Author Topic: Romans 3:25 (Read 10803 times)

4WD · « **Reply #35 on:** Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 07:50:53 »

Quote from: 19 on Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 07:26:54

If God was faithful to record the fact that all the forefathers of Israel were circumcised then He would record the requirements of the NT were met by the forefathers of His church.

I think you are very unwise to place requirements upon God and what He has chosen to reveal to us. You should spend your time trying to learn well what God has revealed rather that what He has chosen to not reveal.

And by the way, where do you read that all of the judges, prophets, etc. in the OT were circumcised? Where for example do you read where Isaiah or Ezekiel were circumcised. Simple truth -- you don't. It was established as a requirement and thus you assume that all were circumcised according to that requirement.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #35 on:** Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 07:50:53 »

e.r.m. · « **Reply #36 on:** Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 08:21:14 »

19,
The apostles' baptism being recorded is not a requirement. 19 you're playing with fire, dismissing what the Bible says on baptism and salvation because you don't see this recorded. I agree with 4WD. It gives the appearance that you don't like this teaching and so are 'looking" for a way out, to your detriment. The apostles baptism not being recorded, is not an excuse to dismiss passages like Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6 5-7, and more.

On another note, the reason within the belief system of you ascribe to have that people delaying getting baptized is because they're not teaching about baptism as they taught those in the Bible. Those in the Bible got baptized immediately not because they were told to get baptized immediately but because it was part of getting saved. It's just human nature that when it's not part of getting saved that people will delay. If they taught baptism back then as in the belief system you ascribe to teaches baptism today, then you would see the delay as an issue in the Bible and them having to deal with it. It was never an issue.

19 · « **Reply #37 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 08:18:59 »

Quote from: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 05, 2018 - 08:21:14

19,
The apostles' baptism being recorded is not a requirement. 19 you're playing with fire, dismissing what the Bible says on baptism and salvation because you don't see this recorded. I agree with 4WD. It gives the appearance that you don't like this teaching and so are 'looking" for a way out, to your detriment. The apostles baptism not being recorded, is not an excuse to dismiss passages like Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6 5-7, and more.

On another note, the reason within the belief system of you ascribe to have that people delaying getting baptized is because they're not teaching about baptism as they taught those in the Bible. Those in the Bible got baptized immediately not because they were told to get baptized immediately but because it was part of getting saved. It's just human nature that when it's not part of getting saved that people will delay. If they taught baptism back then as in the belief system you ascribe to teaches baptism today, then you would see the delay as an issue in the Bible and them having to deal with it. It was never an issue.

I am not adverse to baptism. I am adverse to adding something we do to Jesus' work. It means that we are saved by Jesus and something we did. We take away from His glory and lessen what He did.

1 Cor 1:16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. NKJV

Paul did not always do the water baptism.

So Paul did not always baptize. He spoke to them. Then someone took them to a place to be baptized. Now if your situation is such that you are not near to water then the baptism has to be done later. That is the situation under which I have witnessed.

Acts 19:1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all. NKJV

This leaves some doubt if Paul baptized these 12. The recorded order of events are: They were baptized. Then Paul laid hands on them. Now, if Paul baptized them he would have laid hands on prior to baptism to assist them into and out of the water. God makes it clear that the Spirit was given with the laying on of Paul's hands. So either they were baptized by someone else then Paul laid hands on. Or Paul baptized them by laying on his hands on at which time the Spirit came upon them and he proceeded with the baptism. Or Paul baptized them, then laid hands on in a special way and the Spirit came upon them.

