On Salvation

[FreeinChrist]

John said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto (Greek preposition eis) repentance" (Matthew 3:11). This is the same Greek word that is used in Acts 2:38 - - repentance and baptism for (eis) the remission of sins, the same word used in Matthew 26:28 - - "My blood . . . which is shed . . . for (eis) the remission of sins," and the same word that appears in Romans 4:5 - - "Faith is accounted for (eis) righteousness." Therefore, if repentance preceded John’s baptism, the remission of sins preceded repentance and baptism, the remission of sins precedes the shedding of Jesus’ blood, and righteousness preceded faith.

Significant problem I see here, which has to do with Greek. Certain words before or just after 'eis' have an effect on what 'eis' means. In Matthew 3:11, 'eis' refers to an intention, aim, or purpose - 'on account of'. It could very well be translated "I baptize you on account of your repentence" as in no one has the right to be baptized unless they repent first. 'Eis' is also used in this sense in Matthew 18:20, where some were "gathered together in (eis) my name" - as on His account, because of Him, identifying with Him. Thus the baptism is the outward sign of an inward change. This also fits Acts 2:38.

Romans 4:3 is "was counted unto him for righteousness." – in this sentence, the Greek word ‘logizomai’ which means to ‘reckon someone unto’. In other words, when used with ‘eis’ , it means to be considered as righteous, in the case of Romans 4:3. And no one disputes that we are saved by grace through faith.

Matthew 26: 28 has one of the simpler uses of ‘eis’ – the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sin – making the remission of sin possible. Doesn’t mean that all are saved whether they believe or not. But looking at al of scripture, with the OT sacrifices as a pictures of what was to come, it is the blood of Christ that saves – not water.

So your quote: "Therefore, if repentance preceded John’s baptism, the remission of sins preceded repentance and baptism, the remission of sins precedes the shedding of Jesus’ blood, and righteousness preceded faith" is remiss in it’s logic, and is wrongly applied to what I have written. Repentance had to precede baptism by John , seen by understanding the Greek, and because the unrepentent would have regarded him as a nutcase, and been doubtful, like the Pharisees. Faith in Jesus Christ did preceed His birth – Christ said Abraham rejoiced to see his day! Way back then, Abraham had faith in the Seed, and Jacob and David, and Isaiah, etc . But his sins and those of all the OT saints were not remitted until the death and resurrection of Christ, for that is what made forgiveness (remmittence) possible. ( Hebrews 11) . The remission of sins has been available since His ressurection to all who believe. And nothing that I have written has contraindicated all of this.

The phrase "baptized into (Greek preposition eis) Moses is found in 1 Corinthians 10:2. Moses was Israel’s "ruler and deliverer" (Acts 7:35). In a sense, the Israelites were baptized into (eis) Moses.

And that ‘sense’ is that they were identified with Moses.

Nevertheless, as the events progressed they did not end up pleasing God (1 Cor. 10:5-12).

So did Moses at one point, in that he listened to the wrong spies and not to Joshua, and did not proceed into the land of Canaan. Doesn’t change the use of the term ‘baptized unto Moses"? – I don’t believe so

Does the Greek word dikaioo (justify) appear in James 2:21, 24, & 25? Does the same word dikaioo (justify) also appear in Titus 3:7 and Romans 5:9?

What do you think ‘justify’ means? Dikaioo means to bring out the fact that a person is righteous, or to make him just. To justify a person is to declare them righteous as in a court of law. James 2:21-22, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; " with Romans 4:2-3 : For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." To harmonize these 2 passages – Abraham was credited as righteous due to his faith in God – made righteous and declared just by faith (Romans). Abraham’s works showed (reflected) his faith, showing him to be righteous (justified as in James 2). In doing those works, his faith was furthur perfected (growth - an ongoing process for a Christian).
Titus 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} through Him.

Both refers to the fact that we are declared just by His grace – His grace which sent the Son into the world to save the world from sin, and who now sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high as our High Priest and Intercessor. These verses match up perfect with being saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and also with :

Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose.
Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Romans 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I just found out why some people believe why baptism is un-necessary! They belong to the "Covenent Theology" which I studied last night for almost two hours only to find out ot the end of it, that there is a "New Covenant Theology" which disagrees with the old. I started to wonder, could they boyt be right or wrong?
The old one apperently incorporates dispensationalism which I can easily refute. The new seems a little confused or at least confusing to me.

Well, I beleive that baptism is an outward act of an inward change, done because Christ wants to publicly declare our belief in Him this way.

But I am not a Covenant theologist new or old. I AM, however, a classic dispensationist.

 

[Florida College]

and I already addressed this with you at least three times - look again at what I wrote above and in posts before that it is to publicly identify oneself with Jesus Christ - which makes the most sense as the Jews of that day would have understood it. Again - it was not the water that John baptized with that made folks repentant!

