Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[Evergreen48]

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

We either believe or we don't believe, and we either repent or we don't repent. Since these two things are strictly matters of the heart and the thoughts in the mind of the individual, they require no 'how to' instuctions, and it is impossible to do either of these things in the wrong way, or in a way that does not meet the specifications of God. Whereas that is not the case in the matter of baptism, which is a physical act. And it could be performed in several different ways. In post # 745, page 75 of this thread I mentioned some of the different ways that an individual could accomplish being immersed.

"Were they pushed straight down by the baptizer under the water while in a standing position, or perhaps they plunged or dipped their own selves beneath the water while the baptizer looked on, or witnessed? Or perhaps they were baptized the way I related of my own personal experience - thrust backwards into, and under the water by the hands of the Pastor of the church of which I was asking membership? "


As far as 'confession' being necessary to one's salvation (Matthew 10:32-33) is concerned, note that John wrote the following to people who were already 'saved'. :

1 John 1: 8. " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

So, if belief, repentance, confession [of sins], and baptism, are necessary for salvation, (and you say they are) every wrong doing that we are guilty of after we are saved,(not only do we know this for ourselves, but scripture backs it up (1 John 1:8) that we all have sin even after we are 'saved'). And for every repentance of such, and for every confession of such, another baptism would be required to accompany each of these occurences. Else we find ourselves unsaved after we have been saved, or to say the least, only partly saved, since we have not met all four of the requirements you have listed.

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

In all probability there was some physical contact of the baptizer with the person who was being baptized. But yet I can not know that for sure, as the language used here could have simply meant that because Philip went into the water with the eunuch and did witness it, it was said of him that he (Philip) baptized him. This same thing could hold true for Christ's command to His disciples when He told them to go into all the world and preach the glad tidings, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

In a previous quote in this thread I also mentioned the impossibility that 12 men would have been able to baptize 3000 individuals in one day's time ( Acts 2:41) in the same way in which I was baptized. There is no way that this could have been a reality. I'm pretty sure you will say, "They baptized each other", but I see a problem with that since there could have been some among the 3000 who were not true believers, just as there were some among the 5000 mentioned in Acts 4 & 5. Do you remember Ananias and his wife Sapphira? I would have to ask if you had been among the 3000 who were baptized that day, and someone like Ananias had baptized you, do you feel that your baptism would have validity? And how about anyone that you baptized after your invalid baptism?

Although I see not a dime's worth of difference in what both you and YAQUBOS are saying about baptism, I think he spoke correctly in at least this one comment, (post # 758.)

In all cases, the method of baptizing is not the esential point, because baptism is not necessary for Salvation. . . . . . .

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

Peter did not use the language in Acts 2:38 that you have used here. He did not tell them that they had to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to have their sins taken away.

Lets read it again, beginning with verse 37:

Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?"
Note that they were not asking what they could do to be saved. Peter had just preached to them about how God had sent them their true Saviour, and how that they had rejected and crucified Him. And having realized the awful wrong they had done, they were asking what they could do to rectify their awful behaviour.
To which Peter replied:

Acts 2:38 "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the FORGIVENESS of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

No one can ever have their sins taken away. The wrongs which we commit will never go away. But through the mediation of Jesus Christ before the Father on our belhalf, for His sake, we will be FORGIVEN.

As for the resurrection of Christ, what is God's provision for us to be united with Jesus' resurrection?

I believe Hebrews 11:5 answers that question as well as it can be answered:

"By FAITH Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him: for he hath had witness borne to him that before his translation he had been well-pleasing unto God:"

Why not read Romans 6:3-11 and come back so we can discuss what occurs during baptism (according to God's testimony)?

The baptism which we recieve by being immersed into literal water is not literally being baptized into Christ. And being buried, or covered completely by literal water is not literally being buried with Him into death. These are figurative or metaphorical expressions which accompany the water baptism doctrine. They are set forth by the apostle in order that the fleshly senses may aid in more fully comprehending and enjoying the things that are of the spiritual realm. And can through faith, 'count[or think of themselves] as being dead indeed unto sin, [although it is not true in the literal sense, but only in the spiritual sense] but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' (Romans 6:11) And this is what I believe 'occurs during [and after] baptism'.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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

We either believe or we don't believe, and we either repent or we don't repent. Since these two things are strictly matters of the heart and the thoughts in the mind of the individual, they require no 'how to' instuctions, and it is impossible to do either of these things in the wrong way, or in a way that does not meet the specifications of God. Whereas that is not the case in the matter of baptism, which is a physical act. And it could be performed in several different ways. In post # 745, page 75 of this thread I mentioned some of the different ways that an individual could accomplish being immersed.

"Were they pushed straight down by the baptizer under the water while in a standing position, or perhaps they plunged or dipped their own selves beneath the water while the baptizer looked on, or witnessed? Or perhaps they were baptized the way I related of my own personal experience - thrust backwards into, and under the water by the hands of the Pastor of the church of which I was asking membership? "

As far as 'confession' being necessary to one's salvation (Matthew 10:32-33) is concerned, note that John wrote the following to people who were already 'saved'. :

1 John 1: 8. " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

So, if belief, repentance, confession [of sins], and baptism, are necessary for salvation, (and you say they are) every wrong doing that we are guilty of after we are saved,(not only do we know this for ourselves, but scripture backs it up (1 John 1:8) that we all have sin even after we are 'saved'). And for every repentance of such, and for every confession of such, another baptism would be required to accompany each of these occurences. Else we find ourselves unsaved after we have been saved, or to say the least, only partly saved, since we have not met all four of the requirements you have listed.

I guess I don’t quite understand why “exactness” applies solely to the mode of baptism versus faith, repentance, and confession. For instance, why wouldn’t exactness apply to belief/faith? Specifically, what “exactly” are we supposed to believe? The same is true for repentance? For example, is it to repent of sin in general, or “exactly” every sin we have committed. As for confessing Christ, what “exactly” should be confessed? Are there precise words that must be worded, or is a general confession sufficient? Faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are all requirements that we must do to have our sins taken away. Therefore, if exactness is required of one, then exactness is required of all … assuming that we are trying to be fair and consistent with Scripture.

Matthew 10:23-33 and 1 John 1:8 are addressing two different confessions. Confessing Jesus is discussed in Matthew 10 and Acts 8:37.

