Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[YAQUBOS]

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."



Sorry, but I beg to differ. Perhaps you've heard of the Great Commission.

Dear friend, when will you stop your sarcasm?

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.

Yes. So how does that give you the right to add your interpretation between the lines of the Bible??

Paul clearly said that he was sent to preach the Gospel and NOT to baptize. Does this ring a bell?

Perhaps you can better explain how the apostles were preaching something different than what the Lord commanded them,

No, they were not. Baptism is necessary in Salvation, so get it once for all.

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.

I did. Have you not read my reply?

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 ...

And repentant faith RECEIVES what Jesus has done. It doesn't ADD to what He has done.

Go study the doctrine of Justification, and come back to discuss these things. We are waiting...

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[Soul Searcher]

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

You'll have to excuse me for totally ignoring your opinion on the matter. You have shown one thing to us very clearly here and that is that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[YAQUBOS]

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.



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.

First of all, your erroneous mentioning of a Greek word doesn't impress me. You are turning and turning, and you are not explaining to me how this passage of Hebrews is about Salvation.

By the way, the word "diatheikei" which is used in that passage NEVER means "law". So get the things right.

Now, go ahead: Explain how that passage from Hebrews that you are parroting is about Salvation.

Therefore, the point is that Jesus’ will/testament/covenant/law went into effect AFTER His death, NOT BEFORE.

Great.

Now, back to our topic. We are talking about Salvation, and not about the New Covenant. Salvation didn't begin to go into effect after the death of Jesus, or else no one would be saved under the Old Covenant.

So stop wasting our time, and go to the point.

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.

I don't see any distinction concerning what ( or WHO ) saves us. I see a distinction in the Covenant, and not in the way of Salvation.

Let's quote the passage that you mentioned:

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." ( Hebrews 8:6-13 )

In the whole of this passage, the subject is about the COVENANT, and not about Salvation. Don't ever think this passage means that people in the Old Covenant were not saved. That's not what this passage is saying.

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.

Yes, very true. The Old Covenant could not do this, because it depended on what THEY DID. Did you notice, when I quoted the passage from Hebrews 8, I have put in a large size the parts that say how the Old Covenant was broken by the disobedience of the children of Israel. So no one in the Old Covenant was saved by keeping the Law. All were saved by the Gospel.

In other words, the Old Testament believers also had their sins forgiven. If you think otherwise, then please explain how their sins were forgiven.

So you are concentrating on the meaning of the Covenants, and you are forgetting that our topic is about SALVATION, not about the Covenants.

Please explain how the idea that God will remember sins no more under the new covenant is “not about Salvation.”

It IS about Salvation. But the context doesn't mean that sins are forgiven only under the New Covenant. If that's how you understand the context, then please explain to us what the following passage means:

"He touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven."" ( Isaiah 6:7 )

A reminder: Isaiah lived under the Old Covenant. As the Old Covenant does not take away our sins, then how was the sin of Isaiah forgiven??

Another one:

"I have wiped out your transgressions like a thick cloud And your sins like a heavy mist. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you." ( Isaiah 44:22 )

He HAS wiped out!! And yet, this is during the Old Covenant! Well, yes, during the Old Covenant also no one was saved by keeping the Law, but by GRACE ALONE.

Again:

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

OK. Now, go ahead: Explain to us how the "going into effect" of the New Covenant affects the forgiveness of sins.

The context continues through chapter 10. Note Hebrews 10:4. The blood of bulls and goats sacrificed under the law of Moses

No, under the Old Covenant.

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?

Excuse me? That Covenant is made between GOD and His people, and the Mediator is Jesus Christ.

And who said that this New Covenant doesn't involve the Salvation?? But Salvation is not only for the New Covenant people. This is what you are not getting. Salvation has always been by Grace alone, whether in the Old or in the New Covenant. Talking about the New Covenant to oppose this truth of Salvation by Grace alone is like talking about Christ to oppose the Old Testament God.

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

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

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.

Wwwwhat?? The point is that circumcision was incorporated into the law of Moses??

