Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Why was baptism commanded in Acts 2:38?
Why in Acts 22:16?
What occurs during baptism according to Romans 6:7?

Can you direct us to a passage that says baptism is a tradition to represent the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Why is it that any passages offered to indicate baptism as a requirement come from Paul or the questionable section of Mark?

How was it that Jesus forgave sins without baptising people as he did so?

Why is it that when asked directly what must one do Jesus did not mention baptism?

The thing is either it is required or it is not and there are examples of people who were forgiven, healed and apparently saved and baptism is not mentioned at all in many if not most of these cases. There is only one logical conclusion.

By Paul? Are you sure? Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, gave the command in Acts 2:38. Luke recorded Paul's account of his own conversion in Acts 22:16. Tertius wrote the book of Romans (see Romans 16:22) as Paul dictated (1:1). By the way, according to Galatians 1:11-12, who told Paul what to teach? And, according to 2 Timothy 3:16a, who inspired the Scriptures?

As for the questionable section of Mark, is it in the Bible you use? Sure it is, therefore it should be considered. After all, if it was a certainty that it should not be included in Scripture, then it wouldn't be - the translators would have removed it. As stated previously, just because the passages wasn't in the two oldest Greek manuscripts doesn't tell the whole story.

Matthew 9:1-6 is an inspired commentary on Jesus' works, including His ability to forgive sins.

At the time Jesus was asked, the law of Moses was still in effect. Therefore, His answer reflected obedience to God under that law. And, obedience rendered to God under that law would open the door for acceptance of the prophet Moses spoke of (see Acts 3:22-23 & Acts 7:37).

As for the logical conclusion of what it takes to be saved under the gospel of Christ, I suggest considering the examples of those who were saved after His testament or will went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

As for the thief on the cross, he lived and died under the law of Moses. It wasn't until after Jesus' death that His testament (i.e., will) went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17. Borrowing from that thought, we can think of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 as the reading of Jesus' will.

First, “Testament” doesn’t mean simply “will”. I won’t go into details about that here, because that’s not the topic. Let’s concentrate on the essential.

Sorry, but the timing of when a will goes into effect is the thought of Hebrews 9:16-17. Did you read the text? Understanding when Jesus' will went into effect is essential, assuming that one is sincere and truly interested in understanding his will for us today under the gospel or law of Christ.

The essential is that you have no idea about what it means to be under the Law of Moses, and about its difference from being under Grace. You actually must be talking about being under the Old Covenant, not about being under the Law. All those who are saved, whether in the Old Covenant or in the New Covenant were not under the Law. If anyone is under the Law, then he is under the curse of the Law, and he is a slave of sin that is master over him:

“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” ( Romans 6:14 )

There is no way to be saved by the Law. Salvation is by Grace alone, both in the Old and in the New Covenants.

Sorry, but those under grace are still under law. Not the law of Moses, but the law of Christ (note Galatians 6:2 & James 1:25). Why not go back and consider the context of the earlier chapters of Romans, which are contrasting the law of Moses with the grace offered through Christ?

So that thief, just like all the Old Testament believers, was saved and had the forgiveness of his sins by faith alone. No way to see the Kingdom of God without being born again. That’s what Jesus said. So all those who were saved in the Old Covenant were also born again by faith.

See, you really didn't read Hebrews 9:16-17 after all. It explains Jesus' testament (i.e., will, as used in that passage) went into effect AFTER His death, NOT before. It's the way a will works. You should know that.

I find it ironic that you try to apply Jesus' teaching of the need to be born again, while not accepting how He said it would occur - by water and the Spirit. Think with me again about Acts 2. Who came upon the apostles and directed the apostle Peter's teaching? The Holy Spirit. And, what did the Holy Spirit command in verse 38? Baptism in water (determined by Acts 8:35-39 and Acts 10:47-47-48). Let's check our answer. Romans 6:3-11. Hmmm. Dead in sin starting out ... and alive to God when the story finishes. I'd say that person was born again. The text is discussing what occurs in baptism. Voila. We have harmony.

So, in brief, that thief lived and died under the Old Covenant, but he died under Grace not under law. He believed in Jesus Christ and was saved. [/QUOTE]

Acts 2:38. The command is given in order to be saved. Therefore, who believed in the Lord and was saved, those who obeyed what they were told to do in verse 41, or those that didn't? Please show us how your conclusion about the thief on the cross harmonizes with this inspired example of conversion of sinners to Jesus AFTER His will went into effect.

Besides, your comment about being under the Law of Moses is irrelevant here, because even if the thief didn’t live under the New Covenant, but there was John the Baptist who ALREADY preached the baptism OF repentance for the forgiveness of sins:

The baptism of John was commanded solely to the Jews - God's chosen people - to prepare them to receive their Messiah. Once they did, He would forgive their sins. The baptism of Christ is detailed in Romans 6:3-11. It describes how we are united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection in baptism. Perhaps you can describe to us how John's baptism accomplished these things, since they had not yet occurred. And, as also posted, perhaps you can show us how there's really no difference between the baptism of John and and the baptism in the name of the Lord per Acts 19:1-5. Obviously, that text shows one was no longer applicable. I'll leave it up to you to discern which one had served its purpose and no longer applicable.

“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” ( Mark 1:4 )

So why didn’t Jesus ask that thief why he had not been baptized by the baptism of John?

If baptism ( apart from repentance ) were necessary FOR the forgiveness of sins, then that thief would not be able to have the forgiveness of his sins, because he was not baptized by John’s baptism OF repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins.

Speculation. We don't know if the thief was or wasn't baptized with the baptism of John. However, Jesus would have known. Being God, He knew those kind of things. Anyway, the Lord chose to forgive His sins just as He did in Matthew 9:2. He was God, and He had the power and the right to do so. However, once His will went into effect after His death, can you direct us to an example of conversion where the sinner did not have to be baptized to be converted to Christ, which by the way, would be a direct contradiction of Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19?

And your argument is even more irrelevent, as MANY received the forgiveness of their sins during the life of Jesus on earth, and the Apostles of Jesus were baptizing people, AND Jesus didn’t tell them to get baptized in order to have the forgiveness of their sins. Let me go in this step by step:

1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ were baptizing people
“After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized” ( John 3:22-23 )

“Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were)” ( John 4:1-2 )

So Jesus was baptizing people, just as also John was baptizing. And what was that baptism? It was the baptism of repentance FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS:

“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” ( Mark 1:4 )

So, in brief, this first point shows us that Jesus was ALREADY baptizing people with the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. So this baptism was there when the thief received the forgiveness of his sins WITHOUT being baptized, JUST AS many others received that same forgiveness BEFORE they were baptized. Look at it in the second point:

2. Jesus didn’t tell those who came to Him for the forgiveness of their sins to get baptized by His Apostles BEFORE they can have the forgiveness of their sins
“And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven."” ( Matthew 9:2 )

N.B.: this paralytic was not baptized before he received the forgiveness of his sins. And Jesus didn’t ask him to get baptized by His Apostles BEFORE He forgives him his sins.