As for Christians that sin after obeying the gospel of Christ, that issue is addressed in Acts 8:13-24.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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

In all probability there was some physical contact of the baptizer with the person who was being baptized. But yet I can not know that for sure, as the language used here could have simply meant that because Philip went into the water with the eunuch and did witness it, it was said of him that he (Philip) baptized him. This same thing could hold true for Christ's command to His disciples when He told them to go into all the world and preach the glad tidings, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

In a previous quote in this thread I also mentioned the impossibility that 12 men would have been able to baptize 3000 individuals in one day's time ( Acts 2:41) in the same way in which I was baptized. There is no way that this could have been a reality. I'm pretty sure you will say, "They baptized each other", but I see a problem with that since there could have been some among the 3000 who were not true believers, just as there were some among the 5000 mentioned in Acts 4 & 5. Do you remember Ananias and his wife Sapphira? I would have to ask if you had been among the 3000 who were baptized that day, and someone like Ananias had baptized you, do you feel that your baptism would have validity? And how about anyone that you baptized after your invalid baptism?

Sorry, but “he baptized him” (Acts 8:38) is pretty clear. There seem to be some preconceived thoughts in your mind of which you are reluctant to let go. Why not just let the Scripture speak for itself without complicating matters with untold possibilities that have no scriptural basis?

Note Acts 2:41 carefully. Does that passage or any other say the 12 apostles did all the baptizing?

Yes, I remember Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. Are you familiar with Paul confronting Peter and charging him with sin in Galatians 2. Just think of those whom Peter may baptized. Would their baptism have been valid? And, on a similar note, would the person’s faith have been valid if it came from the message Peter preached? How about repentance prompted by Peter’s preaching of Jesus? Valid or not? And, how about a confession of Jesus as the Son of God prompted by Peter’s teaching of the gospel?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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

Peter did not use the language in Acts 2:38 that you have used here. He did not tell them that they had to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to have their sins taken away.

Lets read it again, beginning with verse 37:

Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?"
Note that they were not asking what they could do to be saved. Peter had just preached to them about how God had sent them their true Saviour, and how that they had rejected and crucified Him. And having realized the awful wrong they had done, they were asking what they could do to rectify their awful behaviour.
To which Peter replied:

Acts 2:38 "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the FORGIVENESS of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

No one can ever have their sins taken away. The wrongs which we commit will never go away. But through the mediation of Jesus Christ before the Father on our belhalf, for His sake, we will be FORGIVEN.

Believe it or not, you are the first person who has taken issue with using “having their sins taken away” versus “for the remission of sins.” I suspect you have the concept of “atonement” in mind during the law of Moses. Under that law, God made provisions for the blood of animal sacrifices to atone or cover sins. In Hebrews 10, God’s word offers additional insight: “3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins (NKJV).” In its context, a contrast is made between the blood of the animal sacrifices and the blood shed by our Lord on the cross. His blood alone “could take away sins – which is synonymous with “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38, “wash away your sins” in Acts 22:16, and “has been freed from sin” in Romans 6:7.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

As for the resurrection of Christ, what is God's provision for us to be united with Jesus' resurrection?

I believe Hebrews 11:5 answers that question as well as it can be answered:

"By FAITH Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him: for he hath had witness borne to him that before his translation he had been well-pleasing unto God:"

I find it incredible that the passages that discuss how a sinner is united with Jesus’ resurrection are overlooked/ignored (e.g., Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12-23) in favor of an unrelated passage.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Why not read Romans 6:3-11 and come back so we can discuss what occurs during baptism (according to God's testimony)?

The baptism which we recieve by being immersed into literal water is not literally being baptized into Christ. And being buried, or covered completely by literal water is not literally being buried with Him into death. These are figurative or metaphorical expressions which accompany the water baptism doctrine. They are set forth by the apostle in order that the fleshly senses may aid in more fully comprehending and enjoying the things that are of the spiritual realm. And can through faith, 'count[or think of themselves] as being dead indeed unto sin, [although it is not true in the literal sense, but only in the spiritual sense] but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' (Romans 6:11) And this is what I believe 'occurs during [and after] baptism'.

Galatians 3:27 says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Granted, baptism doesn’t literally today take one back some 2,000 years to Jesus’ death on the cross, His burial, and His resurrection, but figuratively baptism is God’s way for us to be united with our Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection per Romans 6:3-11 and Colossians 2:12-23. In baptism a person dies to sin, is freed from it, and becomes alive to God per the text of Romans 6.

 

[Soul Searcher]

It seems that saved means different things to different people. From what I have saw among the majority of Christains which I have had contact the term saved actually means converted to Christainty. If the person then leaves Christainty then they are no longer saved or more accurately never were saved. The thing is what are they/we saved from? if it is this eternal hell fire or total destruction then can anyone be saved before judgment day?

It would seem to me that one is saved when Jesus says to them on judgment day come and stand on my right. Until then those who claim to be saved are really only taking about what they currently believe and really not at all about really being saved, from hell, death or themselfs.

Baptism does play a role in being an accepted member in many churches and in many churches if you are not a member then you are not really saved but they have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[- DRA -]

It seems that saved means different things to different people. From what I have saw among the majority of Christains which I have had contact the term saved actually means converted to Christainty. If the person then leaves Christainty then they are no longer saved or more accurately never were saved. The thing is what are they/we saved from? if it is this eternal hell fire or total destruction then can anyone be saved before judgment day?

It would seem to me that one is saved when Jesus says to them on judgment day come and stand on my right. Until then those who claim to be saved are really only taking about what they currently believe and really not at all about really being saved, from hell, death or themselfs.

Baptism does play a role in being an accepted member in many churches and in many churches if you are not a member then you are not really saved but they have no clue what they are talking about.

Mark 16:15 "And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.' "
Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved."
Acts 2:38 "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 [to be saved from your sins]; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 2:40 "And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation.' "
Acts 2:47 "... And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."

 

[- DRA -]

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

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

To get to the "heart" of the matter about our actions, I suggest spending some time with Matthew 15:1-20.

Where exactly do you read about "many of those who were saved but did not know it?"

 

[YAQUBOS]

DRA, it is clear how you are avoiding to answer all my points.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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



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

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

Hebrews 9:16-17 is talking about the New Covenant, and not about Salvation. So I hope you will concentrate on our topic for once, and tell us how Abraham was saved. How were the sins of Abraham washed away.

