On Salvation

[Florida College]

Western Kentucky, how do you respond to the following passages, that unequivocally state that a person is not saved by any observation of a law or commandment (e.g., "be baptized")??

Is faith not a commandment? Consider the Philippian jailor's question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30 - NKJV). Notice Paul and Silas' response in the following verse, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Belief (or faith) was commanded. Is faith not necessary for salvation?

(Gal 2:16 NASB) nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

The works that Paul in discussing with the Galatians in this context (Gal. 2:16)are the works of the law of Moses. The works under the law of Moses did not justify anyone. Paul states the purpose of that law in chapter 3:19. Faith in Christ justifies one, not the law of Moses. The real issue that we need to address is what it means to have faith, or believe in the Lord Jesus. Can we have faith and not obey him? Here is just one example to consider as you think about the question: what did Peter tell those Jews to do in Acts 2:38 who were convicted of crucifying God's Son? They believed the message that was preached. Peter told them to do something so that their sins might be forgiven, or taken away. What did Peter tell them to do?

(Gal 3:2-5 NIV) I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? {3} Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? {4} Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing? {5} Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

The context continues from the previous discussion. Paul is still focusing on the contrast between the blessings that come through Jesus and those that came through the law of Moses. The Galatians were being enticed to turn away from the gospel (1:6-9). Faith in Jesus had brought the Galatians the Spirit, not observance of the law of Moses. The question still remains, what does it mean to believe the Lord? The rulers in John 12:42-43 believed in the Lord, but still did not meet the praise (approval) of God. Something else was required.

(Gal 3:10-12 NIV) All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." {11} Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." {12} The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."

The discussion of works under the Law of Moses continues. The law of Moses created a dilemma - - once a Jew sinned, there was no forgiveness in the law by itself - - redemption came by Christ (vs. 13).

I believe that Charles Spurgeon dealt with the erroneous doctrine you are professing many years ago in the following, which is an excerpt from a sermon based on
(Mark 16:15-16 NASB) And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. {16} "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Spurgeon said:
"I find that the great error which we have to contend with throughout England (and it is growing more and more), is one in direct opposition to my text, well known to you as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We will confront this dogma with the assertion, that BAPTISM WITHOUT FAITH SAVES NO ONE. The text says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" but whether a man be baptized or no, it asserts that "he that believeth not shall be d a m n e d:" so that baptism does not save the unbeliever , nay, it does not in any degree exempt him from the common doom of all the ungodly. He may have baptism, or he may not have baptism, but if he believeth not, he shall be in any case most surely

d a m n e d. Let him be baptized by immersion or sprinkling, in his infancy, or in his adult age, if he be not led to put his trust in Jesus Christ—if he remaineth an unbeliever, then this terrible doom is pronounced upon him—"He that believeth not shall be d a m n e d."

Ken,

I have a cousin named Ken (although I am confident you are not him). Welcome to the discussion.

Western Kentucky is busy, so I hope he doesn't mind that I answered some of your points. I also would like to address your quote by Spurgeon.

Baptism without faith saves no one. I totally and wholeheartedly agree with Spurgeon's zeal to battle such teaching. Mark 16:16 plainly says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." The text does not say baptism alone saves. The text clearly states that both belief and baptism are necessary for salvation. This text agrees perfectly with the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:35-39. After Philip preached "Jesus," the eunuch asks about being baptized in water (vs. 36). Philip tells him what is required of him to be baptized (vs. 37). In response, the eunuch makes the good confession (Matt. 10:32-33 & Rom. 10:9-10).

Peter taught in Acts 2:38 that repentance + baptism = remission of sins. Study the other conversions in the book of Acts to get the complete picture of what is required for sinners who desire to be saved from their sins i.e. Acts 8:12, 35-39 ; 10:47-48 ; 16:30-33 ; & 22:16.

FC

 

[Ken]

Hi Florida, thank you for your reply... and I think I can honestly say that I do not have a cousin named "Florida State" LOL!!

[font=&quot]Of course faith is necessary for salvation. The question is, is baptism necessary for salvation?

[/font] Paul does not specifically state that it is just “the law of Moses” that he is referring to, though it is surely at least this. Rather, Paul is going to great lengths to prove that it is not works of any kind that saves. How could the following passage be any clearer? (Gal 2:16 NASB) nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”



And isn’t it interesting that in the whole course of this letter to the Galatians, a letter so dedicated to teaching them what it is exactly that constitutes saving faith, that baptism is not even once mentioned? Not once!!