Which fits your doctrine so we can continue to explore this issue. The above are the only options that I saw. Maybe there are other options that I did not see. But it's clear that the Holy Spirit was given with the laying on of hands.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #37 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 08:18:59 »

4WD · « **Reply #38 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 09:36:17 »

19, that is such a tired old worn out argument. It is universally accepted that one must believe in order to be saved. To believe is much more difficult that simply being immersed in water. For some it takes years of reading, studying and deliberation to finally come to believe. It is obvious that to believe is "something we do added to Jesus' work". To argue otherwise is sheer folly.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #38 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 09:36:17 »

Follow @GraceCentered Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

19 · « **Reply #39 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 10:31:33 »

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 09:36:17

19, that is such a tired old worn out argument. It is universally accepted that one must believe in order to be saved. To believe is much more difficult that simply being immersed in water. For some it takes years of reading, studying and deliberation to finally come to believe. It is obvious that to believe is "something we do added to Jesus' work". To argue otherwise is sheer folly.

If I have offended you I apologize for saying that I have done no work for my salvation. I still believe that scriptures do not prove that we have to be baptized to be saved.

John 6:28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." NKJV

Now how does the 12 at Ephesus fit the doctrine of salvation only comes after baptism in the name of Jesus? Clearly the Spirit was given upon the laying on of hands.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #39 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 10:31:33 »

4WD · « **Reply #40 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 11:44:09 »

Quote from: 19 on Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 10:31:33

If I have offended you I apologize for saying that I have done no work for my salvation. I still believe that scriptures do not prove that we have to be baptized to be saved.

John 6:28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." NKJV

Now how does the 12 at Ephesus fit the doctrine of salvation only comes after baptism in the name of Jesus? Clearly the Spirit was given upon the laying on of hands.

Hey, I am not offended by your lack of understanding. It was not the indwelling gift of the Spirit that was given the disciples at Ephesus upon the laying on of hands; rather it was the empowering Spirit to work the miracles of speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Clearly the gift of the Holy Spirit was given when they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because that was what was missing when they were baptized into John's baptism. That is apparent by Paul's question, their answer and his response.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #40 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 11:44:09 »

19 · « **Reply #41 on:** Fri Jul 06, 2018 - 13:03:54 »

I concede. You have your doctrine covered. I do not concede that one has to be baptized in Jesus' name for salvation or forgiveness of sins. I do not know enough to dispute any more.

e.r.m. · « **Reply #42 on:** Sat Jul 07, 2018 - 11:42:33 »

19

Quote

I am not adverse to baptism.

This is a common defense by evangelicals, against a non-existent accusation that you are averse to baptism. For some reason you guys imagine that we think evangelicals don't believe in baptism in any way shape or form. I've never understood this belief. We only say that evangelicals do not believe in that baptism's role in forgiveness/salvation. But I don't think we'll ever get evangelicals to stop thinking otherwise, because they never stop offering this defense.

Quote

I am adverse to adding something we do to Jesus' work. It means that we are saved by Jesus and something we did. We take away from His glory and lessen what He did.

This is an evangelical paradigm and only an evangelical paradigm. The New Testament does not present any conflict between doing something, such as confessing the Lord Jesus with our lips, and being saved. It presents a conflict only between "works" and being saved. In Ephesians 2, it only takes away from his glory and lessens what he did in the person's own deluded mind, which is why it refers to boasting. And correct, the New Testament does not define works as just "doing something". The " "a work is anything you do" definition is the evangelicals piece created by zwingli in the 1500s. Anyone who does a study of works in the New Testament will never find a verse saying this. Biblically, coming to Faith in Jesus, repenting of one's sins, confessing with one's lips the Lord Jesus, and getting baptized in Jesus name for the Forgiveness of sins does not in any way take away from God's glory or less than what he did. If it did, somebody in the Bible would have made an issue of it, like they did with physical circumcision.

Quote

1 Cor 1:16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. NKJV

Paul did not always do the water baptism.

So Paul did not always baptize. He spoke to them. Then someone took them to a place to be baptized. Now if your situation is such that you are not near to water then the baptism has to be done later. That is the situation under which I have witnessed.

Very well presented argument. On this when I give you an A+. Very well thought out. However, the delay that I'm referring to that I've is not the time it takes to get to a body of water. The delay, and you seen it as well as I have, is people even deciding whether or not they want to get baptized and then having to be talked into it, or taking weeks months or even years to get around to it. This is human nature when baptism in water has no role in being saved, and you never once saw that happening in the New Testament. When baptism in water in Jesus name is taught, as it was in the New Testament, for the Forgiveness of sins and receipt of the indwelling Holy Spirit, then there's never this kind of delay. The only delay is a person decided to follow Jesus in the first place, but once that decision is made baptism is a part of it, 1-2-3.

