre-requisite requirement for salvation (salvation defined as being made righteous) as Abraham was not baptized nor was he circumcised prior to being made righteous. You don't have to be baptized to be made righteous... in fact the Biblical evidence is that the righteousness comes before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and before "regeneration."

Click to expand...

Really? It's clearly not a pre-requisite?

Mark 16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

That's pretty clear to me and doesn't require me to try and figure out the how of things from passage which might seem vague without that as a pretty clear and authorative confirmation.

The book of Acts itself is a treasure trove of confirmations like this.

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [k]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Looks to me like the spirit is a result of baptism.

Am I reading too much into this? Well I don't think so because of what Peter says later.

Acts 5
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

Peter says that the Spirit is given following obedience, not before. He doesn't tell them that they are given the Spirit and then begin obeying.

Al Touthentop said:

Really? It's clearly not a pre-requisite?

Mark 16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

That's pretty clear to me and doesn't require me to try and figure out the how of things from passage which might seem vague without that as a pretty clear and authorative confirmation.

Click to expand...

He who doesn't believe is condemned, but it doesn't say he who is not baptized is condemned.

The book of Acts itself is a treasure trove of confirmations like this.

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [k]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Looks to me like the spirit is a result of baptism.

Click to expand...

The statement says "Baptized for the remission of sins". If I said "you should be thanked for your post" does this suppose that the thanking should come before or after the posting? Again, you are inflicting a meaning upon the verse that isn't necessary.

Am I reading too much into this? Well I don't think so because of what Peter says later.

Acts 5
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

Peter says that the Spirit is given following obedience, not before. He doesn't tell them that they are given the Spirit and then begin obeying.

Click to expand...

For example, the commandment to choose life or death, blessing or cursing by having faith in the gospel? Nothing there about baptism.

Yesha said:

Al, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Click to expand...

I like the way you're formatting this. Makes it easy to respond to.

So, I do not read this as God causing us to do anything but here is saying that what we've been given, what we should do are two things. Believe and suffer for his sake. This means that we give up that which pleased us, sometimes put up with persecution and obey his commands.

And in this case our "should" is "for the sake of Christ." The word "grant" there can also be translated "given." Commands are given. Responsibilities are given. This isn't magic power he's talking about but the "perfect law of liberty." It's up to us to obey it.

Putting the pieces together, Paul's opening to the Philippians is indicating that salvation and the means of salvation (faith) are granted by God to his elect.

Click to expand...

And the elect, the chosen, are those who obey the gospel call. They are not pre-selected outside of God's foreknowledge.

I agree that our believing in Christ is not "forced on us"! I think that maybe the misunderstanding is due to a different view of God's effectual calling. I believe the Scriptures teach that the natural man, fallen in Adam, is incapable, not merely unwilling, of doing that which pleases God as in Romans 8:5-8.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.​

Click to expand...

Here's where I think we may disagree. You say that those who are "fallen in Adam" are born that way right? I don't believe we're born that way. Even this passage is letting us know that to set one's mind on the flesh is not a result of a man's birth condition but the choices he makes to set his own mind on the flesh and live according to the flesh. A mind set on the flesh - a man's own rules and desires - cannot submit itself to God because the man in control of that mind has chosen himself as king rather than God.

Then is faith something that pleases God? The author of Hebrews indicates so in 11:4-6 when speaking of the faith of Abel.

Click to expand...

Of course. It's impossible not to. So wouldn't it be weird if faith was something God supplied or withheld arbitrarily?

If saving faith, which pleases God, is impossible for the natural man in the flesh to express, then how is it that any are saved?

Click to expand...

The word repent, is a turning of the mind from one idea to another. In this case, sin. People are saved because they, just as Paul describes is necessary for us to do, renew our minds and turn to God as our Lord rather than our flesh. Obeying the flesh produces sin. Obeying God produces righteousness. The righteousness that he has defined, not that we have defined for ourselves.

The answers must be that faith is granted as a gift from God.

Click to expand...

The faith - the gospel is a gift from God. Our faith or belief, is a commandment given by God. They aren't the same thing. The faith we are to demonstrate is not the same as the system of faith that we are to obey.

So then does God force us to believe against our will? No, rather the Holy Spirit quickens us to spiritual life, exchanging our heart of stone for a heart of flesh

Click to expand...