And the real issue here is not what we ought to do as a response to Christ, i.e. obedience to this or that commandment, baptism being just one of those commands. The issue is, at bottom, what is it that constitutes saving faith? And clearly the Scriptures quoted above indicate that salvation is by grace through faith alone, period. Baptism does not save, and faith + baptism does not constitute the salvific formula as understood by the NT writers. Rather, this formula would be rejected as another gospel, just as the Judaizers attempt to include circumcision was rejected. Paul warned of those who would add to the gospel of grace; (Gal 2:4-5 NASB) But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. {5} But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.”



You said “The law of Moses created a dilemma - - once a Jew sinned, there was no forgiveness in the law by itself - - redemption came by Christ (vs. 13).”

However the Bible teaches that the OT saint was no less saved by grace through faith alone than is the NT. Again, Paul teaches this clearly in a number of places. (Gal 3:6 NIV) Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." “Salvation by grace is not new to the present dispensation. Prior to the Law, Abraham believed (trusted or had faith in) God, and "He accounted it to him for righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). The term "accounted" (logizomai, Gk.) is a bookkeeping term which means "to credit to someone's account." Because of his faith in God, he was considered "righteous" before God and therefore acceptable to God, based on God's grace.” (BSB)



See also (Rom 4:1-3 NIV) What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? {2} If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. {3} What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."



[font=&quot]And (Rom 4:12-13 NIV) And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.{13} It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.”

[/font] Thankfully much work has already been done re the Acts 2 passage; the following is from an excellent article by theologian James White;



“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38-39, NIV).

This is probably the most oft-quoted passage in the great baptism debate. Yet, when we read verse 39, we hear again the same concept that we saw above, which Peter himself will assert at a later date (1 Peter 1:2), and that will reappear in the Acts narrative, too (Acts 13:48)--salvation comes through the work of God's elective choice, not the actions or plans of men. Baptism does nothing for those who are not called of God. But, one might say, what if one is called of God? Does this passage then not say that baptism is for the remission of sins?

A tremendously large number of interpretations have been set forth on this passage over the years. We believe the simplest and most consistent manner of approach is to ask a question that is frequently not asked at all: we here have a short snippet of what was obviously a longer sermon by Peter. Does Peter elsewhere tell us, in plain language, how our sins are remitted, how we are cleansed from our burden of guilt? Certainly! We began our article with the quotation of 1 Peter 1:18-19, where Peter directly teaches that we are cleansed by the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Do we then have sufficient basis to identify the waters of baptism with the blood of Christ? Surely not. Sins are remitted through our participation in the death of Jesus Christ--it is by the "one time offering" of Jesus Christ that we are made whole (Hebrews 10:10-14). What of baptism then? It is the symbol, the outward representation before men of what the Spirit of God has done in our hearts (Titus 3:5-7). Unless we have first had our sins remitted in the blood of Christ, the symbol of baptism is meaningless. But doesn't this passage say that baptism is for the remission of sins? Yes, but what does "for" mean? We feel that Dr. A. T. Robertson's comments from earlier this century are very meaningful:

This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36).

The point being that one can (and we believe should, if one believes in the consistency of Scripture as a whole) understand Peter to be speaking of baptism on the grounds of the remission of sins that comes through belief in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43)….

What, then, of Acts 22:16? Here, Ananias, having confronted the blinded Saul, says, in context:

Then he said: "The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty of God in the context of this passage as well ("God...has chosen you"). Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language. The terms "arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we have seen previously of Paul's own theology of justification, he certainly did not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!” (http://www.aomin.org/bapreg.html)



Boyd adds, re the Acts 2 passage; “First, the fact that Peter commands the Jews in his Pentecost sermon to be baptized "for [eis] the forgiveness of sins" does not entail that the forgiveness of sins comes as a direct result of baptism. The preposition eis in Greek can simply mean "with a view towards," "in connection with," or "in the light of." If this interpretation is meant, Peter is in this passage simply saying that baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins (cf. Acts 15:9). The act of divine forgiveness renders baptism important and significant….. This further makes sense out of the fact that in Peter's next two recorded sermons to unbelievers in Acts, he directly associates the forgiveness of sins with repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (3:17-26, 4:8-12). Paul preaches in a similar fashion (Acts 16:31). Indeed, Paul tells us that he rarely baptized people at all, since this was not his calling (1 Corinthians 1:15-17). It would, I think, be quite impossible to see how this could be if he or anyone else believed there was a direct causal relationship between baptism and divine forgiveness. How could an apostle of Christ not be called to bring people into a forgiven relationship with the Father?….