“Then He said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven."” ( Luke 7:48 )

This woman was a sinner, as the Bible clearly states in Luke 7. Jesus didn’t ask her to get baptized by His Apostles before He declared clearly that her sins HAVE BEEN forgiven.

And remember: Both the paralytic and this woman were under the Old Covenant, just like that thief, and both of them lived during a time when Jesus was ALREADY baptizing people with the baptism of repentance FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

Do you see how much the Bible is consistent with itself?

I know it sounds a might repetitious, but you are making all these conclusions without giving any consideration whatsoever to Hebrews 9:16-17. That text plainly states when Jesus' testament went into effect. Now, does your reasoning harmonize with these passages? If not, and it doesn't, then something is amiss. Don't take my word for it. Take the Lord's. Matthew 22:41-46. The Pharisees had no problem acknowledging that the Christ would be a descendant of David. However, oops, they kinda' forgot to consider that the Christ would not only be David's Son, but also David's Lord per Psalm 110:1. Therefore, they were blinded from seeing the whole truth of the matter. Just thought you should keep this basic principle of Bible interpretation in mind. You seem to be following in the footsteps of the Pharisees by jumping to rash conclusions before considering all the evidence.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Disagree with your conclusion concerning Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. Note Peter's only conclusion in verse 47. His only conclusion was that the Jews couldn't forbid the Gentiles from being baptized as were the Jews.

No, dear friend. Look at the REAL conclusion of Peter:

“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” ( Acts 10:47 )

They received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, just as the disciples received on the day of Pentecost. Do you think anyone can receive the Holy Spirit while still being in his sins? Do you think the Holy Spirit can dwell in the same heart WITH sin? The Bible answers no.


By the Lord's Grace, we continue in the next reply.

YAQUBOS†

John 16:7-14 captures pretty well Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and all He would do for them. However, this doesn't seem to match at all Peter's conclusion in Acts 10:14-48. Granted, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as the Jewish apostles did in Acts 2, but it was for a totally different reason. In Acts 10, Peter's only conclusion was that the Jews couldn't forbid the Gentiles from being baptized in water in the name of the Lord. Therefore, since this baptism is the same as that commanded in Acts 2:38, it would have been for the same reason (i.e., the remission of sins).

 

[Soul Searcher]

By Paul? Are you sure? Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, gave the command in Acts 2:38. Luke recorded Paul's account of his own conversion in Acts 22:16. Tertius wrote the book of Romans (see Romans 16:22) as Paul dictated (1:1). By the way, according to Galatians 1:11-12, who told Paul what to teach? And, according to 2 Timothy 3:16a, who inspired the Scriptures?

Yes.. Luke [a disciple of Paul?] rather than Paul himself supposedly wrote the book of acts. The point was it was not Jesus who was doing this teaching.

As for the inspriation of scripture according to Paul all scripture is inspired of the holy spirit. That of course does not mean written by but inspired by and it does not mean the bible but all scripture including that which was not placed in the bible. It does not however make it exampt from error nor misunderstandings.

As for the questionable section of Mark, is it in the Bible you use? Sure it is, therefore it should be considered. After all, if it was a certainty that it should not be included in Scripture, then it wouldn't be - the translators would have removed it. As stated previously, just because the passages wasn't in the two oldest Greek manuscripts doesn't tell the whole story.

The fact that it is there does not make it any less questionable. The fact that it is not there in some makes it questionable and the text that advocates the handling of serpents and drinking of poisons is extremely questionable.

Matthew 9:1-6 is an inspired commentary on Jesus' works, including His ability to forgive sins.

At the time Jesus was asked, the law of Moses was still in effect. Therefore, His answer reflected obedience to God under that law. And, obedience rendered to God under that law would open the door for acceptance of the prophet Moses spoke of (see Acts 3:22-23 & Acts 7:37).

So then the death of Jesus made it harder to obtain forgiveness then. Funny I thought it was supposed to be the other way around according to Christain doctorines. Many churches preach that we are not under the law but Jesus very clearly indicated that we are indeed. That all the commandments are tied to love one another as yourself and we are in no way exempt from obeying this commandment. Going to church, being baptised. Is absolutely worthless if we have not love for one another and if we do have love for one another then there is no need for baptism.

Many churches preach there is nothing you can do to be saved, That it is by faith not by works yet they turn right around and say that you must do this, and this and this and this and so on. Not only do they preach you must do several things then they also preach that someone else must do something as well. In the end they take the salvation out of the hands of Jesus and place the power in themselves and in the pastor of the church. Sadly they have missed the mark completely.

As for the logical conclusion of what it takes to be saved under the gospel of Christ, I suggest considering the examples of those who were saved after His testament or will went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17.

What it takes is Jesus, not a preacher, not a church, not a baptism, Jesus and Jesus alone is the saviour of all men. The church is often just a side show.

 

[Soul Searcher]

On another note. When Jesus spoke of judgment, when Paul speaks of judgment, when revelation speaks of judgment. It always refers to what the person has done. Not what they believe. Not if they have been baptised but what they have done. It does not show any exemption from this judgment because of someone being baptised nor because of what they believe but clearly says that all will be judged.

In fact in the case where Jesus was talking about it it appears that many of those who were saved did not know it and those who thought they were, were wrong, again because it was not because of thier beliefs but their deeds.

 

[Evergreen48]

The proper mode of baptism is easily discerned if folks "speak as the oracles [words] of God" per 1 Peter 4:11a. It's those "I think so's," the "I want it to be so's," and "this is my personal testimony so's" that complicate matters. The Koine Greek word for baptism means to immmerse, dip, or plunge. Acts 8:35-39 details baptism pretty clearly. Romans 6:3-11 also portrays baptism as a burial.