Well, dear friend, let me put you in the real context:

"How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them" ( Romans 4:10-11 )

So circumcision was the SIGN of the righteousness that he ALREADY had by faith alone.

Now, coming to baptism:

"and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." ( Colossians 2:11-12 )

Now, the circumcision of Christ is made without hands. And baptism that is made with a human's hand is the sign of that heart circumcision, just as the circumcision of the flesh was the sign of the heart circumcision in the Old Covenant and before that in the days of Abraham.

As Abraham received the SIGN of circumcision AFTER he became righteous by faith alone, then how do you imagine the sign of baptism to be the cause of the righteousness of those who will be justified by the SAME faith of Abraham???

"and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised." ( Romans 4:12 )

"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all" ( Romans 4:16 )

The faith that justified Abraham is the faith that he had while UNCIRCUMCISED. So how do you expect to be justified by another kind of faith? It is the same faith that we have while unbaptized.

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.

No, but more than that! Righteousness is not dependent from the SIGN of righteousness which itself predated the Law!! So independently from the Law, NO SIGN can bring righteousness to you without faith. That faith that Abraham had BEFORE receiving the sign ALREADY justified him before God.

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.

Show me anywhere in the Bible, previous to the New Covenant, where people were saved by something else than the 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?

What you are not being able to understand is that Abraham was NOT saved by 100% obeying God by the flesh. It was the obedient faith that justified Abraham before God. In the same way, under the Old Covenant, no one was justified by keeping the Law 100%. No one could. All those who were justified were justified by obedient faith alone. The same is for the New Covenant: No one is justified by doing all what Jesus commanded. I don't think you already became perfect just as the Father is perfect. And yet one of the commandments of Christ is to be perfect just as the Father is perfect.

The law of Christ is FAITH, and we have already seen this in details. You are confusing the law of Christ with the New Covenant. Abraham and all humans since the beginning were saved by this law of Christ which is faith. No one was ever saved by his works or merits.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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



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.

Yes, just as Abraham received the sign of circumcision AFTER he became righteous by faith, you also receive the sign of baptism after the righteousness of faith. Righteousness is not caused by the sign. The sign comes as the seal of that righteousness of faith.

So Abraham was not baptized ( was not circumcised ) and yet he was justified. So why do you relate baptism to the righteousness of faith in such a way that makes the sign the cause of the righteousness of which it is the sign??

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).

You can't obey God without His Grace. And this is true in all ages and under both Covenants.

The Bible is clear:

"and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." ( Romans 8:8 )

Go, dear friend, go study the doctrine of Justification.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[Evergreen48]

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.

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.

EVER! What is it about the word EVER that you do not understand? The blood of the animal sacrifices were temporary appeasements - a reminder, so to speak, to God, that there would be a time to come when THE ONE ultimate sacrifice would be made, whose blood would be indelibly imprinted upon the alter, which never could be removed from before His eyes. It is the blood of this ONE just man (Jesus), the PERFECTLY obedient Son in ALL ways, that He sees instead of our sins, and it is all that stands between us and DEATH forever, because He remains faithful and just to the Son and will not let His precious blood be shed in vain.

 

[YAQUBOS]

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.

I didn't aknowledge something new.

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

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

Now, perhaps you can help me understand why you think nothing changed after Jesus law went into effect as far as salvation is concerned.

Because Jesus' law was in effect since the beginning of humanity. All believers in all times were saved by the law of Christ, i.e. by faith.

I agree that God made provision for people to be saved prior to Jesus life, death, resurrection, and before His law went into effect.

And what is that provision? Is it something other than the Work of Christ on the cross?

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.

That is NOT a justification to disobey God. On the contrary, it makes you obey God's commandments. But that obeying will not make you deserve to be saved from sins. God never said that you can be saved from sins by obeying His commandments. On the contrary, He clearly says in the Bible that justification is by faith, and not by works.

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.

But would never be saved by obeying that Law:

"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." ( Romans 3:20 )

Through the Law comes the KNOWLEDGE of sin, and NOT the justification or the forgiveness of sins.

Well, that's why I told you to go study the doctrine of Justification.

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)?