The Oneness (and other Baptismal Regenerationists) understanding of baptism is also difficult to square with the fact that the Holy Sprit, we learn from Acts, is sometimes given in a dramatic fashion before individuals are baptized in water (Acts 10:44-48). Is one thus to suppose that God poured out His Spirit in this fashion upon people whose sins He had not yet forgiven? This reversal of the Acts 2:38 baptism-Spirit order is, I think, enough to tell us that we should not take Acts 2:38 as a sort of ironclad formula to which God is bound. It is also enough, I believe, to teach us that the remission of sins is not causally connected with water baptism.

What closes the case on this, however, is the recognition that Luke and Mark use this exact same phrase, "for [eis] the forgiveness of sins," in relation to the baptism of John the Baptist (Luke 3:3; cf. Mark 1:4). Yet John's baptism clearly did not, in any literal sense, wash away people's sins. Why else would his disciples need to believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and be rebaptized (Acts 19:4-6)?

The parallel passage in Matthew says that John's baptism was a baptism "with water for [eis] repentance" (Matthew 3:11; cf. Acts 19:4), and this seems to be equivalent with the phrase "for [or unto] the forgiveness of sins." The act of being baptized certainly didn't bring about repentance. Rather, baptism was the result of repentance, and it derived its significance from the act of repentance. In just the same way, the act of being baptized, both for John and Christ's disciples, didn't literally bring about the forgiveness of that had already occurred, and the act derived its significance from this divine act.” (http://www.gospeloutreach.net/brchap.html)

[font=&quot]You mentioned Jn. 12:42 as an example of people who believed in Christ, but you say “something else was needed”, i.e. their faith did not save. Look at the context, and you will see why they did not believe, Jesus plainly tells us these men rejected Him, they loved the praise of men more than God. (John 12:48 NIV) There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” So clearly the text in John is in no way a support for baptismal regeneration.

Blessings
[/font]

 

[Ken]

wierd how that [/font] and [font=&quot] keeps appearing....????? ah well, I am too tired to edit them out....

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

QUOTE=Florida College ....Free,


"What you mean is that I am not necessarily agreeing with your way of
thinking. The word "justify" in James 2:21, 24, & 25 is the Greek word "dikaioo." It is the same word that appears in Titus 3:7, "Having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Dikaioo also appears in Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." The use of the word in these passages is obvious - - whatever grace and the blood of Jesus does for us, works does for us." ???
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Rather than show where errors were made (?), you jumped right to the charge of “blasphemy!” It is one thing to make a charge, but it is quite another to prove your point. You gave absolutely no proof or basis for your charge. Did you even bother to look up the Greek word “dikaioo” to see if it really is the word that appears in James 2:21, 24, 25; Titus 3:7; and in Romans 5:9? Or, would that have just taken too much time - - especially when there are charges of “blasphemy” to be made? The high priest, when he didn’t like what he heard, charged Jesus with “blasphemy” in Matthew 26:59-65. The charge seemed justified in his mind. Your action brings to my remembrance Jesus’ words in John 15:20, “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will also keep yours also.”

After making the false charge of “blasphemy,” now you are ready to walk away. As you are leaving, let me be so bold as to remind you of a few open-ended items you have left behind:

1.) You quote Eph. 2:8-9, and say that we are saved by faith alone. Then your thinking shifts to say that faith, repentance, and confession are all included automatically when one believes. John 12:42-43 plainly states that the rulers believed, but would not confess Jesus. Does that sound like faith and confession automatically go hand in hand? No, it does not! Acts 2:38 tells us what those who believed the message that Peter preached on Pentecost were told to do: repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Why would be tell them to repent if it was automatically included in belief? The truth of the matter is, faith, repentance, and confession are not automatically related at all. They are separate and distinct actions.

2.) You acknowledge that salvation is a gift in Ephesians 2:8-9, but fail to acknowledge Joshua chapter 6 and the commands associated with receiving the “gift” on that occasion..OT VERSE ....
we have a new commandment thus new rule of life
If Eph. 2:8-9 requires no action whatsoever on our part for salvation, then it will harmonize well with other passages i.e. Joshua 6. Does it harmonize? The truth of the matter is that God “gave” the Israelites the city of Jericho (Joshua 6:2), but there were also commands given by God to the Israelites in order for them to receive the city. Likewise, in order to receive the “gift” of salvation today, we must obey all the commands of God regarding salvation under Christ - - faith, repentance, confession and baptism. You accept all of these conditions except baptism. You say it is a work. John 6:29 God's work Where does the scripture say that baptism is any more of a work than faith
Man can not obtain Faith it is a gift from God ... gal 5:22, 2 tim 3:15, John 10:30, romans 3:11, 2 cor 2:10
, repentance, or confession? John 6:28-30 plainly says that faith is a work - - a work that each individual is responsible and accountable for. Rather than accept that, you try to use the rest of John chapter 6 to prove that verses 28-30 don’t mean what they say. Even a novice bible student should realize from these passages that Jesus is answering the question he was asked by telling the people “to believe.”\
John 6:29 this is a work of God
An average student in Christianity 101 would understand Jesus’ answer to the question that he was asked.