But where are the directions in Acts 8:35-39, or in Romans 6:3-11 as to HOW these people were immersed, dipped or plunged? Were they pushed straight down by the baptizer under the water while in a standing position, or perhaps they plunged or dipped their own selves beneath the water while the baptizer looked on, or witnessed? Or perhaps they were baptized the way I related of my own personal experience - thrust backwards into, and under the water by the hands of the Pastor of the church of which I was asking membership? If one's eternal destiny depends on whether they are baptized or not, then this is a very, very, very serious proposition which must be attended to with much exactness. So I would ask again and again: where are our directions as to which of these methods is exactly acceptable to the Lord?

I have a question about the conversion of the 3,000 in Acts 2:41. Who received the blessings promised in verse 38, the 3,000 that obeyed or those that didn't? Is it sound reasoning to conclude that any that didn't obey the command given in verse 38 were entitled to the blessings promised (i.e., the remission of sins), or is it sound logic to conclude those who obeyed the command given in verse 38 were entitled to the blessings promised in that passage? My personal testimony is the 3,000 that obeyed what they were told to do were saved from their sins and added to the Lord's church by the Lord, and I have followed their example in accepting the gospel of Christ (note Acts 2:38, 41, & 47).

My personal testimoney is that I only recieved a temporal blessing from being baptized. I recieved everlasting LIFE through Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour. The temporal waters of baptism could not, and did not save me. Only through, and by the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the LIFE imparted to me.

 

[Evergreen48]

That shows a deep misunderstanding of what the Ark and the water of the Flood represented. Actually, the old sinful humanness ( those who were NOT in the Ark ) were literally IMMERSED in the waters of the Flood, as a picture of the IMMERSION of the old self ( the flesh ) in the water of baptism. The Ark is a picture of the New Adam, Jesus Christ, in whom we are a new humanness, and this new humanness CANNOT die again, so it is not under the waters, just like the Ark and those who were in it.

Ummm, I don't think so.

So

me of the biggest confusions come from a misunderstanding of the Bible.

Yes, I agree.

And those misunderstandings come from a lack or weakness of faith that does not allow the Bible to explain itself, and rather tries to explain the Bible by human speculations.

So, you can understand the bible better than I, because you have more and stronger faith than I? How do you know this?

 

[YAQUBOS]

It has nothing to do with refusing to see. It is not there. Read it. It is no where in any bible. Not once, not at all. You make giant leaps stringing things together and then making wild claims and acting like it clearly says x when it really says y.

But then this is an old disagreement. It has became clear that you make it up as you go rather than admitting that no such text exists. Makes me think that I should just ignore anything you do say as facts do not seem to be of major importance to you.

It has many things to do with refusing to see. Without faith you cannot please God nor understand what He says in His Word, the Bible. The Bible clearly said, and Jesus clearly said that the Bible is the Word of God. But you refuse to believe what they say.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Which passage(s) says or declares that baptism is necessary "IN Savation" versus "for salvation?"

All the passages that you are quoting to prove that baptism is necessary for Salvation.

Actually, your problem is that you are not understanding that baptism is nothing without faith, just as all the means of Grace. You are looking to the NECESSARY treasures of Grace, and you are assuming that they are necessary FOR that Grace to begin to give those treasures to us.

The Bible is the Word of God. It is very consistent with itself. So no part of the Bible ever contradicts another doctrine that we read in the Bible. So baptism doesn't contradict the doctrine of Salvation by Grace through faith WITHOUT anything we do. In other words, baptism is not something we do, and it is part of God's Grace to us that we receive by faith alone.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Which passage(s) says or declares that baptism is necessary "IN Savation" versus "for salvation?"

All the passages that you are quoting to prove that baptism is necessary for Salvation.

Actually, your problem is that you are not understanding that baptism is nothing without faith, just as all the means of Grace. You are looking to the NECESSARY treasures of Grace, and you are assuming that they are necessary FOR that Grace to begin to give those treasures to us.

The Bible is the Word of God. It is very consistent with itself. So no part of the Bible ever contradicts another doctrine that we read in the Bible. So baptism doesn't contradict the doctrine of Salvation by Grace through faith WITHOUT anything we do. In other words, baptism is not something we do, and it is part of God's Grace to us that we receive by faith alone.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

I'm still waiting for the passage(s) you have in mind that is supposed to differentiate how baptism is necessary "IN Salvation" versus "for salvation."

I think it should be apparent by as many times as I've noted Colossians 2:12 and Mark 16:16 that I believe baptism must be coupled with faith. Have you even been reading the posts?

As far as God's grace is concerned, once again, I believe it is extended to all per Titus 2:11 and John 3:16. However, unless I'm badly mistaken, only those who obeyed what they were told to do in Acts 2:38 (i.e., the 3,000 of verse 41) received the blessings promised. Do those thoughts sound familiar? Are you ever going to explain who was saved according to that text ... those who obeyed or those that didn't?

Okay, I see some definite improvement in your Bible communication skills. You mentioned salvation by grace through faith without coupling the word "alone" with faith. Now, let's test your "theory" that salvation by grace through faith means we don't have to do anything. That would mean the Jews in Acts 2 didn't have to do anything to have their sins taken away. Therefore, Peter told them in verse 38 they didn't have to do anything to have their sins taken away. And, Saul was told he didn't have to do anything to have his sins washed away in Acts 22:16, right ... or wrong? I believe it is readily apparent that something is amiss somewhere. Either the apostle Peter, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave the Jews the wrong message in Acts 2:38, or your understanding is in error. The same principle also applies to Ananias, whom Jesus sent, in Acts 22:16. Frankly, I'm not quite ready to buy into your reasoning (note Proverbs 23:23).

 

[YAQUBOS]

First off, I omitted the previous points you made on Post # 721 on Page 73 because you offered NO scriptural support for your conclusions. We are told to "speak as the oracles of God in 1 Peter 4:11a. It means to speak what God's word speaks. If you'd like to show us which passage(s) you had in mind for your conclusions, then we can discuss those particular passages.

Friend, you omit whatever you want with whatever wrong conclusions you may have. But the Word of God is clear that it is baptism OF repentance and not baptism PLUS repentance. I have quoted the biblical passages that clearly show this. But it seems you like your unbiblical theory so much that you dismissed those passages.

Anyway, we pass.

As for the word "and" in Ephesians 1:2, it appears twice. "And" is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. The first time the word "and" appears in Ephesians 1:2, it connects grace and peace. Both blessings were extended to the Ephesians. The second time "and" appears in the passage, it connects God the Father and the Lord Jesus. Both the Father and the Son extended grace and peace to the Ephesians. The meaning is not hard to understand, however please let me know if you need additional help with the passage.

