No Kris, I'm interpreting them in their historical context. This is how to understand what the Scriptures actually say. The Bible isn't a book full of one liners. Every verse is connected to the book in which it appears. Each of those books was written to a group of people who were living in a historical setting. Paul's letters were written to Christians who already knew what was necessary to be saved. He didn't have to make a list of everything necessary because they already knew it.
I understand the meaning and importance of the historical context of the Scriptures and I also understand Hermeneutics, etc. However, I strongly disagree with your generalized statement of, “Paul's letters were written to Christians who already knew what was necessary to be saved. He didn't have to make a list of everything necessary because they already knew it.” If this were the case, he would not have written about what saves us and what doesn’t.
Now you're moving the goal posts. Are the label and the stitching part of the shirt? They are. Thus your shirt isn't completely read. I've pointed out several fallacies in your arguments and you've not addressed them. Here you've used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. When you say you're shirt is red, you simply discard the parts that aren't read. This is the same thing you're doing with baptism. You simple discard what you don't want.
I’m not sure why you are struggling with understanding simple statements and their meaning and intention. Instead you’re splitting hairs over non-existent hairs. If I say, “my shirt is red,” I am expressing a very simple, plain and 100% honest statement about the color of my shirt. I am not referring to, nor speaking about, nor even discussing the other components of the shirt. I am simply making a very clear statement about the color of my shirt. Let’s say for example you were wearing a solid, blue shirt and your boss called you and asked you what color shirt you were wearing -- would you be confused about what he was wanting to know? Would you actually answer him with, “My shirt is blue, but the label is white and the stitching is black, so I’m wearing a blue, white and black shirt.”...? Of course you wouldn’t, because the meaning and intention of his question was very clear and simple. He wanted to know what color shirt you were wearing.
The same is true for statements throughout Scripture about what saves us. It’s really that plain and simple. But more on that later...
It's interesting that you mention the historical context and overall context and then just dismiss it. Ephesians 2:8 is specifically talking about the works of the Mosaic Law. Your use of this passage completely ignores the historical and overall context of the passage. The same can be said of the Romans passages you mentioned. They are explicitly dealing with whether one is justified by faith or the Mosaic Law. So again, you've ignored the historical and overall context.
In each of these passages Paul is discussing whether one is saved/justified by faith or the Mosaic Law. These passages have absolutely nothing to do with baptism. The subject never comes up.
Wrong, my brother. Let’s talk immediate context. You need to re-read Ephesians Chapter 2:1-10 in context. Paul is
not referring to the works of the Law here as you claim he is when he says we have been saved by grace through faith in verses 8-9 -- he first referred to how they used to live (of which he did at one time as well) which was following the ways of the world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air, gratifying the cravings of the flesh and following its desires and thoughts, etc., but then he goes into how it was God’s great love for them (and us too) that saves us...through faith! You are completely misreading this very important and doctrinally specific verse.
As far as Romans 5:1-2 goes, you are completely off in your analysis that he is speaking of whether one is saved by faith or the Law. Re-read the book of Romans, paying special attention to chapter 3. Prior to what Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in chapter 5, he writes something very similar in 3:21-26. How you conclude that salvation is not by grace through faith when it can’t say it any plainer or clearer is beyond me.
Furthermore, both Jews and Gentiles are saved the exact same way...by grace through faith.
It's not faulty. It's your line of reasoning that is faulty as I've pointed out by showing the fallacies. If you can believe you can show any fallacy in what I've posted feel free. It's not there.
The words do mean what they say. They just don't mean what you say. You're imposing your belief onto the text and using an argument from silence to claim that your interpretation is correct. However, as I've pointed out, the argument from silence is a fallacy.
The passages say what saves, however, they don't say that that is all that saves and they don't give a list of what saves. You might have been able to make an argument from silence if it wasn't for the fact that we have other passages that state that other things save.
This is not an argument from silence on my part, but an argument from silence on yours. You are arguing for things that aren’t written there and I am arguing from what
is written there. But again, it’s a “my shirt is red” principle.
Your argument doesn't address the issue. whatever the reason one obeys doesn't change the fact that Christ became eternal salvation to those who obey. If one doesn't obey, He isn't salvation for them. The obedience is a must. Thus it is necessary for salvation.
Woa, Wait a minute! You took a huge leap and read into something that is not in the text. Be very careful, friend.
It's interesting that you mention James. He states plainly that a man isn't justified by faith alone. He said that Abraham was justified by his works. We know that in order to be saved one must be justified. If one isn't justified one isn't saved. Abraham was justified by his works, thus his works were necessary for his salvation. This is really clear.
I think you struggle understanding biblical concepts and principles, and I don’t mean that in a condescending way.
So basically you are contradicting Scripture with your “understanding” of what is actually being said/stated. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul clearly states we are
not saved by works. That means we are not justified by works. Yet, you claim that James declares that we
are saved by works. The two cannot both be true. So according to your interpretation of Scripture, one of those Bible verses is a lie. Which one?
I declare that both Paul and James are in complete agreement with what saves someone, and that it is God’s grace (justification, righteousness, salvation, forgiveness, eternal life) that is imparted to us through faith when we believe -- and when genuine saving faith is present, it produces good works as evidence of the invisible faith within that cannot be seen.