Yes, look what that other Prophet brought:

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

Jesus didn't bring another Law like that of Moses. Through Him GRACE and TRUTH were realized. The law of Christ is FAITH, as we have already seen in detail in a previous reply of mine.

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?

Jesus DID speak about Salvation. But He never said that Salvation is only for those who are under the New Covenant.

Pardon me, but it seems a little focus is called for. Acts 2:38.

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?

Yes. That's what baptism of repentance means.

Second, is the baptism commanded in that verse the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, or the baptism of John?

The baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ, i.e. the baptism of repentance, and not a simple shower.

I remember that Abraham wasn’t baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

He was circumcised.

However, do you remember when Jesus’ testament/covenant went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17?

That's off topic. We are talking about Salvation.

It was AFTER His death, right? And, Acts 2 occurred after His death, right?

And the whole Old Testament occurred before His death, right? And all believers in the Old Testament were saved by faith in Christ, right?

According to Hebrews 5:9, whom does Jesus save?

According to Hebrews 5:9, only those who have obedient faith in Christ are saved.

I read your previous replies. Did you read Acts 18:24-26?

Yes.

Apollos preached the baptism of John and was taken aside and taught the word of God “more accurately.”

Yes. By the way, I don't see where he "preached" the baptism of John.

As for Acts 2:38,

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?

Yes, look what it says:

"Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." ( Acts 2:38 )

So Peter told them to be baptized with the baptism OF REPENTANCE, and not only to take a shower.

What? When did Jesus’ testament/covenant go into effect?

After His death.

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.

Yes, because the law of Jesus is not the New Covenant. The law of Jesus is FAITH, the law of faith.

You can’t have it both ways … so, was it BEFORE or AFTER?

The New Covenant came after. Faith was always. Abraham was justified by faith, remember??

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?

1. Abraham was also saved by the Gospel.
2. I never said that we should not obey. On the contrary, I said baptism is necessary in Salvation.
3. Our obedience doesn't make us be saved.
4. Salvation is by Grace ALONE.

So once again: Go study the doctrine of Justification.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

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.

Yes, only obedient faith justifies. You don't need to add your obedience to that faith in order to be justified.

Okay, let’s ensure we are on the same page. Acts 2:38

Yes, Acts 2:38

commanded repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, right?

Right: Baptism of repentance.

So, when did the 3,000 receive the blessings promised, BEFORE or AFTER they obeyed what was commanded?

All the time that they had an obedient faith. Obedient faith is not past tense, but present tense. You are talking about it as a past event, and you are talking about something before or after it. But that's not biblical. As long as you believe, you receive grace upon grace.

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

That's a long time, and you still learned nothing. Are you sure you are using the right source? I mean the Bible??

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.

And that means baptism of repentance. You need to repent and get baptized. You can't receive the forgiveness of your sins by just getting baptized. You need to repent and receive baptism, the sign of repentance ( as Romans 6 says. )

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.

Let's forget about your wrong interpretation of what that passage of Philippians means, and let's go to Matthew 28:19 that you mentioned:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" ( Matthew 28:19 )

You can't get baptized unless you are a disciple BY FAITH.

I never said that “baptism WITHOUT repentance” does anything.

Great. So Baptism OF REPENTANCE is needed. You finally agreed.

If so, please post the exact quote so we can discuss.

No need. It is enough for me that you admitted that baptism without repentance does not do anything. So it's a baptism of repentance.

As for the being saved under the new covenant (the gospel/law of Christ),

Wrong. "New Covenant" is not synonymous to "the Gospel/law of Christ". Abraham was saved by the law of faith, and yet he was not under the New Covenant.

how about Hebrews 5:9?

Already explained: You can't be saved without obedient faith.

Or, 2 Thessalonians 1:8? Or, Romans 1:16-17? Or, Galatians 5:1-4?

All these passages do not contradict the Bible.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†

 

[izarya]

Is baptism necessary to be saved? No! Jesus was baptised sure, he was also circumcised and celebrated the Passover. Is circumcision necessary to be saved?

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

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.