That was a non-answer. That was what I was saying. God and Jesus are ONE, and they have that "and" between them. This doesn't mean that Jesus is not God. In the same way, baptism and repentance may have an "and" between them, but this doesn't mean that you need repentance PLUS baptism for your Salvation. It is the baptism OF repentance, and not repentance PLUS baptism.

This is the kind of errors in which you fall when you dismiss my explanations as unbiblical and then try to understand what I am saying.

As previously stated, Luke 24:47, Mark 16:15-16, and Matthew 28:19 are three different accounts of the Great Commission Jesus gave to the apostles. All three accounts are true - NOT just Luke's. Think of the principle taught in Matthew 2. In that chapter Jesus is presented as being born in Bethlehem, call out of Egypt, and yet still called a Nazarene. Which aspect is true? Obviously, they all are. Likewise, all three accounts of the great commission are true. Plus, there's another way to check your understanding of Luke 24:47. If your understanding is correct, then the conversions in the book of Acts should reveal the apostles taught repentance was all that was necessary for the remission of sins. Obviously, that is not what they taught. Therefore, the conclusion is that you have the wrong understanding of Luke 24:47.

OBVIOUSLY, you are imagining an understanding that you call my understanding. Yes, baptism is mentioned in the other Gospel Books. But how does this mean that repentance PLUS baptism is needed for the remission of sins?? If that was the case, then the Holy Spirit would not omit baptism in Luke 24.

You keep reminding me that in the Acts the Apostles baptized. But I don't see how that is contrary to all what the Bible teaches about baptism, that teaching that I am telling you about. Yes, baptism OF repentance is for the forgiveness of sins. But where did you ever read that repentance PLUS baptism is needed for the remission of sins? On the contrary, we read that Jesus forgave to many their sins without baptism ( I have written about this in my previous replies. ) And all Old Testament believers received the forgiveness of their sins without baptism. And I don't think you believe all Old Testament believers are still in their sins because they were not baptized.

If you keep thinking with equations about Salvation, then you will keep making these errors. If you say that all parts of the Bible should be ADDED to each other to give the true meaning of baptism, then I will ask you if you can receive the forgiveness of your sins without forgiving others their sins. Thus, you will have a longer equation: Faith + repentance + baptism + forgiving others + obedience + etc... Thus you will be in the big error of Salvation by personal merits ( self-righteousness. )

Beg your pardon, but does Acts 2:38 say, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (NKJV)," or, "Receive the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?" If the latter, please tell us what translation you are using.

I am using the Bible. And I have explained what that "and" means. It means that this baptism is the baptism of repentance, just as the other "and" in Ephesians means that Jesus and God are ONE.

John's baptism was indeed a baptism of repentance. It was commanded to prepare the Jewish people to receive their Messiah (i.e., the King promised through David). John's baptism is not the same as the baptism commanded "in the name of Jesus Christ," which is synonymous with the baptism "in the name of the Lord" found in other passages in Acts. To discern the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism commanded in the name of the Lord, one only has to spend a few minutes with Acts 8:24 - 9:5 to note the difference.

I know the difference, and I have spoke about it in this thread, if you only read my previous replies.

But what is the difference in the MEANING? Clearly, both mean repentance. The passage of Romans 6 is telling us that baptism means repentance, the death to self and the life to God. But as you insisted that Romans 6 is talking about the TIMING of baptism, then you couldn't concentrate on the MEANING of baptism about which that passage is talking.

If baptism was not a baptism of repentance, then baptism would give you the remission of your sins WITHOUT repentance. Which is totally unbiblical.

As previously suggested, the sequence of events should be noted. After seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus and being blinded Saul, Saul was led into Damascus. For three days he was without sight and neither ate nor drank (Acts 9:9). Also, during that time period he prayed to God (latter part of 9:11). However, his sins were still not forgiven.

Where did you read that his sins were still not forgiven?? Please, quote that passage that says his sins were still not forgiven.

All the people to whom Jesus forgave their sins were not baptized yet. And then many of them may have received the baptism OF repentance.

When Ananias came to Saul, he told Saul what to do to have his sins washed away.

Yes, he told him to call on the Name of the Lord; that's right.

Per Acts 9:18, Saul arose and was baptized.

Yes, he had repented. The Lord made him a new person when He met him.

Therefore, just like the 3,000 in Acts 2:41 who obeyed what they were told to do to have their sins taken away, Saul obeyed and had his sins taken away.

Not at all! It was not baptism that took away his sins, but the Lord forgave him his sins by repentant faith. And the sign of that repentance is baptism. It is the baptism of repentance.

When he did so, he was "calling on the name of the Lord," that is, acting by the Lord's authority to have his sins washed away.

Oh... that's your old misunderstanding of what "calling on the Name of the Lord" means. Well, I have clarified the meaning of this expression in my previous replies.

Do you mean that baptism contradicts the Word of God? Friend, baptism is not human words, but it is what GOD says to us. In his baptism, Paul didn’t himself SAY something to God, but GOD said something to him.

Not sure where this idea came from that baptism contradicts the word of God. It is a command of God under the gospel of Christ per passages such as Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, and Acts 22:16. By inference with Colossians 2:12 in mind, Paul indeed said something to God during his baptism. His statement was that he had faith in the working of God. The proof was that he did what God said. So, the question at hand is: "Would Saul have had his sins washed away if he hadn't obeyed what he was told to do in Acts 22:16?"

1. No, Saul was not saying something from HIS part. Saul was RECEIVING what GOD says in baptism. Faith is not something WE DO. It's something we receive.

2. No, Saul would not have his sins forgiven if he didn't obey, just as you will not have your sins forgiven if you don't forgive others their sins. If Saul's faith was not the true repentant and obedient faith, then it was the fake faith that cannot save ( Remember James 2. ) So baptism, just like all the treasures of Grace, IS necessary IN Salvation. Or else, you are deceiving yourself with a dead faith.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Why is it that any passages offered to indicate baptism as a requirement come from Paul or the questionable section of Mark?

Are you sure of what you are saying? Is the following passage also written by Paul or Mark:

"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" ( 1 Peter 3:21 )

You believe this was written by Paul or Mark??

How was it that Jesus forgave sins without baptising people as he did so?

Because baptism is not necessary for Salvation.

Why is it that when asked directly what must one do Jesus did not mention baptism?

Are you sure He didn't mention repentance and obedience???

The thing is either it is required or it is not and there are examples of people who were forgiven, healed and apparently saved and baptism is not mentioned at all in many if not most of these cases. There is only one logical conclusion.

