Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[YAQUBOS]

First off, let me say in advance that I am posting several responses to your (i.e., YAQUBOS') previous posts addressed to me. The discussion has grown to complex with multiple issues. If you are willing, let's see if we can't limit the discussion to the topic of the thread ... "Is baptism necessary to be saved?"

We are actually discussing that. But for you, discussing that topic seems to be only to quote Acts 2:38 all the time and out of the context of the whole Bible.

I affirm it is under the new covenant made between sinners and God to accept Jesus as Lord and obey His will.

And I affirm with the Bible that ALL humans, since the beginning of history, had to believe in the coming Christ and to obey His Will to be saved. The very simple fact that Abraham saw the day of Jesus Christ means that Old Testament times' believers believed in CHRIST! The simple fact that Isaiah saw the Christ on the Throne in Heaven means that Old Testament believers believed in the coming Christ.

You are inventing a totally new heretical teaching when you wrongly confuse the law of faith with the New Covenant.

My evidence begins with the instruction Jesus gave to the apostles (e.g., Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16),

And that evidence agrees with me and with the whole Bible, and not with your wrong doctrine.

continues with the conversions recorded in the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 2:38,41,47; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:35-39; Acts 9:18 & 22:16; Acts 10:43,47-48);

All those conversions happened by the sole Grace of God, and not by anything the converted did, thus proving right the biblical doctrine of Salvation by Grace alone.

Acts 16:15; Acts 16:30-34; Acts 18:8; and Acts 19:1-5), and is completed by relevant passages in the Pauline and General Epistles of the New Testament (e.g., Romans 6:3-11; Romans 10:9-10; Gal. 3:26-27; Colossians 2:12-13; and 1 Peter 3:21). Perhaps you can summarize your position for any who would your reasoning concisely stated.

All those passages confirm Salvation by Grace alone through faith alone. They all tell you clearly that baptism is necessary in Salvation. But you NEVER read ANYwhere in the Bible that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation.

So, in brief, just as Abraham was saved by faith alone, even BEFORE he received the sign of circumcision, in the same way we are saved by faith alone, independently from the sign of baptism.

Sorry, but “will be saved” in Mark 16:16 and “for the remission of sins” are synonymous thoughts.

Yes, without repentant faith you will not be saved. So I don't see how this gives you the right to add your interpretation between the lines of the Bible, when that interpretation says that you need faith PLUS repentance to be saved ( which is wrong! )

You don't need to add repentance to faith in order to be saved. Repentant faith is enough.

In Mark 16, as Jesus commanded the apostles, the terms expressed are: belief + baptism = salvation.

Not at all!! Jesus never said that you need to believe PLUS be baptized so that you may be saved. Jesus said that saving faith is needed for Salvation, and that this saving faith includes baptism. That's what Mark 16:16 is saying. You can't be saved by a dead faith.

By the way, it is wrong to have a so short equation for Salvation! That's legalism. Did you forget the commandment of the Lord that you have to be PERFECT as our Father in Heaven is Perferct? I warn you that if you don't keep this commandment 100%, you will not be saved. So tell me: Are you perfect 100%? If not, so as you are not keeping this commandment of Jesus, then how will you be able to be saved?

In Acts 2, as the apostle Peter carried out what the Lord commanded, the terms expressed are: belief (implied in verse 37) + repentance + baptism = remission of sins.

NEVER! Peter never said such a heretical thing. Peter clearly taught that they needed the baptism of repentance, and that this repentance is for the remission of sins. He never said that you earn the remission of your sins by repenting. That's a totally wrong teaching. If he taught that, he would be teaching that it is not necessary to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is Perfect.

Yes, 1 Corinthians 1:17 rings a bell, as does the context of the passage. The context begins in verse 10. There was division in the church at Corinth, rather than the unity that should be characteristic of God’s people (Eph. 4:1-6). The division was based on undue attention being given to the preachers who converted the various members of the church.

No human ever converted anyone. So make sure you study the Bible carefully.

Some of the members said, “I am of Paul,” others, “I am of Apollos,” and others, “I am of Cephas.” However, it seems they had forgotten they were baptized in the name of the Lord, not in the name of the preacher. In light of this division, Paul was glad he only baptized only a few (verses 14-15): Crispus and Gaius in verse 14, and the household of Stephanas in verse 16 (note Acts 18:8). Therefore, it should be considered that Paul indeed baptized some, although his specific role given by the Lord was to preach the gospel. Can we agree that a passage should be considered in its context?

The context didn't contradict anything in the fact that Paul was NOT sent to baptize, and YET he was sent to preach the Gospel. So now tell me: Is not baptism a necessary ingredient FOR Salvation according to you?? Then why is Paul saying that he doesn't come with that ingredient, but with the Gospel??

In Mark 16:16a, Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved (NKJV).” Can we agree on what this passage says?

This passage is very true, because it is the Word of God. Your interpretation of this passage is very wrong, because it doesn't agree with the rest of the Bible. ONLY the Bible can interpret the Bible.

This passage clearly says that a dead faith cannot save anyone and that only a living and repentant faith can save you.

For sure, one thing I get loud and clear, you aren’t able to show us from the Scriptures the basis for your choice of terminology: “IN Salvation” and not “FOR Salvation.”

I told you very clearly: All the passages that you are quoting from the Bible to prove that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation mean that baptism is necessary IN Salvation, and not FOR Salvation. By clarifying this thing in all my replies, I am already giving you the biblical evidence. While you keep quoting the same verses again and again, and adding your own interpretations to them, without even agreeing with the rest of the Bible.

I’ll rephrase my request. Perhaps you can discuss how your interpreted meaning of “for the remission of sins” fits into the context of Acts 2. I see Peter’s sermon concluding with the declaration that Jesus is both Lord and Christ in verse 36. Some of the Jews were cut to the heart by the teaching, and asked what they should do in verse 37. I understand this to mean they were convicted of their sins and were inquiring about what to do to avoid God’s wrath. Peter responds in verse 38 by telling them what to do to have their sins remitted or taken away. Three thousand obeyed in verse 41, thus they were SAVED and added to the Lord’s church by the Lord (verse 47). Therefore, in its context, “for the remission of sins” (vs. 38) is synonymous with “being saved” (vs. 47). Okay, your turn …

But when related to baptism in the way you are relating it, it doesn't mean "being saved" at all!! If you baptize someone, but that someone doesn't really repent, then his sins are NOT forgiven! The fact is that ONLY the blood of Jesus Christ washes the believer's sins, and not anything he does. So baptism does not save you. The verse 38 in Acts 2 clearly talks about repentance, but you don't seem to understand that basic point.

No comment on Jesus’ blood was shed “for the remission of sins” in Matthew 26:28?

Of course it was shed for the remission of sins. And when you receive that by faith, you are NOT adding anything on what that blood did. You only what?? You only RECEIVE that. And that's how the baptism of repentance is for the remission of sins: by receiving that blood which is for the remission of sins, and not by DOING something that will RESULT in the remission of sins.

This is why I told you to study the doctrine of Justification very well.

Are there no hints you can give me concerning this “doctrine of Justification” you have in mind (i.e., specific Scriptures).

I have. But this topic is not about that, so I can't go into details. If you don't have that basic knowledge concerning Justification by grace alone through faith alone, then you are another legalist person, a teacher of the Law, who when he comes to Jesus at night, He will tell him that he needs to be born again, and he will not understand anything.

It is not strange that you are not getting the basics about baptism, and about the difference between faith and the New Covenant.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Okay, let me correct “diaheke” to “diatheke.”

Now, let me clarify that “diatheke” means covenant or testament. The connection between those terms and “law” is by the agreement one makes with God to follow His law.

WHICH law? This is the key question. The law of faith or the law of works??

Think of the first covenant discussed in Hebrews 8-9. It referred to the agreement the Israelites made to follow the law of Moses (see Exodus 24:3). Therefore, the first covenant was the agreement to follow that law.

The agreement to follow the Law, BUT they didn't and couldn't walk by that Law, so what happened? Did they all go to Hell?? How were they saved?? By the law of faith just like Abraham who lived BEFORE the Law was given, right? So the Law didn't nullify the promise that came more than 400 years before:

"What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." ( Galatians 3:17 )

We are under that same Covenant now, but this doesn't mean that this Covenant was invalidated by the coming of the Law so as to send to Hell all those who were under the Old Covenant.

However, the law of Moses ended when Jesus nailed it to His cross (Colossians 2:14).

A TOTALLY BLASPHEMOUS TEACHING you just expressed!! Friend, the Law is not sinful, and it was not the Law that was to be nailed to Christ's cross. What was nailed to the cross is the sinful self that follows the law of works, while the Law leads to Grace:

"having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." ( Colossians 2:14 )

It is the certificate of debt that is cancelled, and not the Law. The Law is eternal.

When you are under the Law, you are dead in your sins, because that Law declares a curse on you. That curse is a certificate of debt that declares that you are indebted. But as soon as you are not under Law anymore, but under Grace, you are saved from that certificate of debt, because Jesus already nailed it to the cross.

I repeat: Urgent need to study the doctrine of Justification.

It was replaced by the testament of Christ (i.e., His will per the imagery in Hebrews 9:16-17).

The Law was REPLACED??!!! Heaven and earth will pass away, and the Law will not! It is the Old Covenant that is replaced by the New Covenant, and not the Law.

Other N.T. references to this testament refer to it as “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2),

Not at all!! Galatians 6:2 is not talking about the New Covenant, but about faith. Let me quote it:

"Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ." ( Galatians 6:2 )

Please, show me in this verse where it is said that the law of Christ is the New Covenant??

While I can give you passages that say that this law is the law of faith. Example:

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

Once again, this passage from Romans is about Justification, so urgent need to study that precious doctrine of the Bible.

and “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25).

Same as above: the law of faith, and not the New Covenant. The New Covenant is an application of the law of faith, but the law of faith is not the New Covenant. Old Testament believers also were saved by the same law of faith, because the law of works could not save them.

Like the first covenant, the second covenant is an agreement we make with God to follow the law of Christ, which begins by initial obedience to the commands of God to become a disciple of Christ per Matthew 28:19. With these thoughts in mind, if you beg to differ, then please explain the basis for the disagreement.

I already explained your error in confusing the law of faith with the New Covenant.

By the way, if you agreed with God by the New Covenant that you will keep all His commandments, then did you keep the commandment to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is Perfect?? If not, then, according to your false reasoning, you broke that Covenant that in fact cannot be broken. How do you plan to be saved, now that you broke the only Covenant that can save you, according to you?

Granted, Hebrews 9:16-17 doesn’t contain the word “salvation.” I’ll address the issue further in your comments that follow my comments about Hebrews 8:12.

Friend, Hebrews 9 DOES talk about Salvation, but it doesn't limit it to the New Covenant.

The first covenant involved the Israelites’ agreement to do all that God commanded under the law of Moses. Under that covenant, God made provisions for the atonement of sin through the required animal sacrifices.

And those animal sacrifices could not take away sins...

I find it amazing that you find no distinction between the requirements under the first covenant concerning the forgiveness of sins and what is required under the second or new covenant concerning the forgiveness of sins.

Yes, show me the difference.

For comparison sake, I contrast Leviticus 6:1-13 with the examples conversion in the book of Acts. I see a big difference in the requirements under the first and second covenants. Take the example in Acts 2. How does it compare with the instructions in Leviticus 6?

Leviticus 6 doesn't say that animal sacrifices can take away sins. If that passage said such a wrong thing, then it would be contradicting the whole New Testament Books, and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews where it is clearly said that animal sacrifices cannot take away sins.

Not even that! It would also be contradicting some important passages in the Old Testament Books also! Take an example:

"For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise." ( Psalm 51:16-17 )

Clear and simple: God does not accept animal sacrifices as taking away sins. REPENTANT FAITH is needed. And a reminder: Psalm 51 is part of the Old Testament...

Thanks for posting Hebrews 8:6-13. Granted, the word “salvation” does not appear in the text.

I never said people under the old covenant were not saved. And, I agree the text of Hebrews 8:6-13 does not imply/infer the Israelites were not saved who faithfully served God under the law of Moses.

NO HUMAN was ever saved by keeping the Law! How many times should I repeat this and should I quote the Bible saying this? The text of Hebrews makes it clear that there is NO OTHER WAY to have the forgiveness of sins other than the BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, whether for people who lived under the Old Covenant or for people who live under the New Covenant. NO OTHER WAY at all!

However, let’s not overlook the fact that Hebrews 8:6-13 declared God “made the first [covenant] obsolete.”

100%!!! The Old Covenant was made obsolete. And what does this have to do with Salvation??? What does this have to do with the Law?? The Law was NOT made obsolete.