Go ahead; tell us.

I don't have a problem with acknowledging that Abraham was a man of faith that pleased God.

But guess what? He was NOT baptized. Can anyone please God and get the forgiveness of his sins WITHOUT baptism?

Nor do I have a problem acknowledging that Abraham was not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ like those in Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, or Acts 19:5. Now, perhaps you can acknowledge what Hebrews 9:16-17 says about when Jesus' testament went into effect.

I already told you that we are not talking about the New Covenant and about when it went into effect. We are talking about Salvation. And it is clear that being under the New Covenant is NOT a condition for the forgiveness of sins, because Old Testament believers also received the forgiveness of their sins.

So stop repeating your misunderstandings about the New Covenant and about its place in the plan of Salvation, and tell me how Abraham was justified withOUT baptism.

Are you willing to acknowledge those passages? After all, doesn't 2 Timothy 3:16a say, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God?" Please don't insult God by suggesting the passage is another one of my "theories!" If you can acknowledge when Jesus' testament/will/law went into effect, then we can better discern His will for us to have our sins taken away by His blood. However, if you have some kind of phobia about addressing passages that don't readily fit into your preconceived reasoning, then my time is probably better spent discussing spiritual matters with other folks.

I have put Hebrews 9:16-17 before you, and I have told you where it is in the plan of Salvation. It is clear that being under the New Covenant is NOT necessary for Salvation. So now it's your turn to tell us how the going into effect of Christ's Testament affects the Salvation of a person by Grace ALONE.

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

If a person keeps parroting a wrong thing, that wrong thing doesn't become right by the time. You are parroting your wrong understanding of those verses.

I have clearly showed you what those verses really mean in the context of the Bible.

Okay, "dear friend," then please explain how Hebrews 9:16-17 really means that Jesus' testament went into effect BEFORE His death.

It doesn't mean that the Testament of Jesus Christ began before His death. But that has nothing to do with what is essential FOR Salvation. That has to do with what is essential IN Salvation.

People who were under the Old Covenant ALSO were saved and had their sins forgiven. Being under the New Covenant is NOT a condition FOR Salvation.

That's the conclusion that you want, so ... explain the logic that will help us understand why we should agree that the passages mean exactly the opposite of what they say.

No, it's up to you to explain why those passages talk about Salvation, and NOT about the New Covenant.

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

ONLY obedient and repentant faith is needed for the forgiveness of sins. Remember: Abraham was NOT baptized.

And you insist that baptism is not baptism of repentance, thus contradicting Romans 6 that also you keep parroting all the time without understanding it.

As previously explained, you persist in confusing the baptism of John with the baptism in the name of the Lord. Apollos taught the former baptism, but was taken aside and taught the way of the Lord more accurately in Acts 18:24-26.

But both are the baptism OF REPENTANCE. Read my previous replies about this more carefully.

As for Abraham, why keep running to him as an example of someone who pleased God while living under the law of Christ?

Because Abraham also was under the Law of Christ. That simple. Abraham was not under the Law.

The truth of the matter is Abraham lived prior to both the law of Moses and the law of Christ. However, God gave him instructions and he obeyed.

That's the obedient faith by which we are justified.

That's why Abraham was the man of faith that he was. He obeyed. The depth of his faith is detailed in Hebrews 11:17-19. Likewise, today, those of us living under the law of Christ should follow the example of this righteous man by doing as God has commanded us.

Exactly! So you should be justified by the obedient faith, and not by a dead faith. So baptism is necessary in Salvation.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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



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

Of course!! That's what I am saying all the time: OBEDIENT faith is that true faith by which alone we are justified. A dead faith cannot justify anyone.

Have you begun to study the doctrine of Justification?

In Acts 2:38 (I know, I'm parroting again), why are repentance and baptism commanded?

Yes, baptism of repentance is commanded. And only those who LOVE Christ keep His commandments, as you know. AND you can't begin to love Christ before the Love of God is poured out within your heart by the Holy Spirit that you receive by FAITH alone:

1. The Holy Spirit gives us real Love: "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us." ( Romans 5:5 )

2. The Holy Spirit is received by FAITH and not by works: "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 )

So, yes, real faith is obedient.

The passage says "for the remission of sins," right? "For the remission of sins" is synonymous with "for salvation." Thus, your reasoning: baptism is necessary IN Salvation, not FOR Salvation, is in error.

No, it doesn't mean baptism in order to be saved as in the expression "necessary for Salvation". You can't replace "for" with "in order to" in the expression "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". It is for the remission of sins just in the way that the following verse talks:

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling" ( Philippians 2:12 )

Baptism OF REPENTANCE ( and not a simple water baptism ) is part of that working out your Salvation. Baptism OF REPENTANCE is for the forgiveness of sins.

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

Already done. But you are so happy with your misunderstandings of those passages, that you are not even understanding the link.

Show me any passage where it is said that baptism WITHOUT repentance does anything.

And show me any passage where it is said that being under the New Covenant is necessary for Salvation.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved."
Acts 2:38 "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 [to be saved from your sins]; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 2:40 "And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation.' "
Acts 2:47 "... And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."

The part that I have put in bold is a clear addition to the Word of God. It's an example of a human adding his own interpretation between the lines of the Word of God.

Adding to the Word of God is wrong, and the Bible clearly says this.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[Evergreen48]

I guess I don’t quite understand why "exactness" applies solely to the mode of baptism versus faith, repentance, and confession. For instance, why wouldn’t exactness apply to belief/faith? Specifically, what "exactly" are we supposed to believe? The same is true for repentance? For example, is it to repent of sin in general, or "exactly" every sin we have committed. As for confessing Christ, what "exactly" should be confessed? Are there precise words that must be worded, or is a general confession sufficient? Faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are all requirements that we must do to have our sins taken away. Therefore, if exactness is required of one, then exactness is required of all … assuming that we are trying to be fair and consistent with Scripture.

If you do not know what to believe about Jesus concerning your salvation, and you do not know the answers to the questions that you ask about repentance and confession, and these are the things you must do in order to have salvation, then you will not, and can not have salvation because you do not know how to do what is necessary in order to get it.

Matthew 10:23-33 and 1 John 1:8 are addressing two different confessions.

Yes, I agree. They are two different types of confessions. Which one of the two types of confessions do you believe is the one which is necessary for your salvation?

