• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

2 major questions

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
There seems to be 2 schools of thought, on this chapter, that 1) the whole chapter is about the destruction of the temple or 2) part of the chapter is about the destruction of the temple and part is about the end times. I'm with #2, who believes that the quoted verses are referring to the end times.


The problem with this idea is that Jesus wasn't talking about the end of the world. He was talking about the destruction of the city and temple. And he said that it would "all take place" within the span of the current generation. It is terrible exegesis to claim that he was speaking of the end of the world. What value would the advice be to them, the ones he was talking to, that they should flee to the hills above Judea? They would be long dead were he talking about the day of Judgement for one, and on the day of Judgement, everyone is resurrected or swept up to meet Jesus in the air. There's no point in hiding in the hills. And what about other places on the earth?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,401
28,818
Pacific Northwest
✟808,345.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
1 i it true non baptised christians are unsave not born again and will go to hell as im a christian god works in my ife but i unable to be baptised

No, it's not true that you can't be saved if you haven't been baptized. God promises to work through the Sacrament of Baptism to effect our salvation, that is, there is salvation in Baptism because in Baptism God works to appropriate Christ's saving work to us; but that does not mean that if you haven't yet been baptized, or if something is preventing you from being baptized that you aren't saved. Baptism isn't an obstacle you need to overcome to be saved, Baptism is God's gracious means of accomplishing what He promises to us. Yes, there is salvation in the Sacrament of Baptism, but that does not mean the unbaptized are damned.

It seems strange to me that there isn't a single church in your area that will baptize you. What are the kinds of churches that you have contacted?

2 why do people say trumps the last president then its the end in 2 years im sick of it no one knows the end

Who are these people? I've never heard anyone make this claim, and it sounds really silly.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fm107

Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20
May 12, 2009
1,152
143
London, UK
✟90,174.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Al,

2. Do you know how people were saved in the Old Testament? What did they had to do to get to Heaven?

By following the law of Moses. The reason Paul said in Romans that no one could be justified by the law of Moses is because it was obsolete.

Hi Al,

Actually people were not saved by following the law of Moses. The Apostle Paul makes that very clear (e.g. Rom 3:20, Gal 2:6, Gal 3:11, etc, etc). If people could be saved by following the law of Moses, the Lord need not come and suffer in our place because people could get to Heaven by works. This is fundamental teaching of christianity.

So what did save people in the Old Testament? Faith. In every age, it has always been on the principle of faith that men are saved, Old Testament and New Testament. Nothing else was required then and nothing else is required now (not even baptism). Otherwise, your claiming you need faith + works to save. It's faith alone that is needed.

Let me finally just leave you with this link I found online, it helps explain the greek of the verse you keep referring to in Acts 2:38. I think this clears things up nicely.

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Hi Al,

Actually people were not saved by following the law of Moses. The Apostle Paul makes that very clear (e.g. Rom 3:20, Gal 2:6, Gal 3:11, etc, etc).

Which he wrote after the law was abolished.


If people could be saved by following the law of Moses, the Lord need not come and suffer in our place because people could get to Heaven by works. This is fundamental teaching of christianity.

The purpose of Christ's sacrifice was to make Jews and Gentiles into one, unified, reconciled body or kingdom.

I was in error when I made the blanket statement that everyone in the old testament was saved through the law of Moses. Even Gentiles could be saved before the law of Moses and while it was in place. Gentiles who lived among Israel and obeyed the law of Moses were saved, and Gentiles who followed what we can see is implied as the 'patriarchal law' - which also involved animal sacrifices for remission of sin.

Jesus called Abel 'righteous.' There was no law of Moses then. Luke tells us that Zachariah and Elizabeth were righteous. How would this be possible of the law of Moses didn't make anyone righteous?

Luke 1
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

While that law was in effect and people obeyed it, it made them righteous.

So what did save people in the Old Testament? Faith. In every age, it has always been on the principle of faith that men are saved, Old Testament and New Testament. Nothing else was required then and nothing else is required now (not even baptism). Otherwise, your claiming you need faith + works to save. It's faith alone that is needed.

Yes. But faith isn't mere thoughts. It is obedience because of one's belief.

Let me finally just leave you with this link I found online, it helps explain the greek of the verse you keep referring to in Acts 2:38. I think this clears things up nicely.