And that conclusion is that baptism is not necessary for Salvation, but that it is essential in Salvation. You said it: They were forgiven. If others were not forgiven, and THEY were forgiven, that's because they REPENTED.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

At the time Jesus was asked, the law of Moses was still in effect. Therefore, His answer reflected obedience to God under that law. And, obedience rendered to God under that law would open the door for acceptance of the prophet Moses spoke of (see Acts 3:22-23 & Acts 7:37).

As for the logical conclusion of what it takes to be saved under the gospel of Christ, I suggest considering the examples of those who were saved after His testament or will went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17.

Do you mean that's why Abraham, who had NOT the Law of Moses yet, was obliged to be baptized to be saved?

But, wait a minute... Abraham was NOT baptized!!! And yet, his sins were forgiven ( = he was justified ) by faith.

I love the Word of God. It is very consistent with itself.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

The proper mode of baptism is easily discerned if folks "speak as the oracles [words] of God" per 1 Peter 4:11a. It's those "I think so's," the "I want it to be so's," and "this is my personal testimony so's" that complicate matters. The Koine Greek word for baptism means to immmerse, dip, or plunge. Acts 8:35-39 details baptism pretty clearly. Romans 6:3-11 also portrays baptism as a burial.

But where are the directions in Acts 8:35-39, or in Romans 6:3-11 as to HOW these people were immersed, dipped or plunged? Were they pushed straight down by the baptizer under the water while in a standing position, or perhaps they plunged or dipped their own selves beneath the water while the baptizer looked on, or witnessed? Or perhaps they were baptized the way I related of my own personal experience - thrust backwards into, and under the water by the hands of the Pastor of the church of which I was asking membership? If one's eternal destiny depends on whether they are baptized or not, then this is a very, very, very serious proposition which must be attended to with much exactness. So I would ask again and again: where are our directions as to which of these methods is exactly acceptable to the Lord?

My ... my! You certainly have opened a can of worms! Belief is necessary to be saved (John 3:16). Repentance is necessary (Luke 13:3,5). Confession is necessary (Matthew 10:32-33). And, baptism is also necessary for one to be saved (i.e., become converted to Jesus according to Matthew 28:19) per Mark 16:16a. Whew ... baptism is only one of many concerns you must have with this "exactness" approach.

As for whether or not the baptized believer was baptized or baptized himself/herself, what do you suppose language such as "baptizing them" in Matthew 28:19 means? Plus, there's that example I alluded to in Acts 8:35-39. Note the latter part of verse 38. "He baptized him" means Philip baptized the eunuch. That explains why Philip went down into the water with the eunuch.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I have a question about the conversion of the 3,000 in Acts 2:41. Who received the blessings promised in verse 38, the 3,000 that obeyed or those that didn't? Is it sound reasoning to conclude that any that didn't obey the command given in verse 38 were entitled to the blessings promised (i.e., the remission of sins), or is it sound logic to conclude those who obeyed the command given in verse 38 were entitled to the blessings promised in that passage? My personal testimony is the 3,000 that obeyed what they were told to do were saved from their sins and added to the Lord's church by the Lord, and I have followed their example in accepting the gospel of Christ (note Acts 2:38, 41, & 47).

My personal testimoney is that I only recieved a temporal blessing from being baptized. I recieved everlasting LIFE through Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour. The temporal waters of baptism could not, and did not save me. Only through, and by the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the LIFE imparted to me.

I read your testimony, but I asked you to apply it to the example of the 3,000 in Acts 2 to see if things harmonize. Once again, I'm asking you do make the comparison. Assuming that Peter told the Jews in Acts 2:38 they had to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to have their sins taken away, would it be the same as claiming your sins had been taken away even though you didn't obey what was commanded with the 3,000 who obeyed what they were told to do in verse 41 -- were also saved and added to the Lord's church in verse 47?

As for the resurrection of Christ, what is God's provision for us to be united with Jesus' resurrection? Why not read Romans 6:3-11 and come back so we can discuss what occurs during baptism (according to God's testimony)?

 

[- DRA -]

Do you mean that's why Abraham, who had NOT the Law of Moses yet, was obliged to be baptized to be saved?

But, wait a minute... Abraham was NOT baptized!!! And yet, his sins were forgiven ( = he was justified ) by faith.

I love the Word of God. It is very consistent with itself.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

Read Hebrews 9:16-17 and we can discuss when Jesus' testament/will/law went into effect.

By the way, when Peter gave the command in Acts 2:38 to the Jews who desired to have their sins taken away, the 3,000 responded, according to verse 41, by saying, "We don't have to obey the command you just gave, because Abraham was saved without doing those things," right?

 

[YAQUBOS]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

As for the thief on the cross, he lived and died under the law of Moses. It wasn't until after Jesus' death that His testament (i.e., will) went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17. Borrowing from that thought, we can think of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 as the reading of Jesus' will.



Sorry, but the timing of when a will goes into effect is the thought of Hebrews 9:16-17. Did you read the text? Understanding when Jesus' will went into effect is essential, assuming that one is sincere and truly interested in understanding his will for us today under the gospel or law of Christ.

You mean Abraham was under the Testament of Law? N.B.: Abraham had not the Law of Moses yet...

Do you also mean that ANYONE in history was saved by keeping the Law?? Were they all not saved by the Gospel?

Do you mean that the Gospel was not preached in the Old Testament as the only power of God for Salvation?

Sorry, but those under grace are still under law. Not the law of Moses, but the law of Christ (note Galatians 6:2 & James 1:25). Why not go back and consider the context of the earlier chapters of Romans, which are contrasting the law of Moses with the grace offered through Christ?

The law of Christ is GRACE, or in other words, the law of faith:

"Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith." ( Romans 3:27 )

So those who are saved are NOT under the Law of works but under the law of faith, i.e. under Grace:

"For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace." ( Romans 6:14 )

So you contradict the Scripture by your conclusions.

See, you really didn't read Hebrews 9:16-17 after all. It explains Jesus' testament (i.e., will, as used in that passage) went into effect AFTER His death, NOT before. It's the way a will works. You should know that.

And this has nothing to do with the new birth. The new birth is the Will of God from the beginning. No one ever could see the Kingdom of God without being born again.

Don't worry, friend, I read Hebrews 9.

I find it ironic that you try to apply Jesus' teaching of the need to be born again, while not accepting how He said it would occur - by water and the Spirit.

Yes, by the Word of God used by the Holy Spirit to regenerate you. How does this contradict the fact that all people, whether under the Old Covenant or the New Covenant, were born again by this Word of God used by the Holy Spirit to regenerate people??