Well, this assertion is an attempt to explain the HOW of the gospel's mechanisms without the benefit of any actual verbiage in the text that explicitly tells us that this is how it works. It is a conclusion drawn from what is written that I don't believe is actually implied by the text.

When God had Ezekiel prophecy that he would give us hearts of flesh rather than stone, I believe we actually see the greatest example of how he would accomplish that on the day of Pentecost and it wasn't as you describe. The means by which he softened the hearts of those Jewish people on the Day of Pentecost was not through the use of the Holy Spirit literally himself changing the nature of the listener but by delivering the words through the mouths of his chosen prophets to speak to the people.

It was the words which convinced those standing there that they had indeed made a mistake when they commended their Messiah into the "lawless hands" unto crucifixion.

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

And Paul confirms that this is the way it works in Romans.

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So, it is the word which will either soften or harden our hearts, words delivered by the Holy Spirit. The first thing, Paul says is we must hear. And it is our choice whether or not we accept the words we hear and give them the compassion they deserve. Those on the day of Pentecost heard the words that Peter taught and then believed and it was then that their hearts were exchanged, otherwise they could not have been cut. Stone won't do that. Their now softened hearts were open to the command that Peter would give them in response to their question "what must we do?"

Some standing there chose not to believe.

Gup20 said:

He who doesn't believe is condemned, but it doesn't say he who is not baptized is condemned.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. He who doesn't believe what Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved", is condemned.

But really, do you see how childish that is?

I mean imagine your dad telling you, "He who believes and cleans his room will get ice cream, he who doesn't believe won't get ice cream."

And then you don't clean your room and demand ice cream later.
"But dad! I believed!"

"Really, what is it that you believed if you haven't cleaned your room?"

The statement says "Baptized for the remission of sins". If I said "you should be thanked for your post" does this suppose that the thanking should come before or after the posting? Again, you are inflicting a meaning upon the verse that isn't necessary.

Click to expand...

In other words, to accomplish remission of sins, we're baptized. The order is unambiguous. In your example, the order is clear as well. There has to be a post to receive the thanks. The post comes first and I should be thanked for it.

For example, the commandment to choose life or death, blessing or cursing by having faith in the gospel? Nothing there about baptism.

Click to expand...

Which does not speak to the places where it is included and cannot be used as an excuse to ignore those places. The apostles would never have said, "right now when I'm speaking this statement, it's the entire gospel. Later I'm going to say something different and then THAT will be the gospel and you get to chose which parts you like. We've spoken on different parts of the gospel for your later convenience. If you want to pretend that we never said anything about baptism because we weren't quoted saying it here, Good on ya mate! Aren't you happy we gave you these amazing loopholes?"

Al Touthentop said:

And this would be relevant because? Are you? You know Augustine certainly wasn't right?

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom

Click to expand...

Good Day, Al

Thanks for that I did not know that... not sure how that matters, or what it changes.

From the replies on your link:

"
Douglas Moo’s Romans commentary has an excellent discussion of this issue. He explains where Augustine’s reasoning goes wrong but also argues based on tensions within the passage why the best way to take the passage as a whole is that Paul nonetheless has a working assumption of something like original sin. Because Paul seems to move from corporate death inherited from Adam to an individual explanation of the corporate death, what is actually being inherited from Adam? It’s not the death, since that comes from individual sin. But it’s not the sin in terms of our actually actions, because we commit our sins, not Adam. So there must be a sin nature that we inherit from him, which explains why we all do sin (and inevitably so) and thus explains why all will receive the death sentence without redemption (even if it’s individual sins that ground that death sentence in another sense).

Whether you accept that reasoning or not, I hope it’s clear that undermining one argument for original sin does not refute the view unless that one argument is the only support for original sin. Since it is not, simply disagreeing with Augustine’s exegesis doesn’t provide a sufficient argument for dismissing original sin as a doctrine."


Douglas Moo covers the issue (pg 57) in translating the entire verse in 72 pages here.

https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/exposition/romans/romans_5_12.pdf

Pg 60-61

"Completed corrected translation of Romans 5:12: “Therefore, based on this
(principle), just as, through one man, the sin nature entered into the human
race so that spiritual death entered through this sin nature. Thus, in this
manner, spiritual death spread to each and every member of the human race
without exception because each and every member of the human race sinned
(the moment Adam sinned).”