You are reallys struggling with Acts 2:38. I have yet to find a translation of Acts 2:38 yet that says that baptism “is to publicly identify oneself with Christ.” The scripture plainly says that repentance and baptism were for (eis) the remission of sins. How did the Jews of that day understand it? Just like they understood Matthew 26:28 where it states that Jesus’ blood was shed for (eis) the remission of sins.

uh???contact with His blood? hmmmm.. let's look at the verses:

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

In the context of these passages, that one is baptized into Christ means that we are identified with Christ (clothed) - as one is identified with the baptism of John, or 'baptized unto Moses', and not that in water baptism, we come into contact with Christ's blood. I'm sorry, FC, but it looks as though you are pulling out scriptures and not applying them in context.

Look again at Galatians 3:27, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” The word “into” is the Greek word “eis” once again. Consider how the word is used in Matt. 26:28. Just as the shedding of Jesus blood was “eis” the remission of sins, we must be baptized “eis” Christ. All blessings are in Christ, including redemption through his blood (Ephesians 1:3, 7). If baptism puts us into a relationship with Christ where we have access to his cleansing blood, this concept will harmonize with scripture. Let’s see if it does:
Acts 22:16, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
1 Peter 3:20-21, “Eight souls were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism”. . .
Acts 2:38, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” . . .
Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” . . .

Additional Food for Thought:
- Only the LORD could forgive sin (Isaiah 43:25). When Jesus forgave sins in Matthew 9:2, what was the necessary inference? Jesus is God!
- Jesus’ blood washes us from sin (Revelation 1:5). Baptism washes away sin (Acts 22:16). What is the necessary inference? Baptism puts us into contact with the blood of Christ, where we are cleansed from sin!
- The LORD is the redeemer (Isaiah 43:1). Jesus is our redeemer (Galatians 3:13). The necessary inference? Jesus is God!
- The shedding of Jesus blood was for (eis) the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). Repentance and baptism are for (eis) the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). The necessary inference? Repentance and baptism plays a part in putting us into contact with the blood of Jesus, where our sins are taken away!
- God is I Am Who I Am (Exodus 3:14)! Jesus is I Am (John 8:58)! Necessary inference? Jesus is God!
- The blood of Jesus purges the conscience (Hebrews 9:14). Baptism is the answer of a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21). Necessary inference? Baptism plays a part in putting us into contact with the blood of Jesus so our conscience can be cleansed!

Again, it means we are identified with Jesus Christ - His death, burial and resurrection. Not that the water saved us. And we are born again when we are born of the Spirit - renewed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit:

Tts 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
Tts 3:6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Tts 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.

And this does not happen unless God looks into our hearts and minds and sees that we are truly believeing and repentent – then He grants it to us to come to Christ and gives us to Christ, and seals us with the Holy Spirit!

1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, (HINT – water baptism!) but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.


No – it is a command for believers to show in an outward way that an inward change occurred. A public profession of faith. It is an ordinance like communion.

Who are we to give mere water equal importance to the blood of Christ?!? Rather, I expect God wants us to search the scriptures and understand why the act of baptism is commanded – and to recognize that we are saved by His grace through faith!

I don't know about you, but an apostle of the Lord writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit carries some significance with me. Peter wrote that baptism . saves us (1 Peter 3:21). That baptism was in water (Acts 8:35-39 ; Acts 10:47-48). Peter also gave the command in Acts 2:38. The Lord commissioned the apostles in Mark 16:16. Since all scripture is given by the inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16), your complaint needs to be registered in heaven.

And in the context of this passage, it - ‘baptizo’ - means to baptize or immerse in or wash with water in token of purification from sin and from spiritual pollution. Now read Acts 9: 17-18. Paul regained his sight and received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (the outward sign of an inward change that already occurred)
Right! So then you must harmonize this passage with what ever else he said or wrote. I don’t see that you have done this. Paul also wrote:

Okay, I read Acts 9:17-18. Now, you read Acts 22:16. Did Paul say that he was baptized as an outward sign of an inward change? What is the reason Paul was baptized? Now, go back and read Acts 9:17-18. Exactly when does Paul receive the Holy Spirit?

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:


correct – and I do not see that your teachings harmonize with the Word of God. Abraham had faith – Paul says he was credited as righteousness by faith – apart from works. James does not write as if ‘faith’ is a work – but that 'faith without works' is dead. Paul wrote we are saved by grace through faith – not of ourselves. But you are contradicting all of this and ignoring the context of baptism as an outward identification with Jesus Christ. THAT is why I believe you have gone off on a tangent – making Ephesians 2:8-9 say something different than it is.

Free,

You are content with describing baptism as solely that which identifies us with Christ. While I don’t deny that it does identify the believer with the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:13), I deny that this concept explains every aspect of baptism. It doesn’t. It doesn’t address the aspect that John 3:3-5 & Romans 6:3-11 ; Mark 16:16 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 22:16 ; and 1 Peter 3:20-21 gives us - - that baptism saves us, or is necessary for our salvation.