What we have to determine is whether or not the provisions for salvation from sins are the same under both covenants. To me, it’s a no-brainer they aren’t. Perhaps you can help me better understand why you see no difference in the requirements for the forgiveness of sins under the old and new covenants.

Because when the rich man asked Jesus how to be saved, He told him to keep the Law. The same Paul and all the Apostles did.

Just tell me what David did to have his sins forgiven?

Sorry, but I beg to differ with your comments concerning Hebrews 8:12. The discussion in Hebrews 8 begins by presenting the new covenant as a better covenant built upon better promises. Verse 12 is one of those better promises.

And that promise was not nullified by the coming of the Law after more than 400 years. Read what I wrote above.

Granted, the Israelites broke the old covenant, generally speaking. However, such a generalization is not true for every person (e.g., Joshua 24:31).

So you mean for Joshua the Old Covenant WAS able to give him the forgiveness of sins??? The passage from Hebrews is VERY clear that this Old Covenant could not do that.

Now, concerning Joshua, let me quote the passage that you mentioned:

"Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who survived Joshua, and had known all the deeds of the LORD which He had done for Israel." ( Joshua 24:31 )

Where does it say that they didn't break the Covenant?? Where does it say that they fulfilled the Law 100%? They surely sinned, because all have sinned, as the Bible says.

The problem with the old covenant is specifically addressed later in the book of Hebrews (i.e., 10:4). In a nutshell, the old covenant identified sin, but couldn’t take it away.

You are talking about the Law.

Now, did the Israelites have to do what was commanded under the old covenant? Yes, they did. However, we also must obey God under the new covenant (i.e., Hebrew 5:8-9; 1 Peter 1:22a; Acts 2:38,41,47).

In both cases, we can't be saved by obeying the commandments. If you think you can, then please tell me if you already have become perfect as the Father is Perfect.

The difference is that under the old covenant, God still remembered sin.

WRONG!! If He did remember sin, then the blood of Jesus Christ was not effective for the Old Testament believers, which is WRONG!

"As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us." ( Psalm 103:12 )

Do you know how far is the east from the west??

"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins." ( Isaiah 43:25 )

Clear!

The blood of the animal sacrifices couldn’t take the sin away, whereas the blood shed under the new covenant – the blood of Christ – can take our sins. That’s the difference that makes the new covenant a better covenant.

Yes, the New Covenant is a better Covenant. But how does this mean that the Old Testament believers were not saved by the SAME blood, and that they didn't have their sins taken away??

We are talking about Salvation, while you talk about the difference between the Covenants...

I have not forgotten our discussion is about salvation. And, I likewise have not forgotten that God provisions for the forgiveness of sins changed from the old to the new covenants.

They did not change. Give me any passage that says they changed. You talked about animal sacrifices as the provision of God for the forgiveness of sins under the Old Covenant, and we have seen how that is WRONG. They could be a shadow of the real Sacrifice, but they themselves could not take away sins. So we saw how Old Testament believers also had their sins forgiven by the same blood of Christ, by faith alone, as David made it clear.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

What? Previously, you have been adamant that Hebrews 8:6-13 doesn’t involve salvation, but now you are agreeing that it does.

I never said that. You see how you are not following the argument?

Hebrews 8 is not about Salvation, but about the Covenants. Clear. But this doesn't mean that the Covenants do not have anything to do with Salvation. On the contrary, Hebrews 8 is one of the passages that prove that baptism is necessary IN Salvation.

Did you read me carefully? I said: "It IS about Salvation. But the context doesn't mean that sins are forgiven only under the New Covenant."

Did you have time to read the rest of the quote? Or you only concentrated on the first part??

Look closely at the thought being expressed in Hebrews 8:12. The thought is that God does not remember sins/lawless deeds under the new covenant. That’s it.

And yet, He also does not remember the sins of all Old Testament believers. Explain how. Reminder: The Old Testament believers were not under the New Covenant ( evidently... )

Nothing is said or implied that suggests in any way, shape, or form that God did not forgive sins under the old covenant by those who faithfully obeyed His commands under the law of Moses,

Give me ONE example of someone who 100% obeyed the Law of Moses.

If you can't give an example, then you agree with me that the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament times also was by faith alone, because no one could keep the Law.

nor does it imply that God didn’t forgive the sins of those who faithfully served Him who lived prior to the law of Moses being given (e.g., Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc.).

And the Book says that Abraham was justified by faith, i.e. he received the forgiveness of his sins by faith, not by the works of the Law.

However, Hebrews 8:12 is definitely declaring “better promises” (borrowed from 8:6) under the new covenant.

So you just said that those better promises didn't include the forgivenss of sins, because Old Testament believers also had their sins forgiven.

For starters …
Hebrews 8:6,12 – “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. … For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

Where does this say that the believers who lived under the Old Covenant had not the forgiveness of their sins? It only says that the Old Covenant could not give this forgiveness. Very clear.

And, in the order they appear in the N.T. …

Acts 20:28 – “Therefore take heed to yourselves [the elders of the church in Ephesus] and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Where does this say that Old Testament believers were not saved by the same blood?

Romans 3:25 – “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,”

This passage clearly says that the same Propitiation is also for the Old Testament believers.

Hebrews 9:14 – “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Where does this passage say that the Old Testament believers also didn't have their consciences cleansed by the same blood?

Hebrews 10:14 – “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.”

Then how does it say in OLD TESTAMENT Books that their sins were taken away?? I agree with the Bible that it is not by the blood of animals. So explain how that happened.

Hebrews 10:29 – “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?”

Where does this say that Old Testament believers were not saved from their sins??

Hebrews 13:12 – “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”

How does this passage mean that Old Testament believers also were not saved by the same blood?

Hebrews 13:20 – “Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,”

How does this mean that Old Testament believers could not be saved by this blood of the Covenant?

1 John 1:7 – “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

Same question as above.

Revelation 1:5 – “and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,”

Go ahead: Tell me how these passages mean that Old Testament believers were not washed by the same blood.

The old covenant was the agreement the Israelites made with God to obey the law as given through Moses.

So let it be clear: The Law of Moses is not the same thing with the Old Covenant.

You are excused.

“But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.”

Okay, now we are getting to the heart of the matter in your statement – “salvation has always been by Grace alone, whether in the Old or in the New Testament.” I disagree with this premise. God’s grace is extended to all per Titus 2:11, however all with NOT be saved per Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23. Therefore, of necessity, other factors must also be involved in salvation (e.g., faith per Hebrews 11:6, and obedience to what the Lord says to do to be saved per 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, etc).

All what you mentioned here means that Salvation is by Grace alone. If you think otherwise, and you insist on separating obedience from living faith, then please tell us if you have already become perfect as the Father is Perfect. If you didn't, then your doctrine says you will go to eternal Hell, because you have not obeyed all the commandments of Jesus Christ.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

You cut my comments short from Post # 772 on Page 78. My complete comments were: “Circumcision was incorporated into the law of Moses. Therefore, per the logic presented in Romans 4, righteousness was not necessarily dependent upon the law of Moses, because Moses was declared to be righteous and he predated the law.”

You mean Abraham, and not Moses.

Well, no, the passage in Romans 4 not only says that righteousness was not "necessarily" dependent upon the Law of Moses, but it clearly says that righteousness is WITHOUT the Law:

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" ( Romans 4:5 )

And previously the Apostle had already clarified it:

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets" ( Romans 3:21 )

And the same passage in Romans 4 clarifies the fact that the sign is NOT the cause of righteousness, but faith is.

By faith alone? Hmmm. Question. God gave a command to Abraham in Genesis 12:1, right? Of course He did, it’s right there in that passage. And, according to verse 4, Abraham obeyed, right? Of course he did, the text says so. Therefore, please explain how you read “faith alone” into the story of Abraham’s faith.

Because real faith works through love. We are saved by that faith ALONE, and not by anything we may do.

In the imagery used in Colossians 2:11-12, circumcision indeed foreshadowed baptism. However, you stopped at verse 12. Let’s note the COMPLETE thought made in Colossians 2 (NKJV):
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
Let’s note how the circumcision made without hands works according to the text: Baptism is a burial with Christ in which … you were raised with Him (through faith in the working of God) … and although being dead in sins, are made alive with Christ – having been forgiven of your sins.
You ask about the faith one has while being unbaptized. I ask you to consider what this passage says occurs by faith in God’s plan for us to be united with His Son.

You totally despised the fact that baptism is made by human hands while the circumcision of Christ is made without hands. And you also despised the fact that Abraham was declared righteous BEFORE he received the sign.

You forgot all that, and you ask me what occurs by faith for us to be united with His Son. We are united to Him by faith, dear friend. This faith is a repentant faith, and the sign of this repentance is baptism.

Now, go ahead, and tell me how you expect to be justified by any other kind of faith than the one Abraham had while UNCIRCUMCISED.

Granted, Abraham was declared to be righteous before he was circumcised i.e., Genesis 15 precedes Genesis 17. The point is that righteousness can’t be necessarily dependent upon circumcision in the flesh. However, for those Israelites (the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob – whose name God changed to Israel) living after the command was given, it was a factor in their obedience to God prior to the end of the law of Moses per Colossians 2:14.

The end of the eternal Law??

What are you talking about?

Romans 4 clearly says that righteousness is not by that sign. POINT.

After some 2,000 years of being separated from other nations/people by circumcision in the flesh, they had developed the mindset that this fleshly circumcision was what separated them from other people. It wasn’t necessarily the case. Faith in God is the separating factor. Applying it to Abraham, he obeyed God when he left Ur, was circumcised, and when he offered Isaac in Genesis 22. Applying the principle to when the will of Jesus went into effect in Acts 2 (per Hebrews 9:16-17), who had the faith that pleased God … the Jews that obeyed what they were told to do in Acts 2:38, or those that didn’t?

Those who had the same obedient faith of Abraham while UNcircumcised.

Leviticus 6:1-7 (NKJV) …
1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 "If a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, 3 or if he has found what was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely--in any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins: 4 then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore what he has stolen, or the thing which he has extorted, or what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or the lost thing which he found, 5 or all that about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering. 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest. 7 So the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses."

Answer:

"For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise." ( Psalm 51:16-17 )

"For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." ( Hebrews 10:4 )

So those offerings could NOT take away sins.

Now, go ahead and explain to us how the Old Testament people were saved by offerings that cannot take away sins.

Perhaps this text will help you to understand God’s provisions to cover sin under the law of Moses were different than under the gospel of Christ.

What do you mean by "under the gospel of Christ"?? No one may be saved if he is not under Grace ( = the Gospel. )

Anyways, it has become clear that you don't know the difference between being under the Old Covenant and being under the Law.

No one was ever saved by anything he may do. Salvation is by Grace alone.

Contrast these instructions with the conversions in the book of Acts. See if God’s provisions haven’t changed. Acts 2:38 is the first example after Jesus commanded the apostles to take the gospel to the world.

Nothing has changed. Only the Covenant has changed. The contrite heart ( repentance ) is the thing needed in both Covenants:

"For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise." ( Psalm 51:16-17 )

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Question: When the Israelites made the covenant with God in Exodus 24:3, did they agree to do ALL the words the Lord spoke, SOME of them, or NONE of them?

ALL! So did they do them all 100%? Of course not. Then how were they saved?

Question: When the Israelites made the covenant with God in Exodus 24:3, did they or did they NOT agree to do the things God spoke through the law given through Moses?

They did. So did they keep the whole Law 100%? Of course not. Then how were they saved?

Question: Why should we assume the law of Christ is different than the new covenant presented in the book of Hebrews as being made between us and God when we accept the blessings offered by the gospel of Christ?

We don't need to assume. We have an obedient faith, so we obey. But do we obey 100% by ourselves? Did you become perfect as the Father is Perfect? If not, then how do you expect to be justified before God, as you did not keep all the commandments of Jesus?

I urge some caution in how you handle types, shadows, figures, and figures of speech used to make comparisons. Granted, circumcision is a type, shadow, or figure of baptism per Colossians 2:11-13. However, let’s note Matthew 12:39-40 – “But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” In this text, Jonah is presented as a type, shadow, or figure of Christ. However, it is true only in the sense given – Jonah’s three days and three night in the belly of the fish corresponding to Jesus’ three days and three night in the grave. Would it be fair to suggest that because Jonah was a sinner, this also made Jesus a sinner? Obviously, such a conclusion would be in violation of a other passages e.g., Hebrews 4:15. The same is true for your conclusion of the comparison between circumcision and baptism, which fails to consider what is taught in passages such as Col. 2:13, Rom. 6:7, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21.

Jesus was made sin for us:

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 )

Anyways, dear friend, you only run from the clear example and argument, because you have no answer. It is a fact that you will not understand how the sign is not the cause of righteousness, as you still don't know the doctrine of Justification that is so essential in these matters.