Quote

Acts 19:1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all. NKJV

This leaves some doubt if Paul baptized these 12. The recorded order of events are: They were baptized. Then Paul laid hands on them. Now, if Paul baptized them he would have laid hands on prior to baptism to assist them into and out of the water. God makes it clear that the Spirit was given with the laying on of Paul's hands. So either they were baptized by someone else then Paul laid hands on. Or Paul baptized them by laying on his hands on at which time the Spirit came upon them and he proceeded with the baptism. Or Paul baptized them, then laid hands on in a special way and the Spirit came upon them.

Yeah, I think it's that last option, as I bolded. Because laying on of hands was discussed several times in the New Testament as its own event.

Quote

Which fits your doctrine so we can continue to explore this issue. The above are the only options that I saw. Maybe there are other options that I did not see. But it's clear that the Holy Spirit was given with the laying on of hands.

My guess is that the laying on of hands had to do with the gifts of the Spirit, as it said the Spirit came "on" them, and they began speaking in other tongues and prophesying.

e.r.m. · « **Reply #43 on:** Sat Jul 07, 2018 - 11:45:07 »

4WD,

Quote

Hey, I am not offended by your lack of understanding.

This sounds pretty obnoxious and rude. I think it was over the top.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #43 on:** Sat Jul 07, 2018 - 11:45:07 »

4WD · « **Reply #44 on:** Sat Jul 07, 2018 - 11:56:58 »

Quote from: e.r.m. on Sat Jul 07, 2018 - 11:45:07

4WD,This sounds pretty obnoxious and rude. I think it was over the top.

OK

Michael2012 · « **Reply #45 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 04:47:35 »

On the discussion on baptism:

Prophet John was sent by God to prepare the way of the Lord. He was sent ahead of Christ to give knowledge of salvation to God's people, by the remission of their sins.

Mt.3:3
3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’ ”

His father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

Luke 2:76-77
............
76 “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest;
For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways,
77 To give knowledge of salvation to His people
By the remission of their sins,

For what John was sent for, he came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Mark 1:2-4
2 As it is written in the Prophets:
“Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.”
3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’ ”

4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John came baptizing. And for what is the baptism for? It serves as the preparation by which he was sent to do. How is that? Baptism, as God's people sees and understand it, is a purification matter, a cleansing. This only would imply that John was asking God's people, to make purification of themselves, in preparation of the coming of the Lord, the Messiah. And that is by repentance. So, John came baptizing, preaching a baptism of repentance.

Matthew 3:1-2
1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

When people repent, they go to John to be baptized. We know, their baptism was with water, as it was with water that John baptized. And this water did not wash away their sins, nor did it cause the remission of their sins. But one thing is sure, to them who were baptized, it prepared them for the coming of the Messiah, having been purified by the water of baptism, as was their understanding of their Jewish custom of washing with water. And indeed they have purified themselves, and that by their repentance and unto the Messiah, who is the Lord.

Mark 1:8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

So John did not fail to tell them concerning this, saying that they shall be baptized, yet again so to speak. And that, not by him but by the Messiah. And that not with water, but with the Holy Spirit.

This baptism with the Holy Spirit is unlike that with water. For water may cleanse the outer part of man, but the Holy Spirit cleanses the inner where sin is said to be. It is the HS that cleanses away the sins of the man. This cleansing is what is the baptism with the HS, which the Lord Jesus Christ performs upon the person, who truly repents, whose inner sincerity may well be outwardly expressed in his undergoing the baptism with water.