You seem perfectly content to conclude that Abraham was not justified by works (Romans 4:2, but not willing at all to concede that Abraham was justified by works (James 2:21). The only was that you are ever going to harmonize these passages is to realize that some works do not result in our justification, but some do. I have suggested that you should have the faith that prompted Abraham to obey God (James 2:21), but you will not acknowledge his commands in the way that he gave them i.e. Mark 16:16 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 22:16 ; 1 Peter 3:20-21.

One more question. In Jesus answer to the question that he is asked in John 6:28, do you really think that Jesus’ answer is, “Nothing . . . you don’t have to do a thing . . . your faith is the work of God . . . God does that for you”? This sounds like Calvinism i.e. predestination - - as opposed to choice and free-will.

FC

 

[Florida College]

Well, I beleive that baptism is an outward act of an inward change, done because Christ wants to publicly declare our belief in Him this way.

But I am not a Covenant theologist new or old. I AM, however, a classic dispensationist.

You say, "Baptism is an outward act of an inward change, done because Christ wants us to publicly declare our belief in Him this way." Funny, I don't see that description of baptism given in Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, or 1 Peter 3:20-21.

Romans 3:4, "Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar." Amen

 

[Florida College]

Significant problem I see here, which has to do with Greek. Certain words before or just after 'eis' have an effect on what 'eis' means. In Matthew 3:11, 'eis' refers to an intention, aim, or purpose - 'on account of'. It could very well be translated "I baptize you on account of your repentence" as in no one has the right to be baptized unless they repent first. 'Eis' is also used in this sense in Matthew 18:20, where some were "gathered together in (eis) my name" - as on His account, because of Him, identifying with Him. Thus the baptism is the outward sign of an inward change. This also fits Acts 2:38.

So, who translates Matthew 3:11 like you suggest. Which reliable translation renders this verse in the way that you would like for it to read?

Did you forget about the coordinating conjunction connecting repentance AND baptism in Acts 2:38? If the remission of sins precedes baptism, it also precedes repentance.

 

[Lotar]

Who died first is irrelevant. Jesus granted pardon to the thief before either of them died (Luke 23:43). You and FreeinChrist concluded that the thief was pardoned under the new covenant. This this not true according to Hebrews 9:15-17. Have you considered Matthew 9:6, “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins?” Consider the context of Matthew chapter 9: Jesus forgave the paralytic’s sins in verse 1. What covenant was in effect then? Did the Lord have the authority to do this? Did he have the authority to do the same for the thief on the cross? Both were under the O.T. What terms does the Lord give for salvation under the gospel of Christ? This is the real question.

They were saved under NT law, because under OT law they would have been condemned. There is nothing that they did that was in accordance with OT law.

If the thief on the cross was saved under the new covenant, then the other N.T. scriptures would harmonize with the doctrine of salvation by “faith only.” Do they? Is repentance not also required (Luke 13:3,5 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 17:30)? Is confession not also required (Matthew 10:32-33 ; Romans 10:9-10 ; Acts 8:35-39)? Is baptism not also required (Mark 16:16 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 22:16)? I don’t see any agreement with the doctrine of salvation by “faith alone” and these teachings of the Lord and his apostles.

Repentance and confession are the same, and are an intigral part of faith.

Good. You are thinking. So, how do you harmonize these passages so that they agree? You can’t just accept some, and disregard others - - “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Consider Acts 2:38: Peter gives the command to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Why doesn’t he tell them they need to have faith? Is faith required or not? Yes (Hebrews 11:6), it is. Those Jews that were convicted of crucifying Jesus, asked a question in Acts 2:37. This question showed their belief in the teaching - - they asked what they needed to do. Because they believed, Peter tells them what to do next in verse 38.

Repent is from the Greek word “metanoeo.” It is defined as “to change one’s mind for the better” (Strong’s). When Jesus sent out the twelve in Mark 6:7, “They went out and preached that people should repent” (vs. 12). While it is true that baptism is not mentioned in verse 12, it is also true that faith is not mentioned in the verse. What would you conclude from that? The preaching of the apostles was to provoke people to change their minds for the better - - or, in other words, to accept Jesus. Likewise, Jesus urged the people to repent in Luke 13:3,5 - - he even said it twice to emphasize the importance of it. 2 Corinthians 7:10 offers comments on how godly repentance works. Acts 11:18 is a statement made by Jewish Christians after hearing Peter’s account of the events of Acts 10. It should be noted that Acts 11:18 sums up the conversion of Cornelius and his household as “repentance.” We should also note that their repentance included baptism in water (Acts 10:47-48).
Lotar,

Were is the command to be baptized after you are saved? In Acts 2:38? No, not there. It says to repent and be baptized or the remission of sins. In Acts 22:16? No, not there. It says to be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. How, about Mark 16:16? Surely it is a part of the great commission that Jesus sent his apostles to teach everywhere. No, it’s not there either. It says he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Where is the passage that commands us to be baptized after we are saved?

FC

[size=-1]Mark 16:16
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
[/size]
Here is a perfect example of what we are talking about. If baptism is required, wouldn't this passage state that he who has not be baptized shall not be saved? Nowhere does the bible state that someone is condemmed for not being baptized. When it talks about salvation, it speaks of faith always, and baptism sometimes. It is not because baptism is required, but because when you believe you are to be baptized.