Look closely at the points I made. Where did I suggest/imply “you can’t obey God without His Grace?” I didn’t. Rather, I was simply pointing out the fallacy of the “salvation by Grace ALONE” reasoning.

You said obedience is also required WITH the Grace of God. I said you can't obey God without His Grace. And I know that I am clear enough.

Now your turn to tell me how this means that the Salvation of Jesus Christ did not go into effect before His death.

I never said that the Salvation of Jesus Christ did not go into effect before His death. So up to you to explain your imaginations.

You still don't understand that the New Covenant and Salvation are not the same thing.

This is what I am telling YOU all the time. So stop parroting.

The Covenant of Jesus is not Salvation, so YOU must correct your information.

I never said the new covenant and salvation are the same thing. To understand the new covenant, one should first consider the old covenant in Exodus 24:3. In a nutshell, the Israelites agreed to follow God’s law as given through Moses (i.e., the law of Moses). Consequently, the new covenant is our agreement to follow God’s law as given through Jesus, His Son (i.e., the law of Christ).

I won't go to quote the passages again... I have done this many times, and it seems that you only pass over them without notice.

I will only say it clearly: God didn't give us ANY new Law through Jesus. The Bible clearly says that the Law of God was given through Moses, and that GRACE AND TRUTH were realized through Jesus Christ, not a new law.

Salvation factors in by either showing the scriptural basis for one’s conclusion that God’s provisions for the forgiveness of sins was either the same under both covenants or was completely different from the old covenant and the new. I affirm the forgiveness of sins (i.e., salvation) was different under the law of Moses than under the law of Christ. The difference can be noted in previously cited passages: Leviticus 6:1-7 and New Testament passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 8:35-39, Acts 22:16, etc.). If you would like to submit some scriptural basis for your conclusion that salvation is the same under both the old and new covenants, then please do so.

I already did in my previous reply. We saw how the blood of animals had NEVER taken away any sin.

Study the difference between the Law and the Gospel. But first, you urgently need a deep study of the doctrine of Justification.

Just a few thoughts on discerning truth (according to the Master Teacher). Matthew 22:41-46. The Pharisees understood the O.T. Scriptures to teach that the Christ would be a descendant of David. However, they had tunnel vision on this aspect, and were not open-minded to accept other aspects (e.g., that the Christ was not only David’s Son, but also David’s Lord per Psalm 110:1. Now, let’s apply what the Master Teacher shows us that we must apply all relevant passages to understand the truth to which God’s word would lead us. Romans 3:27-28. In its context, one should definitely also consider verse 22: “Even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe …”. Now, let’s consider a practical application of the law of Christ (faith, as you refer to this law) in action. Acts 2. The Holy Spirit comes upon the 12 apostles in the opening of the chapter. Through the direct guidance of the Spirit, the apostle Peter preached Jesus. He began by showing the coming of the Holy Spirit was in fulfillment of Joel 2. Then, Psalm 16, 2 Samuel 7, and Psalm 110 was used to declare Jesus as both Lord and Christ. Consequently, some of the Jews believed the message and asked what they should do. Peter told what to do, and 3,000 obeyed … consequently, they were saved and added to the Lord’s church. Therefore, please explain how your understanding of the law of Christ (the law of faith) “was in effect since the beginning of humanity.” Has God expected people to accept Jesus as the Christ since the beginning?

Yes, just as Jesus said:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." ( John 8:56 )

How did Abraham see Jesus' day? By faith.

That was ONE example. I can also quote about Moses, Isaiah and others.

So all humans are saved by faith in the Christ.

For instance, were Adam and Eve supposed to have faith or believe in Jesus per the Scriptures used by Peter in Acts 2, none of which had been written during the events of the book of Genesis?

Adam and Eve were saved by faith in the coming Christ according to the following promise:

"And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." ( Genesis 3:15 )

VERY clear!

Granted, they were supposed to have faith in God and obey the commands He gave them.

Yes, they had to obey God by His Grace, and not by the flesh.

However, those commands had nothing to do with accepting Jesus as God’s Son and obeying His teachings.

Jesus? Friend, Jesus was not yet born!!

They had to believe in the coming Christ, and to obey Him by His Grace.

Personally, I think you have allowed tunnel vision to obscure God’s expectations for His people at different times in the past (e.g., Hebrews 1:1-2a).

No, I know how to see the distinction between the Covenants and the Gospel. The Gospel is for all times, while the New Covenant came after Christ.

Salvation is for all times by faith alone. The baptism of Christ came after Christ.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

You tell me. Did Leviticus 6:1-7 tell the Israelites they needed to look to the “Work of Christ on the cross” for the forgiveness of their sins?

Yes. That's what "shadow" means The Epistle to the Hebrews says that those animal sacrifices had to point to Christ. A false application of the legalist was to expect forgiveness for offering those animals, something that David clarified as wrong in Psalm 51.

So now tell me what is that other special "provision" that you are inventing for the forgiveness of sins, other than the blood of Christ?

Never said that obedience makes one “deserve to be saved from sins.” Quite the contrary is true. Luke 17:10 It is a humbling thought that on my best day of obedience I am still dependent upon God’s grace to be acceptable and pleasing to Him.

So Salvation is by Grace alone. You obey by His Grace alone. And you have the forgiveness of your sins by pure Grace.

As for obedience …
1 Peter 1:22a - “Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth.”
Philippians 2:12 – “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

Continuing with Philippians 2:13-

"for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." ( Philippians 2:13 )

So you obey by His Grace alone! For it is HE who works that obedience in you by His Grace.

As for faith versus works …
James 2:24 - “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

Yes, by faith working through love, and not by that dead faith alone about which the context of James 2 is talking.

The law under consideration in Romans 3:20 is the law of Moses. Note verse 23: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” “All” refers to both Jews and Gentiles, not just the Gentiles. Even though the Jews were under the law of Moses, they had sinned and that law did not provide the means of justification before God (note Hebrews 10:4).

Great! So we agree that NO human, whether in the Old Testament time or in the New Testament time, can have the forgiveness of his sins by obeying the Law.

I’m interested in the application of your understanding of Romans 3:20 to passages such as Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 22:16. Specifically, was a person actually expected to obey what they were commanded to do to receive the blessings promised?

They were expected to exercise obedient faith. The promises are not received by the works of the Law, but by listening with faith:

"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" ( Galatians 3:2 )

This faith is an obedient faith.

Along with the study of justification, I recommend Bible study to discern the meaning of passages in their context.

Till now, it is YOU who is quoting the same verses out of context, especially Acts 2:38.

To be precise, the law of Moses was given through Moses. Likewise, by whom do you suppose the law of Christ was given (Galatians 6:2)?

The law of Christ is faith. Do I have to repeat this?? And as John 1:17 says:

"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." ( John 1:17 )

Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. All people were being saved by faith in the coming Christ. Christ came, and that Grace and truth came in Him.

The law of faith was already explained in the Law:

"But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down),
or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)."
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 are preaching" ( Romans 10:6-8 )

The righteousness based on faith is the law of faith. You see that it is declared in the Law itself!

By the way, did your previous detailed reply address this passage? How about Romans 7:25? How about “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” in Romans 8:2? Romans 9:31?

Yes, all are included. I don't need to do a collection of all the passages that talk about this truth. I clarified the point.

Good, we finally seem to find a point of agreement, because Jesus indeed spoke about salvation. However, why can’t we agree that the passages such as John 3:16; Luke 13:3,5; Matthew 10:32-33; and Mark 16:15-16 weren’t commandments given under the new covenant?

All those passages are words of Jesus, and we have to obey them. But nowhere those passages say that we are saved by obeying them. On the contrary, the Bible is clear that we obey Christ when we love Him, and that we truly love Him when we experience His Salvation.

Let’s not forget that a covenant is an agreement to accept and obey God’s word. In Exodus 24, it was the agreement made between God and the Israelites that they would obey the law given my Moses. Likewise, the new covenant is one that sinners (both Jews and Gentiles) make with God to obey the law given by His Son. In short, you can’t have a covenant without a basis for the agreement (i.e., the law which is accepted and agreed upon).

The New Covenant was not an agreement to obey the Law of God FOR Salvation. The New Covenant was done between our new Head, Jesus Christ, and God, thus making the Covenant impossible to be broken, because Jesus never disobeys the Father. And we are one with and in Him.

I repeat again: God didn't give us His Law through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ didn't bring a Law. Grace and truth were realized through Him.

Sorry, but you are taking the liberty of allowing your “interpretation” of the passage to obscure what the passage really says.

I don't have an interpretation as you do. I only believe what the Bible says. The Bible is clear about the baptism of repentance.

Obviously, the passage doesn’t say what you would like for it to say. Also, the passage doesn’t say, “baptism of repentance.”

The Bible never says that God is Trinity, and yet we believe that truth, because it is expressed in the Bible.

In the same way, that passage says that they needed to REPENT and be baptized, and not only to get baptized, which, in the light of other passages of the Bible, means that it is the baptism of repentance, and not the baptism of shower.

Once again, that is your “interpretation” of the passage. Bible study to determine the truth of God’s word demands a person be honest with himself/herself, others, and with God by acknowledging what the passage actually says versus an understood meaning being inserted in place of the text.

We have seen what that passage says. So take your advice and be honest in studying it in the context of the Bible, without contradicting the doctrines of the Bible.

But first go study the doctrine of Justification, because you have no idea about it.

Sorry, but the baptism of John is presented as being a baptism “unto repentance” (Matt. 3:11 NKJV), NOT the baptism in the name of the Lord. We have been through this before.

I didn't say that the baptism of John is the same as the baptism of Jesus. I said both are baptism of repentance. If you think otherwise, then prove that the baptism of Jesus means anything else than repentance. Romans 6 is clear that baptism means repentance.

I never said, inferred, or implied the either the baptism of John or the baptism in the name of the Lord was a “simple shower.” Not sure why this point was thrown into the mix.

Because if it is not the baptism of repentance, then what is it? A simple shower?

Why was Abraham circumcised? Because God commanded it, and Abraham was a man of faith, so he did as God said.

So you must also obey God and be baptized. But just as the circumcision of Abraham didn't make him righteous before God and he received that sign AFTER being justified by faith, baptism also does not make us righteous, but we receive it as the sign of the righteousness that we have by faith.

It’s only “off topic” if you can explain why the commands given under the new covenant were no different than those under the old. Specifically, please explain how Lev. 6:1-7 matches up with passages such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-11, and Romans 10:9-10.

Those commands are part of the Covenant. We are talking about Salvation.

Back to topic.

The Old Testament/Covenant ended at the cross (Col. 2:14). I find from a study of the Old Testament that those who believed God did as God instructed, and the majority had none or very little knowledge of the Christ, the descendant of David who would reign on David’s throne forever per 2 Samuel 7. Perhaps you can show us how much Abel, Enoch, Noah, and even Abraham himself knew about the Christ that would come later.

Not perhaps, but certainly:

- All children of Adam who followed the Word of God knew about this promise:

"And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." ( Genesis 3:15 )

- Noah's Ark was a figure of Jesus Christ in whom we are safe from the wrath to come, so Noah believed in the coming Christ in the figure of the Ark.

- Abraham saw Christ's day and he rejoiced:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." ( John 8:56 )

Make sure to remember these truths later so that I will not have to repeat them again and again each time, as it is happening with other passages and truths.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Not sure what you mean by “obedient faith in Christ.” Does it mean the same as “all who obey Him (borrowed from the NKJV)?”

Obedient faith means a faith that obeys. That's its nature. You don't need to add your obedience of the flesh to it.

(Scratching head!) Perhaps you missed verse 25 when you read Acts 18:24-26. Verse 25 says, “This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.”

Again, I don't see where he "preached" the baptism of John. I see clearly that he spoke and taught ACCURATELY the things of the LORD!!

I’m amazed. The passage says, “Repent and be baptized,” but you change it to “be baptized with the baptism OF REPENTANCE.” Why not take a shower? If you are going to change God’s word to suit your “interpretation,” then what’s the additional harm in taking a shower?

Because if baptism doesn't mean repentance, then what does it mean other than a simple shower?

By the way, repentance is clearly mentioned before baptism, and it is the essence of what baptism means. So don't try to look wise by avoiding the clear meaning of that passage. I don't have a personal interpretation as you have. I believe what the Bible says. And Romans 6 is clear that baptism means repentance.

The new covenant is the agreement we make with God to keep the law of Christ, just like the Israelites agreed to keep the old law in Exodus 24:3.