3.) You conclude that the “works” of Eph. 2:9 are “all” works, rather than concluding that he is specifically addressing a certain type of works .You fail to realize that there many different types of works discussed in the N.T. - - (here is just a quick sampling) - - good works (Matt. 5:6), works of Christ (Matt. 11:2), man’s works (Matt. 16:27), works of Abraham (John 8:39), works of God (John 9:3), idolatrous works (Acts 7:41), works of righteousness (Acts 10:35), works of repentance (Acts 26:20), works of the law of Moses (Romans 3:27), works of darkness (Romans 13:12), works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19), wicked works (Col. 1:21), our works (2 Tim. 1:9), dead works (Heb. 6:1), works of the devil (1 John 3:8), Cain’s works (1 John 3:12), first works (Rev. 2:5), Babylon’s works (Rev. 18:6), and the works of the dead (Rev. 20:12). The works that Ephesians 2:9 is focusing on are of the nature that one could boast about them. Ultimately, whatever works one decides are included in Eph. 2:9 will agree with other scriptures. It will agree with what people are told to do to be saved under the law of Christ. The understanding of the works that are not required for salvation in Eph. 2:8-9 will agree with passages that tell us what is required for salvation: passages such as John 3:16; Luke 13:3,5 ; Matt. 10:32-33 ; Mark 16:16 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 8:12-13 ; Acts 8: 35-39 ; Acts 10:47-48 ; Acts 16: 30-33 ; Acts 17:30 ; Acts 22:16 ; 1 Peter 3:20-21 ; 2 Thess. 1:8 ; & Heb. 5:9.

4.) You want to say that baptism is a work - - “an outward confession of an inward change” (post #52 on p. 6) - - therefore, not required for salvation. Your reasoning is based on the baptism of John. The baptism of John is described in Matthew 3:1-8. Here is the point that I have not seen you acknowledge at any point in this study: the baptism of John is not the same as the baptism in the name of Christ (Acts 18:24-26, 19:1-5). The baptism that Jesus commands is required for salvation

1 cor 12:13 the Holy Spirit does this instantly after belief NOT MAN
why???

john 6:29 this is a work of God.....

(Mk. 16:16 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 22:16 ; John 3:3-5 & Rom. 6:3-11, and 1 Peter 3:20-21. It is a baptism in water (Acts 8:35-39, 1 Pet. 3:20-21), but clearly not for the same purpose as the baptism of John. How is it determined that baptism in the name of the Lord is any more of a work than faith, repentance, or confession? They are all simply commands of the Lord that must be obeyed.

5.) You attempted to “dodge” Mark 16:16 by your reasoning that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 were left out of two early manuscripts. So, how many manuscripts were the verses in? Is your concern really about the last 12 verses of chapter 16, or about one particular verse - - verse 16?

6.) You also attempted to “dodge” Acts 2:38 by quoting from the Greek scholar Zodhiates (Spiros, I assume). So, how did you determine that Zodhiates’ commentary is accurate? I read that his works are very questionable because he relies heavily on the modern Greek, instead of the Koine Greek. Nevertheless, I see the plain structure of Acts 2:38 - - repentance + baptism = remission of sins. I have posted earlier comments about this verse. “And” is a coordinating conjunction that connects two equal parts. “For” is the Greek word “eis,” which also appears in Matt. 26:28 and Rom. 4:5. I noticed that you made no comments about “eis” in those verses. But if the remission of sins precedes repentance and baptism in Acts 2:38, then the remission of sins precedes the shedding of Jesus’ blood in Matt. 26:28, and righteousness precedes faith in Romans 4:5. Would you accept those conclusions? Here is the jist of Acts 2:38: “and” connects repentance and baptism; repentance and baptism are “for” (unto) the remission of sins - - to summarize, both repentance and baptism are necessary for the remission of sins. Why would you choose a commentary of someone who is unknown by many (or all) of us? Why not choose reputable Greek scholars’ works, such as Strong’s, Vines’, and Young’s? It is not hard to look up the various Greek words given in the text, consider the definitions offered, and compare how the Greek words are used in other passages of scripture. If Zodhiates’ commentary about Acts 2:38 is correct - - that repentance is for salvation and baptism is “an external identification visible by others” - - then why didn’t the various Greek scholars who have translated the scriptures at various times over hundreds of years translate Acts 2:38 with the meaning that he described? I know of no credible translation that renders Acts 2:38 with the reading that Zodhiates suggests. Are you aware of any? Is anyone else aware of any?