EVER! What is it about the word EVER that you do not understand? The blood of the animal sacrifices were temporary appeasements - a reminder, so to speak, to God, that there would be a time to come when THE ONE ultimate sacrifice would be made, whose blood would be indelibly imprinted upon the alter, which never could be removed from before His eyes. It is the blood of this ONE just man (Jesus), the PERFECTLY obedient Son in ALL ways, that He sees instead of our sins, and it is all that stands between us and DEATH forever, because He remains faithful and just to the Son and will not let His precious blood be shed in vain.

What I don’t understand is the scriptural basis for your statement: “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.” Also, the basis for: “Whose blood would be indelibly imprinted upon the alter [sic].”

Let’s note Hebrews 10:11-12 in the NKJV - 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.” There’s absolutely no mention of Jesus blood “EVER remaining” or being “indelibly imprinted upon the altar,” nor is there an implication or inference such is the case. The inference is that Jesus’ one sacrifice did what the repeated animal sacrifices could not do – TAKE AWAY SINS. Rather than read something into the passage that simply isn’t there, why not just accept what the passage says in its context?

 

[- DRA -]

Is baptism necessary to be saved? No! Jesus was baptised sure, he was also circumcised and celebrated the Passover. Is circumcision necessary to be saved?

Is baptism necessary to be saved? Yes, if the remission of sins is necessary to be saved (see Acts 2:38). Yes, if being freed from sin is necessary to be saved (see Romans 6:7). Yes, if having one's sins washed away is necessary to be saved (see Acts 22:16). Yes, if being saved is necessary to be saved (see 1 Peter 3:21).

Jesus was baptized with the baptism of John - the baptism unto repentance, which prepared the Jews to receive the Messiah (note Matthew 3:2,11,13-17). Jesus did it to "fulfill all righteousness" - not to repent of sins (1 Peter 3:22).

Jesus was circumcised as required under the old law, and also kept the Passover as required under the old law. However, after His death, His will went into effect and a new covenant based upon His law went into effect (Hebrews 9:16-17).

Physical circumcision is addressed in Galatians 5:1-6 (note also Acts 15). It foreshadowed the spiritual circumcision discussed in Colossians 2:11-13.

 

[- 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?" I affirm it is under the new covenant made between sinners and God to accept Jesus as Lord and obey His will. My evidence begins with the instruction Jesus gave to the apostles (e.g., Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16), 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); 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.

_________________________________________________________________


Originally Posted by - DRA -

It was Jesus' commission 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 occurrence 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.

Yes. So how does that give you the right to add your interpretation between the lines of the Bible??

Paul clearly said that he was sent to preach the Gospel and NOT to baptize. Does this ring a bell?

Sorry, but “will be saved” in Mark 16:16 and “for the remission of sins” are synonymous thoughts. In Mark 16, as Jesus commanded the apostles, the terms expressed are: belief + baptism = salvation. 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.

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. 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?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Perhaps you can better explain how the apostles were preaching something different than what the Lord commanded them,

No, they were not. Baptism is necessary in Salvation, so get it once for all.

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

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.”

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

I did. Have you not read my reply?

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 …

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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 ...

And repentant faith RECEIVES what Jesus has done. It doesn't ADD to what He has done.

Go study the doctrine of Justification, and come back to discuss these things. We are waiting...

Be in Peace!

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

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

 

[- 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.

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.

First of all, your erroneous mentioning of a Greek word doesn't impress me. You are turning and turning, and you are not explaining to me how this passage of Hebrews is about Salvation.

By the way, the word "diatheikei" which is used in that passage NEVER means "law". So get the things right.

Now, go ahead: Explain how that passage from Hebrews that you are parroting is about Salvation.

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. 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. However, the law of Moses ended when Jesus nailed it to His cross (Colossians 2:14). It was replaced by the testament of Christ (i.e., His will per the imagery in Hebrews 9:16-17). Other N.T. references to this testament refer to it as “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), and “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). 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.

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.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

I don't see any distinction concerning what ( or WHO ) saves us. I see a distinction in the Covenant, and not in the way of Salvation.

Let's quote the passage that you mentioned:

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." ( Hebrews 8:6-13 )

In the whole of this passage, the subject is about the COVENANT, and not about Salvation. Don't ever think this passage means that people in the Old Covenant were not saved. That's not what this passage is saying.