No, the New Covenant is the agreement that God made with us through the divine Mediator who is always ALIVE to intercede for us. And this New Covenant is not an agreement to keep some written laws, but to walk by the Spirit, with the Law of God written on our hearts:

"who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." ( 2 Corinthians 3:6 )

And interestingly, we are servants of the Spirit means that we agree to keep the Law of God given through Moses in its real spiritual meaning:

""Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." ( Jeremiah 31:31-33 )

So it's strange how you invented another law than that of God given through Moses. The law of faith makes the Law of God written in our hearts, and thus we fulfill the Law by faith.

So the New Covenant is a new agreement that God made with us to keep His Law, but this time having that Law within us by the Holy Spirit, and not as the Old Covenant, when the Christ was not born yet.

The difference is Abraham was NOT justified by faith in the new covenant, because it didn’t go into effect until some 2,000 years later. Rather, his faith prompted him to obey the commands God gave him to obey – (e.g., James 2:21).

So the law of faith is not the same as the New Covenant, as Abraham was justified by faith.

By the way, we are not justified by faith in the New Covenant, but by faith in Christ, the Mediator of this Covenant.

Really? Let’s see … so when Abraham was declared to be righteous in Genesis 15:6, it was because he believed and obeyed the gospel of Christ, just like the 3,000 in Acts 2:41, right?

Right. But Abraham was not a Christian.

Abraham’s works resulted in his justification per James 2:21.

James 2:21 doesn't say that the works of Abraham justified him before God. James is talking about justification before men.

In that text, his “works” refers to his obedience to the commands God gave him in Genesis 22. We are admonished to imitate his example in James 2:24.

Right, because real faith is an obedient faith.

According to Acts 2:38,

Acts 2:38.

what blessing is offered to those who repent and are baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD … the remission of sins … or, “in Salvation?”

The remission of sins, because they receive it by faith, and they do NOT make it by faith or by their baptism. The remission of sins is made by Jesus by His blood on the cross.

According to Hebrews 5:9, does Jesus save those who obey or those that don’t obey Him?

Those who have an obedient faith in Him.

Please provide one Scripture that says, “Salvation is by GRACE ALONE.”

I can quote the whole Bible. But let me quote one passage here:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." ( Ephesians 2:8-10 )

“Justification” is translated from “dikaiosis,” which means the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to him, abjuring to be righteous (Strong’s). The word only appears 2x in the KJV New Testament, in Romans 4:25 and 5:18. How’s that for a start?

The same root is used in different places in the New Testament, like the verb "to justify" or "credited as righteousness".

I told you before: You don't impress me with your Greek words. Go study the doctrine of Justification before it's too late.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Leviticus 4:1-7 [corrected to 6:1-7] (NKJV):
1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
2 "If a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor,
3 or if he has found what was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely--in any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins:
4 then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore what he has stolen, or the thing which he has extorted, or what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or the lost thing which he found,
5 or all that about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering.
6 And he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest.
7 So the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses."

And as this blood of Jesus Christ took away the sins of Old Testament believers TOO, then you just declared with a loud voice that baptism is not necessary for Salvation, because ALL Old Testament believers were NOT baptized, and yet their sins have been taken away by the same blood of Jesus Christ.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS

My point is simply that God's provisions for the forgiveness of sins changed. Unless, of course, you offer animal sacrifices today for the sins you commit per the instructions given in Leviticus 6.

Granted. The Old Testament believers were not baptized per Colossians 2:12-13 or Romans 6:3-11. They did what God told them to do to have their sins forgiven. Today, under the gospel of Christ, we should do as God commands to have our sins washed away by the blood of Christ. Unless, of course, you can give the scriptural evidence that those who were told what to do to be saved from their sins under the gospel of Christ didn't have to do what God said, but could claim the blessings anyway. Take the conversions in Acts 2. According to verse 41, three thousand obeyed what they were told to do on verse 38 to have their sins taken away. The biblical account gives us every impression they were the ones that received the remission of sins, not those who didn't do as they were instructed.

Where is the passage in that context where the Jews replied, we don't have to be baptized to have our sins taken away, because the faithful of the Old Testament didn't have to be baptized? Please point it out. I can't find it. I truly need your help to see how the application of your reasoning fits into this text.

 

[- DRA -]

And we have seen that the law of Christ is the law of liberty, the law of faith, and that Abraham also was saved by that law of faith. So correct your misunderstandings concerning the New Covenant. The New Covenant is not the same as the law of faith. No one ever was saved by the Law of works. All people, whether in the times of the Old Testament or in the times of the New Testament, were saved by the law of faith, and never by the Law of works.

Let's see when you will understand this basic point...

Why wouldn't the law of Christ include teachings under that law as detailed in Galatians 6:2 and James 2:21-25?

The new covenant is our agreement to follow the law of Christ, comparable to the Israelites agreement to follow the law the Moses in Exodus 24:3. If such is not the case, then please explain what this new covenant (or agreement) is.

As for your understanding of the law of works, please relate it to Lev. 6:1-7. Which Israelites had their sins forgiven ... those who obeyed the instructions ... or those that didn't? The same is true under the gospel of Christ. Who had their sins remitted in Acts 2. Those that obeyed what they were told to do in verse 38 - the 3,000 on verse 41 - or those that did NOT obey? In essence, I see the application of your reasoning to be that people don't actually have to do what God says to receive the blessings promised, and I see a major problem harmonizing such reasoning with the Scriptures!

Granted, I believe folks are indeed saved by their faith ... If, and I say IF, their faith prompts them to do what God says. Otherwise, they fall into the category of Matthew 7:21 - they say, "Lord, Lord," but don't do the Father's will.

If I am missing some basic point(s), you would be my friend to point out the Scriptures that I am failing to consider. As far as I am concerned, your appeals to the "whole Bible" are vain or empty. For instance, if you want to promote salvation by faith alone, then you should produce the passage or passages that teach such. That's what we are lacking. Rather than base things on assumptions, let's appeal to God's word for the basis of what we believe (per 1 Peter 4:11a). Bottom line. If salvation by faith alone is correct or accurate reasoning in harmony with God's word, then it obviously agrees with the conversions in the book of Acts, right? Well, it should - but it doesn't. So, obviously, there's a problem somewhere.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by – DRA –

First off, let me say in advance that I am posting several responses to your (i.e., YAQUBOS') previous posts addressed to me. The discussion has grown to complex with multiple issues. If you are willing, let's see if we can't limit the discussion to the topic of the thread ... "Is baptism necessary to be saved?"

We are actually discussing that. But for you, discussing that topic seems to be only to quote Acts 2:38 all the time and out of the context of the whole Bible.

I am responding to this post point-by-point because it seems to capture the differences in our approach to Scripture that do NOT allow us to agree. It is not my intention at this time to respond to the additional posts you made. Since this post best captured the different mindsets we possess, I instead plan to narrow our discussion so that we might better understand what hinders us from understanding the Scriptures alike. I trust you will not be offended by this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 2:38 is important because it involves sinners being told what to do to have their sins taken away after Jesus’ will went into effect per Heb. 9:16-17. However, Acts 2:38 isn’t the only passage I have used. Such is evident to anyone who follows the discussions. And, I don’t feel compelled to abandon the passage because of your struggle with the wording and repeated attempts to change the commands of repentance AND baptism in the name of Lord to repentance of baptism to make it sound as if the baptism of John (Matt. 3:11)was being commanded.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

I affirm it is under the new covenant made between sinners and God to accept Jesus as Lord and obey His will.

And I affirm with the Bible that ALL humans, since the beginning of history, had to believe in the coming Christ and to obey His Will to be saved. The very simple fact that Abraham saw the day of Jesus Christ means that Old Testament times' believers believed in CHRIST! The simple fact that Isaiah saw the Christ on the Throne in Heaven means that Old Testament believers believed in the coming Christ.

You are inventing a totally new heretical teaching when you wrongly confuse the law of faith with the New Covenant.

Gotcha. Your affirmation is clear. Now, please post the Scriptures that support your premise. Specifically, just how much did Abraham know about that seed or blessing that would descend from Him per Genesis 12:3? Post the passages that show us how you reached your conclusion. As for Isaiah, perhaps you should consider 1 Peter 1:10 before jumping to any rash conclusions about Isaiah’s true understanding of the Christ that would come later and the salvation He would offer.

The new covenant is based on faith in the Lord – and the law which He gave (see Deuteronomy 18:18-19). The covenant is our agreement to abide by His law and do what He says. Perhaps you should spend some time with James 1:21-25.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

My evidence begins with the instruction Jesus gave to the apostles (e.g., Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16),

And that evidence agrees with me and with the whole Bible, and not with your wrong doctrine.

What? Pardon me, but I truly fail to see how Jesus’ instructions to the apostles to take the gospel to the world can be attributed to me as “wrong doctrine.” If the commands are wrong, then I suggest taking the matter up with the Lord – who gave the commands to the apostles.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

continues with the conversions recorded in the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 2:38,41,47; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:35-39; Acts 9:18 & 22:16; Acts 10:43,47-48);

All those conversions happened by the sole Grace of God, and not by anything the converted did, thus proving right the biblical doctrine of Salvation by Grace alone.

Gotcha. Those examples prove clearly that salvation is by “GRACE alone.” That is clearly the impression left by the command in Acts 2:38 and the response of the 3,000 in verse 41, right? Or, wrong? And, isn’t it just as clear that “when they believed” in Acts 8:12, they were saved by grace alone, right? Is that what that passage says? According to that passage, what did the Samaritans do who believed the message preached by Philip? It’s pretty evident according to the passage what they did, isn’t it?

Why don’t you produce the passage that says “Salvation is by Grace alone?” Is it possible that you don’t produce it … because there isn’t such a passage … and we both know it … and those following the discussion also know it?

Originally Posted by – DRA –

Acts 16:15; Acts 16:30-34; Acts 18:8; and Acts 19:1-5), and is completed by relevant passages in the Pauline and General Epistles of the New Testament (e.g., Romans 6:3-11; Romans 10:9-10; Gal. 3:26-27; Colossians 2:12-13; and 1 Peter 3:21). Perhaps you can summarize your position for any who would your reasoning concisely stated.

All those passages confirm Salvation by Grace alone through faith alone. They all tell you clearly that baptism is necessary in Salvation. But you NEVER read ANYwhere in the Bible that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation.

So, in brief, just as Abraham was saved by faith alone, even BEFORE he received the sign of circumcision, in the same way we are saved by faith alone, independently from the sign of baptism.

Gotcha. The Jews in Acts 2 who were convicted of their sins, which including killing Jesus, who God declared to be both Lord and Christ, were saved by faith alone when they believed, and Peter erroneously told them to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord to have their sins taken away – and 3,000 of the Jews were gullible enough to believe his false teaching. Of course, it all makes sense now. So glad you cleared things up for us in Acts 2.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

Sorry, but “will be saved” in Mark 16:16 and “for the remission of sins” are synonymous thoughts.

Yes, without repentant faith you will not be saved. So I don't see how this gives you the right to add your interpretation between the lines of the Bible, when that interpretation says that you need faith PLUS repentance to be saved ( which is wrong! )

You don't need to add repentance to faith in order to be saved. Repentant faith is enough.

The last time I checked, Acts 2:36-38 isn’t “my interpretation,” but are Scriptures that are a part of God’s word. Verse 36 is the conclusion of Peter’s sermon – Jesus is both Lord and Christ. According to verse 37, some of the Jews there were pierced to the heart by the message spoken. This implies/infers they believed the message. And, verse 38 PLAINLY SAYS Peter commanded the Jews to repent AND be baptized in the name of the Lord to have their sins taken away. Is it possible that “your interpretation” of the “whole Bible” interferes with your ability to discern what these passages clearly say?

I’m not adding repentance to faith. The apostle Peter, under direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, added the necessity of both repentance and baptism to faith (implied in verse 37) in Acts 2:38. I suggest taking up the issue with the Lord, who sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles to guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

Originally Posted by – DRA –

In Mark 16, as Jesus commanded the apostles, the terms expressed are: belief + baptism = salvation.

Not at all!! Jesus never said that you need to believe PLUS be baptized so that you may be saved. Jesus said that saving faith is needed for Salvation, and that this saving faith includes baptism. That's what Mark 16:16 is saying. You can't be saved by a dead faith.

I suggest you take a little closer look at Mark 16:16.
NASV – “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”
Note the word “and.” It connects “believed” with “has been baptized.” “And” is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. Thus, if belief is required for salvation, then baptism is required for salvation. And, since both are required for salvation, if either is missing, salvation will not be obtained. Note the latter part of the passage. Let’s assume a person does not believe. Will they be saved? No. It doesn’t matter if they’ve been baptized or not, because belief is a requirement for salvation. In fact, belief/faith is a necessary part of baptism per Colossians 2:12.