Confessing Jesus is discussed in Matthew 10 and Acts 8:37.

We really need to keep things in their proper context here. Matthew 10 deals with the persecutions - beatings and imprisonments, and the opposition in general which these people whom Jesus was sending out to preach the gospel of the kingdom would have to face and endure. In additon to telling them that if they denied Him before men, He would deny them before the Father, He also told them this: "he that endureth to the end shall be saved" ( verse 22). So it looks like you are adding yet another stipulation to salvation, inasmuch as if one ever comes up against persecution for their belief in Christ, and they 'cave' and deny Him, then they have lost their salvation, if indeed confessing Him before men is a stipulation to having salvation. In which case it looks like that our beloved Peter is a lost man. (Read Matthew 26:58-75, and let me know what you think. )

As for Christians that sin after obeying the gospel of Christ, that issue is addressed in Acts 8:13-24.

So if we sin after we have obeyed the gospel of Christ, like Simon, we will not recieve the Holy Ghost? Is that what you are trying to say?

Sorry, but "he baptized him" (Acts 8:38) is pretty clear. There seem to be some preconceived thoughts in your mind of which you are reluctant to let go. Why not just let the Scripture speak for itself without complicating matters with untold possibilities that have no scriptural basis?

I do not have any preconcieved thoughts in my mind regarding this, and neither do I dwell on it. Because I am not depending on my baptism or any other thing which I might or might not do to save me. HE said, Live, and I lived.

Note Acts 2:41 carefully. Does that passage or any other say the 12 apostles did all the baptizing?

"Come now, let us reason." If they did not, who did?

Yes, I remember Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. Are you familiar with Paul confronting Peter and charging him with sin in Galatians 2. Just think of those whom Peter may baptized. Would their baptism have been valid?And, on a similar note, would the person’s faith have been valid if it came from the message Peter preached? How about repentance prompted by Peter’s preaching of Jesus? Valid or not? And, how about a confession of Jesus as the Son of God prompted by Peter’s teaching of the gospel?

Valid as a means of salvation? No. But valid in the purpose of what God intended that it should accomplish.

No one was was given everlasting life through Peter's baptisms. No one recieved their faith through Peter's preaching. This was a gift from God, not Peter. And it was the Holy Spirit which prompted the repentance, not Peter.

Believe it or not, you are the first person who has taken issue with using "having their sins taken away" versus "for the remission of sins." I suspect you have the concept of "atonement" in mind during the law of Moses. Under that law, God made provisions for the blood of animal sacrifices to atone or cover sins. In Hebrews 10, God’s word offers additional insight: "3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins (NKJV)." In its context, a contrast is made between the blood of the animal sacrifices and the blood shed by our Lord on the cross. His blood alone "could take away sins – which is synonymous with "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38, "wash away your sins" in Acts 22:16, and "has been freed from sin" in Romans 6:7.

A remission (aphesis) of sins is not the removal thereof. It is God not remembering them, or not counting them against us anymore. Baptism was only a likeness of the old sinful man of flesh dieing and being buried with Christ. It was an exercise in faith on the part of the believers and it had absolutely nothing to do with the literal washing away anyone's sins, any more than the circumcism at the hands of man had anything to do with literally 'putting off the body of the sins of the flesh'. (See Colossians 2:11)

Galatians 3:27 says, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Granted, baptism doesn’t literally today take one back some 2,000 years to Jesus’ death on the cross, His burial, and His resurrection, but figuratively baptism is God’s way for us to be united with our Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection per Romans 6:3-11 and Colossians 2:12-23. In baptism a person dies to sin, is freed from it, and becomes alive to God per the text of Romans 6.

A person dies to sin and is freed from sin by faith, or believing that they are dead to sin and free from it. And I don't think that God uses any material thing such as water to make us alive unto Him. It was not our immersion into water which made us alive unto God, but it was our immersion into Christ which brought this about. (Galations 3:27) If we are in Christ and He lives to die no more then we live to die no more. Its as simple (or as complex) as that.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Hmm.. I always kinda thought that we were dead to sin when the temptation to sin no longer enters our mind. It is behind us and we sin no more. If we continue to sin or even continue to be tempted by it yet say we are dead to sin are we not telling a lie?

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved."
Acts 2:38 "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 [to be saved from your sins]; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 2:40 "And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation.' "
Acts 2:47 "... And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."

The part that I have put in bold is a clear addition to the Word of God. It's an example of a human adding his own interpretation between the lines of the Word of God.

Adding to the Word of God is wrong, and the Bible clearly says this.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Perhaps you've heard of the Great Commission. It was Jesus' commision given to the apostles to take the gospel to all the world. Perhaps Matthew 28: 19, Mark 16:15-16, and Luke 24:47 ring a bell. Acts 2 is the first occurence of the apostles fulfilling Jesus' command. Since they were commanded to preach the gospel, and the gospel is the good news of salvation from sins through Jesus, then that is exactly what was preached in Acts 2. It's what "the remission of sins" means in Acts 2. To have one's sins forgiven, taken away, washed away, or to be freed from them.

Perhaps you can better explain how the apostles were preaching something different than what the Lord commanded them, and while you're at it, perhaps can also explain how "for the remission of sins" means something other than to be saved from your sins. By the way, the exact same expression in both the English and Koine Greek can be found in Matthew 26:28 - Jesus' blood was shed "for the remission of sins." We are waiting ...

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Believe it or not, you are the first person who has taken issue with using "having their sins taken away" versus "for the remission of sins." I suspect you have the concept of "atonement" in mind during the law of Moses. Under that law, God made provisions for the blood of animal sacrifices to atone or cover sins. In Hebrews 10, God’s word offers additional insight: "3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins (NKJV)." In its context, a contrast is made between the blood of the animal sacrifices and the blood shed by our Lord on the cross. His blood alone "could take away sins – which is synonymous with "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38, "wash away your sins" in Acts 22:16, and "has been freed from sin" in Romans 6:7.