James 2:23 tells us that Abraham
believed God and it was accounted/credited to him as righteousness (his belief is what saved him) -- and then his saving faith was evidenced through his actions/works, hence faith and works go hand in hand, but works are not...and were not ever able to save anyone. The Scripture clearly states in Isaiah 64:6b, “...And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;”
It’s the same analogy I gave you about a husband and wife. If a husband truly loves his wife or a wife truly loves her husband, it will be evidenced by what they do for and to each other because nobody (but God) can see that love inside, since it is invisible. But if a spouse says they love their spouse but never shows it, then love is not actually present in their heart.
No offense Kris but this is nonsense. Are you really suggesting that Noah didn't go through literal water in the flood?
I think you're just trying to get around what it plainly says. Eight souls were saved through water. The like figure whereunto baptism does now save us. Noah didn't go through a spiritual baptism in the ark. He went through water just like peter said. It seems you're trying to allegorize the passage away.
No offense taken. I’m a big girl.
But really think about what you are saying in your answer when you stated, “Eight souls were saved by water.” Those souls weren’t saved by the water, they were saved from the waters that would have otherwise killed them, had it not been for the ark!
The literal floodwaters of Noah’s day killed everyone on the face of the earth except Noah and his family. The only reason the floodwaters didn’t kill Noah and his family was because of the
ark. Therefore the floodwaters themselves did not act as any type of saving mechanism for Noah and his family but they were God’s means of death and destruction, had it not been for the ark itself. It was the actual ark that saved them “through” the waters of death or “from” the waters of death. So in the account of Noah, the water itself didn’t serve any other purpose than to bring God’s destruction upon the earth and to all mankind, except Noah and his family who were saved. So the water didn’t save Noah in any way whatsoever, the ark did – and it saved him from the destructive waters which would have otherwise killed them all.
Likewise, Jesus acts as our “ark” from the death and destruction that sin brings us. We are saved through belief in Him, or as Peter puts it, through “the answer of a good conscience before God.” We are saved from the destruction that our sin would otherwise bring us if it weren’t for Jesus and His undeserved grace. “This” is the type of baptism that saves, not the act of being submerged under or sprinkled with water.
The word isn't washing, it's bath. A bath is taken in water. One immerses themselves in water to bathe. You are correct when you say it's about the cleansing of sins. That takes place in water baptism.
Wrong! The verse says, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
The “washing” that is described is regeneration, which means = new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation.
I don’t understand how you don’t see the verse for what it actually says. You are missing the whole entire point because you are so convinced that baptism saves you. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead, this doctrine of “baptism saves” takes the glory away from Jesus and what He did for us and puts it on man and “his” acts of righteousness, which, according to verse 5 of Titus 3 and verses 8-9 of Ephesians 2, do nothing to save us.
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mk. 1:1-4 KJV)
Note how Mark starts, the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What's the first thing he mentions? The baptism for the remission of sins. It's part of the Gospel. We know Jesus did the same thing in His ministry.
Let me ask you this: What does the “act itself” of water baptism symbolize to you? In other words, what does it represent? It’s obviously not just some random act that was done, so there had to be a meaning for it. What is that meaning to you?
Ananias also told Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins.
15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:15-16 KJV)
According to Galatians 1:11, Paul
first received the gospel directly from Jesus on the road to Damascus and was
saved – this was before he ever encountered Ananias.
According to Acts 9:17,
then Paul received his sight
and the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized.
According to Acts 22:16,
then Paul was baptized as a symbolic act (and testimony) of having his sins forgiven, having called on the name of Jesus -- through whom His death, burial and resurrection enabled him (and us) to be forgiven. *Also see 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 1 Peter 3:21.
According to Acts 26:11-23, when Paul was reiterating his conversion experience to King Agrippa, he states that God was sending him to open the eyes of the Jews and Gentiles, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God,
that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in [Jesus]. No mention of baptism saving anyone here.
and then we have Peter,
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJV)
Baptism is for the remission of sins. Tell me Kris, how can one be saved without the remission of sins? If baptism isn't necessary then neither is the forgiveness of sins. This is plain and straight forward.
No, baptism does not remove our sins – only Jesus’ shed blood does that, and that occurs the moment we believe Him for our forgiveness and salvation. It is HIS BLOOD that removes our sin from us and cleanses us:
· Ephesians 1:7 – “In
Him we have redemption
through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence...”
· Hebrews 9:13-15 – “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God,
cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”
· 1 John 1:7 -- “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the
blood of Jesus Christ His Son
cleanses us from all sin.”
· Hebrews 10:19-22 – “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest
by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”
· Hebrews 13:12 – “Therefore Jesus also, that He might
sanctify the people
with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”
· Matthew 26:27 – “Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is
My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many
for the remission of sins.
So in closing, think it would help me if you could answer a few questions:
1. What was water baptism supposed to mean or symbolize in the New Testament to those who were baptized? (I think you are so caught up in the actual “act” or “work” of water baptism that you have completely lost sight of the entire purpose and meaning of the act itself.)
2. How does Jesus’ life, death and resurrection save us? In other words, what is it about “that” that saves us or enables us to be saved?
It saddens me that you don’t believe Jesus’ death and resurrection is sufficient to save you and redeem you completely, if you would just trust Him for it. And if Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t adequate enough to save us, then no other act “we” could contribute can or will ever help that process.