Paul is teaching in Romans 5:12 that each and every member of the human
race-past, present and future, are sinners by nature since they are under both the
“federal” and “seminal” headships of Adam. The entire human race was
condemned before they ever committed an act of sin because of Adam’s sin.
Again, God condemned the human race through one man so that He could save the
human race through one man.

The reason why God imputed Adam’s sin in the garden to every member of the
human race at physical birth is given in two passages of Scripture:
Galatians 3:22, ‘But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that
the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”
Romans 11:32, “For God has shut up all in (Adam’s) disobedience so that
He may show mercy to all.”

Therefore, through a comparison these two passages, we can see that God’s
purpose in imputing Adam’s sin to the entire human race was so that He might
show mercy to the human race by making the promise of justification by faith in
His Son Jesus Christ and the blessings that result from it."

In Him


Bill

Al Touthentop said:

Sure it does. He who doesn't believe what Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved", is condemned.

But really, do you see how childish that is?

I mean imagine your dad telling you, "He who believes and cleans his room will get ice cream, he who doesn't believe won't get ice cream."

And then you don't clean your room and demand ice cream later.
"But dad! I believed!"

"Really, what is it that you believed if you haven't cleaned your room?"

Click to expand...

The point would be that believing is more important than cleaning the room... that believing is what actually matters, and that you could clean the room and you still wouldn't get ice cream unless you believed.

He is saying "Believe and be baptized... but hey, it's not about about the baptism, its about the faith because without the faith you don't have anything."

In other words, to accomplish remission of sins, we're baptized. The order is unambiguous. In your example, the order is clear as well. There has to be a post to receive the thanks. The post comes first and I should be thanked for it.

Click to expand...

There are many passages which describe how to be saved but never mention baptism. There are no passages which say you can be saved by baptism alone.



Abraham is the "father of all who believe." The very purpose of faith is not some magical mystical power which confers righteousness. In fact, faith doesnt' confer righteousness at all. Faith qualifies us as descendants of Abraham. When we have the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had, we are considered his descendants. God promised Abraham that all of his descendants would inherit the righteousness he was given, so faith doesn't make us righteous... faith makes us adopted children, and all descendants are heirs of the promise from God.


This is why the debate between Calvin and Arminius rages on for centuries.... because they both have the same fatal flaw in their understanding of how salvation works. Both falsely believe that faith generates righteousness directly. It does not. Having the same faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ that Abraham had makes us children of Abraham and children of Abraham all INHERIT the righteousness given to Abraham. That is why it is not by works. That is why righteousness comes before circumcision, works, or baptism. Faith qualifies us as heirs.


Nowhere in all of Paul's vast and long descriptions of how righteousness is applied to a person does he mention baptism, because baptism is for the person who is already saved... for the person who has already been made righteous. It does not make us righteous. Abraham is, and shall always be, the only person ever made righteous directly for their faith. The rest of us inherit righteousness by qualifying for kinship, and thereby qualifying as heirs of righteousness.

Even Jesus himself reclaimed righteousness after giving it up through the covenant God made with Abraham. Jesus' righteousness was given to Abraham. This is the only way righteousness could be given -- in a 1:1 exchange. A life for a life. But God's promise to Abraham that all of his descendants would inherit that possession of righteousness was the thing that multiplied it to the rest of us.


At some literal point God has to see Christ as unrighteous and us as righteous in the great redemptive exchange. This is the lesson of the snake on the standard that Moses lifted up. The snake represents sin on the cross. God had to see Christ as emptied of righteousness and being punished for our sin. So how did he get it back? The same way we do -- his faith in the gospel qualified him for the eternal covenant God made with Abraham that all of his descendants would inherit the righteousness given to Abraham.


What an amazing confidence we can have in our salvation. Jesus has already demonstrated that the method works! He was already made righteous and resurrected through the Abrahamic covenant of faith.

Gup20 said:

The point would be that believing is more important than cleaning the room... that believing is what actually matters, and that you could clean the room and you still wouldn't get ice cream unless you believed.

Click to expand...

If your child is trying to use a perceived verbal loophole not to obey you, are you going to accept that he actually believed you? And what belief matters? The belief that matters, the belief that will allow the child to have ice cream, is the belief that if he cleans his room he will get ice cream. There are no options there.

He is saying "Believe and be baptized... but hey, it's not about about the baptism, its about the faith because without the faith you don't have anything."

Click to expand...

If your belief says that his commands are optional, how can you say you have belief? And your addition to the text there cannot be supported either by the text or by any context anywhere which would give us that idea.