True, not after, but when. Repent and be baptized.


[size=-1]Acts 10:47-48
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
[size=-1]
And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
[/size][/size]
[size=-1][size=-1]Here we see people who had already recieved the Holy Spirit, yet they had not been baptized yet. Do you believe that one can recieve the Holy Spirit before you recieve salvation? It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that is for the remission of sins.[/size][/size]

Good. You are thinking.

What, I wasn't thinking during the other 2 1/2 pages I wrote? I have a feeling you think very highly of yourself.


BTW, what denomination are you, Church of Christ?

 

[FreeinChrist]

You are reallys struggling with Acts 2:38. I have yet to find a translation of Acts 2:38 yet that says that baptism “is to publicly identify oneself with Christ.” The scripture plainly says that repentance and baptism were for (eis) the remission of sins. How did the Jews of that day understand it? Just like they understood Matthew 26:28 where it states that Jesus’ blood was shed for (eis) the remission of sins.

I have already discussed this in depth. I am not the one who is struggling at all with Acts 2. It harmonizes well with what else I have written.
The public identification - in is from reading scripture and looking at everything scripture has to say about salvation.

Look again at Galatians 3:27, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” The word “into” is the Greek word “eis” once again. Consider how the word is used in Matt. 26:28. Just as the shedding of Jesus blood was “eis” the remission of sins, we must be baptized “eis” Christ. All blessings are in Christ, including redemption through his blood (Ephesians 1:3, 7). If baptism puts us into a relationship with Christ where we have access to his cleansing blood, this concept will harmonize with scripture.

I have already addressed this, too. You failed to show that baptism gives us access to the blood of Christ. The access is through grace by faith, not water. "Eis" can mean unto, into, in, toward, for....as I already tried to explain - depends on it's use in the sentence.

Additional Food for Thought:
- Only the LORD could forgive sin (Isaiah 43:25). When Jesus forgave sins in Matthew 9:2, what was the necessary inference? Jesus is God!

agreed - but that is not what is being debated.

- Jesus’ blood washes us from sin (Revelation 1:5). Baptism washes away sin (Acts 22:16). What is the necessary inference? Baptism puts us into contact with the blood of Christ, where we are cleansed from sin!

The sacrifice fo Christ provided the once for all sarifice making the forgivenss of sin possible for those who believe.. You have not supported your contention that water baptism puts us into contact with the blood of Christ.
That is actually an unorthodox position, and don't see it as scriptural at all.

- The blood of Jesus purges the conscience (Hebrews 9:14). Baptism is the answer of a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21). Necessary inference? Baptism plays a part in putting us into contact with the blood of Jesus so our conscience can be cleansed!

wow - talk about taking things out of context. Purging the conscience has do with the remission of sin, and giving us the Holy Spirit, made poosible by the shedding of the blood of Christ. And I Peter 3:21 makes it clear that it is not water baptism that does this - but the Holy Spirit. I have showed you repeatedly. It is silly for you to continue to push I Peter 3:21 in this way, when the text of the verse contradicts your claims.

I don't know about you, but an apostle of the Lord writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit carries some significance with me.

Absolutely does with me - but why don't you actually look at the text of the verse, starting studying the Greek in more depth that Strong's.

Peter wrote that baptism . saves us (1 Peter 3:21).

This is getting comical - so what part of "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--" don't you understand?
This is not referring to water baptism

You seem perfectly content to conclude that Abraham was not justified by works (Romans 4:2, but not willing at all to concede that Abraham was justified by works (James 2:21). The only was that you are ever going to harmonize these passages is to realize that some works do not result in our justification, but some do.

Sorry, but that is just not true - and a true misunderstanding of scripture.
All of which I have already explained several times.

I have a suggestion for you, FC. Get some good references on Greek. Get to know about verb tenses, moods, voices, and how words like 'eis' and 'ek' are used in context depending on other words in the sentence.
I suggest you learn the Inductive Bible study method, where you let the text speak for itself, and scripture interpret scripture, ignoring commentaries and those who would give you theology over scripture - cause, wow - I sure see some big problems in your theology!

I am going out of town, and am done with this circular conversation. I will pray for your enlightenment.

 

[danceforjoy]

FC,
Why are you so up in arms about salvation? You know the three stages, Justificatin, Sanctification and the final Glorification!

We all have been Justified by the blood of the Son of God 2 000 years ago and therefore declared righteous, not made r.! Jesus having 'secured' our salvation, all we do, is to accept!!!

Once we have accepted salvation, we start on the road to Sanctification and the Holy Spirit works into us what Christ already worked out for us. Because Jesus does not save us in our sins, but from sin, we are being turned around and started to walk in the opposite direction. doing with love whatsoever He has commanded us.

Once saved always saved, is not in harmony with the following scriptures 1.Sam.10:6,9; 28:6,15 Eze.18:24; 28:14,15 Matth.24:13 1.Cor.9:27 Gal.5:4 Hebr.3:12-14 2.Pet.2:4,20,21. Jesus says in several places:'He that endures to the end (probation), the same shall be saved'.