Think with me again about Acts 2. Who came upon the apostles and directed the apostle Peter's teaching? The Holy Spirit. And, what did the Holy Spirit command in verse 38? Baptism in water (determined by Acts 8:35-39 and Acts 10:47-47-48). Let's check our answer. Romans 6:3-11. Hmmm. Dead in sin starting out ... and alive to God when the story finishes. I'd say that person was born again. The text is discussing what occurs in baptism. Voila. We have harmony.

Yes, water baptism is the sign of the New birth. Romans 6 is explaining the meaning of baptism, i.e. the new birth.

So, in brief, that thief lived and died under the Old Covenant, but he died under Grace not under law. He believed in Jesus Christ and was saved.

Acts 2:38. The command is given in order to be saved. Therefore, who believed in the Lord and was saved, those who obeyed what they were told to do in verse 41, or those that didn't? Please show us how your conclusion about the thief on the cross harmonizes with this inspired example of conversion of sinners to Jesus AFTER His will went into effect.

Yes, baptism is necessary in Salvation, but it is not necessary for Salvation. I won't be tired of repeating this very essential truth.

ONLY the Gospel ( = Grace ) received by faith is necessary for Salvation. NOTHING else. And it is obvious that baptism is part of that Grace, and not the Grace itself. When you preach the Gospel, you don't need to baptize in order to make the Gospel able to save:

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." ( 1 Corinthians 1:17 )

The Gospel ALONE, and WITHOUT baptism, saves. The Gospel is Jesus Christ Himself.

The baptism of John was commanded solely to the Jews - God's chosen people - to prepare them to receive their Messiah. Once they did, He would forgive their sins.

So why did not Jesus ask that thief why he was not baptized with the baptism of John which is the baptism of repentance FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS? How did that thief receive the forgiveness of his sins without getting baptized with the baptism that is FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS?

Plus, Jesus also was baptizing ( His disciples were baptizing in His Name. ) So how did that thief receive the forgiveness of his sins without getting baptized by one of Jesus' disciples???

If the baptism for the forgiveness of sins is necessary for Salvation, then this thief was not saved. And yet, Jesus said He will be in Paradise...

The baptism of Christ is detailed in Romans 6:3-11. It describes how we are united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection in baptism.

And the disciples of Jesus were already baptizing people in His Name. Why was not that thief baptized??

Perhaps you can describe to us how John's baptism accomplished these things, since they had not yet occurred.

The effect of Christ's work is not only for those who lived after their historical occurence.

But, anyway, this is irrelevent to what we are discussing here. That thief knew the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ ( His disciples were baptizing in His Name. ) So how could he have the forgiveness of his sins without getting baptized? Please, answer this question without running to other details that have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins.

And, as also posted, perhaps you can show us how there's really no difference between the baptism of John and and the baptism in the name of the Lord per Acts 19:1-5.

There is a BIG difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ. I have spoken about that difference previously in this thread, but you didn't read it, maybe because you were not participating in this thread at that time.

But repentance is NOT a part of that difference. BOTH John and Christ baptized with the baptism of repentance. Romans 6 clearly says that the Christian repentance cannot be separated from the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And all these are related to baptism. So the baptism of Jesus is the baptism of repentance. In this point, the baptism of Jesus does NOT differ from the baptism of John, except in its historical meaning: John, through his baptism, preached the COMING Christ. The disciples of Jesus, through Christ's baptism, preached Christ who CAME:

"Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."" ( Acts 19:4 )

That is the only difference when it comes to repentance. The people who lived before Christ had to believe in the COMING Christ, and that was repentance for them. The people who live after Christ have to believe in the Christ who already CAME, and this is repentance for us.

Obviously, that text shows one was no longer applicable. I'll leave it up to you to discern which one had served its purpose and no longer applicable.

Friend, you said that the thief was still under the Old Covenant. So this means he still needed the baptism of John which is for the forgiveness of sins. Then, why did not Jesus ask him if he was baptized by that baptism?

Besides, the disciples of Jesus also were baptizing with the baptism of JESUS. So why was that thief NOT baptized by the baptism of Jesus?

Speculation. We don't know if the thief was or wasn't baptized with the baptism of John. However, Jesus would have known. Being God, He knew those kind of things. Anyway, the Lord chose to forgive His sins just as He did in Matthew 9:2. He was God, and He had the power and the right to do so. However, once His will went into effect after His death, can you direct us to an example of conversion where the sinner did not have to be baptized to be converted to Christ, which by the way, would be a direct contradiction of Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19?

No, it wouldn't be a contradiction.

You don't know whether that thief was baptized with the baptism of John or not?? Do you know what you are talking about? Friend, John baptized with the baptism OF REPENTANCE for the forgiveness of sins. This means that people were coming in repentance, confessing their sins, and were getting baptized. So how do you imagine that this thief repented and YET continued to live in sin?

Anyways, Cornelius and all his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized. If they had not their sins forgiven and washed away, the Holy Spirit would not dwell in them.

N.B.: Cornelius lived AFTER Christ died and rose.

And Paul was preaching the Gospel of forgiveness of sins, ALTHOUGH God didn't send him to baptize.

But don't ever try to make baptism UNnecessary in Salvation. The Bible will not agree with you. So when you ask for a passage where baptism is directly dismissed, you are in other words asking for a proof that baptism is not necessary in Salvation, which is totally unbiblical, and of course the Bible will never say such a thing.

I know it sounds a might repetitious, but you are making all these conclusions without giving any consideration whatsoever to Hebrews 9:16-17. That text plainly states when Jesus' testament went into effect. Now, does your reasoning harmonize with these passages? If not, and it doesn't, then something is amiss. Don't take my word for it. Take the Lord's. Matthew 22:41-46. The Pharisees had no problem acknowledging that the Christ would be a descendant of David. However, oops, they kinda' forgot to consider that the Christ would not only be David's Son, but also David's Lord per Psalm 110:1. Therefore, they were blinded from seeing the whole truth of the matter. Just thought you should keep this basic principle of Bible interpretation in mind. You seem to be following in the footsteps of the Pharisees by jumping to rash conclusions before considering all the evidence.

Salvation is not only for those who live under the New Covenant. The question of this thread is not whether baptism is necessary for the New Covenant. The question is whether baptism is necessary for Salvation. So when you say that baptism is necessary for Salvation, you are indirectly saying that Abraham and David and all Old Testament believers, and the thief, and those who died before the death of Christ, all were not saved.