A remission (aphesis) of sins is not the removal thereof. It is God not remembering them, or not counting them against us anymore. Baptism was only a likeness of the old sinful man of flesh dieing and being buried with Christ. It was an exercise in faith on the part of the believers and it had absolutely nothing to do with the literal washing away anyone's sins, any more than the circumcism at the hands of man had anything to do with literally 'putting off the body of the sins of the flesh'. (See Colossians 2:11)

Gotcha. I understand what you are saying, but I have a problem appying what you are saying with other Scriptures. "For the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28 is the same in both the English and Koine Greek as in Acts 2:38. Therefore, the understanding you are proposing means that Jesus' blood does NOT take our sins away. And, applying that thought to Hebrews 10:4, it means that in addition to the blood of the animal sacrifices, Jesus' blood also could NOT take our sins away. Are you positive that's the point being made in Matthew and Hebrews?

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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

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

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

Hebrews 9:16-17 is talking about the New Covenant, and not about Salvation. So I hope you will concentrate on our topic for once, and tell us how Abraham was saved. How were the sins of Abraham washed away.

Go ahead; tell us.

The Koine Greek word “diaheke” is translated as “covenant” in the NASV; “will” in the NIV & ESV; and “testament” in the KJV, NKJV, & ASV. The point in Hebrews 9:16-17 is that a will goes into effect after the death of the one who made it. Jesus’ will/testament/covenant/law is under consideration in this text. Therefore, the point is that Jesus’ will/testament/covenant/law went into effect AFTER His death, NOT BEFORE.

As for salvation under the New Covenant, the context of Hebrews 9 – the preceding verses - made a distinction between the first (old) covenant and the second (new) covenant. Note Hebrews 8:6-13. Especially note verse 12. See the part of the verse that says, “their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more?” It a characteristic of the new covenant – the one described as “a more excellent ministry” in verse 6. Please explain how the idea that God will remember sins no more under the new covenant is “not about Salvation.” The context continues through chapter 10. Note Hebrews 10:4. The blood of bulls and goats sacrificed under the law of Moses as an atonement (covering) for sin could NOT take away sins. However, Jesus’ “one sacrifice for sins forever” was able to take them away per verse 12. Please explain why the new covenant made between the Lord Jesus and His people didn’t involve the salvation that He alone offers?

As for Abraham, I suggest consulting the inspired commentaries on his life. Romans chapter 4. Hebrews 11:8-19, and James 2:21-23 are the first that come to mind. Granted, those passages are not what you have in mind. However, let’s not be too quick to dismiss them. Take Romans 4:4. It’s a quote of Genesis 15:6. Note the sequence of events: Abraham was declared to be righteous BEFORE he was circumcised in Genesis 17:24. Romans 4:9-12 focuses on this chronology to stress the point that the true descendants of Abraham aren’t necessarily those who are his physical descendants and circumcised in the flesh (i.e., the Jews or Israelites), but those who walk in Abraham’s steps of faith per verse 12. The point? 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.
Abraham was righteous because he believed God and obeyed what God told him to do. Likewise, those living under the law of Moses were expected to obey that law. They agreed to do that very thing in Exodus 24:3. That agreement between them and God is the first or old covenant under consideration in Hebrews 8-9. After that covenant ended, the Jews were expected to obey Christ under the new covenant in which He offers to take their sins away. Thus, in summary, Abraham obeyed what God told him, the Jews obeyed what God told them under the law of Moses, and we today should obey what the Lord tell us to do to be saved under His gospel. Hebrews 5:9. As for Abraham, can you provide any scriptural examples of anyone who was excluded from obeying the law of Moses because Abraham didn’t have to obey that law, or a particular command under that law? Likewise, can you provide any scriptural examples of anyone who was excluded from obeying what God required to be saved under the gospel of Christ because Abraham didn’t have to obey this law, or a particular command under Christ’s law?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I don't have a problem with acknowledging that Abraham was a man of faith that pleased God.

But guess what? He was NOT baptized. Can anyone please God and get the forgiveness of his sins WITHOUT baptism?

No guessing to it. Abraham was not baptized per Romans 6:3-11. My question is, what reasoning says he had to be? He lived 2,000+ years before the time of Christ. Therefore, by what standard would/could he be expected to obey a requirement that wouldn’t be given until years later? He wouldn’t be. However, for those of us who are commanded to obey the gospel to be saved from our sins, then according to Romans 4:12, if we walk in the faith of Abraham , we will obey God. And, like James 2:21 declares, we will be justified by our works if we do as God commands. It’s what Abraham did. Note verse 24. We are admonished to follow his example by obeying what God commands us.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Nor do I have a problem acknowledging that Abraham was not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ like those in Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, or Acts 19:5. Now, perhaps you can acknowledge what Hebrews 9:16-17 says about when Jesus' testament went into effect.

I already told you that we are not talking about the New Covenant and about when it went into effect. We are talking about Salvation. And it is clear that being under the New Covenant is NOT a condition for the forgiveness of sins, because Old Testament believers also received the forgiveness of their sins.

So stop repeating your misunderstandings about the New Covenant and about its place in the plan of Salvation, and tell me how Abraham was justified withOUT baptism.

Obviously, per Hebrews 8:12 and 10:4, the old covenant was lacking in taking sins away so God would remember them no more.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Are you willing to acknowledge those passages? After all, doesn't 2 Timothy 3:16a say, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God?" Please don't insult God by suggesting the passage is another one of my "theories!" If you can acknowledge when Jesus' testament/will/law went into effect, then we can better discern His will for us to have our sins taken away by His blood. However, if you have some kind of phobia about addressing passages that don't readily fit into your preconceived reasoning, then my time is probably better spent discussing spiritual matters with other folks.

I have put Hebrews 9:16-17 before you, and I have told you where it is in the plan of Salvation. It is clear that being under the New Covenant is NOT necessary for Salvation. So now it's your turn to tell us how the going into effect of Christ's Testament affects the Salvation of a person by Grace ALONE.

Are you familiar with Galatians 5:1-6? It seems the Jews struggled to let go of circumcision and the law of Moses (e.g., Acts 15:1,5). God, through the apostle Paul, deals with this issue in Galatians 5 and points out the consequences of reverting back to the old law. Concisely stated, to command circumcision per the law of Moses indebted one to obey “the whole law” per verse 3. The result: “estranged from Christ” and “fallen from grace” per verse 4. Consequently, the message was to follow the law of Christ – not the law of Moses. Granted, we should learn from it per Romans 15:4, but it NOT our law today.