Also, there’s a way to ensure our understanding of Mark 16:16 is correct. The passage is Jesus’ command to the apostles to take the gospel to the world. Thus, we can follow the apostles and their teaching in the book of Acts to see what they taught sinners to do to be saved from their sins. If they taught salvation by grace/faith alone, then the Jews were saved by faith alone in Acts 2:37, when they believed the message preached and asked what they should do. Obviously, Peter’s response in verse 38 was, “You are already saved from your sins. You don’t have to do a thing.” Of course, that’s not what they passage says at all, but we can pretend like it is so we can justify an erroneous understanding of Mark 16:16, right?

By the way, it is wrong to have a so short equation for Salvation! That's legalism. Did you forget the commandment of the Lord that you have to be PERFECT as our Father in Heaven is Perferct? I warn you that if you don't keep this commandment 100%, you will not be saved. So tell me: Are you perfect 100%? If not, so as you are not keeping this commandment of Jesus, then how will you be able to be saved?

Then take up the issue with Jesus. He told the apostles what to teach in Mark 16:16.

Perhaps Luke 17:10 can help with your problem of 100% perfection. I think of the passage in this way: On my best day, I am still totally dependent upon the Lord’s grace to please Him and be acceptable to Him.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

In Acts 2, as the apostle Peter carried out what the Lord commanded, the terms expressed are: belief (implied in verse 37) + repentance + baptism = remission of sins.

NEVER! Peter never said such a heretical thing. Peter clearly taught that they needed the baptism of repentance, and that this repentance is for the remission of sins. He never said that you earn the remission of your sins by repenting. That's a totally wrong teaching. If he taught that, he would be teaching that it is not necessary to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is Perfect.

Perhaps I can be your friend now by pointing out the obvious: Peter commanded the Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 2:38. The idea that he told them “they needed the baptism of repentance” simply isn’t there. Accept it. Believe what the passage says. It isn’t “my interpretation.” It’s just what God’s word says. Therefore, accept it as the word of God and let go of the baggage that hinders the acceptance of what God word truly says.

Granted, Peter did NOT tell the Jews in Acts 2:38 they were earning their salvation. However, they needed to obey the commands given in verse 38 if they expected to receive the blessing promised. Obedience to God’s commands doesn’t mean one earns the blessings. By God’s grace the provisions were made for man’s sins to be taken away by the blood of His Son. Obedience must be rendered (Heb. 5:9; 2 Thess. 1:8) … assuming one wants to please God and avoid His wrath.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by – DRA –

Yes, 1 Corinthians 1:17 rings a bell, as does the context of the passage. The context begins in verse 10. There was division in the church at Corinth, rather than the unity that should be characteristic of God’s people (Eph. 4:1-6). The division was based on undue attention being given to the preachers who converted the various members of the church.

No human ever converted anyone. So make sure you study the Bible carefully.

Of a certainty, some of the Corinthians had been taught the gospel by Paul, some by Apollos, and some by Cephas according to 1 Corinthians 1. Converted, as I used the word, is a synonymous concept with “make disciples” in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 14:21. Perhaps you should add those Scriptures to your Bible study, along with Romans 10:14-16 to better understand the preacher’s role in spreading the gospel of Christ.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

Some of the members said, “I am of Paul,” others, “I am of Apollos,” and others, “I am of Cephas.” However, it seems they had forgotten they were baptized in the name of the Lord, not in the name of the preacher. In light of this division, Paul was glad he only baptized only a few (verses 14-15): Crispus and Gaius in verse 14, and the household of Stephanas in verse 16 (note Acts 18:8). Therefore, it should be considered that Paul indeed baptized some, although his specific role given by the Lord was to preach the gospel. Can we agree that a passage should be considered in its context?

The context didn't contradict anything in the fact that Paul was NOT sent to baptize, and YET he was sent to preach the Gospel. So now tell me: Is not baptism a necessary ingredient FOR Salvation according to you?? Then why is Paul saying that he doesn't come with that ingredient, but with the Gospel??

The context explains very well Paul’s point. In light of the division in the church at Corinth over which preacher baptized which members, Paul said in verses 14-15, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius [and the household of Stephanus in verse 16], lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.” Therefore, Paul’s point is obvious. There simply was no basis for any accusations/misunderstandings that Paul baptized in his own name, or any justification for the division in the church in Corinth. However, the text clearly points out that Paul indeed baptized some. Not many, but some. So, don’t overlook that piece of information that must also be considered.

Baptism is not a necessary ingredient for salvation according to me, but according to God’s word in passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:7, etc.

Paul brought the gospel initially to Corinth in Acts 18. Note verse 8 and tell us how the Corinthians responded to the gospel. And, on a similar note, Philip preached Jesus in Acts 8:35. What was the eunuch’s initial response after hearing Jesus preached? How does his response compare to the Jews in Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:12? Uh … huh … perhaps someone else should also be studying their Bible.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

In Mark 16:16a, Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved (NKJV).” Can we agree on what this passage says?

This passage is very true, because it is the Word of God. Your interpretation of this passage is very wrong, because it doesn't agree with the rest of the Bible. ONLY the Bible can interpret the Bible.

This passage clearly says that a dead faith cannot save anyone and that only a living and repentant faith can save you.

Good, we’ve got some common ground. Mark 16:16 isn’t my interpretation at all, right? It’s a part of God’s word. Good. That’s something to work with. Now, let’s see if we can find more common ground. Going back to Mark 16:14, Jesus was with the 11 when He gave the command to preach the gospel to the world in verse 15? Can we agree that the command to preach the gospel was given to the 11 apostles (originally there were 12, but Judas had taken his own life, leaving 11)? And, shouldn’t we be able to follow the apostles’ teaching to discern what they taught people to do to be saved by the gospel of Christ? Can we agree that we should be able to examine what they taught to see how they understood Jesus’ instructions in Mark 16:16?

Originally Posted by – DRA –
For sure, one thing I get loud and clear, you aren’t able to show us from the Scriptures the basis for your choice of terminology: “IN Salvation” and not “FOR Salvation.”

I told you very clearly: All the passages that you are quoting from the Bible to prove that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation mean that baptism is necessary IN Salvation, and not FOR Salvation. By clarifying this thing in all my replies, I am already giving you the biblical evidence. While you keep quoting the same verses again and again, and adding your own interpretations to them, without even agreeing with the rest of the Bible.

The “rest of the Bible” you refer to is made up of Scriptures, right? Therefore, why not share with us the specific Scriptures you have in mind that teach what is necessary “FOR salvation?”

By the phrase “IN Salvation,” do you mean those things we should do in God’s service AFTER we are initially saved from our sins? If not, please explain exactly what your point is.

By the phrase “FOR Salvation,” I suspect you mean whatever is necessary to be initially saved from our sins? Is this correct? If not, please explain exactly what your point is.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

I’ll rephrase my request. Perhaps you can discuss how your interpreted meaning of “for the remission of sins” fits into the context of Acts 2. I see Peter’s sermon concluding with the declaration that Jesus is both Lord and Christ in verse 36. Some of the Jews were cut to the heart by the teaching, and asked what they should do in verse 37. I understand this to mean they were convicted of their sins and were inquiring about what to do to avoid God’s wrath. Peter responds in verse 38 by telling them what to do to have their sins remitted or taken away. Three thousand obeyed in verse 41, thus they were SAVED and added to the Lord’s church by the Lord (verse 47). Therefore, in its context, “for the remission of sins” (vs. 38) is synonymous with “being saved” (vs. 47). Okay, your turn …

But when related to baptism in the way you are relating it, it doesn't mean "being saved" at all!! If you baptize someone, but that someone doesn't really repent, then his sins are NOT forgiven! The fact is that ONLY the blood of Jesus Christ washes the believer's sins, and not anything he does. So baptism does not save you. The verse 38 in Acts 2 clearly talks about repentance, but you don't seem to understand that basic point.

See. Just like I thought. Preconceived ideas are preventing you from accepting what these passages clearly say. Let’s see now … being saved must mean something totally different in Acts 2:47 than it does in other passages because it won’t harmonize with your understanding of those passages. Has the possibility ever occurred that your understanding of whatever other passages you have in mind may be wrong, and that may be the problem why your understanding of those Scriptures doesn’t harmonize with Acts 2?

Look closely at Acts 2. Note the charge in verse 23. The Jews were charged with killing Jesus. The apostle Peter then used Psalm 16, 2 Samuel 7, and Psalm 110 as the scriptural basis for declaring Jesus to be both Lord and Christ in verse 36. This message, accompanied by the miraculous signs of the Holy Spirit’s arrival, caused some of the Jews to be pierced to the “heart” (note John 16:8). In response to their conviction now that Jesus was Lord and Christ, they asked what they should do in verse 37. In response, Peter told them what to do “for the remission of sins.” In this context, please explain to us what the remission of sins means. Whatever it means, it is synonymous with the condition of those whom Jesus adds to His church according to verse 47 (i.e., the saved). Once again, in the context of the events in Acts 2, please explain the basis for the idea that being saved “doesn’t mean ‘being saved’ at all!”

Your statement: “The fact is that ONLY the blood of Jesus Christ washes the believer’s sins, and not anything he does, ” warrants additional thought. While I agree that Jesus blood was shed “for the remission of sins” per Matthew 26:28, what do you do with a passage like Acts 22:16 and the thought “wash away your sins” (which is synonymous with “since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls” in 1 Peter 1:22)? Since “all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God” per 2 Timothy 3:16a, how can one avoid these passages? Going back to Acts 2, did the 3,000 who obeyed what they were told to do to have their sins taken away do wrong? Conversely, would it have been right to NOT obey the commands they were given? I am under the direct impression obedience was the right thing to do. Therefore, when they obeyed what God commanded, the blood of Jesus cleansed them of their sins and they were forgiven. Thus, sins were washed away per Acts 22:16.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

No comment on Jesus’ blood was shed “for the remission of sins” in Matthew 26:28?

Of course it was shed for the remission of sins. And when you receive that by faith, you are NOT adding anything on what that blood did. You only what?? You only RECEIVE that. And that's how the baptism of repentance is for the remission of sins: by receiving that blood which is for the remission of sins, and not by DOING something that will RESULT in the remission of sins.

This is why I told you to study the doctrine of Justification very well.

You can keep saying I need to study the “doctrine of Justification” all you want, but as long as you say you have to “RECEIVE” faith/cleansing blood of Christ on one hand, but on the other hand continue to declare” not by DOING something that will result RESULT in the remission of sins, I am compelled to wonder why I should be receptive to a doctrine that contradicts itself. Applying your reasoning to Acts 2, the Jews didn’t have to do anything to receive the remission of sins promised in verse 38, right? Also, when Paul commanded the Philippian jailor to believe in Acts 16:31 to be saved, the jailer didn’t actually have to obey, because he would have been saved anyway, right? And, so much for Hebrews 11:6, right? Are you absolutely positive this reasoning is correct?

Originally Posted by – DRA –

Are there no hints you can give me concerning this “doctrine of Justification” you have in mind (i.e., specific Scriptures).

I have. But this topic is not about that, so I can't go into details. If you don't have that basic knowledge concerning Justification by grace alone through faith alone, then you are another legalist person, a teacher of the Law, who when he comes to Jesus at night, He will tell him that he needs to be born again, and he will not understand anything.

It is not strange that you are not getting the basics about baptism, and about the difference between faith and the New Covenant.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS

I can very well see why you can’t go into more detail. If I believed in “Justification by grace alone through faith alone” and couldn’t provide a sound scriptural basis for my belief, I would balk also at further discussion. Perhaps though, after time, I would sit back and review my thinking and realize something was amiss and needed to be corrected. Just a thought.

 

[YAQUBOS]

My point is simply that God's provisions for the forgiveness of sins changed.

Never. The Epistle to the Hebrews ( that you keep quoting without understanding... ) says CLEARLY that the blood of animals canNOT take away sins. It is not that before now it could, but now it cannot. It just cannot.

Unless, of course, you offer animal sacrifices today for the sins you commit per the instructions given in Leviticus 6.

Today we have the substance, so we don't need the shadows.

Granted. The Old Testament believers were not baptized per Colossians 2:12-13 or Romans 6:3-11. They did what God told them to do to have their sins forgiven.

God clearly told them that offering animal sacrifices would NOT take away their sins. I already quoted for you Psalm 51 and other passages from the Old Testament Books that say this clearly. So please remind me what God told them to "do" to have their sins forgiven. As Abraham was justified by FAITH, and also David, then I wonder what new way for justification you will invent now.

Today, under the gospel of Christ,

You keep repeating this error, as if I am not correcting you in my replies. Are you sure you are reading my replies? Today we are under the New Covenant, and that New Covenant is NOT the Gospel. The Gospel is for all people, whether they are under the Old Covenant or the New.

we should do as God commands to have our sins washed away by the blood of Christ.