7.) Finally, you said that that Matt. 7:21-23 is focusing on people that were trying to serve God by works.TRUE Jesus tells us what these folks were lacking in verse 21 - - they said, "Lord, Lord," but did not do the Father's will. What these verses tell us in this glimpse of the judgment is that "many" (vs. 22) will be thoroughly convinced they are saved. They will attempt to reason with the Lord on how they have served him. Jesus will reply, "I never knew; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Here is the scene: people were calling out to the Lord, but not doing God's will. They are convinced that they are serving him, but he never knew them. Why? They did not do God's will.

Hebrews 12:5-11 states that any son not doing his will will be punished since he is a son thus he can realize that he needs to 1john 1:9

but here is the kicker if not turn around you are a ba$tard in hebrews 12:8


They acted outside the law of Christ. The scene in Matt. 7:21-23 is not about people that were trying to work their way into heaven - - it is about people who didn't obey God's will and were never saved in the first place. They thought they were saved, but weren't. This teaching demands that we give the utmost attention to the gospel plan of salvation.

As you depart, don’t forget to brush the dust off that is settling on you (Acts 13:50-51)!
I will longsuffer only as long as my master and Lord will then I will watch....

FC
But if you believe the GOOD NEWS I will forbear you FC

 

[danceforjoy]

Wow FC
congratulation for post # 100 and probably the longest!

 

[danceforjoy]

Is baptism necessary for salvation? We should ask the specialists, our Baptist friends! Or, just ask Jesus: 'Matthew 28:19'.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

not necessary BUT goes with salvation ..... mark 16:16, 1 cor 12:13

 

[danceforjoy]

not necessary BUT goes with salvation ..... mark 16:16, 1 cor 12:13

If you equate water baptism [Mk.16:16] with the baptism of the Holy Spirit [1.Cor.12:13], I could go along with that for the following reason: Rom.6 central theme of baptism is the power of the H.S. to follow Christ, as I stated in an earlier post. The dying to sin and self and to walk in newness of life. Seeing it from this perspective, shouldn't baptism be absolutely necessary for salvation just as the new birth?
Sprinkling however is not even partially submersing into the watery grave and should therfore not constitute the same. We know that in the past great men and Protestant churches have followed the Roman Catholic practice and had not known better. In the past God winked at it, but now ask men everywhere to repent [Acts 17:30].

 

[FreeinChrist]

If you equate water baptism [Mk.16:16] with the baptism of the Holy Spirit [1.Cor.12:13], I could go along with that for the following reason: Rom.6 central theme of baptism is the power of the H.S. to follow Christ, as I stated in an earlier post. The dying to sin and self and to walk in newness of life. Seeing it from this perspective, shouldn't baptism be absolutely necessary for salvation just as the new birth?

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is absolutely required for the new birth. It is a big part of salvation - the renewing and regeration, being born again.
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.

But water baptism is simply an outward identification of an inward change. John's baptism unto repentence didn't cause repentence - the person needed to repent first.

Sprinkling however is not even partially submersing into the watery grave and should therfore not constitute the same. We know that in the past great men and Protestant churches have followed the Roman Catholic practice and had not known better. In the past God winked at it, but now ask men everywhere to repent [Acts 17:30].

?? I don't follow your reasoning in the statement above. God always asked for repentence, even before Acts 17:30. The OT sacrifices involved repentence.
And before there was sprinkling - there was immersion. The requirements for salvation have not changed, nor has God. If full immersion in water (which is the proper way, I believe) is required for salvation, then millions of devout Christians in the past are left lost.

 

[onetruechurch]

I also posted this elsewhere. first read acts 2:38 Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
How can you take this any other way but that you have to be baptized for forgiveness? this plainly states that you will not be free of your sins until you are baptized. for the remission of your sins- not b/c you think you are already saved.
Now read Mark 16:16. of course you know this one He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be ******.
alot of people say that b/c the bible doesn't say "be baptized not" in the last part of that verse only requires belief in God. Wrong. belief is the requirement before baptism. You cannot be baptized without believing first. If I say stand up and jump on one foot and I'll give you 50 dollars, but if you don't stand up, you don't get the money. You have to stand up before you can jump on one foot, but I'll not give you the money for just standing up.... catch my drift??

 

[onetruechurch]

I don't think anyone in the Bible was "saved" and never baptized. If I am wrong somebody give me a verse.

 

[Lotar]

Luke 23:39
One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"

[size=-1]Luke 23:40
But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?

[size=-1]Luke 23:41
"And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."