The phrase "You are saved" in 1.Cor.15:2 should read: "you are being saved", like the traveller on the road to pilgrims progress. Jesus says, narrow is the gate and narrow is the way, and few be there that walk therein.
If the O.T. people were saved by the works of the Law, then the Publican was not justified by his prayer of repentance. But the Good News is, he was saved by the bleeding Lamb of God alone and did not save himself.

Lotar quoted to us Gal.2:16 in post number one: "No 'flesh' will be justified by the works of the Law". It really means what it says, not one, not even one of the old testament people.

 

[Florida College]

Significant problem I see here, which has to do with Greek. Certain words before or just after 'eis' have an effect on what 'eis' means. In Matthew 3:11, 'eis' refers to an intention, aim, or purpose - 'on account of'. It could very well be translated "I baptize you on account of your repentence" as in no one has the right to be baptized unless they repent first. 'Eis' is also used in this sense in Matthew 18:20, where some were "gathered together in (eis) my name" - as on His account, because of Him, identifying with Him. Thus the baptism is the outward sign of an inward change. This also fits Acts 2:38.

Who said eis could be translated "on account of" in Matthew 3:11? Which reliable translation gives that reading? NONE! Does Acts 2:38 say that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change? NO, IT DOESN'T. What is says is that repentance and baptism are for (eis) the remission of sins. Jesus blood was shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins - - to bring many unto, into, or to the state where their sins are remitted, or taken away(Matthew 26:28). Likewise, repentance and baptism are for the remission of sins - - to bring the sinners unto, into, or to the state where their sins are remitted.

Romans 4:3 is "was counted unto him for righteousness." – in this sentence, the Greek word ‘logizomai’ which means to ‘reckon someone unto’. In other words, when used with ‘eis’ , it means to be considered as righteous, in the case of Romans 4:3. And no one disputes that we are saved by grace through faith.

Matthew 26: 28 has one of the simpler uses of ‘eis’ – the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sin – making the remission of sin possible. Doesn’t mean that all are saved whether they believe or not. But looking at al of scripture, with the OT sacrifices as a pictures of what was to come, it is the blood of Christ that saves – not water.

You see plainly how the Greek preposition "eis" is used in Romans 4:5 and Matthew 26:28, but do not accept how the same word is used in Acts 2:38. There is no difference is how the word is used in any of these three verses. The only difference is in your willingness to accept salvation by grace through faith, but not to accept the scriptures that command repentance, confession, and baptism.

So your quote: "Therefore, if repentance preceded John’s baptism, the remission of sins preceded repentance and baptism, the remission of sins precedes the shedding of Jesus’ blood, and righteousness preceded faith" is remiss in it’s logic, and is wrongly applied to what I have written. Repentance had to precede baptism by John , seen by understanding the Greek, and because the unrepentent would have regarded him as a nutcase, and been doubtful, like the Pharisees. Faith in Jesus Christ did preceed His birth – Christ said Abraham rejoiced to see his day! Way back then, Abraham had faith in the Seed, and Jacob and David, and Isaiah, etc . But his sins and those of all the OT saints were not remitted until the death and resurrection of Christ, for that is what made forgiveness (remmittence) possible. ( Hebrews 11) . The remission of sins has been available since His ressurection to all who believe. And nothing that I have written has contraindicated all of this.

My statement was to simply expose your inconsistency in using the Greek preposition "eis." It does that. You want eis to read "because of" in Matt. 3:11 and Acts 2:38, and to read "in order to obtain" in Matt. 26:28 and Rom. 4:5. No credible Greek scholar defines the word that way, and no reliable translation has been given with those verses reading in the way that you suggest. Here is what is happening: you cannot accept that repentance and baptism are for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, therefore, this manipulation of the Greek takes place to attempt make baptism appear to take place after the remission of sins in that verse. Your attempt at manipulation doesn't change a thing. The verse stands just like it is - - just as God intended it.

And that ‘sense’ is that they were identified with Moses.

So did Moses at one point, in that he listened to the wrong spies and not to Joshua, and did not proceed into the land of Canaan. Doesn’t change the use of the term ‘baptized unto Moses"? – I don’t believe so
What do you think ‘justify’ means? Dikaioo means to bring out the fact that a person is righteous, or to make him just. To justify a person is to declare them righteous as in a court of law. James 2:21-22, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; " with Romans 4:2-3 : For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." To harmonize these 2 passages – Abraham was credited as righteous due to his faith in God – made righteous and declared just by faith (Romans). Abraham’s works showed (reflected) his faith, showing him to be righteous (justified as in James 2). In doing those works, his faith was furthur perfected (growth - an ongoing process for a Christian).
Titus 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} through Him.