The person is in utter and complete error in that link. The word εις (ace) in Greek is not translated 'because of' anywhere in the bible and not even in that passage. Used over seventeen hundred times in the New Testament alone, it means 'the point reached.' It can mean 'into' or 'in' and it is a preposition which represents the movement of action. 'For' was the appropriate translation there and there isn't a serious Greek scholar who argues that it should ever be translated 'because of.' That idea was pushed by somebody who was repudiated by every scholar of Greek and especially Robertson who, as much as he would have rather had that word mean 'because of' because he was a denominational Baptist, wrote an entire chapter in his lexicon repudiating that idea. Not even in the extant papyrii can we find that word properly translated 'because of.'

Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

This is a flat out distortion because the author of your link fails to mention that this view of the word 'eis' has been subsequently repudiated by scholars. I had Wallace's book which talks about Mantey's comeuppance in debates over this subject.

" ....such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”"

1744 times in the bible and it isn't once translated 'because of.'

That brings me to this point. In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages.

In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists several uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing!

Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.”

He references the position of J. R. Mantey, that “eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70. 1952. 129-30; 71. 1953. 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter.

When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370).

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"
 
Upvote 0

Justin BT

Active Member
Jan 18, 2020
66
31
35
Taipei
✟25,205.00
Country
Taiwan
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
BDAG itself states regarding εις, supported by concrete examples from Greek literature of the same time period:

γ. at which someth. takes place (Appian, Mithrid. 74 §321 ἐς ἑσπέραν=in the evening; Epict. 4, 10, 31 αὔριον η εἰς τὴν τρίτην; En 1:1 οἵτινες ἔσονται εἰς ἡμέραν ἀνάγκης) εἰς τὸν καιρὸν αὐτῶν in their time Lk 1:20; εἰς τὸ μέλλον in the future 13:9. εἰς τέλος in the end, finally (Hdt. 3, 403; Gen 46:4; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 18, 2) 18:5 (B-D-F §207, 3 prefers mng. 3 below and ὑπωπιάζω 3; s. also Mlt-Turner 266). εἰς τὸ πάλιν=πάλιν 2 Cor 13:2; s. Schmid I 167; II 129; III 282; IV 455; 625. εἰς ταχεῖαν soon AcPlCor 2:3.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
BDAG itself states regarding εις, supported by concrete examples from Greek literature of the same time period:

γ. at which someth. takes place (Appian, Mithrid. 74 §321 ἐς ἑσπέραν=in the evening; Epict. 4, 10, 31 αὔριον η εἰς τὴν τρίτην; En 1:1 οἵτινες ἔσονται εἰς ἡμέραν ἀνάγκης) εἰς τὸν καιρὸν αὐτῶν in their time Lk 1:20; εἰς τὸ μέλλον in the future 13:9. εἰς τέλος in the end, finally (Hdt. 3, 403; Gen 46:4; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 18, 2) 18:5 (B-D-F §207, 3 prefers mng. 3 below and ὑπωπιάζω 3; s. also Mlt-Turner 266). εἰς τὸ πάλιν=πάλιν 2 Cor 13:2; s. Schmid I 167; II 129; III 282; IV 455; 625. εἰς ταχεῖαν soon AcPlCor 2:3.


None of those is translated 'because of', so I assume then that you agree εις is never causal?
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
'

1 Peter 3
21 There is also an antitype [of Noah's Ark] which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22

Mark 16
15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
I would say you "need" to be baptized... if the verse ended with " But those who do not believe and are not baptized will be condemned"

But... it doesn't say that.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
I would say you "need" to be baptized... if the verse ended with " But those who do not believe and are not baptized will be condemned"

But... it doesn't say that.

It does, but people don't like reading it that way. Jesus' was saying that those who didn't believe what he just said were condemned. And what he just said was that one had to be baptized.

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved and he who believes not [what I've just said] will be condemned."

But if baptism doesn't save, then there's no need to do it. Jesus never issued meaningless commands. He may as well have said, "He who believes and puts his left foot in and shakes it all about will be saved," if that is the level of importance we ascribe to the command.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It does, but people don't like reading it that way. Jesus' was saying that those who didn't believe what he just said were condemned. And what he just said was that one had to be baptized.

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved and he who believes not [what I've just said] will be condemned."