Now anybody, even the not truthfully repentant ones, can have themselves be baptized with water. Obviously, even while they are baptized with water, it does not follow that they had been baptized with the HS by the Lord Jesus Christ. In as much as that could be, it could be in like sense, that a sincerely repentant one is baptized with the HS by Christ, even while he has not been baptized with water. Though, in this latter case, he will cause himself to be baptized with water, in obedience to the instructions of the Lord.

4WD · « **Reply #46 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 06:46:11 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 04:47:35

On the discussion on baptism:

Prophet John was sent by God to prepare the way of the Lord. He was sent ahead of Christ to give knowledge of salvation to God's people, by the remission of their sins.

Mar 1:4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luk 3:3 And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;

Michael2012 · « **Reply #47 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 07:37:39 »

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 06:46:11

Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 04:47:35
On the discussion on baptism:

Prophet John was sent by God to prepare the way of the Lord. He was sent ahead of Christ to give knowledge of salvation to God's people, by the remission of their sins.
Mar 1:4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luk 3:3 And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;

Do you, by that disagree with my statements that you quoted? Are you saying by that, that those who were baptized with the baptism of John, that is, with water, were forgiven of their sins and have been cleansed of their sins by the baptism with water?

The scriptures you quoted clearly speaks of John as "preaching a baptism of repentance". And this is for what? Clearly it is for the forgiveness of sins, as the verse so say. So, it is not the baptism of water per se that is in view there but that of repentance. The verse is clear, "baptism of repentance" and not water baptism or baptism with water.

For the baptizing that John performed, was not to wash away sins, but that of repentance. For it is not to wash away sins, for which he was sent to do, but to prepare the way of the Lord. And he did that by giving knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins. That is why he preached to all to repent. For only in repentance would one be prepared, ready to receive the Messiah, the Lord, for the forgiveness of their sins, their salvation.

Luke 2:76-77
............
76 “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest;
For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways,
77 To give knowledge of salvation to His people
By the remission of their sins,

4WD · « **Reply #48 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 07:46:25 »

Michael,

Both Mark and Luke tells us that the [water] baptism of repentance is for remission of sin. A baptism of repentance is what it is. The purpose is for the remission [forgiveness] of sin. PERIOD.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #49 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 08:23:42 »

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 07:46:25

Michael,

Both Mark and Luke tells us that the [water] baptism of repentance is for remission of sin. A baptism of repentance is what it is. The purpose is for the remission [forgiveness] of sin. PERIOD.

So you do disagree with this:

Quote

Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 04:47:35
On the discussion on baptism:

Prophet John was sent by God to prepare the way of the Lord. He was sent ahead of Christ to give knowledge of salvation to God's people, by the remission of their sins.

And if so, then you have to disagree with Luke and Zacharias’ prophecy concerning his son John.

4WD · « **Reply #50 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 08:51:42 »

Why would I disagree with that? Nothing I said or what Mark said in 1:4 or what Luke said in 3:3 is in conflict with anything that Luke or Zacharias said.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #51 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 10:16:12 »

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 08:51:42

Why would I disagree with that? Nothing I said or what Mark said in 1:4 or what Luke said in 3:3 is in conflict with anything that Luke or Zacharias said.

Nice to hear that we agree on this, that the prophet John was sent by God to prepare the way of the Lord. And that he was sent ahead of Christ to give knowledge of salvation to God's people, by the remission of their sins.

However, I disagree with your statement that "Both Mark and Luke tells us that the [water] baptism of repentance is for remission of sin." And so too does Mark and Luke.

Mark said "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke, like Mark said "And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,". Both did not tell us that the water baptism of repentance is for the remission of sin. Rather, what both told us is that John went preaching a baptism of repentance. And for what was this for, but for the remission of sins, that is, for salvation.

As I have pointed out, to which you say you agree, that this is what was John was sent for: to prepare the way of the Lord, by giving knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins. That is why he preached to all to repent. For only in repentance would one receive the forgiveness of their sins.