Both refers to the fact that we are declared just by His grace – His grace which sent the Son into the world to save the world from sin, and who now sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high as our High Priest and Intercessor. These verses match up perfect with being saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and also with :

Being justified by grace (Titus 3:7, by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9), and works (James 2:21, 24, & 25) only harmonize when we do what God commands for salvation i.e. Mark 16:16 ; Luke 13:3,5 ; Matt. 10:32-33 ; John 3: 3-5 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 8:35-39 ; Acts 17:30 ; & Acts 22:16. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who OBEY Him (Hebrews 5:9)

Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose.
Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Romans 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

 

[Florida College]

FC,
Why are you so up in arms about salvation? You know the three stages, Justificatin, Sanctification and the final Glorification!

"Contend earnestly for the faith that once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

We all have been Justified by the blood of the Son of God 2 000 years ago and therefore declared righteous, not made r.! Jesus having 'secured' our salvation, all we do, is to accept!!!

How we accept it is the question. I am hearing folks dogmatically insist that accepting Jesus means that we don't have to obey the commands that are given for salvation i.e. Mark 16:16 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 10:47-48 ; Acts 16:30-33 ; Acts 17:30 ; Acts 22:16.

Once we have accepted salvation, we start on the road to Sanctification and the Holy Spirit works into us what Christ already worked out for us. Because Jesus does not save us in our sins, but from sin, we are being turned around and started to walk in the opposite direction. doing with love whatsoever He has commanded us.

Once saved always saved, is not in harmony with the following scriptures 1.Sam.10:6,9; 28:6,15 Eze.18:24; 28:14,15 Matth.24:13 1.Cor.9:27 Gal.5:4 Hebr.3:12-14 2.Pet.2:4,20,21. Jesus says in several places:'He that endures to the end (probation), the same shall be saved'.

The phrase "You are saved" in 1.Cor.15:2 should read: "you are being saved", like the traveller on the road to pilgrims progress. Jesus says, narrow is the gate and narrow is the way, and few be there that walk therein.
If the O.T. people were saved by the works of the Law, then the Publican was not justified by his prayer of repentance. But the Good News is, he was saved by the bleeding Lamb of God alone and did not save himself.

Lotar quoted to us Gal.2:16 in post number one: "No 'flesh' will be justified by the works of the Law". It really means what it says, not one, not even one of the old testament people.

 

[Florida College]

They were saved under NT law, because under OT law they would have been condemned. There is nothing that they did that was in accordance with OT law.

The thief on the cross was saved just like the paralytic was saved in Matthew 9:2. They both were saved because Jesus had the “power on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6). According to Hebrews 9:15-17, they both were pardoned while the first covenant was in effect.

Since you display such a strong interest in the thief on the cross, I can’t help but wonder if you also carry the strong desire that the thief had for the Lord to remember him when He came into his kingdom. The Lord’ kingdom is in existence - - Christians have been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into it (Colossians 1:13). The apostle John was in the kingdom (Revelation 1:9). Are you in the Lord’s kingdom? I have yet to meet anyone that promoted salvation by “faith only” to acknowledge that the Lord’s kingdom has been established. Will you be the first?

Repentance and confession are the same, and are an intigral part of faith.

According to John 12:42, the rulers believed in Jesus, but did not confess Him. In Acts 2:37, the Jews that believed Peter’s message asked what they should do. Peter told those Jews to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (verse 38). Why did he tell the Jews that believed to repent if repentance and faith are automatically connected? Does the account in John 12:42 give you the impression that belief and confession are automatically connected?

Who said repentance and confession are the same? Where is the scriptural basis for this reasoning?

[size=-1]Mark 16:16
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
[/size]
Here is a perfect example of what we are talking about. If baptism is required, wouldn't this passage state that he who has not be baptized shall not be saved? Nowhere does the bible state that someone is condemmed for not being baptized. When it talks about salvation, it speaks of faith always, and baptism sometimes. It is not because baptism is required, but because when you believe you are to be baptized.

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Notice the conjunction AND between believes and is baptized. The conjunction connects belief and baptism - - both are required to be saved. Since both are required, baptism without faith will not result in salvation. Baptism is an act of faith (Colossians 2:12). Without faith, it is just being dunked in water. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

[size=-1]Acts 10:47-48
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
[size=-1]
And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
[/size][/size]
[size=-1][size=-1]Here we see people who had already recieved the Holy Spirit, yet they had not been baptized yet. Do you believe that one can recieve the Holy Spirit before you recieve salvation? It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that is for the remission of sins.[/size][/size]

Cornelius and his household were the first Gentiles to receive the gospel (Acts 10). The context shows that the Holy Spirit was given to show that the gospel was clearly being extended to the Gentiles with God’s approval. Peter commanded the Gentiles to be baptized in Acts 10:47-48 for the same reason that he commanded the Jews in Acts 2:38.

[What, I wasn't thinking during the other 2 1/2 pages I wrote? I have a feeling you think very highly of yourself.

BTW, what denomination are you, Church of Christ?