I believe your last sentence clearly describes the reasoning that hinders our ability to come to any kind of understanding when discussing salvation. You see salvation by “Grace ALONE” as a theme throughout the Bible. While I agree that God’s has extended His grace to man from the beginning, God has always commanded and expected obedience from man whom He created. Somehow, that part of the biblical record is overlooked or downplayed. Abraham obeyed God. Later, after the law of Moses was given, God promised the Israelites blessings when they obeyed Him, and curses when they didn’t (Deuteronomy chapters 28-30). Likewise, under the gospel of Christ, God’s grace is extended to all, but those who don’t know God and don’t obey His Son will face His wrath (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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

If a person keeps parroting a wrong thing, that wrong thing doesn't become right by the time. You are parroting your wrong understanding of those verses.

I have clearly showed you what those verses really mean in the context of the Bible.

I agree. Years ago, I became interested in archery. I bought a book about archery written by a former U.S. Olympic archery coach (Al Henderson). He made the point that practice doesn’t make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect. His point that an archery tournament consists of one shot at a time. Each shot must be executed correctly. Bible study is no different. Each passage used or considered must be understood correctly in its context and harmonized with other passages.

As for these passages, I have already left you with some questions about Hebrews 9. Additional questions concerning Acts 2 will follow.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Okay, "dear friend," then please explain how Hebrews 9:16-17 really means that Jesus' testament went into effect BEFORE His death.

It doesn't mean that the Testament of Jesus Christ began before His death. But that has nothing to do with what is essential FOR Salvation. That has to do with what is essential IN Salvation.

People who were under the Old Covenant ALSO were saved and had their sins forgiven. Being under the New Covenant is NOT a condition FOR Salvation.

Good. It is nice to actually see you acknowledge that Jesus’ testament did not begin before His death per Hebrews 9:16-17. See, that didn’t hurt too badly.

Now, perhaps you can help me understand why you think nothing changed after Jesus law went into effect as far as salvation is concerned. I agree that God made provision for people to be saved prior to Jesus life, death, resurrection, and before His law went into effect. However, I fail to see how/why that is justification to NOT obey what God requires under the testament/will of His Son to be saved from sins. Take a passage like Acts 7:37, which is a quote from Deuteronomy 18:15. Moses gave his law, and the Jews were expected to listen to him and obey the law. Likewise, God would raise another prophet like Moses, who the people (us) would be expected to listen to and obey. Therefore, shouldn’t we listen to that Prophet and do what He commands to be saved under His law (i.e., James 1:25)?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

That's the conclusion that you want, so ... explain the logic that will help us understand why we should agree that the passages mean exactly the opposite of what they say.

No, it's up to you to explain why those passages talk about Salvation, and NOT about the New Covenant.

Hebrews 8:6-13 is a good place to start. Hebrews 10:4 another.

Since we now seem to agree that Jesus’ testament/covenant went into effect AFTER His death, perhaps you can explain why you think the Lord spoke nothing about salvation. Who spoke in John 3:16? How about Luke 13:3,5? How about Matthew 10:32-33? How about Mark 16:15-16?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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

ONLY obedient and repentant faith is needed for the forgiveness of sins. Remember: Abraham was NOT baptized.

And you insist that baptism is not baptism of repentance, thus contradicting Romans 6 that also you keep parroting all the time without understanding it.

Pardon me, but it seems a little focus is called for. Acts 2:38. First, is the command given in that passage like you describe it? For instance, does Peter says, “Obedience and repentant faith is needed for the forgiveness of sins?” Yes or no? Second, is the baptism commanded in that verse the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, or the baptism of John?

I remember that Abraham wasn’t baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. However, do you remember when Jesus’ testament/covenant went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17? It was AFTER His death, right? And, Acts 2 occurred after His death, right? According to Hebrews 5:9, whom does Jesus save?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

As previously explained, you persist in confusing the baptism of John with the baptism in the name of the Lord. Apollos taught the former baptism, but was taken aside and taught the way of the Lord more accurately in Acts 18:24-26.

But both are the baptism OF REPENTANCE. Read my previous replies about this more carefully.

I read your previous replies. Did you read Acts 18:24-26? Apollos preached the baptism of John and was taken aside and taught the word of God “more accurately.”

As for Acts 2:38, does it say: “Let every one of you be baptized with the baptism of repentance in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?” Yes or no?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

As for Abraham, why keep running to him as an example of someone who pleased God while living under the law of Christ?

Because Abraham also was under the Law of Christ. That simple. Abraham was not under the Law.

What? When did Jesus’ testament/covenant go into effect? I thought we agree that it was AFTER His death per Hebrews 9:16-17, but now you’re declaring that Jesus’ law was in effect during Abraham’s time. You can’t have it both ways … so, was it BEFORE or AFTER?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

The truth of the matter is Abraham lived prior to both the law of Moses and the law of Christ. However, God gave him instructions and he obeyed.

That's the obedient faith by which we are justified.

Okay, if Abraham did what God told him to do, why shouldn’t we obey what God tells us to do to be saved today under the gospel?

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

That's why Abraham was the man of faith that he was. He obeyed. The depth of his faith is detailed in Hebrews 11:17-19. Likewise, today, those of us living under the law of Christ should follow the example of this righteous man by doing as God has commanded us.

Exactly! So you should be justified by the obedient faith, and not by a dead faith. So baptism is necessary in Salvation.

Okay, let’s apply the principle of obedient versus dead faith to the command given in Acts 2:38. The 3,000 had obedient faith per verse 41, right? Acts 22:16. Saul had obedient faith per Acts 9:18. Not to get caught up in your “IN Salvation” versus “FOR Salvation” struggles, but in both these examples sinners obeyed God’s commands and received the blessings promised.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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

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

Of course!! That's what I am saying all the time: OBEDIENT faith is that true faith by which alone we are justified. A dead faith cannot justify anyone.

Have you begun to study the doctrine of Justification?

Okay, let’s ensure we are on the same page. Acts 2:38 commanded repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, right? So, when did the 3,000 receive the blessings promised, BEFORE or AFTER they obeyed what was commanded?

Yes, I began the study of justification some 34 years ago.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

In Acts 2:38 (I know, I'm parroting again), why are repentance and baptism commanded?

Yes, baptism of repentance is commanded. And only those who LOVE Christ keep His commandments, as you know. AND you can't begin to love Christ before the Love of God is poured out within your heart by the Holy Spirit that you receive by FAITH alone:

1. The Holy Spirit gives us real Love: "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us." ( Romans 5:5 )

2. The Holy Spirit is received by FAITH and not by works: "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 )

So, yes, real faith is obedient.