But if baptism doesn't save, then there's no need to do it. Jesus never issued meaningless commands. He may as well have said, "He who believes and puts his left foot in and shakes it all about will be saved," if that is the level of importance we ascribe to the command.
Oh... so now people want to add to the scriptures meaning.. However when it says.. "There was evening, there was morning, the first day" They say that it wasn't a literal day..

Is that not Cherry picking?

Also, The thief on the cross... was not baptized. Guess Jesus lied to him when He said that he would be with Him in paradise that day.

Don't get me wrong, I think people should get baptized... After all it is the public profession of your faith.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Oh... so now people want to add to the scriptures meaning.. However when it says.. "There was evening, there was morning, the first day" They say that it wasn't a literal day..

What other people say is not pertinent to this topic.

Also, The thief on the cross... was not baptized. Guess Jesus lied to him when He said that he would be with Him in paradise that day.

The thief on the cross was subject to the law of Moses, not the gospel.

Don't get me wrong, I think people should get baptized... After all it is the public profession of your faith.

Confession is the public profession of your faith. Being baptized washes away your past sins. Baptism is the means by which we make contact with the blood of Christ's sacrifice. See Numbers 19 for the shadow of this.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
What other people say is not pertinent to this topic.

It's acceptance or not of what the scriptures say and what they mean. It is pertinent because it is changing the goal posts.



The thief on the cross was subject to the law of Moses, not the gospel.

Didn't know that the thief sacrificed a bird or sheep on the alter.. Nope.. he was saved by his faith in Jesus Christ.



Confession is the public profession of your faith. Being baptized washes away your past sins. Baptism is the means by which we make contact with the blood of Christ's sacrifice. See Numbers 19 for the shadow of this.

What "confession" is public profession?
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
24,605
9,239
up there
✟377,730.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The thief on the cross was subject to the law of Moses, not the gospel.
Yet the saved thief put the Gospel of the Kingdom into practice. Unlike fellow man and the unrepentant selfish thief, he was himself selfless and put the well being of Jesus ahead of his own. He fulfilled Jesus' commandments putting the will of the Father ahead of his own and loving all as self. That was/is Jesus' gospel, so the selfless thief achieved admittance to the Kingdom the other did not. So it is and will be with the rest of mankind..
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
It's acceptance or not of what the scriptures say and what they mean. It is pertinent because it is changing the goal posts.

It's changing the subject. What other people do is not relevant to what you or I do.




Didn't know that the thief sacrificed a bird or sheep on the alter.. Nope.. he was saved by his faith in Jesus Christ.

He was under the old law as was Jesus at that moment. He may have been baptized though. It's not appropriate to say we "know" he wasn't. We don't know. But we do know that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins while he was on earth.

6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

His command to his apostles to baptize disciples was given before his ascension and after the thief on the cross. Had the thief been some sort of exception, he would have said so. The apostles did not consider baptism optional.




What "confession" is public profession?

The confession that Jesus is Lord and king and that he died and was resurrected for our sins.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Which you do when you are baptized....

Which means they're not the same thing. But it does shed a lot of light on Romans 10.

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

He's already explained in chapter six that Baptism is how we make contact with the blood of Christ (baptized into his death) and they were well aware that confession was typically made at one's baptism.

Baptism is not itself a confession nor is it an outward sign as circumcision was. When you dry off, nobody can tell you did it, unlike circumcision. That's why Paul called it the "new and living way," we approach Christ in the letter to the Hebrews, and the "circumcision not made with hands," in Colossians.

John tells us that the water testifies - proves - that we're of Christ.

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood— and these three are in agreement.

These testify of Christ, who himself was baptized, not that he had sin, but that he was perfectly obedient to God's command which came through John the baptist. ("to fulfill all righteousness") But they also testify of us. In Ephesians Paul says that the Spirit seals us in chapter one. That word sealed is a perfect participle and indicates that this sealing, this marking for our redemption, is an ongoing completed event.

Ephesians 1
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

When were we sealed? After "having believed" and being baptized.

And then he references baptism in chapter 2 but many seem to miss it being in a hurry to get to verses 8 and 9, ignoring verse 10.

Ephesians 2
1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works


Anyone in those days and who read Romans 6 would see that he's talking about our first resurrection there and saying explicitly that it saved us. Romans 6 is the classic text explaining exactly how a Christian is born again. The word baptism does not have to appear in the text for us to recognize that this is what he's talking about. And he is modifying the word works here with the phrase "not of yourselves." Since he's told them their baptism saved them and it was God's grace which made it effective, he's not, and could never be, excluding baptism as a work we must do for salvation.