Lotar,

That is not what I meant. You placed Acts 2:38 in opposition to other verses that only mention only repentance. I thought that was a good observation to notice that baptism was not mentioned in all verses where repentance was mentioned. But your reasoning needs to be taken a step farther. I was simply trying to encourage you to take that next step - - to seek to understand the passages so that they agree and do not oppose each other. Just as in Acts 2:38 - - faith is not specifically mentioned. But I have to conclude from passages such as John 3:16 and Mark 16:16 that faith is essential for salvation. I don’t try to rule faith out based on what Acts 2:38 says. Rather, I seek to harmonize Acts 2:38 with John 3:16 and Mark 16:16. You judged my motives wrongly, just as you judge me wrongly.

I am a member of no denomination. But I am a member of the church of Christ. Aren’t you? If not, whose church are you a member of?

FC

 

[Lotar]

The thief on the cross was saved just like the paralytic was saved in Matthew 9:2. They both were saved because Jesus had the “power on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6). According to Hebrews 9:15-17, they both were pardoned while the first covenant was in effect.

Since you display such a strong interest in the thief on the cross, I can’t help but wonder if you also carry the strong desire that the thief had for the Lord to remember him when He came into his kingdom. The Lord’ kingdom is in existence - - Christians have been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into it (Colossians 1:13). The apostle John was in the kingdom (Revelation 1:9). Are you in the Lord’s kingdom? I have yet to meet anyone that promoted salvation by “faith only” to acknowledge that the Lord’s kingdom has been established. Will you be the first?

This is going in circles here.

According to John 12:42, the rulers believed in Jesus, but did not confess Him. In Acts 2:37, the Jews that believed Peter’s message asked what they should do. Peter told those Jews to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (verse 38). Why did he tell the Jews that believed to repent if repentance and faith are automatically connected? Does the account in John 12:42 give you the impression that belief and confession are automatically connected?
Who said repentance and confession are the same? Where is the scriptural basis for this reasoning?

Belief is not the same as faith. One can believe, yet not have faith.

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Notice the conjunction AND between believes and is baptized. The conjunction connects belief and baptism - - both are required to be saved. Since both are required, baptism without faith will not result in salvation. Baptism is an act of faith (Colossians 2:12). Without faith, it is just being dunked in water. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).



Cornelius and his household were the first Gentiles to receive the gospel (Acts 10). The context shows that the Holy Spirit was given to show that the gospel was clearly being extended to the Gentiles with God’s approval. Peter commanded the Gentiles to be baptized in Acts 10:47-48 for the same reason that he commanded the Jews in Acts 2:38.

Hummdedumdedum. Going is circles again, I just point you back to the last post.

Lotar,

That is not what I meant. You placed Acts 2:38 in opposition to other verses that only mention only repentance. I thought that was a good observation to notice that baptism was not mentioned in all verses where repentance was mentioned. But your reasoning needs to be taken a step farther. I was simply trying to encourage you to take that next step - - to seek to understand the passages so that they agree and do not oppose each other. Just as in Acts 2:38 - - faith is not specifically mentioned. But I have to conclude from passages such as John 3:16 and Mark 16:16 that faith is essential for salvation. I don’t try to rule faith out based on what Acts 2:38 says. Rather, I seek to harmonize Acts 2:38 with John 3:16 and Mark 16:16. You judged my motives wrongly, just as you judge me wrongly.

You may not like my explaination, but I clearly state what I believe your supposed verses stating the contrary mean. If you don't like them, well there's nothing I can do about that.

I am a member of no denomination. But I am a member of the church of Christ. Aren’t you? If not, whose church are you a member of?
FC

I thought so.

I am a member of the Church, but not the denomination that claims not to be a denomination.

 

[Florida College]

This is going in circles here.

Belief is not the same as faith. One can believe, yet not have faith.

Hummdedumdedum. Going is circles again, I just point you back to the last post.


You may not like my explaination, but I clearly state what I believe your supposed verses stating the contrary mean. If you don't like them, well there's nothing I can do about that.

I thought so.

I am a member of the Church, but not the denomination that claims not to be a denomination.

As I look at your response . . . well, you look at your quote. You didn't say anything. No scriptures, just darts. Not the kind that prick the heart i.e. Acts 2:37, but the kind that tell me that I'm wasting my time.

 

[Lotar]

As I look at your response . . . well, you look at your quote. You didn't say anything. No scriptures, just darts. Not the kind that prick the heart i.e. Acts 2:37, but the kind that tell me that I'm wasting my time.

Ofcourse I didn't say anything, your just asking the same exact questions I answered last time. I was just pointing out that we're going in circles.

 

[Florida College]

I have already discussed this in depth. I am not the one who is struggling at all with Acts 2. It harmonizes well with what else I have written.
The public identification - in is from reading scripture and looking at everything scripture has to say about salvation.

Discussed in depth? When? Is the quote from Zodhiates on post #69 on page 7 the in-depth discussion?

I have already addressed this, too. You failed to show that baptism gives us access to the blood of Christ. The access is through grace by faith, not water. "Eis" can mean unto, into, in, toward, for....as I already tried to explain - depends on it's use in the sentence.