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. 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. 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?

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

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

Yes, very true. The Old Covenant could not do this, because it depended on what THEY DID. Did you notice, when I quoted the passage from Hebrews 8, I have put in a large size the parts that say how the Old Covenant was broken by the disobedience of the children of Israel. So no one in the Old Covenant was saved by keeping the Law. All were saved by the Gospel.

In other words, the Old Testament believers also had their sins forgiven. If you think otherwise, then please explain how their sins were forgiven.

So you are concentrating on the meaning of the Covenants, and you are forgetting that our topic is about SALVATION, not about the Covenants.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Please explain how the idea that God will remember sins no more under the new covenant is “not about Salvation.”

It IS about Salvation. But the context doesn't mean that sins are forgiven only under the New Covenant. If that's how you understand the context, then please explain to us what the following passage means:

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

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

"He touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven."" ( Isaiah 6:7 )

A reminder: Isaiah lived under the Old Covenant. As the Old Covenant does not take away our sins, then how was the sin of Isaiah forgiven??

Another one:

"I have wiped out your transgressions like a thick cloud And your sins like a heavy mist. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you." ( Isaiah 44:22 )

He HAS wiped out!! And yet, this is during the Old Covenant! Well, yes, during the Old Covenant also no one was saved by keeping the Law, but by GRACE ALONE.

Again:

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

OK. Now, go ahead: Explain to us how the "going into effect" of the New Covenant affects the forgiveness of sins.

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.”

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.

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,”

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?”

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

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?”

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

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,”

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.”

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,”

Originally Posted by - DRA -

The context continues through chapter 10. Note Hebrews 10:4. The blood of bulls and goats sacrificed under the law of Moses ...

No, under the Old Covenant.

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

Originally Posted by – DRA –

... 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?

Excuse me? That Covenant is made between GOD and His people, and the Mediator is Jesus Christ.

And who said that this New Covenant doesn't involve the Salvation?? But Salvation is not only for the New Covenant people. This is what you are not getting. Salvation has always been by Grace alone, whether in the Old or in the New Covenant. Talking about the New Covenant to oppose this truth of Salvation by Grace alone is like talking about Christ to oppose the Old Testament God.

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

Be in Peace!

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).

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

Wwwwhat?? The point is that circumcision was incorporated into the law of Moses??

Well, dear friend, let me put you in the real context:

"How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them" ( Romans 4:10-11 )

So circumcision was the SIGN of the righteousness that he ALREADY had by faith alone.

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.”

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.

Now, coming to baptism:

"and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." ( Colossians 2:11-12 )

Now, the circumcision of Christ is made without hands. And baptism that is made with a human's hand is the sign of that heart circumcision, just as the circumcision of the flesh was the sign of the heart circumcision in the Old Covenant and before that in the days of Abraham.

As Abraham received the SIGN of circumcision AFTER he became righteous by faith alone, then how do you imagine the sign of baptism to be the cause of the righteousness of those who will be justified by the SAME faith of Abraham???

"and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised." ( Romans 4:12 )

"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all" ( Romans 4:16 )

The faith that justified Abraham is the faith that he had while UNCIRCUMCISED. So how do you expect to be justified by another kind of faith? It is the same faith that we have while unbaptized.

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.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

No, but more than that! Righteousness is not dependent from the SIGN of righteousness which itself predated the Law!! So independently from the Law, NO SIGN can bring righteousness to you without faith. That faith that Abraham had BEFORE receiving the sign ALREADY justified him before God.

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. 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?

Originally Posted by – DRA –

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.

Show me anywhere in the Bible, previous to the New Covenant, where people were saved by something else than the Gospel.

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."

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. 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.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by – DRA –

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?

What you are not being able to understand is that Abraham was NOT saved by 100% obeying God by the flesh. It was the obedient faith that justified Abraham before God. In the same way, under the Old Covenant, no one was justified by keeping the Law 100%. No one could. All those who were justified were justified by obedient faith alone. The same is for the New Covenant: No one is justified by doing all what Jesus commanded. I don't think you already became perfect just as the Father is perfect. And yet one of the commandments of Christ is to be perfect just as the Father is perfect.