[size=-1]Luke 23:42
And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

[size=-1]Luke 23:43
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
[/size][/size][/size][/size]

 

[danceforjoy]

To free in Christ!
Do not try making me the judge of who is being saved or not. You luckily for me, seem to agree with my statements, but then say you cannot follow my reasoning.
You state in your last paragraph: "If full immersion in water (which is the proper way, I believe) is required for salvation, then millions of devout Christians in the past are left lost"-unquote.
I don't think so. My statement in quoting Acts 17:30 says that God winked at ignorance, so how could they be lost? Luther and other reformers retained Roman Catholic doctrines among them sprinkling babies. In Rome at St. Peters square there is a baptimal font still standing today, but covered up where they use to practice full immersion, because that what the word 'baptizo' in the Greek means. There are many other Catholic doctrines retained by Protestantism such as the false day of worship, the counterfeit Sabbath. But we won't go into this now.
Let me know if I haven't made myself clear enough because English is not my father tongue.
The Romans wouldn't let the thief come off the cross for baptism and then go bak on again. On the other hand, he made have been already been dipped by John in the river.
Here is another curly one: should we baptize for the dead?

 

[danceforjoy]

Luke 23:39
One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"

[size=-1]Luke 23:40
But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?

[size=-1]Luke 23:41
"And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."

[size=-1]Luke 23:42
And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

[size=-1]Luke 23:43
And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
[/size][/size][/size][/size]

Hi Lotar,
So true what you are saying. Did you know that the Greek in writing the New Testament used no commas? It was put in afterwards by the Translaters and in the wrong place. We know that the thief on the cross did not spend that day in paradise with Jesus. Jesus rested in the tomb over the full period of His holy Sabbath day. The comma should be in: 'I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise. danceforjoy

 

[FreeinChrist]

To free in Christ!
Do not try making me the judge of who is being saved or not.

??? Was I trying to make you the judge of who is saved or not? I don't believe I was, simply making a point.

You state in your last paragraph: "If full immersion in water (which is the proper way, I believe) is required for salvation, then millions of devout Christians in the past are left lost"-unquote.
I don't think so. My statement in quoting Acts 17:30 says that God winked at ignorance, so how could they be lost? Luther and other reformers retained Roman Catholic doctrines among them sprinkling babies. In Rome at St. Peters square there is a baptimal font still standing today, but covered up where they use to practice full immersion, because that what the word 'baptizo' in the Greek means.

Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all {people} everywhere should repent,
I believe the proper explanation of this verse is that before the Law was given, God did not hold those who unknowingly broke the Law accountable - being ignorant of sin. This lines up with:
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

I don't believe Acts 17:30 fits in regards to sprinkling with water.

 

[danceforjoy]

Free in Christ,
True what you are saying, can't argue with you there. On the other hand, there is no excuse for ignorance. We each have to get familiar with secular civil Law. So with the spiritual. Problem is, when every man looks to his/her Neighbour and says, well he/she do as they please,and I do not want to be the odd one out.
Sometimes we have to do that and stand out in the crowd. I have a Neighbour who belongs to the second largest denomination in Christendom. He tells me that all you have to do, is to believe. He does not want to know what else the Bible has to say.
I showed him the verse that says that the Devils also believe, but tremble. This embarrassed him for a second, then he voluntaired that his spiritual adviser told him that repentance does not necessary means turning from sin. I was flabbergusted.
Speaking about turning the truth into fables!
My original church is the biggest and teaches dispensation from sin and especially the Ten Commandments, which is even worse.
In every age we have had leaders and reformers where the people did go no further than they did. Look at Martin Luther. as big as his name is among us, his co-worker Melangthon wanted to press reform even further which would have resulted in the right mode of baptism by immersion. but he had to flee to Switzerland.
Whenever a Leader King in the old testament followed an idol to worship, all the flock followed him and God punished the whole nation.
We today have no excuse whatever not to know the truth and nothing but the truth. Can you say amen to that?

 

[danceforjoy]

Free in Christ
Just a quick note, I forgot to include: "To him/her that know to do good, and does it not, to him/her, it is sin. I don't know if doing good included all that God asks us to do and to enjoy.
Dance

 

[FreeinChrist]

Free in Christ,
We today have no excuse whatever not to know the truth and nothing but the truth. Can you say amen to that?

Yes! I can say amen to that. I believe a characteristic of a faith that pleases God is one that searches for what His word says.

 

[Florida College]

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

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

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

(Rom 4:2 NASB) For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God.

(Rom 4:4 NASB) Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.

(Rom 4:6 NASB) just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

Ken (not my cousin Ken),

Your quote above is part of post #90 on page 9. (I previously responded to some the other parts of the post previously.)