“For as many of you who were baptized into (eis) Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27). When you consider the definitions for eis - - unto, into, in, toward, or for - - and how the word eis is used in Matthew 26:28, Romans 4:5, and Acts 2:38, it becomes obvious how the preposition is being used in Galatians 3:27. Baptism puts one into Christ where all spiritual blessings are (Eph. 1:7, including redemption through Jesus’ blood (Eph. 1:7). That connection explains how Jesus’ blood washes away sin (Rev. 1:5) and how baptism washes away sin (Acts 22:16). It also explains how baptism is necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16), the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and how baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:20-21).

wow - talk about taking things out of context. Purging the conscience has do with the remission of sin, and giving us the Holy Spirit, made poosible by the shedding of the blood of Christ. And I Peter 3:21 makes it clear that it is not water baptism that does this - but the Holy Spirit. I have showed you repeatedly. It is silly for you to continue to push I Peter 3:21 in this way, when the text of the verse contradicts your claims.

Agreed. Purging the conscience has to do with the remission of sins (Hebrews 9:14). “The answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21) is synonymous with “purging the conscience.”

Let’s see if I understand the context of 1 Peter 3:21. Starting in verse 20, God’s longsuffering waited during the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In the ark, eight souls were saved through water. Now, in verse 21:
“There is also an antitype which saves us, namely baptism” (NKJV)
“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you” (NASV)
“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” (KJV)
The context is obvious. Noah and his family on the ark were saved by water. That corresponds to baptism [in water] saving us - - which harmonizes with Mark 16:16 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 8:35-39 ; Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 22:16.

How does 1 Peter 3:21 show us that Holy Spirit saves us? It doesn’t. Rather, the Holy Spirit, guiding the apostle Peter, tells us that just as water saved Noah’s family, water baptism saves us. I don’t take offense if that sounds silly to you. I didn’t write the book of first Peter, nor am I responsible for it (2 Timothy 3:16). I believe that the one who is responsible for what you call “silly” is acutely aware of your views (Hebrews 4:13).

This is getting comical - so what part of "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--" don't you understand?
This is not referring to water baptism

Why do you find that “baptism now saves you” (NASV) from 1 Peter 3:21 so comical? That is a direct quote. Aren’t you the one that charged me previously with blasphemy because I disagreed with your doctrine? Now, you are laughing at a direct quote from Scripture. Truly, “wisdom is justified by her children” (Matthew 11:18-19).

Your question from 1 Peter 3:21 is, What part of not the removal of the dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience is it that I don’t understand? I understand that it is talking about water baptism saving us, just like the water saved the eight souls on the ark. Water baptism does not wash the dirt from the body, but is the answer of a good conscience. If that understanding is true, then baptism washes away sins - - isn’t that what Acts 22:16 says? If that understanding is true, baptism is necessary for our sins to be taken away - - isn’t that what Acts 2:38 says? If that understanding is true, baptism in necessary for us to be saved - - isn’t that what Mark 16:16 says?

I have a suggestion for you, FC. Get some good references on Greek. Get to know about verb tenses, moods, voices, and how words like 'eis' and 'ek' are used in context depending on other words in the sentence.
I suggest you learn the Inductive Bible study method, where you let the text speak for itself, and scripture interpret scripture, ignoring commentaries and those who would give you theology over scripture - cause, wow - I sure see some big problems in your theology!

I am going out of town, and am done with this circular conversation. I will pray for your enlightenment.

Free,

You are truly amazing. I quote no commentaries - - but you quote from Zodhiates post #69 on page 7. And you tell me to ignore commentaries! I read the text in Acts 2:38 that says that baptism is required “for the remission of sins,” and you will not acknowledge what the text says. Rather, you freely choose to delete “for the remission of sins” and substitute “to indentify with Christ” in its place. And then you tell me to let the text speak for itself! I am further admonished to let scripture interpret scripture, because you see big problems in my theology.

The wise man writes in Proverbs 23:23, “Buy the truth and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding.” Jesus said, when we find that one great pearl, we should sell all and purchase it (Matthew 13:45-46). Frankly, as I consider all that you’ve said and promoted, I wouldn’t give 2 cents for what you’re selling. You would discredit the last 12 verses of the book of Mark just to get rid of Mark 16:16. You accept salvation by grace through faith, but will not teach nor obey the commands that are necessary for salvation. You see that salvation by grace through faith alone will not harmonize with the other scriptures, so you attempt to read into every verse that deals with baptism that baptism is solely to identify one with Christ - - an outward sign of an inward change as you call it - - even though the Holy Scriptures never refer to the baptism of Christ with this description. As you make changes to seek the harmony that you cannot find, you do not accept that you are denying what the passages clearly say the significance of baptism is for i.e. for salvation in Mark 16:16, for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, to wash away sins in Acts 22:16, to save us in 1 Peter 3:21.

Final thought: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7). The Greek word for “man” in this verse is anthropos - - it is used here generically, to refer to both men and women.

FC

 

[FreeinChrist]

edited - I have nothing else to write to you FC. Think what you wish.