The message of repentance that John preached tells more. That there is nothing that we can do to escape punishment for our sins. The only way is to ask for God's mercy, that our sins be forgiven. Only in repentance can we have God's mercy, that we can receive the forgiveness of sins. Repentance is what God had been asking of man for the longest time, and still is what He ask of the sinner.

soterion · « **Reply #52 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 10:25:27 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 10:16:12

Nice to hear that we agree on this, that the prophet John was sent by God to prepare the way of the Lord. And that he was sent ahead of Christ to give knowledge of salvation to God's people, by the remission of their sins.

However, I disagree with your statement that "Both Mark and Luke tells us that the [water] baptism of repentance is for remission of sin." And so too does Mark and Luke.

Mark said "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke, like Mark said "And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,". Both did not tell us that the water baptism of repentance is for the remission of sin. Rather, what both told us is that John went preaching a baptism of repentance. And for what was this for, but for the remission of sins, that is, for salvation.

As I have pointed out, to which you say you agree, that this is what was John was sent for: to prepare the way of the Lord, by giving knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins. That is why he preached to all to repent. For only in repentance would one receive the forgiveness of their sins.

The message of repentance that John preached tells more. That there is nothing that we can do to escape punishment for our sins. The only way is to ask for God's mercy, that our sins be forgiven. Only in repentance can we have God's mercy, that we can receive the forgiveness of sins. Repentance is what God had been asking of man for the longest time, and still is what He ask of the sinner.

This baptism is one of repentance unto remission of sins.

The immersion in water and repentance are connected. Nobody is saying that the immersion in water has any innate power or that the water does anything. It just means that God chose this method in which to work His will.

It is amazing that this is even an issue.

Jaime · « **Reply #53 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 11:36:28 »

I agree Soterion. They ALWAYS go there to the notion that we think the water is somehow magical. The only magic is what GOD himself does in the water. Forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy spirit are not water caused, but what GOD does in the mode of water that he chose. H20 itself is 100% spiritually inert. God does the only WORK in baptism. Without His work in baptism, it is just getting wet ceremonially.

The “pack of barking dogs” on the other side (a phrase coined by Red) ALWAYS accuses us of attributing something special to the water.

The water in baptism has exactly the same power as the Jordan River water had, or the dipping 7 times had in the healing of Naaman........ exactly NONE, since, (wait for it) God did the healing, not the water of the Jordan river or the number of dippings. Same with baptism. Water, zero importance, except God commanded that’s where HE would act.

4WD · « **Reply #54 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 12:57:41 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 10:16:12

Nice to hear that we agree on this, that the prophet John was sent by God to prepare the way of the Lord. And that he was sent ahead of Christ to give knowledge of salvation to God's people, by the remission of their sins.

However, I disagree with your statement that "Both Mark and Luke tells us that the [water] baptism of repentance is for remission of sin." And so too does Mark and Luke.

Mark said "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke, like Mark said "And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,". Both did not tell us that the water baptism of repentance is for the remission of sin. Rather, what both told us is that John went preaching a baptism of repentance. And for what was this for, but for the remission of sins, that is, for salvation.

As I have pointed out, to which you say you agree, that this is what was John was sent for: to prepare the way of the Lord, by giving knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins. That is why he preached to all to repent. For only in repentance would one receive the forgiveness of their sins.

The message of repentance that John preached tells more. That there is nothing that we can do to escape punishment for our sins. The only way is to ask for God's mercy, that our sins be forgiven. Only in repentance can we have God's mercy, that we can receive the forgiveness of sins. Repentance is what God had been asking of man for the longest time, and still is what He ask of the sinner.

Michael, sometimes you make such silly irrational statements. But I have come to expect that. I'll just leave it there.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #55 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 13:23:03 »

Quote from: soterion on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 10:25:27

This baptism is one of repentance unto remission of sins.

The immersion in water and repentance are connected. Nobody is saying that the immersion in water has any innate power or that the water does anything. It just means that God chose this method in which to work His will.

It is amazing that this is even an issue.

Yes, the baptism of John is one of repentance, not for the forgiveness of sins. Repentance is different from forgiveness of sins.