Baptism is most definitely a work. But it isn't our work. There's no boasting in doing what God commanded us to do. This also is exactly what Jesus taught.

Luke 17
10 So you also, when you have done everything commanded of you, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’”

Baptism is a work, as is belief, repentance, confession, the Lord's supper and loving our enemies. But it isn't a work we invented. We don't save ourselves by being baptized, but we are most definitely saved from our past sins when we are baptized. That's exactly why Peter says that baptism, "now saves us." Because it does.

But note too that it was not so big a deal to speak in terms of something one did to "save themselves." Even using sort of self-doing action language was an acceptable thing as long as one realized that it was God doing the work.

Ananias told this to Saul:

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

He wasn't himself washing away his sins, but he was commanded to do the work which caused that to happen. And note, he's not saved from his past sins before this event, lest Ananias would not have spoken these words. He would have said something like this were the reformist view valid in the slightest:

"The Lord has already saved you and forgiven you of your sins. So now go get baptized as an outward sign that he's washed away your sins."

Doh! Nope. Not even close.

Paul used this opportunity to tell the audience to whom he was speaking when he retold the story of his conversion, that baptism was necessary and part of the gospel message. He could easily have left off this detail and it is really important to note that the apostles and the disciples, when preaching the gospel, never did leave off this detail. The only time we see apostles fail to command baptism is in Acts when Peter and John in the temple are arrested before they can give that command to the crowd.

It's a major theme of the new testament because it is a "fundamental element" of the gospel as Paul tells us in Hebrews and as anyone reading and paying attention to Mark 1: 1-4 can read for themselves. It was the "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

To preach that it isn't important is one of the worst disservices offered by the Protestant rebellion. It leads people to believe that they can be "in Christ" without having been baptized.

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

How many of us are in Christ? 'As many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus."

I realize that you claim it is necessary. I just pray you open your mind to the scriptures to realize just how necessary and important it is.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
24,605
9,239
up there
✟377,730.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
How many of us are in Christ? 'As many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus."
If you consider that ritual baptism in the time of Jesus was a form of cleansing both of body and of sin, then it should be easy to understand that if we are baptised into Jesus then we have been cleansed of the ways of the world made in man's image and are now worthy of the Kingdom which is opposite in nature. Man points to self, Kingdom points towards others.
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
If you consider that ritual baptism in the time of Jesus was a form of cleansing both of body and of sin, then it should be easy to understand that if we are baptised into Jesus then we have been cleansed of the ways of the world made in man's image and are now worthy of the Kingdom which is opposite in nature. Man points to self, Kingdom points towards others.


It wasn't the cleansing of the body as Peter explained in his first letter. It's not an empty ritual. It cleanses us (saves us) from our past sins. Your words "in the time of Jesus" imply that you think something changed yet there is nothing in scripture that would suggest this. What makes you think it's different now?
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
24,605
9,239
up there
✟377,730.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It wasn't the cleansing of the body as Peter explained in his first letter.
That is why I said both body and of sin. As it evolved John the B said he baptised with water but that those of the Kingdom would be baptised with the HS which as Jesus said would be sent to keep those of the Kingdom on the right but narrow path. Anything less would be mere ritual would it not?
 
Upvote 0

Al Touthentop

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2019
2,940
888
62
VENETA
Visit site
✟42,426.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
That is why I said both body and of sin. As it evolved John the B said he baptised with water but that those of the Kingdom would be baptised with the HS which as Jesus said would be sent to keep those of the Kingdom on the right but narrow path. Anything less would be mere ritual would it not?

Baptism in the holy spirit never saved anyone. We see this baptism twice. Once on the day of Pentecost and once at Cornelius' house.

After Cornelius and his family were baptized with the Holy Spirit, Peter commanded them to be baptized in water. Baptism did not 'evolve.' It was and is for the remission of past sins.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
24,605
9,239
up there
✟377,730.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It was and is for the remission of past sins.
Like confession? (public, not hidden away in a cupboard)
So why then did Jesus send the HS to keep those of the Kingdom on the narrow path? Why do you think that would not apply through time to all those that He wants to help from falling to the wayside and be dragged down by the world of man, away from the Kingdom, back to thinking of self instead of others?
 
Upvote 0