What did Jesus say about things that God has joined together? Jesus joined belief and baptism. Since he never did or said anything that he didn't learn from his father, the command to "believe and be baptized" contains two things joined together by God. "What God has joined together, let no man tear apart." Though he was talking about marriage there, his statement was general. We're not to separate the things God has joined.

When Jesus was himself baptized, he told John that it was to 'fulfill all righteousness.' Why do you think that we don't have to also fulfill all righteousness ourselves?

The examples you have quoted were written to people who had already been baptized. None of them are conversion messages. The apostles and disciples never failed to preach that baptism was necessary. Peter says that baptism saves us. Did he preach a falsehood?

There are many passages which describe how to be saved but never mention baptism. There are no passages which say you can be saved by baptism alone.

Click to expand...

But there are many others which do. Do we throw them out? Why would that be appropriate?

What an amazing confidence we can have in our salvation. Jesus has already demonstrated that the method works! He was already made righteous and resurrected through the Abrahamic covenant of faith.

Click to expand...

How much confidence could anyone truly have if they teach against the commandments of God? Jesus obeyed the law of Moses perfectly. His demonstration in righteousness was to obey God's commands, including baptism.

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day, Al

Thanks for that I did not know that... not sure how that matters, or what it changes.

Click to expand...

Because in the actual text, Paul says that the way sin kept propagating in the world was because men sinned. Augustine's faulty text was not clear on that. The Greek is. Augustine didn't read Greek and even after Greek scholars pointed out the flaw in his text, he ignored them.

Douglas Moo’s Romans commentary has an excellent discussion of this issue. He explains where Augustine’s reasoning goes wrong but also argues based on tensions within the passage why the best way to take the passage as a whole is that Paul nonetheless has a working assumption of something like original sin.

Click to expand...

Funny, Augustine is wrong, but Paul was in fact preaching about original sin? What a convenient argument!

This poor fellow whom you've quoted refutes himself.

Because Paul seems to move from corporate death inherited from Adam to an individual explanation of the corporate death, what is actually being inherited from Adam? It’s not the death, since that comes from individual sin.

Click to expand...

If death comes from individual sin, then it cannot be inherited from Adam.

God never imputes Adam's sin to anyone. We know this for certain because he explicitly tells us this in Ezekiel 18. We also see that Jesus called Abel, "righteous." If Able had inherited Adams' guilt, that's not a word anyone could apply to Abel or Cain being sons of Adam.

And how would it be possible, before Jesus, whom reformists claim make it possible for a man to lose his "sin nature" - a phrase never found in scripture - that God could consider Abraham righteous?

The tendency to accept the bizarre explanations of men about what the scripture teaches, rather than the scripture itself, is why I tend never to read out of bibles that are full of men's commentary.

Al Touthentop said:

If your child is trying to use a perceived verbal loophole not to obey you, are you going to accept that he actually believed you? And what belief matters? The belief that matters, the belief that will allow the child to have ice cream, is the belief that if he cleans his room he will get ice cream. There are no options there.

Click to expand...

If I didn't care if he cleaned his room before or after he got the ice cream, but his belief was the only qualification for the ice cream then my child would still be in good standing. If he went long after the ice cream without cleaning his room we'd have to revisit it. For example if I told him... "you have to believe me, and clean your room... but you are not getting ice cream unless you believe me" then we'd both know that cleaning his room is required, but not a pre-requisite for the ice cream.

If your belief says that his commands are optional, how can you say you have belief? And your addition to the text there cannot be supported either by the text or by any context anywhere which would give us that idea.

Click to expand...

The only additions are the words you put in my mouth. I didn't say it was optional... I said it wasn't required BEFORE salvation. It must come after salvation because it's not a part of salvation, but part of being an obedient child of God. You first have to be a child of God to be an obedient child of God.

What did Jesus say about things that God has joined together? Jesus joined belief and baptism.

Click to expand...

Does your marriage to baptismal theology constitute adultery with your wife? I'm pretty sure the "what God has joined together" statement was in regards to two being one flesh in the marriage covenant. I see no such baptismal covenant. In fact the Bible says there are only 2 covenants whereby man can be justified as righteous; the law & faith.

Since he never did or said anything that he didn't learn from his father, the command to "believe and be baptized" contains two things joined together by God. "What God has joined together, let no man tear apart." Though he was talking about marriage there, his statement was general. We're not to separate the things God has joined.