As I have said in my Reply #45, at the time of John, when the people (mostly, if not all are Jews) repent, they go to John to be baptized. Such immersion with water is no new thing to the Jews. To them who were baptized, it was their understanding of their Jewish custom and ritual of washing with water, which is for purification.

John did not preach nor taught them that their being baptized with water cleanses away their sins nor meant that their sins were forgiven by means of that. In fact he told them that the coming one, the Messiah, will be the one who will wash away their sins by the Holy Spirit, that is, baptize them with the Holy Spirit.

The point is, John did not preach water baptism is for the remission of sins.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #56 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 13:25:09 »

Quote from: Jaime on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 11:36:28

I agree Soterion.

Then my Reply #55 goes to you as well.

yogi bear · « **Reply #57 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 13:42:40 »

Michael, Just something to ponder on here. What is the meaning of baptism of repentance in Mark 1:4?

Could it be a defining statement as in Johns baptism verse baptism in the name of Christ. Maybe just a reference as in baptism of repentance verses christian baptism.

What is the difference in the baptism of repentance verses the christian baptism?
The baptism of repentance is a transition point from the old covenant to the new. In in the period of the baptism of repentance sacrifices were set aside for this baptism of John which was for the remission of sin setting on in a repentance stance in good favor with God until the work Jesus was to do to fulfill this new upcoming spiritual baptism was to take its place. One who repented and was baptized for the remission of sin was placed in a holding pattern just as was with the old law awaiting the finished work of Christ on the cross. It was not the finished work but holding in wait for the finish work.

The baptism in the name of Christ is the finished work as it also is for remission of sin but also grater in the fact that the cross is now completed giving it the power it was waiting for and also the power to give the indwelling spirit. I thought that was bible 101 but guess I was wrong. So many miss the point that John was preaching the beginning of the gospel that Christ was going to complete.

4WD · « **Reply #58 on:** Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 15:22:10 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 13:23:03

The point is, John did not preach water baptism is for the remission of sins.

The point is, John DID preach water baptism for the remission of sins. That is what both Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 say. If you do not understand that, then apparently English is not your natural or native tongue; and you should be reading the Scriptures in the language that you do understand.

And by the way, that is what Acts 2:38 says also. In the case of Acts 2:38 it is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which is also for the forgiveness [remission] of sin. But it also is to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #59 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 12:11:15 »

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Jul 08, 2018 - 15:22:10

The point is, John DID preach water baptism for the remission of sins. That is what both Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 say. If you do not understand that, then apparently English is not your natural or native tongue; and you should be reading the Scriptures in the language that you do understand.

And by the way, that is what Acts 2:38 says also. In the case of Acts 2:38 it is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which is also for the forgiveness [remission] of sin. But it also is to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

No Sir. What John preached is not water baptism but a baptism of repentance.

Luke 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Jaime · « **Reply #60 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 12:33:31 »

Does a baptism of repentance for remission of sin link repentance and baptism as Peter did in Acts 2. Peter said repent AND be baptised for remission of sin. Baptism alone? NO. Repentance alone? NO. And isn’t the difference in Jesus’ baptism that additiinally the conveyance of the indwelling gift of the Spirit?
John also linked repentance and baptism for remission of sin.

4WD · « **Reply #61 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 12:49:35 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 12:11:15

No Sir. What John preached is not water baptism but a baptism of repentance.

Luke 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Oh good grief. Another silly Michaelism.

And just exactly what do both of those verses say was the purpose of the baptism of repentance? Both verses say that the baptism of repentance was for [Greek eis - unto] the remission of sin.

As for it being water baptism, the very next verse in Mark says "And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."

Reformer · « **Reply #62 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 13:49:00 »

19:

Say, in regards to your post, you noted, “The only way to be righteous is to obey all of God's laws all the time.”

While it is important that we adhere to God’s instructions [laws], as best we humanly can, yet I might add that Jesus’ righteousness has been attributed to those of us who believe.

Obeying law does not render us righteous, but believing in and trusting our Lord Jesus does. For if Law renders righteousness in this grace era, the Old Law of Moses would have have been sufficient in that era. But no! It took a spotless Lamb to accomplish that feat.