The law of Christ is FAITH, and we have already seen this in details. You are confusing the law of Christ with the New Covenant. Abraham and all humans since the beginning were saved by this law of Christ which is faith. No one was ever saved by his works or merits.

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?

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?

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?

Originally Posted by – DRA –

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

Yes, just as Abraham received the sign of circumcision AFTER he became righteous by faith, you also receive the sign of baptism after the righteousness of faith. Righteousness is not caused by the sign. The sign comes as the seal of that righteousness of faith.

So Abraham was not baptized ( was not circumcised ) and yet he was justified. So why do you relate baptism to the righteousness of faith in such a way that makes the sign the cause of the righteousness of which it is the sign??

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.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

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).

You can't obey God without His Grace. And this is true in all ages and under both Covenants.

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.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

I didn't aknowledge something new.

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

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

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). 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.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Now, perhaps you can help me understand why you think nothing changed after Jesus law went into effect as far as salvation is concerned.

Because Jesus' law was in effect since the beginning of humanity. All believers in all times were saved by the law of Christ, i.e. by faith.

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? 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? Granted, they were supposed to have faith in God and obey the commands He gave them. However, those commands had nothing to do with accepting Jesus as God’s Son and obeying His teachings. 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).

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA –

I agree that God made provision for people to be saved prior to Jesus life, death, resurrection, and before His law went into effect.

And what is that provision? Is it something other than the Work of Christ on the cross?

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?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

That is NOT a justification to disobey God. On the contrary, it makes you obey God's commandments. But that obeying will not make you deserve to be saved from sins. God never said that you can be saved from sins by obeying His commandments. On the contrary, He clearly says in the Bible that justification is by faith, and not by works.

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.

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.”

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

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

But would never be saved by obeying that Law:

"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." ( Romans 3:20 )

Through the Law comes the KNOWLEDGE of sin, and NOT the justification or the forgiveness of sins.

Well, that's why I told you to go study the doctrine of Justification.

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).

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?

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

Originally Posted by – DRA –

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)?

Yes, look what that other Prophet brought:

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

Jesus didn't bring another Law like that of Moses. Through Him GRACE and TRUTH were realized. The law of Christ is FAITH, as we have already seen in detail in a previous reply of mine.

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)? 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?

Originally Posted by - DRA –

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?

Jesus DID speak about Salvation. But He never said that Salvation is only for those who are under the New Covenant.

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? 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).

Originally Posted by – DRA –

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?

Yes. That's what baptism of repentance means.

Sorry, but you are taking the liberty of allowing your “interpretation” of the passage to obscure what the passage really says. Obviously, the passage doesn’t say what you would like for it to say. Also, the passage doesn’t say, “baptism of repentance.” 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.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Second, is the baptism commanded in that verse the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, or the baptism of John?

The baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ, i.e. the baptism of repentance, and not a simple shower.

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 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.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I remember that Abraham wasn’t baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

He was circumcised.

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

Originally Posted by - DRA -

However, do you remember when Jesus’ testament/covenant went into effect per Hebrews 9:16-17?

That's off topic. We are talking about Salvation.

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.

Originally Posted by – DRA –

It was AFTER His death, right? And, Acts 2 occurred after His death, right?

And the whole Old Testament occurred before His death, right? And all believers in the Old Testament were saved by faith in Christ, right?

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.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

According to Hebrews 5:9, whom does Jesus save?

According to Hebrews 5:9, only those who have obedient faith in Christ are saved.

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

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I read your previous replies. Did you read Acts 18:24-26?

Yes.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Apollos preached the baptism of John and was taken aside and taught the word of God “more accurately.”

Yes. By the way, I don't see where he "preached" the baptism of John.

(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.”

Originally Posted by – DRA –

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?

Yes, look what it says:

"Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." ( Acts 2:38 )

So Peter told them to be baptized with the baptism OF REPENTANCE, and not only to take a shower.

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?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

What? When did Jesus’ testament/covenant go into effect?

After His death.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.