On the contrary, God says that justification is by faith, not by works.

Unless, of course, you can give the scriptural evidence that those who were told what to do to be saved from their sins under the gospel of Christ didn't have to do what God said, but could claim the blessings anyway.

The Bible NEVER says that anyone had to do anything to be saved from their sins. The Bible is clear that justification is by faith, not by works.

"Under the Gospel of Christ" is used in a wrong way in this context.

Take the conversions in Acts 2. According to verse 41, three thousand obeyed what they were told to do on verse 38 to have their sins taken away.

Acts 2:38 never says that you have to DO something IN ORDER to have your sins taken away. The context of Acts 2 clearly teaches us that only the blood of Jesus Christ takes away our sins, and that we need to receive that blood, and not "do" that blood. Baptism of repentance is RECEIVING, not doing.

The biblical account gives us every impression they were the ones that received the remission of sins, not those who didn't do as they were instructed.

I 100% agree. Yes, living faith works through love. It obeys God.

Where is the passage in that context where the Jews replied, we don't have to be baptized to have our sins taken away, because the faithful of the Old Testament didn't have to be baptized? Please point it out. I can't find it. I truly need your help to see how the application of your reasoning fits into this text.

They didn't say that, because they were not told that baptism takes away sins. It is YOU who are adding that in the context. The sermon of Peter was more than clear: ONLY the blood of Jesus Christ takes away sins, and no amount of good works can do that. Obedient faith receives this truth.

Your whole problem is in your wrong understanding of real faith and of justification.

So study this doctrine.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Why wouldn't the law of Christ include teachings under that law as detailed in Galatians 6:2 and James 2:21-25?

"under that law" is a wrong sentence in this context.

Who said that there are not teachings under the New Covenant?? But we are not talking about the New Covenant, but about the law of Christ, i.e. faith.

The new covenant is our agreement to follow the law of Christ,

i.e. faith.

comparable to the Israelites agreement to follow the law the Moses in Exodus 24:3.

No comparison! Because the children of Israel could not keep their word, while God keeps His promises.

If such is not the case, then please explain what this new covenant (or agreement) is.

Done. see above.

As for your understanding of the law of works, please relate it to Lev. 6:1-7.

Yes, passages like Psalm 51 explain to you how the Law cannot save you.

Which Israelites had their sins forgiven ... those who obeyed the instructions ... or those that didn't?

Those who obeyed by FAITH, and not those who obeyed as under the Law, in a formalist way.

The same is true under the gospel of Christ.

Those who obeyed in the Old Testament also were under the Gospel.

Who had their sins remitted in Acts 2.

Those who had real faith. And it could be that some of those who were baptized didn't really repent, so they didn't have their sins remitted ALTHOUGH they were baptized.

Are you getting it, or not yet?

...

Those that obeyed what they were told to do in verse 38 - the 3,000 on verse 41 - or those that did NOT obey?

Those who obeyed BY FAITH, even from among the 3000.

In essence, I see the application of your reasoning to be that people don't actually have to do what God says to receive the blessings promised, and I see a major problem harmonizing such reasoning with the Scriptures!

Because you don't see the reality. No one will see God without holiness. And holiness means obeying God BY FAITH, and not by works.

Granted, I believe folks are indeed saved by their faith ... If, and I say IF, their faith prompts them to do what God says. Otherwise, they fall into the category of Matthew 7:21 - they say, "Lord, Lord," but don't do the Father's will.

Great. So you agree that Salvation is by living faith ALONE.

If I am missing some basic point(s), you would be my friend to point out the Scriptures that I am failing to consider. As far as I am concerned, your appeals to the "whole Bible" are vain or empty.

I have been explaining to you and quoting the Bible. But I see how you insist on repeating your errors again and again, and parroting your own verses erroneously again and again.

You need a humble heart to understand the mind of God.

For instance, if you want to promote salvation by faith alone, then you should produce the passage or passages that teach such.

Already quoted one of the many passages that teach this basic doctrine.

Read carefully.

That's what we are lacking. Rather than base things on assumptions, let's appeal to God's word for the basis of what we believe (per 1 Peter 4:11a). Bottom line. If salvation by faith alone is correct or accurate reasoning in harmony with God's word, then it obviously agrees with the conversions in the book of Acts, right? Well, it should - but it doesn't.

It does. I already explained it to you, and I quoted the passages of the Bible that clarify this.

So, obviously, there's a problem somewhere.

In your additions to the Word of God.

N.B.: You still didn't answer how Abraham had his sins forgiven by faith alone, without having to get baptized.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

I am responding to this post point-by-point because it seems to capture the differences in our approach to Scripture that do NOT allow us to agree. It is not my intention at this time to respond to the additional posts you made. Since this post best captured the different mindsets we possess, I instead plan to narrow our discussion so that we might better understand what hinders us from understanding the Scriptures alike. I trust you will not be offended by this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

It is clear how you did not read my other relies carefully, and you decided from your side that this post clarifies everything. It seems it's you who decides, although my point is not clear to you...

Acts 2:38 is important because it involves sinners being told what to do to have their sins taken away after Jesus’ will went into effect per Heb. 9:16-17.

No, Acts 2:38 never tells sinners what to do "to have their sins taken away".

You still didn't get this point, after all these replies. The problem is that you are not concentrating on the important replies.

However, Acts 2:38 isn’t the only passage I have used. Such is evident to anyone who follows the discussions.

You have used Acts 2:38 to interpret all the other passages that you quoted. I see...

And, I don’t feel compelled to abandon the passage because of your struggle with the wording and repeated attempts to change the commands of repentance AND baptism in the name of Lord to repentance of baptism to make it sound as if the baptism of John (Matt. 3:11)was being commanded.

Be honest please! I never said that the baptism of John was being commanded in this context. If you don't know what repentance is, you don't need to embarrass yourself with dishonesty.

Gotcha. Your affirmation is clear. Now, please post the Scriptures that support your premise. Specifically, just how much did Abraham know about that seed or blessing that would descend from Him per Genesis 12:3? Post the passages that show us how you reached your conclusion.

Jesus clearly said that Abraham SAW HIS DAY. I already quoted it for you, but you don't believe what Jesus said. Jesus said Abraham saw His day. Is that not clear for you? Do you doubt what Jesus said?

As for Isaiah, perhaps you should consider 1 Peter 1:10 before jumping to any rash conclusions about Isaiah’s true understanding of the Christ that would come later and the salvation He would offer.

I NEVER NEVER NEVER said that the Old Testament people fully understood what was hidden for us from old ages. I said they were saved by FAITH in the coming Christ, and not by a full understanding of the coming Christ.

You keep confusing the New Covenant with faith.

The new covenant is based on faith in the Lord – and the law which He gave (see Deuteronomy 18:18-19).

Jesus didn't bring another Law like that of Moses. I quoted John 1:17, and it is clear. But you don't believe what you read.

The covenant is our agreement to abide by His law and do what He says. Perhaps you should spend some time with James 1:21-25.

Do you abide by Christ's "law" as you describe it? For instance, a question that you still didn't answer: Did you become perfect as our Father in Heaven is Perfect? I remind you that was one of the Commandments of Jesus.

You miss the fact that Christ's Law is the same Law that He Himself gave to Moses written in our hearts. It is written in our hearts BY FAITH.

What? Pardon me, but I truly fail to see how Jesus’ instructions to the apostles to take the gospel to the world can be attributed to me as “wrong doctrine.” If the commands are wrong, then I suggest taking the matter up with the Lord – who gave the commands to the apostles.

Again: Be honest! That's not what I said.

The Bible is clearly consistent with itself. While you teach Salvation by works.

Gotcha. Those examples prove clearly that salvation is by “GRACE alone.” That is clearly the impression left by the command in Acts 2:38 and the response of the 3,000 in verse 41, right? Or, wrong?

right. Because only the blood of Jesus Christ takes away sins.

And, isn’t it just as clear that “when they believed” in Acts 8:12, they were saved by grace alone, right? Is that what that passage says? According to that passage, what did the Samaritans do who believed the message preached by Philip? It’s pretty evident according to the passage what they did, isn’t it?

Yes, it is clear: They didn't trust what they could do, but they trusted Jesus Christ alone. Baptism means this.

Why don’t you produce the passage that says “Salvation is by Grace alone?” Is it possible that you don’t produce it … because there isn’t such a passage … and we both know it … and those following the discussion also know it?

Be honest! I already quoted it, and there is the whole Bible saying that doctrine, but you don't believe it. You want to DO something to be saved, and Jesus was clear that He didn't come to call the righteous to repentance.

Gotcha. The Jews in Acts 2 who were convicted of their sins, which including killing Jesus, who God declared to be both Lord and Christ, were saved by faith alone when they believed, and Peter erroneously told them to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord to have their sins taken away – and 3,000 of the Jews were gullible enough to believe his false teaching. Of course, it all makes sense now. So glad you cleared things up for us in Acts 2.

And you call this honesty...

Yes, Acts 2 says that those Jews were saved by faith alone, and not by works. And if you want to know more about how this faith works, go to my previous replies. It is YOU who are making Peter a false teacher, not me. Peter clearly told those Jews how they cannot save themselves by anything they may do, but only by receiving the work of Christ revealed in baptism, i.e. repentance.

The last time I checked, Acts 2:36-38 isn’t “my interpretation,” but are Scriptures that are a part of God’s word.

Yes, you quickly and honestly forgot that in a previous reply you added words in the context...

I see...

Verse 36 is the conclusion of Peter’s sermon – Jesus is both Lord and Christ. According to verse 37, some of the Jews there were pierced to the heart by the message spoken. This implies/infers they believed the message. And, verse 38 PLAINLY SAYS Peter commanded the Jews to repent AND be baptized in the name of the Lord to have their sins taken away. Is it possible that “your interpretation” of the “whole Bible” interferes with your ability to discern what these passages clearly say?

This passage clearly says that baptism is necessary in Salvation. Salvation is by faith alone, as you can see.

Read my previous replies, and be honest.

As long as you keep believing in yourself, you will not have the forgiveness of your sins. A simple question: Did you have the remission of all your sins? If yes, then how? Do you mean that you already kept all the commandments of Jesus Christ??

The Bible is clear that without holiness no one shall see the Lord.

I’m not adding repentance to faith. The apostle Peter, under direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, added the necessity of both repentance and baptism to faith (implied in verse 37) in Acts 2:38. I suggest taking up the issue with the Lord, who sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles to guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

Peter didn't teach your heretical teaching, so stop accusing Peter of your error in interpreting his words. Peter already warned us of people who would not understand God's Word in Paul's letters. The same applies on the words that Peter preached.

For Peter and all the Apostles, real faith is a repentant faith, or else it is a dead faith.

I continue my reply in the next post, if the Lord wills.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

I suggest you take a little closer look at Mark 16:16.
NASV – “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”
Note the word “and.”

Where does this verse say what you are saying?? Where does it say for example: "If a man believes in Christ and is baptized, that will save him"?? It simply NEVER says this. It says very clearly:

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." ( Mark 16:16 )

This verse describes the person who has a living faith. This person is a person who HAS believed and HAS BEEN baptized. That's how he is by the nature of his faith. The passage does NOT say: "If a man believes ( present tense ) and is baptized, then that will save him"!! NEVER!

So learn to read passages in context and carefully.

It connects “believed” with “has been baptized.” “And” is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. Thus, if belief is required for salvation, then baptism is required for salvation.

No, this passage says that new birth is necessary in order to see the Kingdom of God. And baptism is the sign of that new birth. The person described in this verse is a true believer. By nature, he believes and is baptized. The one who HAS disbelieved is an unbeliever by nature. Another passage helps you understand what I am telling you here:

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep." ( John 10:26 )

So no one can believe unless he is of Christ's sheep. That verse of Mark 16:16 is saying the same thing: That a person who has believed and has been baptized is surely saved, because he is born of God, i.e. he is of Christ's sheep.

I think you are not getting anything of all this. Well, don't worry: You first need to humble yourself before the Lord and admit that your thoughts are not His thoughts.

And, since both are required for salvation, if either is missing, salvation will not be obtained.

The passage doesn't say that they are both required FOR Salvation. The passage clearly says that baptism is a required part of the Salvation of the one who is a sheep of Christ.

Note the latter part of the passage. Let’s assume a person does not believe. Will they be saved? No.

But the passage is not talking about someone who will not believe. It is talking about someone who by nature has faith and has been baptized, and another one who by nature has not faith ( and in his case baptism is a non-important detail, and whether he is baptized or not, he is not saved, because he is not a believer by nature. )

It doesn’t matter if they’ve been baptized or not, because belief is a requirement for salvation. In fact, belief/faith is a necessary part of baptism per Colossians 2:12.