Click to expand...

I believe you have adulterated the text.

If they were one thing, God would not have distinguished them separately as 2 things. Again, I do believe baptism is good an necessary, just not for salvation. Like other commandments (such as to abstain from sexual impurity) baptism is a form of honor and service to God. Go too long and it will become a problem. Yet it is not required for salvation.

When Jesus was himself baptized, he told John that it was to 'fulfill all righteousness.' Why do you think that we don't have to also fulfill all righteousness ourselves?

Click to expand...

Because we do not obtain rightoeusness on the basis of our works, but we inherit it on the basis of faith.

The examples you have quoted were written to people who had already been baptized. None of them are conversion messages. The apostles and disciples never failed to preach that baptism was necessary. Peter says that baptism saves us. Did he preach a falsehood?

Click to expand...

Was Abraham baptized? He is the prime model for salvation by faith ... he is the father of all who believe. We all are made righteous by following his example and pattern. Yet that example and pattern doesn't' contain any baptism. Baptism is not part of salvation, but part of obedience.

But there are many others which do. Do we throw them out? Why would that be appropriate?

Click to expand...

Baptism as a pre-requisite to salvation is idolatry and works-based salvation. If I didn't believe in the gospel, and I was baptized (infant baptism, for example), would I be righteous? No. If I believed in the gospel and hadn't yet been baptized would I be righteous? Yes, just as Abraham was.

How much confidence could anyone truly have if they teach against the commandments of God? Jesus obeyed the law of Moses perfectly. His demonstration in righteousness was to obey God's commands, including baptism.

Click to expand...

Jesus will stand in history as the only man ever able to do so.

Al Touthentop said:

If death comes from individual sin, then it cannot be inherited from Adam.

God never imputes Adam's sin to anyone. We know this for certain because he explicitly tells us this in Ezekiel 18. We also see that Jesus called Abel, "righteous." If Able had inherited Adams' guilt, that's not a word anyone could apply to Abel or Cain being sons of Adam.

And how would it be possible, before Jesus, whom reformists claim make it possible for a man to lose his "sin nature" - a phrase never found in scripture - that God could consider Abraham righteous?

The tendency to accept the bizarre explanations of men about what the scripture teaches, rather than the scripture itself, is why I tend never to read out of bibles that are full of men's commentary.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the term "original sin" should more accurately be described as "original death." For it is the death that resulted from Adam's sin that is passed on, not the sin itself.


The term "sin nature" doesn't appear in the Bible (except it does appear in the NIV once in Romans 7), but the Bible has a concept that defines what the "sin nature" is.


It is our fear of death that enslaves us to sin.


The only problem I really had with your post was the reference to Ezekiel 18. Ezekiel is prophecy. You have to look to The Law to see what now is. It may seem like a contradiction, but Ezekiel prophesies of a time in the future when Adam's judgement of death will be repealed.

Some believe that Christ’s sacrifice and redemption was limited, or only for those with faith. It is said that Christ only died for those who would have faith in Him. But allow me to offer another model. I believe that Christ’s redemption on the cross and subsequent resurrection was for all, but only those who are of faith will inherit life in the resurrection. In other words, because of Christ, all will be resurrected, but not all will enter the kingdom of heaven. That is only for those who believe the gospel and obtain the righteousness of Christ through the inheritance by kinship with Abraham.


So Christ’s work resurrects each and every human being from Adam’s corporate judgment, but then they are judged as individuals (by Christ) at the great white throne judgment. This individual judgment at the great white throne judgment is what Ezekiel 18 speaks of. Those who do not have Christ’s righteousness by faith in the gospel then have a second death and are thrown into the lake of fire.

Gup20 said:

The only additions are the words you put in my mouth. I didn't say it was optional... I said it wasn't required BEFORE salvation. It must come after salvation because it's not a part of salvation, but part of being an obedient child of God. You first have to be a child of God to be an obedient child of God.

Click to expand...

This isn't taught in scripture. You literally want to divorce things that God said were joined. Water and spirit, belief and baptism. You'll have to work that out with God.

Gup20 said:

Baptism as a pre-requisite to salvation is idolatry and works-based salvation.

Click to expand...

Jesus said belief was itself a work. If we can't be saved by works, then we can't be saved. Peter on the day of Pentecost when asked, "what must we do?" commanded repentance and baptism.