All scriptural quotes are from the NKJV

Romans 4:2 and James 2:21 present a challenge for the bible student. Romans 4:2 reads, “ For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God.” I suggest that this verse presents a challenge because James 2:21 says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?” James 2:24 concludes the discussion about Abraham’s works by saying, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” Taken at face value, these verses seem to stand opposed to each other.

2 Timothy 3:16 begins with these words, “All scripture is given by the inspiration of God.” In the remainder of that verse and in the following verse, God, through the apostle Paul, tells us what “all scripture” does for us - - it equips us with all that we need to be complete. Realizing this, I conclude that not only is Roman 4:2 teaching what is true, but James 2:21-24 is also teaching what is true. Since both scriptures are inspired of God, they must agree, or harmonize. I am not at liberty to just accept what I think one verse teaches and ignore the other, but must accept what both passages teach. If my understanding of one verse does not harmonize with the understanding of the other verse, and does not harmonize with other scriptures, I can rest assured that I have messed up somewhere.

The issue at hand is how we resolve the perceived opposition of one verse against another. If works does not “justify” in Romans 4:2, but does “justify” in James 2:21, I can’t just quote or stress one of the passages to suit my way of thinking, and not have an understanding of the other verse. I must believe that both passages come from God and teach truth. I must accept this as a starting point. I once read a commentary on James 2:14-26 where the writer didn’t like to read in James 2 that “faith and works” must be coupled. He reasoned that Paul taught that works weren’t required for salvation i.e. Rom. 4:2 & Eph. 2:8-9, and since Paul was greater (or of more importance) than James, then Paul’s teachings had precedence over James’ teachings. Such reasoning is not valid when the bible student considers that “all scripture is given by the inspiration of God.” God authored the book of Romans, Ephesians, James, and all others that combine to give us the Bible. Realizing this, I must approach both Romans 4:2 and James 2:21 with the realization that both passages are true, and I cannot accept one passage while rejecting the other. Given the wording of these particular verses, I am compelled to accept that there is a sense in which we are not justified by works, but there is also a sense in which we are justified by works. It will take studying each passage in its context, deriving an understanding from each passage, and assuring that the understanding of these verses agrees with each other, and that the understanding of the verses also agrees with other passages that are relevant to salvation.

Concerning Romans 4:2:
Paul sets the tone for the early chapters of Romans in 1:5, “Through whom [Christ] we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for his name.” The focus is on obedience to the faith. The gospel is the power of God to salvation to all who believe - - both Jews and Greeks (1:16). God holds all accountable who do not obey the truth - - both Jews and Greeks (2:8-11). The Jews had a tendency to boast in the law (of Moses – 2:17-20), even though they did not do a good job of following the law (of Moses – 2:21-24). The true Jew is not one who is circumcised in the flesh, but one who is circumcised in the heart (2:25-29). The Jews did have one advantage (3:1-2). Both Jews and Greeks were charged with sin (3:9-18). By the deeds of the law (of Moses), no flesh shall be justified (3:20). “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed . . . even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all on all who believe. For there is no difference [between Jews and Greeks]; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:21-23). Justification comes by grace through redemption in Christ Jesus (3:24). Jesus’ blood is a propitiation for sins (3:25). Jesus justifies those who have faith in him. (3:26). Man is not justified by boasting. The law of faith excludes” boasting (3:27). “Therefore we conclude a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law [of Moses]” (3:28). God is God to both the Jews and Gentiles (3:29-31). To prove his reasoning thus far, Paul appeals to Abraham (4:1). Abraham was not justified by his works, but by his faith in God (Gen. 15:6 & Rom. 4:2-3). Faith is accounted for righteousness, not works (4:4-5). Paul quotes from one of David’s Psalms to show that God imputes righteous apart from works (Ps. 32:1-2 & Rom. 4:6-8). Abraham’s faith was accounted for righteousness. When? Before he was circumcised, or after he was circumcised. Abraham faith was accounted to him for righteousness in Gen. 15:6, but he wasn’t circumcised until the latter part of Gen. 17:23-27. Paul’s point? Abraham was considered righteous before he was circumcised (4:9-11). The true descendent of Abraham is the one who demonstrates the faith that Abraham had (4:12-25).

From the context, I will let each reader decide what works were being addressed in Romans 4:2. The context tells me that the focus is on circumcision and works associated with the law of Moses. Justification comes by grace and redemption though Jesus’ blood (3:24-25). Righteousness comes by faith in God (4:3). What does it mean to have faith in the God? James 2:14- 26 tells us.