You are confusing the first part of Mark 16:16 with its second part. In the first part a true believer is described. So how can he be lost if he is born of God?? The Bible clearly teaches that the one who is born of God does not and cannot sin:

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." ( 1 John 3:9 )

So he by nature is a believer and accepts what is presented to him in baptism, i.e. the washing of Christ's blood. The believer doesn't DO that; he RECEIVES it:

"For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace." ( John 1:16 )

Not DONE! And not received grace then our own works! But grace upon grace!

It's all by Grace alone.

Also, there’s a way to ensure our understanding of Mark 16:16 is correct. The passage is Jesus’ command to the apostles to take the gospel to the world. Thus, we can follow the apostles and their teaching in the book of Acts to see what they taught sinners to do to be saved from their sins. If they taught salvation by grace/faith alone, then the Jews were saved by faith alone in Acts 2:37, when they believed the message preached and asked what they should do. Obviously, Peter’s response in verse 38 was, “You are already saved from your sins. You don’t have to do a thing.” Of course, that’s not what they passage says at all, but we can pretend like it is so we can justify an erroneous understanding of Mark 16:16, right?

The Bible NEVER says that Salvation is by a dead faith!

The Bible NEVER says that you can be a true believer and see the Kingdom of God without being born of God.

Read the Bible carefully! Paul was NOT sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.

Then take up the issue with Jesus. He told the apostles what to teach in Mark 16:16.

You didn't answer my question. My question was clear, DRA. Are you keeping the commandment of Jesus to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is Perfect? If not, then how are you planning to be saved, as you are not keeping the commandments of the Lord?

Don't flee the question.

Perhaps Luke 17:10 can help with your problem of 100% perfection. I think of the passage in this way: On my best day, I am still totally dependent upon the Lord’s grace to please Him and be acceptable to Him.

But this means that you can disobey a commandment and still be saved. Which, of course, contradicts your theory of having the forgiveness of your sins by OBEYING the commandments of Jesus.

In order to keep your obstinate heresy, you are lowering God's Standard of holiness and perfection. Now your heresy is clear to everyone, because it leads to disobey God's commandments while claiming that you will be saved by keeping them!!

Perhaps I can be your friend now by pointing out the obvious: Peter commanded the Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 2:38.

Voila! Here we agree! Peter DID command the Jews to repent and get baptized in the Name of the Lord.

The idea that he told them “they needed the baptism of repentance” simply isn’t there.

You just said it is there: he didn't SUGGEST to them the "optional" idea of repenting and then getting baptized. He clearly COMMANDED them to repent AND be baptized. He didn't tell them to be baptized as a shower, but as repentance.

Accept it. Believe what the passage says. It isn’t “my interpretation.” It’s just what God’s word says. Therefore, accept it as the word of God and let go of the baggage that hinders the acceptance of what God word truly says.

I already told you that we totally agree on this. We agree that Peter COMMANDED them to REPENT and be baptized. He didn't tell them to get baptized as a shower. He told them to be baptized as repentance.

Granted, Peter did NOT tell the Jews in Acts 2:38 they were earning their salvation. However, they needed to obey the commands given in verse 38 if they expected to receive the blessing promised.

Absolutely right! Because baptism, and all the elements of holiness, are necessary in Salvation! You can't see God without holiness!

Obedience to God’s commands doesn’t mean one earns the blessings. By God’s grace the provisions were made for man’s sins to be taken away by the blood of His Son. Obedience must be rendered (Heb. 5:9; 2 Thess. 1:8) … assuming one wants to please God and avoid His wrath.

Exactly! Obedience by FAITH, and not by works of the Law.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Of a certainty, some of the Corinthians had been taught the gospel by Paul, some by Apollos, and some by Cephas according to 1 Corinthians 1. Converted, as I used the word, is a synonymous concept with “make disciples” in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 14:21. Perhaps you should add those Scriptures to your Bible study, along with Romans 10:14-16 to better understand the preacher’s role in spreading the gospel of Christ.

Spreading the Gospel is not the same as converting. No human can convert a human. Becoming a disciple doesn't automatically make you a converted person.

By the way, although the Corinthians were taught by many teachers, but Paul brought the Gospel to them! I will show you this fact after a few lines.

The context explains very well Paul’s point. In light of the division in the church at Corinth over which preacher baptized which members, Paul said in verses 14-15, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius [and the household of Stephanus in verse 16], lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.” Therefore, Paul’s point is obvious. There simply was no basis for any accusations/misunderstandings that Paul baptized in his own name, or any justification for the division in the church in Corinth. However, the text clearly points out that Paul indeed baptized some. Not many, but some. So, don’t overlook that piece of information that must also be considered.

But Paul clearly said that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. You are simply running from this obvious fact.

You say preaching the Gospel necessarily includes commanding the persons who hear the Gospel to get baptized. Well, Paul was sent to preach the Gospel, and yet he was not sent to baptize. He preached the Gospel to all the Corinthians, and yet he baptized SOME of them, and not all of them. And many teachers taught them, but PAUL begot them in Christ:

"For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." ( 1 Corinthians 4:15 )

Paul became their father through the Gospel, and yet he didn't baptize all of them, because he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

Baptism is not a necessary ingredient for salvation according to me, but according to God’s word in passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:7, etc.

Yes, according to those passages, baptism is a necessary ingredent of Salvation, but not FOR Salvation.

Paul brought the gospel initially to Corinth in Acts 18. Note verse 8 and tell us how the Corinthians responded to the gospel. And, on a similar note, Philip preached Jesus in Acts 8:35. What was the eunuch’s initial response after hearing Jesus preached? How does his response compare to the Jews in Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:12? Uh … huh … perhaps someone else should also be studying their Bible.

They responded by repenting. And baptism is the sign of that repentance. It's a baptism of repentance, and not shower.

You keep repeating the same errors again and again. Do I need to correct you all the time? Have you not understood your error yet?

Good, we’ve got some common ground. Mark 16:16 isn’t my interpretation at all, right? It’s a part of God’s word. Good. That’s something to work with.

Yes, but your interpretation of God's Word in Mark 16:16 is wrong. And I have showed you this in my previous reply.

Now, let’s see if we can find more common ground. Going back to Mark 16:14, Jesus was with the 11 when He gave the command to preach the gospel to the world in verse 15? Can we agree that the command to preach the gospel was given to the 11 apostles (originally there were 12, but Judas had taken his own life, leaving 11)? And, shouldn’t we be able to follow the apostles’ teaching to discern what they taught people to do to be saved by the gospel of Christ?

The context of Mark 16 NEVER mentions baptism as the cause of Salvation. While you ask me if we shouldn't be able to follow the Apostles' teaching to discern what they taught people "to do to be saved by the Gospel of Christ"!!! If Salvation is by the Gospel, then it is not by works we do AT ALL!!

Can we agree that we should be able to examine what they taught to see how they understood Jesus’ instructions in Mark 16:16?

Yes. And it is clear that Salvation is not by keeping Christ's commandments, but keeping Christ's commandments is what that Salvation is in its essence.

You already admitted this when you said that you are not able to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is Perfect.

The “rest of the Bible” you refer to is made up of Scriptures, right? Therefore, why not share with us the specific Scriptures you have in mind that teach what is necessary “FOR salvation?”

Already done.

By the phrase “IN Salvation,” do you mean those things we should do in God’s service AFTER we are initially saved from our sins? If not, please explain exactly what your point is.

IN our Salvation from our sins. Salvation is not only past tense.

By the phrase “FOR Salvation,” I suspect you mean whatever is necessary to be initially saved from our sins? Is this correct? If not, please explain exactly what your point is.

"FOR Salvation" : Whatever makes your Salvation.

See. Just like I thought. Preconceived ideas are preventing you from accepting what these passages clearly say.

These passages clearly say that without holiness you cannot see God. Do you want them to mean that without self-righteousness no one can see God??

Look closely at Acts 2. Note the charge in verse 23. The Jews were charged with killing Jesus. The apostle Peter then used Psalm 16, 2 Samuel 7, and Psalm 110 as the scriptural basis for declaring Jesus to be both Lord and Christ in verse 36. This message, accompanied by the miraculous signs of the Holy Spirit’s arrival, caused some of the Jews to be pierced to the “heart” (note John 16:8). In response to their conviction now that Jesus was Lord and Christ, they asked what they should do in verse 37.

Jesus was Lord and Christ before they believed in Him. He didn't become Lord and Christ when they believed in Him.

In response, Peter told them what to do “for the remission of sins.”

Where do you read this?? They didn't ask him about the remission of sins. He already told them how ONLY the blood of Christ can wash them of their sins. Peter now told them how they receive that forgiveness.

In this context, please explain to us what the remission of sins means. Whatever it means, it is synonymous with the condition of those whom Jesus adds to His church according to verse 47 (i.e., the saved). Once again, in the context of the events in Acts 2, please explain the basis for the idea that being saved “doesn’t mean ‘being saved’ at all!”

I didn't say being saved doesn't mean being saved.

...

I don't see why I need to repeat my explanations again and again to someone who is not honest and who changes my words in each of his replies...

Baptism doesn't MAKE the remission of sins. Through baptism, you RECEIVE that forgiveness by faith ALONE.

Your statement: “The fact is that ONLY the blood of Jesus Christ washes the believer’s sins, and not anything he does, ” warrants additional thought. While I agree that Jesus blood was shed “for the remission of sins” per Matthew 26:28, what do you do with a passage like Acts 22:16 and the thought “wash away your sins” (which is synonymous with “since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls” in 1 Peter 1:22)? Since “all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God” per 2 Timothy 3:16a, how can one avoid these passages?

I have already explained to you how Acts 22:16 doesn't mean that baptism washes away your sins.

But you are not honest. That's too bad, dear friend. You keep asking the same questions, when I already answered them.

Going back to Acts 2, did the 3,000 who obeyed what they were told to do to have their sins taken away do wrong?

They were not told to get baptized to have their sins taken away. They were told how to receive by faith alone the forgiveness made by the blood of Jesus on the cross. And they obeyed by faith alone.

Conversely, would it have been right to NOT obey the commands they were given?

Are you serious when you keep repeating these childish questions?? I told you: real faith is an obedient faith.

I am under the direct impression obedience was the right thing to do. Therefore, when they obeyed what God commanded, the blood of Jesus cleansed them of their sins and they were forgiven. Thus, sins were washed away per Acts 22:16.

Yes, so they were forgiven by faith alone, and not by anything they did. Through baptism, they RECEIVED by faith what God presented to them: the FREE forgiveness of their sins.

You can keep saying I need to study the “doctrine of Justification” all you want, but as long as you say you have to “RECEIVE” faith/cleansing blood of Christ on one hand, but on the other hand continue to declare” not by DOING something that will result RESULT in the remission of sins, I am compelled to wonder why I should be receptive to a doctrine that contradicts itself.

It seems contradictory to those who don't have the truth. I say this with big sadness.

Maybe it is also contradictory for you that one loses his life by finding it, and finds his life by losing it for Christ's sake...

"He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." ( Matthew 10:39 )

To understand the humbling doctrine of justification, you need to humble yourself before God, and admit that you can't save yourself by obeying His Commandments.

Applying your reasoning to Acts 2, the Jews didn’t have to do anything to receive the remission of sins promised in verse 38, right?

Yes, they didn't have to do anything TO receive the remission of sins. But they SURELY had to do many things AS they received the remission of sins by faith in what JESUS did TO give them the remission of sins.

Also, when Paul commanded the Philippian jailor to believe in Acts 16:31 to be saved, the jailer didn’t actually have to obey, because he would have been saved anyway, right?

Wrong! Because saving faith is an obedient faith.

Everyone must have noticed that I have been repeating these things in all my posts all the time, and you still didn't understand them...

And, so much for Hebrews 11:6, right? Are you absolutely positive this reasoning is correct?

This reasoning is your dreams, DRA.

I can very well see why you can’t go into more detail. If I believed in “Justification by grace alone through faith alone” and couldn’t provide a sound scriptural basis for my belief, I would balk also at further discussion. Perhaps though, after time, I would sit back and review my thinking and realize something was amiss and needed to be corrected. Just a thought.

I don't believe how much you lack honesty!! I already gave you the passages that clearly say that justification is by faith alone, but you keep repeating that I didn't.

Well, maybe you can tell us what you can add on the finished Work of Jesus Christ in order to have the forgiveness of your sins. Go ahead, tell us, and let's see.