Sorry, but I’m still parroting. Acts 2:38 does not command the baptism of repentance. Rather, it commands repentance AND baptism in the name of the Lord.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

The passage says "for the remission of sins," right? "For the remission of sins" is synonymous with "for salvation." Thus, your reasoning: baptism is necessary IN Salvation, not FOR Salvation, is in error.

No, it doesn't mean baptism in order to be saved as in the expression "necessary for Salvation". You can't replace "for" with "in order to" in the expression "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". It is for the remission of sins just in the way that the following verse talks:

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling" ( Philippians 2:12 )

Baptism OF REPENTANCE ( and not a simple water baptism ) is part of that working out your Salvation. Baptism OF REPENTANCE is for the forgiveness of sins.

Sorry, but Philippians is addressed to Christians. Note 1:1 - “saints, bishops (elders), deachons.” 1:12 - “brethren.” Acts 2:38 is addressed to sinners. Here’s where I suspect the real problem lies. Matthew 28:19. Teaching is involved to make disciples of all nations. After disciples are made, additional teaching follows in verse 20. Applying this principle to the epistle to the Philippians, the Philippians were disciples who had been baptized into Christ. Paul is writing the epistle as a part of that follow-up teaching that comes later. They knew God’s expectations. Therefore, when they found themselves falling short in doing God’s will, they needed to work out a way (or ways) to be obedient.


Originally Posted by - DRA -

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

Already done. But you are so happy with your misunderstandings of those passages, that you are not even understanding the link.

Show me any passage where it is said that baptism WITHOUT repentance does anything.

And show me any passage where it is said that being under the New Covenant is necessary for Salvation.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

I never said that “baptism WITHOUT repentance” does anything. If so, please post the exact quote so we can discuss.

As for the being saved under the new covenant (the gospel/law of Christ), how about Hebrews 5:9? Or, 2 Thessalonians 1:8? Or, Romans 1:16-17? Or, Galatians 5:1-4?

 

[Evergreen48]

Gotcha. I understand what you are saying, but I have a problem appying what you are saying with other Scriptures. "For the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28 is the same in both the English and Koine Greek as in Acts 2:38. Therefore, the understanding you are proposing means that Jesus' blood does NOT take our sins away. And, applying that thought to Hebrews 10:4, it means that in addition to the blood of the animal sacrifices, Jesus' blood also could NOT take our sins away. Are you positive that's the point being made in Matthew and Hebrews?

The word in Matthew 26:28 and in Acts 2:38 is aphesis, which means pardon, or freedom, while the word in Hebrews 10:4 is aphaireo which does mean 'to remove'.
However, No where in the entire 10th chapter of Hebrews does it imply that Jesus' blood removed (aphaireo ) sin. But in verses 16, 17, & 18 we find:

Hebrews 10:16. "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18. Now where remission ( aphesis - pardon or forgiveness ) of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

 

[Evergreen48]

Hmm.. I always kinda thought that we were dead to sin when the temptation to sin no longer enters our mind. It is behind us and we sin no more. If we continue to sin or even continue to be tempted by it yet say we are dead to sin are we not telling a lie?

If that is what 'being dead to sin' means, then yes, we are all terrible liars. I think Paul's point here is that since God reckons or counts that the sinful bodies of flesh of those who are in Christ died with Him, we also should have faith towards this, and not let sin reign in our mortal bodies that we should obey it in the lusts thereof. And Neither yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield ourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and our members as instruments of righteousness unto God. (Verses 12 & 13.)

Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Gotcha. I understand what you are saying, but I have a problem appying what you are saying with other Scriptures. "For the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28 is the same in both the English and Koine Greek as in Acts 2:38. Therefore, the understanding you are proposing means that Jesus' blood does NOT take our sins away. And, applying that thought to Hebrews 10:4, it means that in addition to the blood of the animal sacrifices, Jesus' blood also could NOT take our sins away. Are you positive that's the point being made in Matthew and Hebrews?

The word in Matthew 26:28 and in Acts 2:38 is aphesis, which means pardon, or freedom, while the word in Hebrews 10:4 is aphaireo which does mean 'to remove'.
However, No where in the entire 10th chapter of Hebrews does it imply that Jesus' blood removed (aphaireo ) sin. But in verses 16, 17, & 18 we find:

Hebrews 10:16. "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18. Now where remission ( aphesis - pardon or forgiveness ) of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

In the Koine Greek, "aphesis" is a feminine noun and "aphaireo" is the corresponding verb. Thus, the remission of sins, as I have maintained from the get-go means to take away, forgive, wash away, or free from sins.

As for Hebrews, the context begins with the introduction of "a more excellent ministry" (NKJV) in Hebrews 8:6. True, the better ministry is characterized by God remembering sins no more (8:12). However, several types, shadows, copies, are presented in chapter 9-10 as God's provisions under the old covenant are presented as foreshadowing the blessings under the new covenant. Chapter 9 verse 7 begins the contrast with the Levitical high priest's annual sin offering (taken from animal sacrifices) for himself and the people when he entered the Most Holy Place. In 9:11-14, the contrast with Jesus is made: He is our high priest (after the order of Melchizedek - covered in detail in chapter 7) who entered the Most Holy Place with His own blood once to obtain eternal redemption for all. Note verse 13. The blood of bulls and goats were God's provisions to cover (atone) for sin under the law of Moses, but the blood of Christ does more (verse 14). "Purge your conscience" is a key thought in the passage. Purge means to cleanse, free, or purify from defilement (Strong's). The point is the blood of Jesus didn't just atone for sins as did the blood of the animal sacrices, but His blood purged the sins away and left a person with a clean conscience (compare the thought with 1 Peter 3:21). The result is a new covenant of between God and His people (9:15). That first or old covenant was dedicated with blood per verses 19-22. These dedications were "copies" (NKJV) per verse 23. The Levitical high priest entered the Most Holy Place made with hands (the literal one in the temple in Jerusalem), but Jesus entered the Most Holy Place made without hands - into heaven itself - to make His offering only once (verses 24-26). Note the latter part of verse 26. Jesus' sacrifice of Himself was to "put away sin."