In other words, when you insist that baptism is necessary for Salvation, you are insisting that being under the New Covenant is necessary for Salvation. Which is totally unbiblical.

On the other hand, it is clear that baptism is necessary IN Salvation. The Old Testament believers were not made perfect without us.

John 16:7-14 captures pretty well Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and all He would do for them. However, this doesn't seem to match at all Peter's conclusion in Acts 10:14-48. Granted, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as the Jewish apostles did in Acts 2, but it was for a totally different reason. In Acts 10, Peter's only conclusion was that the Jews couldn't forbid the Gentiles from being baptized in water in the name of the Lord. Therefore, since this baptism is the same as that commanded in Acts 2:38, it would have been for the same reason (i.e., the remission of sins).

You didn't answer me: Does the Holy Spirit indwell a person whose sins are not forgiven and washed away?

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Ummm, I don't think so.

Yes, YOU don't think so. But the Bible is clear about it.

Yes, I agree.

So, you can understand the bible better than I, because you have more and stronger faith than I? How do you know this?

Faith comes from hearing the Word of God. If what you believe contradicts any part of the Bible, then that particular belief is not biblical.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Which passage(s) says or declares that baptism is necessary "IN Savation" versus "for salvation?"



I'm still waiting for the passage(s) you have in mind that is supposed to differentiate how baptism is necessary "IN Salvation" versus "for salvation."

I told you: All the passages that you are quoting and you are misunderstanding.

I think it should be apparent by as many times as I've noted Colossians 2:12 and Mark 16:16 that I believe baptism must be coupled with faith. Have you even been reading the posts?

I have been reading the posts AND replying to each point. Colossians 2:12 and Mark 16:16 do not say that baptism must be COUPLED with faith in a sense like a friend goes with his friend. Baptism without faith does not mean anything, while faith without baptism means all what it means. Those believers who lived under the Old Covenant had faith, and by that faith they were justified, and yet they were not baptized. Cornelius and his household had faith, and by that faith they received the Holy Spirit, and yet they were not baptized. Paul was sent to preach the Gospel, and you know that the Gospel is preached to be accepted by faith, and YET he was not sent to baptize:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." ( Romans 1:16 )

The Gospel saves those who believe, and Paul was sent to preach that Gospel, and yet he was not sent to baptize.

You think your understanding of the verses is true because YOU are quoting them. I know the verses are true, therefore I quote them.

As far as God's grace is concerned, once again, I believe it is extended to all per Titus 2:11 and John 3:16.

John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

The Grace of God is given to the whole world, but only those who receive Him ( believe in Him ) have that Grace.

However, unless I'm badly mistaken, only those who obeyed what they were told to do in Acts 2:38 (i.e., the 3,000 of verse 41) received the blessings promised. Do those thoughts sound familiar? Are you ever going to explain who was saved according to that text ... those who obeyed or those that didn't?

I have answered this question many times until now. CERTAINLY, only those who really obeyed and were baptized received the promises. And this is obedient faith alone. If one of them was baptized without real repentance, he was not saved, even though he was baptized. And if one of them was crucified there by the Roman soldiers, Peter would not ask him to come down, to get baptized, and to go back to the cross under the danger of being lost forever.

Okay, I see some definite improvement in your Bible communication skills. You mentioned salvation by grace through faith without coupling the word "alone" with faith.

You know what? I feel I am talking with someone who has not read the Epistle to the Romans...

The Bible is clear that Salvation is by Grace through faith WITHOUT any of our merits. And this means by faith alone. You are so attached to letters and words, that you didn't see that I am always saying that Salvation is by faith alone. When the Bible ( and I in my post ) say that it is "not by anything we do", that means "by faith alone".

Now, let's test your "theory" that salvation by grace through faith means we don't have to do anything.

I never said such a wrong thing. I said Salvation is by Grace through faith without anything we do. I didn't say that we don't have to do anything. I don't see from where you brought that conclusion. On the contrary, as Salvation is by Grace through faith and without anything we do, therefore we walk in all the works that God has prepared so that we walk in them.

That would mean the Jews in Acts 2 didn't have to do anything to have their sins taken away.

Where did you read me ever saying this? They had to obey, or else they are deceiving themselves with a false kind of faith, a dead faith.

Therefore, Peter told them in verse 38 they didn't have to do anything to have their sins taken away.

Keep your sarcasm for those who don't know the Word. What you need now is not sarcasm, but a true understanding of the doctrine of faith with which the Church stands or falls, AND the individual stands or falls.

And, Saul was told he didn't have to do anything to have his sins washed away in Acts 22:16, right ... or wrong?

Saul was told to get baptized, but NOT in order to have his sins washed away. He was told to be baptized, because THAT's the Word of God declared to him about the forgiveness of his sins. If he didn't obey, that would mean that he had not an obedient true faith. How can anyone be saved without an obedient faith?

I believe it is readily apparent that something is amiss somewhere.

I told you what it is: You need to learn the doctrine of Justification.

Either the apostle Peter, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave the Jews the wrong message in Acts 2:38, or your understanding is in error.

My message is the same as the message that Peter gave to the Jews in Acts 2, the WHOLE sermon, and not only a verse taken out of context.

The same principle also applies to Ananias, whom Jesus sent, in Acts 22:16. Frankly, I'm not quite ready to buy into your reasoning (note Proverbs 23:23).

Proverbs 23:23 - "Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding."

The truth is that justification is by Grace through faith, NOT by anything we do.

Study the doctrine of Justification.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

My ... my! You certainly have opened a can of worms! Belief is necessary to be saved (John 3:16). Repentance is necessary (Luke 13:3,5). Confession is necessary (Matthew 10:32-33). And, baptism is also necessary for one to be saved (i.e., become converted to Jesus according to Matthew 28:19) per Mark 16:16a. Whew ... baptism is only one of many concerns you must have with this "exactness" approach.

So, according to DRA, Salvation is by works.

But the Bible is clear that it is by faith alone.

=> DRA is giving us an unbiblical teaching.

DRA, repentance and faith are not added to each other. True faith ITSELF is a repentant faith.

As for whether or not the baptized believer was baptized or baptized himself/herself, what do you suppose language such as "baptizing them" in Matthew 28:19 means? Plus, there's that example I alluded to in Acts 8:35-39. Note the latter part of verse 38. "He baptized him" means Philip baptized the eunuch. That explains why Philip went down into the water with the eunuch.

In all cases, the method of baptizing is not the esential point, because baptism is not necessary for Salvation. In all cases, you can't know how deep a person must be immersed in the water in order for the baptism to be done in the right way.