“But now the righteousness of God has been made known apart from the law [of Moses], although the Law and the prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” [Rom. 3:21-22].

Buff

4WD · « **Reply #63 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 14:05:12 »

Quote from: Reformer on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 13:49:00

19:

Say, in regards to your post, you noted, “The only way to be righteous is to obey all of God's laws all the time.”

While it is important that we adhere to God’s instructions [laws], as best we humanly can, yet I might add that Jesus’ righteousness has been attributed to those of us who believe.

Obeying law does not render us righteous, but believing in and trusting our Lord Jesus does. For if Law renders righteousness in this grace era, the Old Law of Moses would have have been sufficient in that era. But no! It took a spotless Lamb to accomplish that feat.

“But now the righteousness of God has been made known apart from the law [of Moses], although the Law and the prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” [Rom. 3:21-22].

Buff

Buff,

Obeying the law perfectly would render one righteous. How could it not? But the point is that no one, except Christ Himself, has done so. And the nature of man is that the likelihood of anyone other than Christ doing so is zero. And that is the whole reason why salvation is not by works. It is not a failure of the law; rather it is a failure of each of us. Paul's statement of grace not works is that and only that. It really has nothing at all to do with not doing anything to be saved.

Wycliffes_Shillelagh · « **Reply #64 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:05:09 »

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 14:05:12

Obeying the law perfectly would render one righteous. How could it not?

Imagine for a second we are talking about the law in the country where you live. If you obey it in all points, nobody will ever be able to successfully sue you, and you will not have to worry about being arrested for criminal prosecution.

Does that mean all your actions were the best possible choices? No, it doesn't.

"The just shall live by faith," not by avoiding legal pitfalls.

4WD · « **Reply #65 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:21:43 »

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:05:09

Imagine for a second we are talking about the law in the country where you live.

Imagine for a second we are talking about God's law. If you obey all it's points then you will have not committed any sin. Does that mean all your actions were the best possible choices? Yes, it would seem so.

Wycliffes_Shillelagh · « **Reply #66 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:38:41 »

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:21:43

Imagine for a second we are talking about God's law. If you obey all it's points then you will have not committed any sin. Does that mean all your actions were the best possible choices? Yes, it would seem so.

No, it does not seem so. You're overrating the 613 laws of the Torah rather significantly, attaching them some special significance that borders on mystical.

Reality check - if I drive double the speed limit, know how many of those 613 laws have I broken? None! If I tell the officer that means I didn't sin, do you suppose he'll let me off?

4WD · « **Reply #67 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:48:15 »

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:38:41

No, it does not seem so. You're overrating the 613 laws of the Torah rather significantly, attaching them some special significance that borders on mystical.

Reality check - if I drive double the speed limit, know how many of those 613 laws have I broken? None! If I tell the officer that means I didn't sin, do you suppose he'll let me off?

We are not talking about what a police officer might do or not do. And no, I am not overrating the 613 laws. In fact I didn't even mention the laws of the Torah.

And also if you kept all the laws of the Torah and then drove double the speed limit, you would have broken a law. That is why Paul did not necessarily limit his discussion to the Law of Moses, but instead both Law and law. Paul affirms in Romans, and elsewhere, there is law even where there is no Law of Moses.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

Wycliffes_Shillelagh · « **Reply #68 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 16:57:04 »

Quote

I didn't even mention the laws of the Torah.

Buff did in the post you quoted. The one that started this conversation?

Either you're not being intellectually honest here, or you didn't understand the conversation to start with. So which is it?

edit: I lean towards the former. Looking at your last post, you pretty much doubled down on it as God's Law.

4WD · « **Reply #69 on:** Fri Jul 13, 2018 - 17:09:53 »

WS, my point is if one does not ever sin, one would absolutely be rendered righteous. How could he not? By what means would he be rendered unrighteous?

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: Romans 3:25 (Read 10803 times)

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board