Concerning James 2:14-26:
James, in writing to the twelve tribes (1:1), emphasizes that the implanted word was able to save their souls (1:21). James is admonishing Christians to not only hear God’s word, but to do what the word says (1:22-25). His discussion focuses on faith starting in 2:14. He begins by asking two questions, then uses a practical illustration that is easily discerned to demonstrate that the faith that God requires is more than just talk (2:15-16). His conclusion from that illustration is, “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (2:17). James uses a sobering illustration to show the value of faith alone (2:18-19). His conclusion from this illustration is, “But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” (2:20). Then James shifts his discussion to the example of Abraham - - the father of the twelve tribes (2:21-23). Abraham’s was justified when he offered Isaac - - as God commanded in Gen. 22:1-18. Notice the last part of Gen. 22:18, “Because you have obeyed My voice.” Abraham’s obedience fulfilled what God said about him in Gen. 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (2:23). James’ conclusion from this scriptural example is, “You see then a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (2:24). James finishes his discussion of faith with the example of Rahab (2:25) - - she coupled her faith with action (or works). James concludes his discussion of faith and works with the thought, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works works is dead also” (2:26). From these verses, I conclude that it is necessary to act upon my faith - - it is one thing to say that I believe God, it is quite another to have the faith that Abraham had (Heb. 11:17-19) when he obeyed what God commanded him.

Now, let’s see if the understanding that I’ve derived from both passages agrees. In Rom. 4:2-3, works did not justify Abraham, rather he believed God. His faith prompted him to obey God (James 2:21-23). This understanding leads me to conclude that my faith should drive me to obey God. This agrees with Matt. 7:21 and Heb. 5:9, “He [Jesus] became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.”

What is necessary to obey the Lord to have our sins taken away today?
- One must hear the word (Rom. 10:14, 17)
- Believe in Jesus (John 3:16 ; Mark 16:16 ; Acts 10:43 ; Acts 16:30-33)
- Repent of sins (Lk. 13: 3,5 ; Acts 2: Acts 8:35-39 38 ; Acts 17:30
- Confess Jesus (Matt. 10:32-33 ;; Rom. 10:9-10)
- Be baptized (Mark 16:16 ; Acts 2:38 ; Acts 22:16 ; 1 Peter 3:20:21)
- Remain faithful to the Lord (1 Cor. 9:27 ; Rev. 2:10)

What is the Christian’s attitude that has obeyed these commands of God that are necessary for salvation? Has the Christian earned salvation? Can the Christian boast of obedience? The answers to these questions can be found in one passage of scripture - - Luke 17:10, “So likewise you, when you have done all those things which are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’”

Amen.

FC

 

[Florida College]

Hi Florida, thank you for your reply... and I think I can honestly say that I do not have a cousin named "Florida State" LOL!!

[font=&quot]Of course faith is necessary for salvation. The question is, is baptism necessary for salvation?

[/font] Paul does not specifically state that it is just “the law of Moses” that he is referring to, though it is surely at least this. Rather, Paul is going to great lengths to prove that it is not works of any kind that saves. How could the following passage be any clearer? (Gal 2:16 NASB) nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”

And isn’t it interesting that in the whole course of this letter to the Galatians, a letter so dedicated to teaching them what it is exactly that constitutes saving faith, that baptism is not even once mentioned? Not once!!

And the real issue here is not what we ought to do as a response to Christ, i.e. obedience to this or that commandment, baptism being just one of those commands. The issue is, at bottom, what is it that constitutes saving faith? And clearly the Scriptures quoted above indicate that salvation is by grace through faith alone, period. Baptism does not save, and faith + baptism does not constitute the salvific formula as understood by the NT writers. Rather, this formula would be rejected as another gospel, just as the Judaizers attempt to include circumcision was rejected. Paul warned of those who would add to the gospel of grace; (Gal 2:4-5 NASB) But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. {5} But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.”

[/size][/font]

Ken,

Your quote is a small portion of post #102 on page 11.

I appreciate your interest in spiritual things. I am encourages by your boldness for the Lord (Acts 4:29). Nevertheless, zeal and boldness to serve the Lord must be accompanied with knowledge (Rom. 10:2 ; Acts 18:24-26).

Galatians 3:26 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:27 "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Thoughts on these passages:
- Compare these verses to Mark 16:16 ; Acts 8:35-39 ; Col. 2:12.
- Baptism is indeed noted in the book of Galatians.
- Baptism puts one into Christ. Consider: All spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). In Christ we have redemption through his blood (Eph. 1:7). Now, how does one get "into Christ?" Gal. 3:27 says we are baptized into Christ. Is there any possiblility that you can see a connection with how baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16)? Is there any possibility that you can see a connection with how baptism saves us (1 Pet. 3:20-21)?

FC