Discussing about the method of baptism is irrelevent, because that's not the essential point. The essential is the meaning of baptism.

I read your testimony, but I asked you to apply it to the example of the 3,000 in Acts 2 to see if things harmonize. Once again, I'm asking you do make the comparison. Assuming that Peter told the Jews in Acts 2:38 they had to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to have their sins taken away, would it be the same as claiming your sins had been taken away even though you didn't obey what was commanded with the 3,000 who obeyed what they were told to do in verse 41 -- were also saved and added to the Lord's church in verse 47?

Peter never said that they had to get baptized IN ORDER to have their sins taken away. They had to be baptized FOR the forgiveness of their sins. That's the baptism OF repentance. It's not a baptism ADDED to repentance.

As for the resurrection of Christ, what is God's provision for us to be united with Jesus' resurrection? Why not read Romans 6:3-11 and come back so we can discuss what occurs during baptism (according to God's testimony)?

Romans 6 never says that baptism does all that. It says that those who have been baptized INTO CHRIST JESUS have all that.

So why don't YOU go and study all the Epistle to the Romans before you come and contradict all the basic doctrines taught in that Epistle?

For instance, did you know that Romans 6 comes AFTER Romans 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, where the doctrine of Justification is clarified??

Romans 6 is already in the Sanctification part of that Epistle.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Read Hebrews 9:16-17 and we can discuss when Jesus' testament/will/law went into effect.

It certainly didn't "go into effect" ( according to your theory ) during the life of Abraham.

And guess what! Abraham was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

I see that you like to be attached to your wrong understanding of ONE verse ( or two, ) and to keep mentioning that verse all the time. Dear friend, Hebrews 9:16-17 doesn't say what you are saying. Plus, Abraham didn't live after the death of Christ. So when I mention Abraham, don't keep mentioning Hebrews 9:16-17 like a parrot.

By the way, when Peter gave the command in Acts 2:38 to the Jews who desired to have their sins taken away, the 3,000 responded, according to verse 41, by saying, "We don't have to obey the command you just gave, because Abraham was saved without doing those things," right?

No, because Abraham DID obey. And, under the New Covenant, obedience INCLUDES baptism. I told you: Baptism is necessary in Salvation.

I advised you to keep your sarcasm to those who don't know the Word, and to go study the doctrine of Faith ( Justification. )

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Read Hebrews 9:16-17 and we can discuss when Jesus' testament/will/law went into effect.

It certainly didn't "go into effect" ( according to your theory ) during the life of Abraham.

The only "theory" I have in mind is that Jesus' testament or will went into effect after His death - NOT BEFORE! And, let's give credit to whom credit is due. The "theory," if you choose to call it such, should be attributed to God - since He inspired the passage.

Okay, your turn. Please explain to us what Hebrews 9:16-17 teaches.

And guess what! Abraham was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

I don't have a problem with acknowledging that Abraham was a man of faith that pleased God. Nor do I have a problem acknowledging that Abraham was not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ like those in Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, or Acts 19:5. Now, perhaps you can acknowledge what Hebrews 9:16-17 says about when Jesus' testament went into effect. Are you willing to acknowledge those passages? After all, doesn't 2 Timothy 3:16a say, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God?" Please don't insult God by suggesting the passage is another one of my "theories!" If you can acknowledge when Jesus' testament/will/law went into effect, then we can better discern His will for us to have our sins taken away by His blood. However, if you have some kind of phobia about addressing passages that don't readily fit into your preconceived reasoning, then my time is probably better spent discussing spiritual matters with other folks.

I see that you like to be attached to your wrong understanding of ONE verse ( or two, ) and to keep mentioning that verse all the time. Dear friend, Hebrews 9:16-17 doesn't say what you are saying. Plus, Abraham didn't live after the death of Christ. So when I mention Abraham, don't keep mentioning Hebrews 9:16-17 like a parrot.

Actually, the reason I keep "parroting" passages such as Hebrews 9:16-17 and Acts 2:38 is with the hope that you might see how your reasoning totally contradicts what these passages say.

Okay, "dear friend," then please explain how Hebrews 9:16-17 really means that Jesus' testament went into effect BEFORE His death. That's the conclusion that you want, so ... explain the logic that will help us understand why we should agree that the passages mean exactly the opposite of what they say.

As for Abraham, he did as God instructed. That's the point of his justification by works in James 2:21. Applying the principle to the instructions given in Acts 2:38 (oops, I'm parroting again), who was justified by faith: those who obeyed what they were commanded, or those that didn't? If it was those who obeyed, then it means a persons isn't forgiven of their sins by faith alone, because faith/belief was even commanded in the passage. Yes, I believe the Jews believed, as evidenced by their response in verse 37, but in addition to their belief that Jesus was both Lord and Christ as declared in verse 36, they were told to repent and be baptized in verse 38 - not be baptized with the baptism of repentance. As previously explained, you persist in confusing the baptism of John with the baptism in the name of the Lord. Apollos taught the former baptism, but was taken aside and taught the way of the Lord more accurately in Acts 18:24-26.

As for Abraham, why keep running to him as an example of someone who pleased God while living under the law of Christ? The truth of the matter is Abraham lived prior to both the law of Moses and the law of Christ. However, God gave him instructions and he obeyed. That's why Abraham was the man of faith that he was. He obeyed. The depth of his faith is detailed in Hebrews 11:17-19. Likewise, today, those of us living under the law of Christ should follow the example of this righteous man by doing as God has commanded us.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

By the way, when Peter gave the command in Acts 2:38 to the Jews who desired to have their sins taken away, the 3,000 responded, according to verse 41, by saying, "We don't have to obey the command you just gave, because Abraham was saved without doing those things," right?

No, because Abraham DID obey. And, under the New Covenant, obedience INCLUDES baptism. I told you: Baptism is necessary in Salvation.

So, if Abraham obeyed God, and the 3,000 in Acts 2:41 obeyed God, isn't the conclusion that we must obey God in order to receive the blessings promised?

In Acts 2:38 (I know, I'm parroting again), why are repentance and baptism commanded? The passage says "for the remission of sins," right? "For the remission of sins" is synonymous with "for salvation." Thus, your reasoning: baptism is necessary IN Salvation, not FOR Salvation, is in error.

I advised you to keep your sarcasm to those who don't know the Word, and to go study the doctrine of Faith ( Justification. )

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

I could appreciate your advice more if you would just give me some passages to work with AND (a coordinating conjunction which connects equal parts) acknowledge the passages I post.