Yes, because the law of Jesus is not the New Covenant. The law of Jesus is FAITH, the law of faith.

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.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

You can’t have it both ways … so, was it BEFORE or AFTER?

The New Covenant came after. Faith was always. Abraham was justified by faith, remember??

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).

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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?

1. Abraham was also saved by the Gospel.
2. I never said that we should not obey. On the contrary, I said baptism is necessary in Salvation.
3. Our obedience doesn't make us be saved.
4. Salvation is by Grace ALONE.

So once again: Go study the doctrine of Justification.

Be in Peace!

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?

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

According to 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?”

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

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

“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?

 

[Evergreen48]

What I don’t understand is the scriptural basis for your statement: “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.” Also, the basis for: “Whose blood would be indelibly imprinted upon the alter [sic].”

That the 'blood ever remains on the altar before God's eyes' And 'whose blood would be indelibly imprinted on the altar' was my conclusion, and was figurative speech to describe something which is not literal but is something which is housed in the spiritual realm.

"The blood of the animal sacrifices were temporary appeasements - a reminder, so to speak, to God, that there would be a time to come when THE ONE ultimate sacrifice would be made, whose blood would be indelibly imprinted upon the alter, which never could be removed from before His eyes. It is the blood of this ONE just man (Jesus), the PERFECTLY obedient Son in ALL ways, that He sees instead of our sins, and it is all that stands between us and DEATH forever, because He remains faithful and just to the Son and will not let His precious blood be shed in vain."

And too, I don't understand the scriptural basis for your statement of:

"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 [sic]"

 

[YAQUBOS]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

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.



What I don’t understand is the scriptural basis for your statement: “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.” Also, the basis for: “Whose blood would be indelibly imprinted upon the alter [sic].”

Let’s note Hebrews 10:11-12 in the NKJV - 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.” There’s absolutely no mention of Jesus blood “EVER remaining” or being “indelibly imprinted upon the altar,” nor is there an implication or inference such is the case. The inference is that Jesus’ one sacrifice did what the repeated animal sacrifices could not do – TAKE AWAY SINS. Rather than read something into the passage that simply isn’t there, why not just accept what the passage says in its context?

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†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Is baptism necessary to be saved? Yes, if the remission of sins is necessary to be saved (see Acts 2:38).

No, as the remission of sins is ITSELF the Salvation. See Acts 2:38 and the whole Bible.

Yes, if being freed from sin is necessary to be saved (see Romans 6:7).

No, as being freed from sin is itself Salvation. See Romans 6:7 and the whole Bible.

Yes, if having one's sins washed away is necessary to be saved (see Acts 22:16).

No, as having one's sins washed away is ITSELF Salvation. See Acts 22:16 and the whole Bible.

Yes, if being saved is necessary to be saved (see 1 Peter 3:21).

No, being saved is not necessary FOR Salvation, because when you are saved then you are simply saved! You can't save yourself MORE. So being saved is necessary IN Salvation, not FOR Salvation. See 1 Peter 3:21 and the whole Bible.

Jesus was baptized with the baptism of John - the baptism unto repentance, which prepared the Jews to receive the Messiah (note Matthew 3:2,11,13-17).

Please, quote any passage that says that Jesus needed that baptism.

Jesus did it to "fulfill all righteousness" - not to repent of sins (1 Peter 3:22).

Using your logic, I will ask you: Do you mean that the righteousness of Jesus was not complete before He was baptized?? When did Jesus become righteous: Before or after baptism??

Jesus was circumcised as required under the old law, and also kept the Passover as required under the old law. However, after His death, His will went into effect and a new covenant based upon His law went into effect (Hebrews 9:16-17).

Jesus didn't come to bring another Law like that of Moses. We have seen that:

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

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...

Physical circumcision is addressed in Galatians 5:1-6 (note also Acts 15). It foreshadowed the spiritual circumcision discussed in Colossians 2:11-13.

And that "spiritual" circumcision of the heart is not baptism, because ALL humans without exception ( the Old Testament unbaptized believers INCLUDED ) cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless they have their hearts circumcised, i.e. unless they are born of God.

Be in Peace!

YAQUBOS†