Note 10:1. The law with its sacrifices ... the one that was a shadow of good things to come - the law of Moses as it foreshadowed the law of Christ - could never make "those who approach perfect (complete)." Now, let's especially note verses 2-4: "For then would they not ceased to be offered? For the worshippers, once purged, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." The point of these passages is that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins, as evidenced by the annual sin offering by the high priest under the law of Moses. However, Jesus' sacrifice was made only once (as previously noted in 9:12 - and, a point made again in 10:12), which infers/implies Jesus blood takes away sin. Thus, the conclusion is the blood of the animal sacrifices offered under the law of Moses couldn't take away sin, but the blood offered by the Lord could indeed take away sins!

Now, to address the point you made about Hebrews 10:16-18, the passages were initially presented in chapter 8. Not only does God not remember sin any longer under the new covenant, but God also takes them out of the way per the reasoning previously discussed - the one offering for sin. God's word concludes this discussion with the same points previously mentioned - God will remember sins no more under the new covenant (10:17), and because there is remission of these sins, "there is no longer an offering for sin" (verse 18). The inference is that if sins aren't taken away by the blood of Christ, then ongoing sacrifices would be necessary just as under the law of Moses.

 

[Evergreen48]

In the Koine Greek, "aphesis" is a feminine noun and "aphaireo" is the corresponding verb. Thus, the remission of sins, as I have maintained from the get-go means to take away, forgive, wash away, or free from sins.

No, that is not correct. Aphaireo is not the verb form of apheesis. The verb form for apheesis is aphieemi. Remission or apheesis is also applied to the release of captives or slaves, and the discharge of debtors on the sabbatical year. It is always rendered to forgive, remit, set free from, dismiss.
Aphaireo is only used one other time, that I know of, in the NT.
Luke 22:49. "When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50. And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off (aphaireo) his right ear."

Now, to address the point you made about Hebrews 10:16-18, the passages were initially presented in chapter 8. Not only does God not remember sin any longer under the new covenant, but God also takes them out of the way per the reasoning previously discussed - the one offering for sin. God's word concludes this discussion with the same points previously mentioned - God will remember sins no more under the new covenant (10:17), and because there is remission of these sins, "there is no longer an offering for sin" (verse 18). The inference is that if sins aren't taken away by the blood of Christ, then ongoing sacrifices would be necessary just as under the law of Moses.

A one time offering, the blood of which, ever remains on the altar before God's eyes. Sins are not taken away by it, they are forgiven because of it.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

In the Koine Greek, "aphesis" is a feminine noun and "aphaireo" is the corresponding verb. Thus, the remission of sins, as I have maintained from the get-go means to take away, forgive, wash away, or free from sins.
No, that is not correct. Aphaireo is not the verb form of apheesis. The verb form for apheesis is aphieemi. Remission or apheesis is also applied to the release of captives or slaves, and the discharge of debtors on the sabbatical year. It is always rendered to forgive, remit, set free from, dismiss.
Aphaireo is only used one other time, that I know of, in the NT.
Luke 22:49. "When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50. And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off (aphaireo) his right ear."

No, that is not correct. Aphaireo is not the verb form of apheesis. The verb form for apheesis is aphieemi. Remission or apheesis is also applied to the release of captives or slaves, and the discharge of debtors on the sabbatical year. It is always rendered to forgive, remit, set free from, dismiss.
Aphaireo is only used one other time, that I know of, in the NT.
Luke 22:49. "When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50. And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off (aphaireo) his right ear."

Your point is well taken. Please allow me the liberty of correcting my mistake.
Original statement:"In the Koine Greek, 'aphesis' is a feminine noun and 'aphaireo' is the corresponding verb."
Corrected statement: "In the Koine Greek, 'aphesis' is a feminine noun and 'aphaireo' is a (corrected word) corresponding verb."
Basis for change: "Aphesis' " (from which the English word "remission" is translated) origin is from the word "aphiemi" (a verb), which is a compound word from "apo" (separate, depart) and "hiemi" (to send). "Aphairo" (a verb) is also a compound word from "apo" and "haireomai" (choose). Consequently, both verbs - aphaireo and aphiemi are corresponding verbs to the noun aphesis, as both had their roots from apo.

Aphairo appears several times in the New Testament. In the KJV, it is translated:
Smote off in Matt. 26:51
Cut off in Mark 14:47
Take away in Mark 1:25
Taken away in Mark 10:42
Taketh away in Mark 16:3
Cut off in Mark 22:50
Take away in Rom. 11:27
Take away in Heb. 10:4
Take away (2x) in Rev. 22:19

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Now, to address the point you made about Hebrews 10:16-18, the passages were initially presented in chapter 8. Not only does God not remember sin any longer under the new covenant, but God also takes them out of the way per the reasoning previously discussed - the one offering for sin. God's word concludes this discussion with the same points previously mentioned - God will remember sins no more under the new covenant (10:17), and because there is remission of these sins, "there is no longer an offering for sin" (verse 18). The inference is that if sins aren't taken away by the blood of Christ, then ongoing sacrifices would be necessary just as under the law of Moses.

A one time offering, the blood of which, ever remains on the altar before God's eyes. Sins are not taken away by it, they are forgiven because of it.

Leviticus 4:1-7 (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."

Conclusion: Under the law of Moses, God made provisions through the blood shed by animal sacrifices to atone (cover) sin, and the sin was forgiven. However, that sin was not taken away per Hebrews 10:4. Thus, under the law of Moses there was an ongoing need for the high priest to offer the annual sacrifice for sin. Jesus' sacrifice, however, was a one time offering. If His blood only offers forgiveness, and doesn't take away sin, then it would accomplish no more than the blood of the animal sacrifices offered under the law of Moses. Therefore, it would also have to be offered on an ongoing basis. And, it would make you wonder why He made the ultimate sacrifice in shedding His blood and giving His life, if it accomplished no more than the blood of bulls and goats.

Perhaps you can do a better job of explaining the reasoning presented by God in the book of Hebrews beginning at about 8:6 through chapter 10.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Hmm.. I always kinda thought that we were dead to sin when the temptation to sin no longer enters our mind. It is behind us and we sin no more. If we continue to sin or even continue to be tempted by it yet say we are dead to sin are we not telling a lie?

Yes, you always thought wrong, because you were taught wrong.

Jesus was tempted, and yet He is sinless.

Plus, death to sin doesn't mean annihilation, but separation. It doesn't mean that sin is not present anymore.

Grace be with you!

YAQUBOS†