Please, I am asking this for your good: study the doctrine of Justification in the Bible, and stop imagining wrong things about it.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Dear DRA, you know very well that I didn't want to go to side topics when I didn't want to go in more details about the truth of Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone. Although this truth is very essential in our understanding of what Christian baptism is, but this topic is not the place to go to details about it. It is enough to remember it in order to understand the truth about baptism. And when someone wants to tell about the biblical truth concerning baptism, he must already have the knowledge about Salvation, or else he will be like a biologist who is talking about computers, a non-Christian who is talking about a Christian doctrine. But as your lack of honesty made you take opportunity of my carefulness and oppose this very precious truth of the Word of God, so I will post here what I have already posted about this truth on the following page:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6398365&page=2

--------------------------------------------------------------

Salvation
by Grace alone
through Faith alone
because of
Christ alone​

Peace be with you!

In this post, we will see how God says in the Bible that Salvation is by Grace alone through faith in Christ alone.


Salvation is by Grace through Faith, and NOT by works
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” ( Ephesians 2:8-10 )

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” ( Romans 3:28 )

“But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” ( Romans 11:6 )


Why can’t we be saved by our good works?
“as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE” ( Romans 3:10 )

“ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."” ( Romans 3:12 )

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.” ( Romans 3:23-25 )


Can anyone be saved if he refuses to believe in Jesus Christ as his personal Savior Lord?
“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.
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” ( John 3:16-18 )

These are of course only SOME of the verses about Salvation. If I would quote all the verses, I would have to write pages. But if anyone is really interested to know the Will of God, these verses will be enough for him.

As KCDAD was so lazy that he couldn’t read all these things about the Bible and about Salvation in the other thread ( about Baptism, ) so I preferred to write it in more details here.

May the Lord bless you all!

In Christ’s Love,
YAQUBOS†

 

[- DRA -]

The Epistle to the Hebrews ( that you keep quoting without understanding... ) says CLEARLY that the blood of animals canNOT take away sins. It is not that before now it could, but now it cannot. It just cannot.

Did you read Leviticus 6? Verse 7 says, "So the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses."

The key to understanding this passage is the word "atonement." It means a covering. Thus, the blood of the animals sacrifices "covered" sin, and allowed God to forgive the trespasser. However, per Hebrews 10:4, the blood of these animal sacrifices could not take away sin. Only the blood of Christ could do that. My point is that God's provisions changed from under the law of Moses to under the gospel of Christ. In short, the Israelites of old were told what to do to be forgiven of their sins in Lev. 6, and today we are told what to do to be forgiven of our sins in examples like Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc. Like it or not, God's provisions for forgiveness indeed changed. Why is it so hard to acknowledge the obvious?

The Bible NEVER says that anyone had to do anything to be saved from their sins. The Bible is clear that justification is by faith, not by works.

Acts 2:38 never says that you have to DO something IN ORDER to have your sins taken away. The context of Acts 2 clearly teaches us that only the blood of Jesus Christ takes away our sins, and that we need to receive that blood, and not "do" that blood. Baptism of repentance is RECEIVING, not doing. [/QUOTE]

Certainly. I see your point. Acts 2:38 clearly states, "You don't have to do anything in order to have your sins taken away." How did I miss that?

I 100% agree. Yes, living faith works through love. It obeys God.

Good. We agree the 3,000 in Acts 2:41 did the right thing by obeying what they were told to do in verse 38. That is how living faith works. What is the problem then? Is it wrong to "do" what God says? And, is it wrong to do what God says "for the reason He said to do it" (to have one's sins taken away)?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Where is the passage in that context where the Jews replied, we don't have to be baptized to have our sins taken away, because the faithful of the Old Testament didn't have to be baptized? Please point it out. I can't find it. I truly need your help to see how the application of your reasoning fits into this text.

They didn't say that, because they were not told that baptism takes away sins. It is YOU who are adding that in the context. The sermon of Peter was more than clear: ONLY the blood of Jesus Christ takes away sins, and no amount of good works can do that. Obedient faith receives this truth.

Let's see ... How many times have we done this? ... Acts 2:38 says, "Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ...". Check it out. I'm not adding it. The words are right there in black and white. While I agree that the blood of Jesus takes away sin, that particular topic is NOT discussed in Peter's sermon in Acts 2, unless it was included among the "many other words" in verse 40. However, the topic is discussed in other passages, and I wholeheartedly agree. Jesus shed His blood "for the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28, which is exactly the same wording in the Koine Greek and in English as "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38. Therefore, the logical conclusion, is that something about repentance and baptism, which are commanded in Acts 2:38, must bring the sinner into contact with the blood of Christ. Perhaps there's a place in Scripture that discusses how we are united with His death, burial, and resurrection where one dies to sin, is freed from it, and becomes alive to God. Obviously, if such were the case, it would clearly demonstrate how one is cleansed from their sins by the blood of Christ, right? Sure it would. Romans 6:3-11 is such a passage. I suggest you might want to consider it in its context ... but that's up to you.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Did you read Leviticus 6? Verse 7 says, "So the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses."

The key to understanding this passage is the word "atonement." It means a covering. Thus, the blood of the animals sacrifices "covered" sin, and allowed God to forgive the trespasser. However, per Hebrews 10:4, the blood of these animal sacrifices could not take away sin. Only the blood of Christ could do that. My point is that God's provisions changed from under the law of Moses to under the gospel of Christ. In short, the Israelites of old were told what to do to be forgiven of their sins in Lev. 6, and today we are told what to do to be forgiven of our sins in examples like Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc. Like it or not, God's provisions for forgiveness indeed changed. Why is it so hard to acknowledge the obvious?

Your same error: "under the gospel of Christ"... You won't understand it, it seems, so why should I repeat the explanation again and again?...

Hebrews 10:4 is more than clear that the blood of animals cannot take away sins, and that by its nature:

"For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." ( Hebrews 10:4 )

It's just IMPOSSIBLE.

And we have seen how many passages in the Old Testament, like Psalm 51, clearly say that those animal sacrifices cannot take away sins. They were a symbol of what Jesus Christ would do on the cross.

So it's not that the blood of animals cannot take away sins NOW, but COULD take away sins before. And it is a fact that the sins of the Old Testament believers were indeed taken away, as we have seen before. If the animal sacrifices could not take away their sins, then what is the simple fact? It's very simply as follows: those Old Testament believers had their sins taken away by the Grace of God, by the blood of Jesus Christ symbolized by the blood of animals.

As now baptism is the sign that represents our death with Christ and our spiritual resurrection with Him to walk in newness of life, then things are very clear: Just as a person could not have his sins forgiven in the Old Testament times without faith in the coming Christ and therefore taking the sign of circumcision and then sacrificing an animal for sins as a continual "communion" with the blood of the coming Christ, in the same way baptism is today necessary in Salvation and then the Eucharist represents our continual communion with the blood of the already dead and risen Christ, thus the Eucharist also being necessary in Salvation. And this is all what changed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, because Christ has already come now. But how does this mean that the way of Salvation changed?? All what we have seen above means that the Covenant changed. But nowhere do we see that the way of Salvation changed! It's still by the blood of Jesus Christ, by Grace alone, through faith alone. Just as it is written:

"being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed" ( Romans 3:24-25 )

This clearly shows that the animal sacrifices had not taken away any sins, because it says that God had PASSED OVER the sins previously committed, and that not because of the animal sacrifices, but because of the coming redemption which is in Christ Jesus, the propitiation ( Atonement ) in His blood ( and not the blood of animals. )

Thus you see that baptism is necessary in Salvation, because it is the sign of the New Covenant, but the Bible NEVER says that baptism is necessary FOR Salvation. You never read this anywhere in the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is clear that Salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, because of the blood of Jesus Christ alone ( and not the blood of animals, ) and this for all times, whether under the Old Covenant or under the New Covenant, because no one was ever saved without the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, once again, it's not "under the Gospel of Jesus Christ", but "under the New Covenant"... I hope you are beginning to understand this, as you are being more informed about the doctrine of Justification.

Certainly. I see your point. Acts 2:38 clearly states, "You don't have to do anything in order to have your sins taken away." How did I miss that?

And I never said that Acts 2:38 says that. So you are a hypocrite who is trying to put in my mouth something that I never said. Read me again carefully:

"Acts 2:38 never says that you have to DO something IN ORDER to have your sins taken away. The context of Acts 2 clearly teaches us that only the blood of Jesus Christ takes away our sins, and that we need to receive that blood, and not "do" that blood. Baptism of repentance is RECEIVING, not doing."

If Acts 2:38 never says that you have to DO something IN ORDER to have your sins taken away, does this automatically mean that Acts 2:38 is clearly stating, "You don't have to do anything in order to have your sins taken away."??? What is this hypocrisy of yours? I said the context of Acts 2 makes it clear that only the blood of Jesus Christ takes away sins.

Good. We agree the 3,000 in Acts 2:41 did the right thing by obeying what they were told to do in verse 38. That is how living faith works. What is the problem then? Is it wrong to "do" what God says? And, is it wrong to do what God says "for the reason He said to do it" (to have one's sins taken away)?

That's not the reason stated in Acts 2. But how can you understand this when you still don't understand what is the difference between the New Covenant and the Gospel??

Anyway... You have my previous replies. They are more than clear. Go read them again, but I guess you first need to study the doctrine of Justification. That's really urgent for you.

Let's see ... How many times have we done this? ... Acts 2:38 says, "Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ...". Check it out. I'm not adding it. The words are right there in black and white. While I agree that the blood of Jesus takes away sin, that particular topic is NOT discussed in Peter's sermon in Acts 2, unless it was included among the "many other words" in verse 40.

Someone who reads the sermon of Peter in Acts 2 and does not see how he preached that only the blood of Jesus Christ takes away sins, is really a blind. Do you think that the word "blood" must be mentioned in the text so that we may understand that only the blood of Jesus Christ takes away sins? And what does "Christ" mean?? And what does the cross mean? And why is Peter talking about them having crucified the Christ whom God raised from the dead? What did all that mean to a Jew?? Didn't it mean ATONEMENT that was ACCEPTED by God ( = Resurrection ) ???

Friend, please please please: study the doctrine of Justification. You are only reading words in the Bible, without understanding what they really mean.

However, the topic is discussed in other passages, and I wholeheartedly agree. Jesus shed His blood "for the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28, which is exactly the same wording in the Koine Greek and in English as "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38. Therefore, the logical conclusion, is that something about repentance and baptism, which are commanded in Acts 2:38, must bring the sinner into contact with the blood of Christ.

Yes: what brings the sinner into contact with the blood of Christ is repentant faith ( including baptism ) that RECEIVES the blood of Jesus Christ that is for the remission of sins, thus being a repentance for the remission of sins:

"and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." ( Luke 24:47 )

What you say is: baptism makes the remission of sins, JUST LIKE the blood of Christ, and that's why it is said to be for the remission of sins.

But what you say is totally unbiblical. It is against the whole revelation of God concerning Salvation as being a GIFT that we RECEIVE, and not DO, by faith alone.

Perhaps there's a place in Scripture that discusses how we are united with His death, burial, and resurrection where one dies to sin, is freed from it, and becomes alive to God. Obviously, if such were the case, it would clearly demonstrate how one is cleansed from their sins by the blood of Christ, right? Sure it would. Romans 6:3-11 is such a passage. I suggest you might want to consider it in its context ... but that's up to you.

Yes, Romans 6 says that baptism is the sign of the union of those who HAVE believed, with Christ. Romans 6 doesn't say that you get baptized IN ORDER to be united with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Romans 6 says that those who HAVE BEEN baptized INTO CHRIST JESUS have entered in that communion with Christ's death and resurrection. If someone is baptized, but he's not baptized INTO CHRIST by repentant faith, then he has nothing with Christ and is still in his sins.

I don't think you need more than these explanations here, because I already gave you all the explanations in my previous replies.

N.B.: You are still in your sins, because you have not kept all the commandments of Jesus Christ yet. As you said, according to the New Covenant, you need to keep the commandments of Jesus Christ. And as you are already baptized and are still in your sins, therefore I wished to explain to you the way of Salvation, so that you rely on Christ alone for your Salvation, and not on any Sacrament or personal merits. You can read my explanations in my previous replies.

Be in Peace!
YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

One simple fact has always laid this question to rest in my mind. The thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn't baptised and yet,

"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43

Sounds like he made it in the gates to me!?

As for being baptised in the holy spirit.... volumes could be written on the subject.

Well, a simple question: If that thief was given the opportunity to continue to live, but he refused to get baptized, then do you think he would be saved??

And as Jesus already told us that the faith of this thief was a true repentant faith, as He declared to him that he would be in Paradise, so my question would better be: If that thief was given the opportunity to continue to live, then do you think he would refuse to get baptized? Don't you think that the first thing he would ask would be to get baptized?

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†